# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 62 Fed. Reg. 15844 1997
Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Jun 16 16:42:35 2010
-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### 15844 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52 [IN53-1a; FRL-5710-1] Approval and Promulgation ofState Implementation Plan; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct finalrule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is approving thefollowing as revisions to the Indiana ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP): a Rate-Of-Progress (ROP) plan to reduceVolatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions in Lake and Porter Countiesby 15percent (%) by November 15, 1996; a contingency plan to reduceVOC emissions by an additional 3% beyond theROP plan, and an Indiana agreed orderrequiring VOC emission controls on Keil Chemical Division, Ferro Corporation, located in Lake County (Keil Chemical). The 15% ROP plan, 3% contingency plan, and theagreed orderwere submitted together on June 26, 1995. The plans and agreed orderhelp to protect thepublic'shealth and welfare by reducing theemissions ofVOCthat contribute to theformation ofgroundlevel ozone, commonly known as urban smog. DATES: This finalrule iseffectiveJune 2, 1997 unless adverse comments are received byMay 5, 1997. Ifthe effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Comments may bemailed to: J.Elmer Bortzer, Chief,Regulation Development Section, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 77West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

Copies ofthe documents relevant to this action are available at the above address forpublic inspection during normal business hours. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Mark J.Palermo, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (312) 886-6082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### I. Background on 15%ROPand Contingency PlansRequirements

On November 15, 1990, Congress enacted amendments to the 1977 Clean Air Act (Act); PublicLaw 101-549, 104 Stat.2399, codified at 42U.S.C. 7401- 7671q. Section 182(b)(1) requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to submit a SIPrevision known as a 15% ROP plan. This plan mustreflect an actual reduction in typical ozone season weekday VOC emissions ofatleast 15% in the area during the first 6 years after enactment (i.e., by November 15, 1996). The emission reductions needed to achieve the 15% requirement must be calculated using a 1990 anthropogenic VOC emissions inventory as abaseline, minus emissions that have been reduced by: (1) The Federal MotorVehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures for the control ofmotor vehicle exhaust or evaporative emissions promulgated before January 1, 1990; and (2) gasoline Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated by November 15, 1990 (See 55 FR23666, June 11, 1990). In addition, the plan must account for net growth in emissions within the nonattainment area between 1990 and 1996.

Section 172(c)(9) ofthe Act requires
states with moderate and above areas to adopt acontingency plan by November 15, 1993, which provides for specific control measures to be implemented if

an area fails to achieve ROP requirements or attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the time frames specified under the Act. In addition, section 182(c)(9) ofthe Act requires that contingency plans for serious or above ozone nonattainment

areas to provide for specific measures to be implemented ifan area fails to meet

an applicable milestone under the Act. These sections require that contingency

measures mustbe able to take effect when a failure occurs without further action by the State or the Administrator.

In Indiana, two ozone nonattainment

areas are subject to the 15% ROP and contingency plans requirements: the Lake and Porter Counties portion ofthe Chicago severe ozone nonattainment
area, and the Clark and Floyd Counties portion ofthe Louisville moderate

ozone nonattainment area. This rulemaking action addresses only the plans for Lake and Porter Counties; Clark and Floyd Counties will be addressed in a separate Federal Register.


### II. Indiana's15%ROPand Contingency Plans Submittal

The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in developing SIPs and SIP revisions for submission to EPA. Section 110(a)(2) and section 110(1) ofthe Act require that each State's SIP revision submitted under the Act be adopted bythe State afterreasonable notice and public hearing. The State ofIndiana submitted

aportion ofthe Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP and contingency plan SIP revisions on January 13, 1994. The SIP revisions were reviewed by EPA to determine completeness shortly after submittal, in accordance with the completeness criteria set out at 40CFR Part 51, Appendix V (1991), as amended by 57 FR42216 (August 26, 1991). However, the submittal was deemed incomplete because the plans had not yetgone through public hearing and did notinclude fully adopted rules for allof the plans' controlmeasures. Indiana held apublic hearing on the plans on March 29, 1994. A summary of
comments from that hearing and the Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management's (IDEM) response was submitted on July 5, 1994. IDEM sent a supplemental submittal on June 26, 1995, which included fully adopted rules for the Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP and contingency plans. In a July 17, 1995, letter to Indiana, the State

was notified that the SIP submittal was deemed complete.
III. Criteriafor 15%ROPand Contingency Plans Approvals

The requirements for 15% ROP and 3% contingency plans are found in section 172(c)(9), 182(b)(1), and 182(b)(9) ofthe Act, and the following
EPA guidance documents: 1.Procedures forPreparing Emissions Projections,EPA-450/4-91-019, Environmental Protection Agency, July 1991.

2. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation ofTitleI ofthe Clean AirAct Amendments of 1990; Proposed rule (57 FR 13498), Federal Register, April 16, 1992.

3. "November 15, 1992, Deliverables for Reasonable Further Progress and Modeling Emission Inventories," memorandum from J.David Mobley, Edwin L.Meyer, and G.T. Helms, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, August 7, 1992.

4. Guidanceon theAdjustedBase YearEmissionsInventory andthe 1996 Target forthe 15PercentRateof ProgressPlans,EPA-452/R-92-005, Environmental Protection Agency, October 1992.

5. "Quantification ofRule Effectiveness Improvements," memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, October 1992.

6. Guidance forGrowthFactors, Projections,and ControlStrategies for the 15PercentRate-of-Progress Plans, EPA-452/R-93-002, March 1993.

7. "Correction to 'Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 15844 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

and the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent Rate ofProgress Plans'," memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, March 2, 1993.

8. "15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans," memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, March 16, 1993.

9. Guidanceon theRelationship Between the 15PercentRate-of-Progress PlansandOtherProvisionsofthe Clean AirAct, EPA-452/R-93-007, Environmental Protection Agency, May 1993.

10. "Credit Toward the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Reductions from Federal Measures," memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, May 6, 1993.

11. Guidance onPreparing EnforceableRegulationsand CompliancePrograms forthe 15Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans,EPA-452/R-93- 005, Environmental Protection Agency, June 1993. 12. "Correction Errata to the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance Series," memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, July 28, 1993. 13. "Early Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas," memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, August 13, 1993. 14. "Region III Questions on Emission Projections for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans," memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, August 17, 1993. 15. "Guidance on Issues Related to 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans," memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, August 23, 1993. 16. "Credit Toward the 15 Percent Requirements from Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings," memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, September 10, 1993. 17. "Reclassification ofAreas to Nonattainment and 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans," memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, September 20, 1993.

18. "Clarification of 'Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans'," memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, October 6, 1993. 19. "Review and Rulemaking on 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans," memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, October 6, 1993.

20. "Questions and Answers from the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plan Workshop," memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, October 29, 1993.

21. "Rate-of-Progress Plan Guidance

on the 15 Percent Calculations," memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, October 29, 1993.

22. "Clarification ofIssues Regarding the Contingency Measures that are due November 15, 1993 for Moderate and Above Ozone Nonattainment Areas," memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, November 8, 1993.

23. "Credit for 15 percent Rate-ofProgress Plan Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule," memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, December 9, 1993.

24. "Guidance on Projection of Nonroad Inventories to Future Years," memorandum from Philip A. Lorang, Director, Emission Planning and Strategies Division, Office ofAir and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, February 4, 1994.

25. "Discussion at the Division Directors Meeting on June 1 Concerning the 15 Percent and 3 Percent Calculations," memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief,Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, June 2, 1994.

26. "Future Nonroad Emission Reduction Credits for Court-Ordered Nonroad Standards," memorandum from Philip A. Lorang, Director, Emission Planning and Strategies Division, Office ofAir and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, November 28, 1994.

27. "Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans forReductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule and the Autobody Refinishing Rule," memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, November 29, 1994.

28. "Transmittal ofRule Effectiveness Protocol for 1996 Demonstrations," memorandum from Susan E. Bromm, Director, Chemical, Commercial Services and Municipal Division, Office ofCompliance, Environmental Protection Agency, December 22, 1994.

29. "Future Nonroad Emission Reduction Credits forLocomotives," memorandum from Philip A. Lorang, Director, Emission Planning and Strategies Division, Office ofAir and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, January 3, 1995.

30. "Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans forReductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule," memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, March 22, 1995.

31. "Fifteen Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans-Additional Guidance," memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, May 5, 1995.

32. "Update on the credit for the 15 percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings Rule," memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, March 7, 1996.

33. "Date by which States Need to Achieve all the Reductions Needed for the 15% Plan from Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)and Guidance for Recalculation," memorandum from Margo Oge, Director, Office ofMobile Sources, and John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAirQuality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, August 13, 1996.

34. "Modeling 15 Percent Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Reduction(s) from I/M in 1999: Supplemental Guidance," memorandum from Gay MacGregor, Director, Regional and State Programs Division, and Sally Shaver, Director, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, December 23, 1996.

35. "15% Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Approvals and the 'As Soon As 

### 15845

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 15845 1997

### 15846 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Practicable' Test," memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, and Richard B. Ossias, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Division ofAir and Radiation, Office ofGeneral Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, February 12, 1997.

36. "Sample City Analysis: Comparison ofEnhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Reductions Versus Other 15 Percent Rate ofProgress (ROP) Plan Measures," E.H. Pechan, February 12, 1997.

For a 15% ROP plan SIP to be approved, the plan must adequately justify how much emission reduction is needed to achieve the 15% emission reduction byNovember 15, 1996, and how the plan's control strategy will

secure thatreduction.

The procedure for calculating the needed emission reduction is as follows:

(A) Calculate the "1990 ROP inventory" by subtracting from the area's "1990 base year inventory" (required to be submitted under sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) ofthe Act 1) biogenic emissions, emissions outside of the nonattainment area, and preenactment banked emission credits;

(B) Calculate the "1990 adjusted base year inventory" by subtracting from the 1990 ROP inventory any emission reductions from the pre-1990 FMVCP and 1990 RVP Federal regulations which occurbetween 1990 and 1996; 

### (C)Calculate "15% ofadjusted base year emissions" bymultiplying the 1990 adjusted baseyear inventory by 15%;

(D)Calculate the "total required reductions by 1996" by addingemission reductions from the 1990 FMVCP and 1990 RVPfederal rules to the 15% of adjusted baseyear emissions calculation (asprovided under section 182(b)(1)(D) oftheAct); (E)Calculate the "1996 emissions target level" by subtracting from the 1990 ROP baseyear inventory thetotal required reductions by 1996; (F)Calculate the "1996 projected emission estimate" by anumber of methods, such as adding growth factors to the 1990 adjusted base-year inventory, or addinggrowth factors and required emission reductions tothe 1990 ROP inventory; and

(G)Calculate the "reduction required by 1996to achieve 15% net ofgrowth" by subtracting the 1996target emissions level from the 1996 projected emissions level.

In determining what control measures
a Statecan use in its 15% ROPplan strategy, the Act provides under section 182(b)(1)(C) thatemission reductions from control measures arecreditable to the extent thatthey have actually occurred before November 15, 1996. In keeping with this requirement, the General Preamble states that all credited emission reductions must bereal, permanent, and enforceable, and that regulations needed to implement the plan's control strategy must be adopted and implemented bythe State by November 15, 1996.

As for the contingency plan, the General Preamble states that the contingency measures must provide reductions of3% ofthe emissions from the 1990 adjusted base year inventory. While all contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or measures, the State can use these measures in two different ways. The State can use its discretion to implement any contingency measures before 1996. Alternately, the State may decide notto implement a measure untilthe area has failed to secure the 15% emission reduction, attain the National Ambient AirQuality Standards (NAAQS) for
ozone, or meet any other applicable milestone under the Act. In that situation, the reductions must be achieved through triggered, prior adopted rules within one year from the date in which the failure has been identified.

The EPAhas reviewed the State's submittal for consistency with the requirements ofthe Act and EPA guidance. A summary ofEPA's analysis is provided below. 

### IV.Analysis ofLake andPorter Counties 15%ROPand Contingency Plans

Indiana's 15% ROP summary forLake and Porter Counties is provided in the following table:


### 15% ROP SUMMARY FOR LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES

CALCULATION OF REDUCTION NEEDS BY 1996 1990 Lake and PorterCounties Total VOC Emissions

........................................................................................................................... 1990 ROP Emissions (A nthropogenic only)

............................................................................................................................................ 1990-1996 Noncreditable Reductions (Reductions from 1990 RVP and Pre-1990 FMVCP Regulations)

............................................ 1990 Adjusted Base Year Emissions (1990 ROP Emissions minus Noncreditable Reductions)

........................................................... 15%ofAdjusted Base YearEmissions ................................................................................................................................................... Total Required Emission Reductions by 1996 (15% ofAdjusted BaseYear Emissions plus Noncreditable Reductions)

.................... 1996 Target Level (1990 ROP Emissions minus Total Required Emission Reductions by 1996)

......................................................... 1996 Projected Emissions (1990 Adjusted Base Year Emissions plus Growth Factors)

....................................................................... REDUCTION NEEDS BY 1996 TO ACHIEVE 15 PERCENT NET OF GROWTH (1996 Projected Emission minus 1996 Target

L

evel)

.................................................................................................................................................................................................... CREDITABLE REDUCTION FROM MANDATORY CONTROLS Mobile Sources: Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program (326 IAC 13-1.1)

.......................................................................... Federal Reformulated Gasoline Program (40 CFR Part80, Subpart D)

......................................................................................... Area Sources: Stage IIGasoline Vapor Recovery (326 IA C 8-4-6)

....................................................................................................................... Federal Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings Rule

.......................................................................................... Point Sources: Non-Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Rule (326 IAC 8-7)

.....................

1Sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) ofthe Act require that nonattainment plan provisions include

a comprehensive, accurate inventory of actual emissions which occurred in 1990 from all sources ofrelevant pollutants in thenonattainment area. This inventory provides an estimate ofthe amount ofVOC and oxides ofnitrogen produced by emission sources such as automobiles, powerplants and the use of consumer solvents in the household. Because the approval ofsuch inventories is necessary to an area's 15% ROP plan and attainment demonstration, the emission inventory
must be approved prior to or with the 15% ROP plan submission. Lbs VOC/ day

424,721 381,841 58,838 323,003 48,450 107,288 274,553 342,683

68,130

6,817 14,905

9,824 2,920

4,559

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 15846 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 

### 15847

15% ROP SUMMARY FOR LAKE AND PORTER 

### COUNTIES-Continued

Lbs VOC/ day

SUBTOTAL-REDUCTIONS FROM MANDATORY CONTROLS

............................................................................................... 39,025 CREDITABLE REDUCTIONS FROM NON MANDATORY CONTROLS Point Sources: K

eilCh emicalAgreed Order............................................................................................................................................................. 5,327 Coke Oven Battery Shutdowns at Inland Steel Flat Products 2(326 IAC 6-1-10.1(k)(5))

............................................................. 22,850 Area Sources: ResidentialOpenBurning (326 IA C4- 1)

......................................................................................................................................... 929

SUBTOTAL-REDUCTION FROM NON MANDATORY CONTROLS

........................................................................................ 29,106

TOTAL CREDITABLE REDUCTIONS FROM15% ROP PLAN

.................................................................................................. 68,130
2Total reductions from the coke oven battery usedas a contingency measure.

A. Calculationofthe 1990Adjusted Base YearEmissionInventory

To determine the 1990 adjusted base year inventory, Indiana used the 1990 base year emission inventory approved by EPA on January 4, 1995 (60 FR375), which was found to meet the requirements ofsections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) ofthe Act for Lake and Porter Counties. Total VOC emissions estimated from this inventory are 424,721 lbs VOC/day. Indiana subtracted biogenic emissions and emissions from outside Lake and Porter Counties from the 1990 base year inventory to determine that the 1990 ROP inventory level is 381,841 lbs VOC/ day. No pre-enactment banked emission credit was included in this inventory.

Indiana used EPA's Mobile Source Emissions Model (MOBILE)5a to calculate the emission reductions from the pre-1990 FMVCP and 1990 RVP regulations; these reductions were subtracted from the 1990 ROP inventory level to find the 1990 adjusted base year inventory level of323,003 lbs VOC/day. Indiana's documentation includes the actual 1990 motor vehicle emissions using 1990 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and MOBILE5a emission factors, and the adjusted emissions using 1990 VMT and the MOBILE5a emission factors in calendar year 1996 with the appropriate RVP for the nonattainment area as mandated byEPA. The plan includes closures are 23,609 lbs VOC/day. Reductions not counted toward the 15% ROP plan are being

adequate documentation showing how the MOBILE5a model was run to calculate the expected emission reductions from FMVCP and RVP.

B. 1996ROPTargetEmissionLevel



### To calculate the 1996 target emission level for Lake and Porter Counties, Indiana first multiplied the 1990 adjusted base year inventory by 0.15 to determine that the 15% required emission reduction by 1996 is 48,450 lbs VOC/day. Then, 58,838 lbs VOC/day ofreductions from non-creditable control measures (pre-1990FMVCP and 1990 RVP) were added to the 15% required reduction to find that the total required reductions by 1996 is 107,288 lbs VOC/day. Finally, Indiana subtracted the 1996 total required emission reductions from the 1990ROP emission inventory to determine that the 1996 emission target level forLake and Porter Counties is 274,553 lbs VOC/ 

### day.

The 15% ROP plan submittal adequately documents the calculations used to determine the Lake and Porter Counties target level by showing each step, discussing any assumptions made, and statingthe origin ofthe numbers used in the calculations.

C.ProjectedEmissionInventory



### To determine the 1996projected emission inventory, Indiana has included in the 15% ROP plan the growth factors used together with documentation for the assumptions made. The point, area, and non-road mobile source emission inventories

were projected using either source supplied data, population forecasts, historical data, or, where historical data

were unavailable or not suitable to project, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofEconomic Analysis (BEA), regional growth data

were used. The on-road mobile source emission inventory was projected using MOBILE5a. The State's calculations for growth in the on-road mobile, off-road mobile, industrial, and area source sectors is 10,180 lbs VOC/day, 1,298 lbs VOC/day, 4,692 lbs VOC/day, and 3,510 lbs VOC/day, respectively, for a total of 19,680 lbs VOC/day. These growth estimates were calculated in a manner consistent with EPA's guidance documents. The projected emissions

were added to the 1990 adjusted baseyear inventory to determine that the 1990 projected emission inventory level is 342,683 lbs VOC/day.

D. ContingencyMeasureProvisions

Indiana's contingency plan summary forLake and Porter Counties is shown in the following table:

CONTINGENCY MEASURE SUMMARY FOR LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES

CALCULATION OFCONTINGENCY MEASURE REDUCTION NEEDED 1990 Ad justed B ase YearE mission s ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Percentof 1990 Adjusted B ase YearEmissions

.................................................................................................................................

CREDITABLE REDUCTIONS FROM CONTINGENCY MEASURES Remaining Coke Oven Battery Shutdowns at Inland Steel (326 IAC6-1-10.1(k)(5))

........................................................................... Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill Rule (326 IAC 8-8)

.................................................................................................................... Coke Oven National Emission Standard for HazardousAir Pollutants (NESHAP) 3 (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart L)

............................... Automobile Refinish ing Ru le (326 IA C8

- 10)

.......................................................................................................................................... Lbs VOC/ day

342,683

9,690

759 1,132 1,226 4,679

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 15847 1997

### 15848 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

CONTINGENCY MEASURE SUMMARY FOR LAKE AND PORTER COUNTIES-Continued
Lbs VOC/ day

V

olatileOrganic Liquid(V OL)Storage Rule (326 IA C8-9)

.................................................................................................................... 2,620

TOTALCREDITABLE CONTINGENCY R EDUCTIONS

.................................................................................................................. 10,416

3Although the purpose of NESHAP rulesare to control the emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), pursuantto section 112 of Title III of the Act, much ofthe HAPs controlled underthe coke oven NESHAP are alsoVOC.

E. CreditableReductionsFromControl Measures

From the calculation ofthe 1996 target emission level and 1996 projected emission level, Indiana must reduce emissions in Lake and Porter Counties by 68,130 lbs VOC/day, to secure the 15% ROP reduction, and an additional 9,690 lbs VOC/day, to secure the required 3% contingency reduction. The Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP and 3% contingency plans do meet this requirement. The total creditable emission reduction achieved bythe 15% ROP and 3% contingency plans are 68,130 lbs VOC/day, and 10,416 lbs VOC/day, respectively. Emission reductions not needed to meet the 3% contingency requirement will be applied toward achieving post-1996 ROP reductions, leading to attainment ofthe ozone air quality standard.

The SIP submittal includes documentation indicating the sources or
source categories which are expected to be affected by each control measure, the sources' projected 1996 emissions without controls, and the assumptions used to estimatehow much the sources' 1996 emissions would be reduced by each control measure. These assumptions were derived primarily from Midwest Research Institute's April 30, 1993, document entitled "Support Document for Indiana's Lake and Porter Nonattainment Area 1996 Rate of Progress Plan," which was contracted by EPAto assist Indiana in developing the 15% ROP and contingency plans. A review ofthe emission reduction credit taken for each control measure follows:
Enhanced I/MProgram

Ofthe 15% ROP plans originally submitted to EPA, most contain enhanced I/Mprograms because they achieve more VOC emission reductions than most, if not all other, control strategies. However, because most states experienced substantial difficulties implementing enhanced I/M programs, only a few States are currently actually testing cars using the original enhanced I/Mprotocol.

On September 18, 1995 (60 FR48029), EPA finalized revisions to its enhanced I/Mrule allowing States significant flexibility in designing I/Mprograms appropriate for their needs. Further, Congress enacted the National Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA),which provides States with

more flexibility in determining the design ofenhanced I/M programs. The substantial amount oftime needed by States to re-design enhanced I/M programs in accordance with the final enhanced I/Mrules and/orthe guidance contained within the NHSDA, to secure State legislative approval when necessary, and setup the infrastructure
to perform the testing program has precluded States from obtaining emission reductions from enhanced I/M by November 15, 1996.

Given the heavy reliance by many States on enhanced I/M programs to help satisfy 15% ROP plan requirements, and the recent NHSDA and regulatory changes regarding enhanced I/Mprograms, EPAhas recognized that it is not possible for many States to achieve the portion of the 15% ROP reductions that are attributed to enhanced I/M by November 15, 1996. Under these circumstances, disapproval ofthe 15% ROP plan SIPs would serve no purpose. Consequently, under certain circumstances, EPA will allow States that pursue re-design ofenhanced I/M programs to receive emission reduction credit from these programs in their 15% ROP plans, even though the emission reductions from the I/M program will

occur after November 15, 1996. Specifically, the EPA will approve 15% ROP SIPs if the emission reductions from the revised, enhanced I/ M programs, as well as from the other 15% ROP plan measures, will achieve the 15% level as soon after November 15, 1996, aspracticable. To make this "as soon aspracticable" determination, the EPA must determine that the 15% ROP plan contains all VOC control strategies that are practicable for the nonattainment area in question and that meaningfully accelerate the date by which the 15% level is achieved. The EPA does not believe that measures meaningfully accelerate the 15% date if they provide only an insignificant
amount ofreductions. Indiana's enhanced I/M program for Lake and Porter Counties was approved by EPA on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11142), and the State began testing vehicles under the new program on January 1, 1997. A single contractor, Envirotest, Inc., operates a test-only centralized network forinspections and re-inspection. The Indiana I/M program requires coverage ofall 1976 and newer gasoline powered light duty passenger
cars and light duty trucks up to 9,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). All applicable 1981 and newer vehicles will be subject to a transient,

mass emissions tailpipe test that includes the purge and pressure test. All applicable 1976 through 1980 vehicles willbe subject to a BAR90 single-speed idle test that includes the pressure test. The I/M contractor has acquired all the emission test sites required under the State I/Mcontract, and all the test stations required have been constructed.

EPA has analyzed Indiana's enhanced I/Mprogram to predict when the emission reductions claimed in the Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP plan for the program will actually be secured. This analysis was based on the methodology specified in EPA's policy memoranda, "Date by Which States Need to Achieve allthe Reductions Needed for the 15% Plan from I/M and Guidance for Recalculation," August 13, 1996, and "Modeling 15% VOC Reduction(s) from I/Min 1999- Supplemental Guidance," December 23, 1996. MOBILE5b runs were used to evaluate the credit using inputs that reflect actual program startup. Some of the input parameters ofthe modeling included: aJanuary 1, 1997, program start date; start-up cutpoints as recommended byEPA; and expected evaporative test procedures available at start-up. The State has taken credit in the Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP plan for 6,817 lbs VOC/day, or 3.41 tons per day reductions from enhanced I/M. Based on EPA's analysis, the emission reduction claimed willbe secured by November 1999. (SeeEPA's August 13, 1996, policy memorandum titled "Date by Which States Need to Achieve all the Reductions Needed for the 15% Plan from I/M and Guidance for

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 15848 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Recalculation," for further discussion

on the November 1999 date).

To determine whether there are other availablepotential control measures which can meaningfully accelerate the date by which 15% emission reduction in Lake and Porter Counties can be achieved, EPA compared the Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP and contingency plans with control

measures included in 15% ROP plans nation-wide, which are listed in EPA's report, "Sample City Analysis: Comparison ofEnhanced I/M Reductions Versus other 15 Percent ROP Plan Measures," referenced in EPA's policy document "15% VOC SIP Approvals and the 'As Soon As Practicable' Test," February 12, 1997. Based upon the report, EPA believes that there are no other potential control

measures beyond those already included in the Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP and contingency plans which can secure a significant
amount ofemission reduction before November 1999.

Because Indiana's enhanced I/M program will secure emission reductions claimed under the Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP plan by November 1999, and because there are
no other potential control measures which can meaningfully accelerate the achievement of 15% reduction in the counties beforeNovember 1999, the EPA finds that the Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROPplan does secure 15% emission reductions as soon as practicable. On thisbasis, the emission reduction claimed for the Lake and Porter Counties enhanced I/Mprogram under the 15% ROP plan is approvable.
Federal Reformulated Gasoline Program

The federalreformulated gasoline program (40CFRpart 80, subpart D) requires gasoline providers in Lake and Porter Counties to sell only gasoline which meets certain blending requirements to reduce pollution. The VOC reduction from reformulated gasoline was determined using the MOBILE5a model to estimate the difference between 1996 highway mobile source emissions atRVP 9.0, the level ofcontrol upon gasoline inLake and Porter Counties before the reformulated gasoline requirement, and 1996 highway mobile source emissions with reformulated gasoline. Indiana has credited a 14,905 lbs/day emission reduction from thisprogram, which is acceptable. Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery Rule

Indiana's Stage IIrule (326 IAC 8-4- 6) requires facilities that sell more than 10,000 gallons ofgasoline per month to operate Stage IIvapor recovery systems certified to have a control effectiveness ofat least 95%

.Indiana has estimated that the rule has a 84% program in-use efficiency, accounting for annual inspection program effects and the exemption offacilities with a monthly gasoline throughput ofless than 10,000 gallons. Indiana has credited a 9,824 lbs VOC/day emission reduction from this rule, which is acceptable.

Federal AIM Coatings Rule

Pursuant to section 183(e) ofthe Act, EPA proposed on June 25, 1996 (61 FR 32729), anational rule requiring manufacturers ofAIM coatings to meet VOC content limitations. The March 7, 1996, EPA memorandum "Update on the Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-ofProgress Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings Rule" allows States to take credit for a 20% reduction in AIM coating emissions, even though promulgation ofthe rule has been delayed. Based on this policy, Indiana has taken an emission reduction credit of2,920 lbs VOC/day, which is acceptable.

Non-CTG RACT Rule

Indiana's Non-CTGRACT rule (326 IAC 8-7) requires VOC controls on

sources which have the potential to emit 25 tons ofVOC emissions per year, and

are not already covered under an existing CTGor part ofapost-1990 CTG category. 4 Sources subject to this rule

are allowed to demonstrate compliance by choosing among any one ofthe following three available options: (1) achieve an overall VOC reduction in baseline actual emissions of98% by the addition ofadd-on controls or documented reduction in VOCcontaining materials used; (2) achieve a level ofreduction equal to 81% of baseline actual emission bythe same
means as stated above, where it is demonstrated that a 98% reduction in

source emissions is not achievable; or (3) achieve an alternative overall emission reduction by the application of RACT as determined bythe State and EPA. Indiana estimates that the rule's overall control efficiency is 81%, and has a rule effectiveness of 80%. Indiana has credited 4,559 lbs VOC/day in

4RACT is the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable ofmeetingby the application ofcontrol technology that is reasonably available, considering technological and economic feasibility. CTGs areEPA documents which provide recommendations on what EPA considers the presumptive norm forRACT for particular industries. Indiana was required to adopt the NonCTG RACT rule by section 182(b)(2) ofthe Act. 

### emission reductions from thisrule, which is acceptable.

Keil Chemical Agreed Order

Keil Chemical is required under aJuly 29, 1994, agreed order (CauseNo. A2250) to limit emissions from its PyroChek stack to 15tons ofVOC/year by operating a carbon adsorption add-on control device. Indiana credits this device to reduce emissions by 5,327 lbs VOC/day, which is acceptable.

Coke Oven Battery Shutdowns at Inland SteelFlat Products

Inland Steel is required under Indiana's Particulate Matter rule 326 IAC6-1-10.1(k)(5) to shut down numbers 6 through 11 coke batteries before 1996. The 1990 base-year inventory emissions from these coke batteries, 23,609 lbs VOC/day, are being credited as emission reductions. Indiana is using 22,850 lbs VOC/day towards the 15% ROP plan, and 759 lbs VOC/day as

a contingency measure. These reductions are acceptable.

Residential Open Burning Rule

Under Indiana's rule 326 IAC4-1, residential open burning isbanned in Lake and Porter Counties. Indiana estimates 80% emission reduction and 80% rule effectiveness from this rule. An emissions reduction credit of929 lbs VOC/day from therule is acceptable. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Rule

The State rule 326 IAC 8-8 applies to

new and existing municipal solid waste landfills emitting greater than 55 tons of non-methane organic compounds per year and with a minimum design capacity of 100,000 megagrams ofsolid
waste. The rule requires the operation of

a landfill gas collection system and combustion device. Based on a destruction efficiency of98% and collection efficiencies ranging from 50%
to 60%, Indiana estimates that an overall VOC emission control efficiency of49% maybe achieved, with 80% rule effectiveness. Indiana has credited an emission reduction of 1,132 lbs VOC/ day from this rule, which is acceptable.
Coke Oven NESHAP

This federalrule (40CFRpart 63, subpart L) applies to all by-product coke

ovens and nonrecovery coke ovens as stipulated in the rule. The hazardous air pollutants regulated under therule are also VOC. The rule is estimated to have

a 15% and 52% control efficiency for topside leaks and charging, respectively, along with 80% rule effectiveness. An emission reduction of 1,226 lbs VOC/ day has been credited from this rule, which is acceptable. 

## 15849

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 15849 1997

### 15850 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Automobile Refinishing Rule

The State rule 326 IAC 8-10 requires automobile and mobile equipment refinishing shops to use lower VOC coatings, less-emitting spray-gun and spray-gun cleaning equipment, and improved work practices to reduce VOC. To improve rule effectiveness, this rule also requires refinishing coating suppliers in the area to sell only coatings which meet the VOC limits required in the rule. In addition to documentation contained in the submittal, Indiana submitted supplemental documentation which indicates that an overall 77.8% emission reduction can be expected from all the control measures required bythis rule, with 100% rule effectiveness. This documentation hasbeen included in the docket for this rulemaking. Indiana has taken an emission reduction credit of 4,679 lbs VOC/day from this rule, which is acceptable. VOL Storage Rule
The State rule 326 IAC 8-9 requires special roofdesign and sealing requirements for certain VOL storage vessels. Indiana is only taking credit from controls on external floating roof tanks and fixed rooftanks, assuming 96% and 50% control efficiency, respectively, as contingency measures. The emission credit taken for the VOL storage rule, 2,620 lbs VOC/day, is acceptable.

The Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP and contingency plans contain adequate documentation on how the expected emission reductions from the control measures were calculated. These expected reductions are approvable.

F. EnforceabilityIssues

All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by the State and EPA (See sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) ofthe Act, and 57 FR 13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability ofSIPs and SIP revisions

were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with attachments) from the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions
must also contain a program that provides for enforcement ofthe control

measures and other elements in the SIP [see section 110(a)(2)(C) ofthe Act].

The control measures included in the Lake and Porter 15% ROP and contingency plans have been fully adopted by Indiana and have been submitted to EPA asrevisions to the State's ozone SIP. The EPA has independently reviewed each control

measure to determine conformance with SIP requirements under section 110 and part Dofthe Act, and the overall enforceability ofthe measure's requirements. Rulemaking action on each control measure is asfollows:

Control measure

Enhanced I/M Program (326 IAC 13-1.1)

................................................ Reformulated Gasoline (40 CFR Part 80, Subpart D)

............................. Stage IIGasoline Vapor Recovery (326 IAC 8-4-6)

............................... FederalAIM Coatings Rule

......................................................................

Non-CTG RACT (326 IAC 8-7)

................................................................ Keil Chemical July29, 1994, Agreed Order

.............................................
Residential Open Burning Ban (326 IAC 4-1)

......................................... Coke Oven Battery Shutdown (326 IAC 6-1-10.1(k)(5))

........................ Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (326 IAC 8-8)

........................................ Coke Oven NESHAP (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart L)

................................. Auto Refinishing (326 IA C 8- 10)

.............................................................. VolatileOrganic LiquidStorage Tanks (326 IAC8-9)

............................. Date of EPA approval

March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11142). Federal regulation promulgated February 16, 1994, (59 FR 7716). April 28, 1994 (59 FR 21942). Proposed federal regulation for which Indiana can take credit. (See

memorandum dated March 7, 1996, from John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to Regional Air Division Directors.) July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34857). Date of EPA approval action is date oftoday's FEDERAL REGISTER. See

discussion below. February 1,1996 (61 FR 3581). June 15, 1995 (60 FR 31412). January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2591). Federal regulation promulgated October 27, 1993 (58 FR 57911). June 13, 1996 (61 FR 29965). January 17, 1997 (62 FR 2593).

The agreed order for Keil Chemical is being approved in today's direct final rulemaking action. A discussion ofthis approval is included in part V ofthis rulemaking action.

G. TransportationConformity 1996 MobileSourceEmissionsBudget

Section 176(c)requires States to submit SIPrevisions establishing the State's criteria and procedures for assessing the conformity offederal actions (transportation and general) to the SIP's purpose ofeliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations ofthe NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment ofsuch standards, and that such activities will
not: (1) Cause or contribute to any new violation ofany standard in any area, (2) increase the frequency or severity ofany existing violation ofany standard in any area, or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or anyrequired interim 

### emission reductions orother milestones in any area. To assure conformity with the SIP, conformity analyses for transportation projects must take into
account the amount ofon-road mobile

source emissions that can be emitted in accordance with SIP emission reduction milestones. Forthe purposes ofEPA transportation conformity determinations, the 1996 emission level for on-road mobile sources that is achieved from the 15% ROP plan, constitutes the 1996 VOC mobile source emission budget for Lake and Porter Counties. This level, which is derived from MOBILE5a using 1996 projected on-road mobile source emissions with reformulated gasoline and enhanced I/ M, is 50,015 lbs/day. Therefore, final approval ofthe 15% ROP plan also approves the 1996 mobile source VOC emission budget.

For years after 1996, conformity determinations addressing VOCs must demonstrate consistency with thisplan revision's motor vehicle emissions budget, and satisfaction ofthe build/nobuild test. Final approval ofthis 15% ROPplan would not eliminate the need for abuild/no-build test for oxides of nitrogen.

H. ConcludingStatementon 15% ROP and ContingencyPlans

The EPAhas reviewed the Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP and contingency plans SIP revisions submitted to EPA as described above, and finds that the plans satisfy the requirements ofsections 172(c)(9), 182(b)(1), and 182(c)(9) ofthe Act, as well as EPA guidance for such plans. Therefore, the EPA, in this action, is approving these plans as revisions to the Indiana ozone SIP.

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 15850 1997

### Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

V. Analysis ofKeil Chemical Agreed Order

A July 29, 1994, agreed order (Cause No. A-2250) between IDEM and Keil Chemical was included in the Lake and Porter Counties 15% ROP and contingency plans SIP submittal as a control measure for the 15% ROP plan. Keil Chemical operates aPyro-Chek manufacturing process in Hammond, Lake County, Indiana. The 1990 plant VOC emissions from the Pyro-Chek stack were estimated to be 5,060 lbs VOC/day, and, ifleft uncontrolled, were projected to be approximately 5,464 lbs VOC/day in 1996. Pursuant to the agreed orderwith IDEM, Keil Chemical installed and began operation ofa carbon adsorption system to limit VOC emissions from the Pyro-Chek process stack to 15 tons ofVOC per year. The agreed order also requires Keil Chemical
to implement a fugitive emission control program and limits total emissions from the plant to 25 tons ofVOC per year. In today's action, EPA is approving the July 29, 1994, Agreed Order as a revision to the Indiana ozone SIP. As a result ofthe control placed on the PyroChek stack, Indiana is claiming 5,327 lbs VOC/day in emissions reductions from the stack.
V1. Final Rulemaking Action

The EPA approves Indiana's 15% ROP plan for Lake and Porter Counties, 3% contingency plan for Lake and Porter Counties, and the Keil Chemical Agreed Order, as revisions to the SIP. For transportation conformity purposes, final approval ofthe 15% ROP plan also approves the 1996 mobile source emission budget of50,015 lbs VOC/day.

The EPA ispublishing this action without prior proposal becauseEPA views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register publication, theEPA isproposing to approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This action will be effective on June 2, 1997 unless, byMay 5, 1997, adverse or critical comments are received.

IftheEPAreceives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before the effective dateby publishing a subsequent rulemaking that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received willbe addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as aproposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Ifno such comments arereceived, the public is advised that this action willbe effective on June 2, 1997.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing or establishing aprecedent for any future request for revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered separately in light ofspecific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements. 

### VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by aJuly 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. RegulatoryFlexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 600 etseq., EPA must prepare aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. sections 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction

over populations ofless than 50,000. SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe 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 impose any new requirements, the Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the
nature ofthe Federal-State relationship under the Act, preparation ofa flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofthe State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo. v. EPA.,427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. UnfundedMandates

Under Section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with any proposed or final rule that includes aFederal mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local,

or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to theprivate sector, of$100 million

or more. ThisFederal 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, orthe private sector, result from this action.

D. Submissionto Congressandthe GeneralAccountingOffice

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted areport containing this rule and otherrequired information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General ofthe General Accounting Office prior to publication ofthe rule in today's FederalRegister. This rule is
not amajor rule as defined by section 804(2).

E. Petitions forJudicialReview

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Act, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit byJune 2, 1997. Filing apetition forreconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthisrule forthe purposes of judicialreview nordoes it extend the timewithin which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness ofsuch rule

or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2)).
ListofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Incorporation by reference, Ozone.

Dated:February 19, 1997. Michelle D.Jordan, ActingRegionalAdministrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART52-[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority:42U.S.C. 7401 7671q.

2. Section 52.770 is amended by addingparagraph (c)(1 12) to read as follows: 

## 15851

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 15851 1997

### 15852 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 64 / Thursday, April 3, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§52.770 Identificationofplan.

* * * * *

(c)* * * (112) On June 26, 1995, Indiana submitted an agreed order with Keil Chemical Division, Ferro Corporation (Keil Chemical) requiring volatile organic compound emission control at Keil Chemical's Pyro-Chek manufacturing process, located in Hammond, Lake County, Indiana.

(i) Incorporationby reference.Agreed Order ofthe Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Cause No. A-2250, adopted and effective, July 29, 1994.

3. Section 52.777 is amended by addingparagraphs (k)and (1)to read as follows: 

### §52.777 Controlstrategy: Photochemical oxidants(hydrocarbon).

* * * * *

(k) On June 26, 1995, Indiana submitted a 15percent rate-of-progress plan for the Lake and Porter Counties portion ofthe Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area. This plan satisfies the counties' requirements under section 182(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990.

(1)On June 26, 1995, Indiana submitted a3 percent contingency plan for the Lake and Porter Counties portion ofthe Chicago-Gary-Lake County ozone nonattainment area. This plan satisfies the counties' requirements under section 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) ofthe Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. [FRDoc. 97 8383Filed 4 2 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P



### FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 0and 1 [GC DocketNo. 95-21;FCC 97-92]

Ex Parte Presentations inCommission Proceedings

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission amends its regulations concerning ex parte presentations in Commission proceedings. The new rules simplify the determination in particular proceedings ofwhether ex partepresentations are permissible and whether they mustbe disclosed. The proposed rules also modify the Commission's "Sunshine period prohibition." Certain other minor amendments oftherules are made. The intended effect ofthe amendments is to make the rules simplerand easier to comply with, to enhance the fairness of the Commission's processes, and to facilitate the public's ability to communicate with the Commission. EFFECTIVE DATE:June 2, 1997. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David S. Senzel, Office ofGeneral Counsel (202)418-1760. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary ofthe Commission's Report and Order, GCDocket No. 95-21, adopted on March 13, 1997, and released March 19, 1997. The full text ofthereport and order is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street NW., Washington D.C. The complete text may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., Suite 140, 2100 M Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20037, telephone (202) 857-3800. Summary ofReportand Order
1. In this report and order, the Commission revises its rules governing

ex parte presentations in Commission proceedings. The revision is intended to make the rules simplerand clearer, and thus more effective in ensuring fairness in Commission proceedings. The Commission stresses that the ex parte rules areimportant and that full compliance is expected.

2. The Commission revises its system for specifying whether proceedings are "restricted," "permit-but-disclose" or "exempt," which determine how ex parte presentations are treated in that proceeding subject to specific exceptions. (An ex partepresentation is

acommunication to aCommission decisionmaker concerning the outcome

or merits ofaproceeding which-if written-is not served on allparties and-iforal-is made without notice and the opportunity for all parties to be present.) In restricted proceedings, ex parte presentations are prohibited. In permit-but-disclose proceedings, ex parte presentations are permitted but
must be disclosed on therecord ofthe proceeding. In exempt proceedings, ex parte presentations may be made without limitation. The revised rules adopt a simplified system for determining the status ofa proceeding. 3. Under this system, allproceedings
not specifically designated as exempt or permit-but-disclose (eitherbythe rules

or by order or public notice in an individual proceeding) are restricted from the point that someone becomes a "party" to the proceeding. Thus, the
extent ofthe restriction is governed by the definition of "party." Ifthere is only

a single "party" (as defined in the ex parte rules) in a restricted proceeding, the Commission and theparty may freely make presentations to each other because there is noother party to be served or with aright to be present.If there are additional parties, then those parties must be served or be given an opportunity to be present. Under the rules, parties include: (1) any person who files an application, waiver request, petition, motion, request for a declaratory ruling, or other filing seeking affirmative relief (includinga Freedom ofInformation Act request), and any person who files a written submission referencing and regarding such pending filingwhich is served on the filer, or,in the case ofan application, any person filing a mutually exclusive application; (2) any person who files acomplaint which is served on the subject ofthe complaint

or which is a formal complaint under 47 U.S.C. §208 and §1.721 ofourrules, and the person who is the subject of such acomplaint; (3) any person who files apetition to revoke a license or other authorization or apetition for an order to show cause and the licensee or entity who is the subject ofthe petition; (4) the subject ofan order to show
cause,hearing designation order, notice ofapparent liability, or similar notice or order,or petition for such notice or order,or any other person who has otherwise been given formal party status in aproceeding; and (5) in a rulemaking proceeding (other than a broadcast allotment proceeding) or a proceeding before aJoint Board or before the Commission to consider the recommendation ofaJoint Board, the general public.To be deemed a party, a person must make the relevant filing with the Secretary, the relevant Bureau

or Office, or the Commission as a whole. Written submissions made only to the Chairman or an individual Commissioner willnot confer party status since such filings do not demonstrate the requisite intent or formality for party status.

4. A few matters will continue to be expressly classified as exempt. These include (1) notice ofinquiry proceedings, (2) petitions for rulemaking, (3) tariffproceedings before they are set for investigation, and (4) proceedings involving complaints which are not served on the target ofthe complaint, are informal §208 complaints, or are cable rate complaints
notfiled on the standard complaint form.

5. Otherproceedings are classified as permit-but-disclose (a term replacing the former term "nonrestricted). These

HeinOnline -- 62 Fed. Reg. 15852 1997