[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 78 (Friday, April 21, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21351-21354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9920]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN99-1a; FRL-6573-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to particulate matter (PM) 
emissions regulations for Dubois County, Indiana, which the Indiana 
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted to EPA on 
February 3, 1999, as amendments to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
The revisions include relaxation of some PM limits, elimination of 
limits for boilers which are no longer operating, updating facility 
names, and changing some boiler fuel types.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 20, 2000, unless EPA receives 
adverse written comments by May 22, 2000. If adverse comment is 
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the 
Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: You should mail written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    You may inspect copies of the State submittal and EPA's analysis of 
it at: Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Pohlman, Environmental 
Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the EPA Approving?
II. What Are the Changes From Current Rules?
    A. Sources Eliminated From the Rules
    B. Source Name Revisions
    C. Fuel Usage and Heat Input Changes
    D. Revised or Added Limits
III. Air Quality Modeling Analysis
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
V. EPA Rulemaking Action
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Executive Order 13045
    C. Executive Order 13084
    D. Executive Order 13132
    E. Regulatory Flexibility
    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 the EPA Approving?

    We are approving revised PM rules for Dubois County, Indiana, which 
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted to 
EPA on February 3, 1999. The revisions include relaxation of some PM 
limits, elimination of limits for boilers which are no longer 
operating, updating facility names, and changing some boiler fuel 
types. The submitted revisions are contained in Title 326 Indiana 
Administrative Code, Article 6, Rule 1, Section 9 (326 IAC 6-1-9).

II. What Are the Changes From Current Rules?

A. Sources Eliminated From the Rules

    IDEM eliminated Indiana Cabinet, Dolly Madison Plant No. 3, Jasper 
Table, Hoosier Desk, Jasper Turning boilers No. 1 and No. 2, Jasper 
Novelty Furniture Plant No. 1, Jasper Novelty Furniture Plant No. 2, 
Jasper Novelty Furniture Plant No. 3 wood boiler, Jasper Cabinet coal 
and wood boiler, and Jasper Veneer boiler No. 3 from rule 326 IAC 6-1-
9. These sources have shut down.

B. Source Name Revisions

    Indiana Chair is changed to Indiana Dimension; Indiana Desk is 
changed to Indiana Furniture Industries; Huntingburg Wood Products is 
changed to Styline Industries, Plant #8; Jasper Laminates is changed to 
Jasper Laminates, Plant #1--Division of Kimball; Jasper Cabinets No. 2 
is changed to Jasper Cabinets Corporation; Jasper Stylemasters 15th and 
Cherry is changed to Artec; Jasper Office Furniture is changed to 
Jasper Office Furniture Co., Inc., Plant #1; Jasper Turning is changed 
to Artec; Jasper Novelty Furniture Plt. No. 3 is changed to Jasper 
Furniture 30th St.; and Jasper Cabinet is changed to Jasper Corp.-
Kimball International.

C. Fuel Usage and Heat Input Changes

    The fuel for Jasper Laminates, Plant #1--Division of Kimball boiler 
No. 1 is changed from Wood-Oil-Waste Solvent to Wood-Wood Waste, and 
its heat input is changed from 23 MMBTU/hr to 20.5 MMBTU/hr. The fuel 
for Jasper Laminates, Plant #1--Division of Kimball boiler No. 2 is 
changed from Oil to Natural Gas, and its heat input is changed from 16 
MMBTU/hr to 16.8 MMBTU/hr. The fuel for Jasper Cabinets Corporation's 
boiler is changed from Coal to Wood, and the heat input is changed from 
3 MMBTU/hr to 5.3 MMBTU/hr. The heat input for Jasper Wood Products' 
Coal-Wood Boiler No. 1 is changed from 10 MMBTU/hr to 6 MMBTU/hr. The 
heat input for Jasper Wood Products' Coal-Wood Boiler No. 2 is changed 
from 10 MMBTU/hr to 6 MMBTU/hr. The heat input for Artec's Wood Chip 
Boiler is changed from 24 MMBTU/hr to 14 MMBTU/hr. The fuel for Jasper 
Chair's boiler is changed from Coal to Wood, and its heat input is 
changed from 6 MMBTU/hr to 18 MMBTU/hr.

D. Revised or Added Limits

    The limits for Styline Industries, Plant #8 are changed from 2.8 
tons/yr to 9.0 tons/yr, and from 0.340 lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU. The 
limits for Forest

[[Page 21352]]

Wood Products No. 1 are changed from 2.1 tons/yr to 9.0 tons/yr, and 
from 0.140 lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU. For Jasper Laminates, Plant 
#1--Division of Kimball, the short-term limit for boiler No. 1 was 
changed from 0.10 lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU and the limits for boiler 
#2 were changed to add limits of 0.2 tons/yr and 0.01 grains/dscf in 
addition to the previously-existing limit of 0.003 lbs/MMBTU. For 
Jasper Cabinets Corporation, a new 6.7 MMBTU/hr Wood Boiler was added 
to the rule. This boiler has limits of 7.6 tons/yr and 0.60 lbs/MMBTU. 
The limits for Coal-Wood Boiler No. 1 at Jasper Wood Products were 
changed from 1.04 tons/yr to 9.0 tons/yr and from 0.060 lbs/MMBTU to 
0.60 lbs/MMBTU. The limits for Coal-Wood Boiler No. 2 at Jasper Wood 
Products were changed from 3.1 tons/yr to 9.0 tons/yr and from 0.070 
lbs/MMBTU to 0.60 lbs/MMBTU. Limits for Artec's Wood Chip Boiler were 
changed from 2.8 tons/yr to 12.0 tons/yr and from 0.060 lbs/MMBTU to 
0.60 lbs/MMBTU.

III. Air Quality Modeling Analysis

    The general criteria used by the EPA to evaluate such emissions 
trades, or ``bubbles'', under the Clean Air Act and applicable 
regulations are set out in the EPA's Emissions Trading Policy Statement 
(ETPS) (see 51 FR 43814). Emissions trades such as this, which result 
in an overall increase in allowable emissions, require a ``Level III'' 
modeling analysis under the ETPS to ensure that the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) will be protected. A Level III analysis 
is a full dispersion modeling analysis which must consider all sources 
affecting the trade's area of impact.
    The submitted modeling analysis includes emissions from all sources 
with revised SIP limits, and uses a conservative background 
concentration to account for other, nearby sources.
    In the submitted modeling analysis, which uses 5 years of 
meteorological data, a violation of the 24-hour NAAQS is indicated when 
six exceedances of the 24-hour standard are predicted. Each receptor's 
predicted 6th highest 24-hour value is, therefore, compared to the 
standard. The 24-hour PM standard is 150 micrograms per cubic meter 
(<greek-m>g/m\3\). Indiana's modeling indicated that the highest, sixth 
highest predicted 24-hour PM concentration at any receptor in the 
Dubois County area was 132.5 <greek-m>g/m\3\. Thus, the modeling 
analysis predicts that the 24-hour NAAQS will be protected.
    A modeled violation of the annual PM standard is indicated when any 
receptor's 5 year arithmetic mean annual PM concentration exceeds the 
annual PM standard of 50 <greek-m>g/m\3\. Indiana's modeling analysis 
indicated that the highest arithmetic mean annual PM concentration 
predicted by the modeling for the Dubois County area was 33.6 
<greek-m>g/m\3\. Therefore, the modeling analysis predicts that the 
annual PM NAAQS will be met.

IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?

    As stated above, the air quality modeling analysis conducted by 
IDEM shows that the maximum daily and annual PM concentrations in 
Dubois County should stay below the NAAQS.

V. EPA Rulemaking Action

    We are approving, through direct final rulemaking, revisions to 
particulate matter (PM) emissions regulations for Dubois County, 
Indiana. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because 
we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register 
publication, we are proposing to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse written comments be filed. This action will be effective 
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comment by May 22. 2000. Should we receive such comments, we will 
publish a final rule 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, you are advised 
that this action will be effective on June 20, 2000.

VI. 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

[[Page 21353]]

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

    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 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 sections 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 cost-effective 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. Section 804, however, exempts from section 801 the 
following types of rules: rules of particular applicability; rules 
relating to agency management or personnel; and rules of agency 
organization, procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect 
the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA 
is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under 
section 801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.

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 June 20, 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: March 28, 2000.
Francis X. Lyons,
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)(132) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (132) On February 3, 1999, Indiana submitted revised particulate 
matter emissions regulations for Dubois County, Indiana. The submitted 
revision amends 326 IAC 6-1-9, and includes relaxation of some PM 
limits, the elimination of limits for boilers which are no longer 
operating, updated facility names, and changes to boiler fuel types.

[[Page 21354]]

    (i) Incorporation by reference. Indiana Administrative Code Title 
326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 6: Particulate Rules, Rule 1: 
Nonattainment Area Limitations, Section 9: Dubois County. Added at 22 
In. Reg. 423. Effective October 18, 1998.

[FR Doc. 00-9920 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P