41350 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart MM—Oregon

2. Section 52.1970 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(132) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(132) On June 18, 1999, the Director

of the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ)

submitted a SIP revision to repeal the

Consumer Products Rules, repeal the

Architectural Coatings Rules, revise and

partially repeal the Motor Vehicle

Refinishings Rules, and revise the

Volatile Organic Compounds

definitions.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Oregon Administrative Rule

(OAR) 340–022–0102 (73) and OAR

340–028–0110 (139), as effective May

21, 1999; and OAR 340–022–0700, OAR

340–022–0710, OAR 340–022–0740, and

OAR 340–022–0760, as effective July 12,

1999.

(B) Remove the following provisions

from the current incorporation by

reference: OAR 340–022-0102 (73), as

effective May 9, 1997; OAR 340–028–

0110 (139), as effective October 14,

1998; OAR 340–022–0800, OAR 340–

022–0820, OAR 340–022–0830, OAR

340–022–0850, and OAR 340–022–0860,

OAR 340–022–0700, OAR 340–022–

0720, OAR 340–022–0730, OAR 340–

022-0740, OAR 340–022–0750, OAR

340–022–0760, OAR 340–022–1000,

OAR 340–022–1020, OAR 340–022–

1030, OAR 340–022–1040, and OAR

340–022–1050 as effective May 25,

1995; OAR 340–022–0840, as effective

October 22, 1996; and OAR 340–022–

710, OAR 340–022–810, OAR 340–022–

1010, as effective August 14, 1996.

[FR Doc. 00–16068 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN105–1a; FRL–6720–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Indiana’s

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision request to control emissions of

volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

from steel mill sinter plants in Lake and

Porter Counties. The Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) submitted the SIP

revision request on April 6, 1999. The

revision applies to integrated steel mills

in Lake and Porter Counties, and

provides for limits on emissions of

VOCs from those facilities. VOC

emissions are a precursor of groundlevel ozone, commonly known as smog.

High ozone levels are detrimental to

human health and contribute to upper

respiratory ailments such as asthma.

DATES: This rule is effective on

September 5, 2000, unless EPA receives

relevant adverse written comments by

August 4, 2000. If EPA receives adverse

written comment, it will publish a

timely withdrawal of the rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. You can inspect copies of

the State Plan submittal at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (We recommend

you contact Francisco J. Acevedo,

Environmental Protection Specialist, at

(312) 886–6061 before visiting the

Region 5 office).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental

Protection Specialist, at (312) 886–6061.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean

EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is EPA approving in this action?

II. Why did Indiana submit a sinter plant SIP

revision request?

III. Who is affected by the Indiana sinter

plant SIP revision?

IV. What does the Indiana sinter plant SIP

revision require?

V. Where are the Indiana sinter plant

requirements codified?

VI. What public review opportunities did

Indiana provide?

VII. EPA Rulemaking Action.

VIII. Administrative Requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. What Is EPA Approving in This

Action?

We are approving Indiana’s rule (IAC

8–13) that regulates emissions of VOCs

from steel mill sinter plants in Lake and

Porter Counties. Our approval makes the

Indiana sinter plant rule part of the

federally enforceable SIP under the

Clean Air Act (Act).

II. Why Did Indiana Submit a Sinter

Plant SIP Revision Request?

Lake and Porter Counties are

classified under the Act as severe

nonattainment for ozone. High ozone

levels are detrimental to human health

and contribute to upper respiratory

ailments such as asthma. The sintering

process at steel mills emits significant

amounts of VOC, and Indiana has

identified reductions in emissions from

the sintering process as making an

important contribution toward

improving air quality and attaining the

ambient ozone air quality standard.

III. Who Is Affected by the Indiana

Sinter Plant SIP Revision?

The SIP revision requirements are

applicable to all steel mill sinter plant

operations in Lake and Porter Counties.

According to Indiana, there are four

existing sinter plants operating in Lake

and Porter Counties. Three are located

in Lake County: LTV Steel Company,

Inland Steel Company and U.S. Steel,

Gary Works; and, one is located in

Porter County: Bethlehem Steel.

IV. What Does the Indiana Sinter Plant

SIP Revision Require?

The rule establishes three types of

VOC emission limits for the period from

May 1 through September 30 for sinter

plant windbox exhaust gas VOC

emissions: a seasonal cap, a maximum

daily limit, and a lower daily limit for

days on which an exceedance of the

national ambient air quality standard for

ozone is predicted to be likely. The

emission limits are based on a VOC

emission rate equal to twenty-five

hundredths (0.25) pounds per sinter

produced and a daily sinter production

rate. In addition, from October 1

through April 30, sinter plant windbox

exhaust gas VOC emissions are limited

to thirty-six hundredths (0.36) pound

per ton of sinter produced. The rule also

contains control measure operation,

maintenance, and monitoring

requirements, and record keeping and

reporting requirements.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 41351

The rule requires that by November 1,

1998, the owners or operators of the

sinter plants mentioned above submit a

report detailing, among other things,

how the limits of the rule will be met.

In addition, the rule requires the

submission of a corrective action plan

that will be implemented in the event of

an exceedance, and a high ozone day

action plan in the event that a high

ozone day is predicted. At this time, all

of the sinter plant operations covered by

this rule have submitted the above

documentation to the Indiana

Department of Environment.

The rule requires that on or after

January 1, 1999, the sinter plant

operations comply with all the above

requirements.

V. Where Are the Indiana Sinter Plant

Requirements Codified?

Indiana has codified its sinter plant

rule at 326 Indiana Administrative Code

(IAC) 8–13. The Indiana Pollution

Control Board adopted the rule on

March 4, 1998. The rule was filed with

the Secretary of State on June 24, 1998,

and became effective on July 24, 1998.

The rule was published in the Indiana

Register on August 1, 1998, at 21 IR

4195.

VI. What Public Review Opportunities

Did Indiana Provide?

Indiana held three public hearings in

Indianapolis, Indiana on the sinter plant

rule on December 3, 1997, February 4,

1998, and March 4, 1998.

VII. EPA Rulemaking Action.

In this rulemaking action, we are

approving Indiana’s April 6, 1999, SIP

revision request regarding steel mill

sinter plant VOC controls (326 IAC 8–

13) in Lake and Porter Counties.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because EPA

views this as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

written comments be received. This

action will be effective without further

notice unless EPA receives relevant

adverse written comment by August 4,

2000. Should the Agency receive such

comments, it will publish a notice

informing the public that this action

will not take effect. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. If no such

comments are received, the public is

advised that this action will be effective

on September 5, 2000.

VIII. Administrative Requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership). Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This rule will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, on the

relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

41352 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule

will be effective September 5, 2000

unless EPA receives adverse written

comments by August 4, 2000.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by September 5,

2000. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: June 12, 2000.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart P—Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(131) to read as

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(131) On April 6, 1999, Indiana

submitted rules for the control of

volatile organic compound emissions

from steel mill sinter plant operations in

Lake and Porter Counties as a revision

to the State Implementation Plan.

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

326 Indiana Administrative Code 8–

13: Sinter Plants. Adopted by the

Indiana Air Pollution Control Board

March 4, 1998. Filed with the Secretary

of State June 24, 1998. Published at

Indiana Register, Volume 21, Number

11, August 1, 1998. Effective July 24,

1998.

[FR Doc. 00–16070 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN128–1a; FRL–6713–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revised

opacity limits for three casting

complexes at ALCOA Warrick

Operations, which were submitted by

the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management (IDEM) on

January 13, 2000 as amendments to its

State Implementation Plan (SIP).

ALCOA Warrick Operations is a primary

aluminum smelter located in Newburgh,

Indiana. The revised limits allow higher

opacity emissions during fluxing

operations at three casting complexes.

This action does not reverse applicable

mass emissions limits.