Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16591

1The 1990 Amendments to the Act made

significant changes to the air quality planning

requirements for areas that do not meet (or that

significantly contribute to ambient air quality in a

nearby area that does not meet) the PM national

ambient air quality standards (see Pub. L. No. 101–

549, 104 Stat. 2399). References herein are to the

Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

conveyor belts as to the method of

pollution control that is used or is

necessary to perform testing using the

proposed test.

C. Combustion Toxicity

Some commenters indicated that

conveyor belts passing the proposed

tests would present more of a toxic

hazard than conveyor belts meeting the

present MSHA acceptance test. MSHA

requests any information or data from

manufacturers and other parties on the

comparison or assessment of the

combustion toxicity of conveyor belts

meeting the present acceptance test and

belts meeting the proposed test.

D. Quality Assurance

Commenters also questioned the

proposal regarding the quality assurance

(control) program for maintaining

conveyor belt as approved. One

commenter suggested that inspection of

ingredients alone could not ensure that

conveyor belting is manufactured as

approved, suggesting that a flame test is

needed for this assurance. MSHA

requests information on the current

practices manufacturers use in their

quality control programs to maintain a

product as approved. MSHA is

particularly interested in whether

manufacturers flame test belts using the

MSHA acceptance test indicated in 30

CFR 18.65, inspect or control

ingredients, or perform a combination of

both.

E. Cost Data

Commenters provided a range of data

on the financial impact of the proposed

rule, which included costs of belting

passing the proposed flame test (‘‘new’’

belt), total dollar amount of the

conveyor belt market, and belt service

life information. MSHA solicits

comments and data on the economic

impact to all belt manufacturers and all

underground coal mines, including

small manufacturers and small mine

operators. In particular, MSHA requests

information for both rubber and PVC

types of conveyor belt on: (1) the

quantity of belt (in feet or meters)

currently in use that would pass the

proposed test; (2) the total quantity (in

feet or meters) and dollar amount of the

market for conveyor belt used in

underground coal mines; (3) the cost of

belt that will pass the proposed flame

test (‘‘new’’ belt) versus belt that passes

the current MSHA flame test (‘‘old’’

belt); (4) whether costs of the ‘‘new’’ belt

will decline as production increases and

by how much; and (5) the life and

warranty of ‘‘new’’ belt versus ‘‘old’’

belt.

Some manufacturers and other parties

have installed the proposed MSHA test

apparatus to conduct research and

testing on samples of conveyor belts.

MSHA also requests information from

interested parties on the research and

development costs for conveyor belt

meeting the new test.

Dated: March 27, 1995.

J. Davitt McAteer,

Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and

Health.

[FR Doc. 95–8018 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN32–1–6006; FRL–5180–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) proposes to approve State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

request submitted by the State of

Indiana for the purpose of bringing

about the attainment of the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM). The

SIP revision request was submitted by

the State to satisfy certain Federal

requirements for an approvable

nonattainment area PM SIP for the Lake

County nonattainment area. This area

was designated nonattainment for PM

and classified as moderate by the Clean

Air Act (Act), upon enactment of the

1990 Amendments (amended Act). The

amended Act requires that States make

plan submittals by November 15, 1991,

for those areas designated

nonattainment and classified as

moderate for PM upon enactment (the

‘‘initial moderate nonattainment areas’’).

DATES: Comments on this SIP revision

request and on USEPA’s proposed

rulemaking action must be received by

May 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section,

Regulation Development Branch (AR–

18J), United States Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Pohlman, Regulation

Development Branch, Regulation

Development Section (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

886–3299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The air quality planning requirements

for moderate PM nonattainment areas

are set out in Title I of the amended

Act. 1 The USEPA has issued a ‘‘General

Preamble’’ describing USEPA’s

preliminary views on how USEPA

intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions

submitted under Title I of the amended

Act, including those State submittals

containing moderate PM nonattainment

area SIP requirements (see generally 57

FR 13498, April 16, 1992). The reader

should refer to the General Preamble for

a more detailed discussion of the

interpretations of Title I advanced in

this proposed rule and the supporting

rationale. In this proposed rule on the

Indiana moderate PM SIP submittal for

the Lake County nonattainment area,

USEPA is proposing to apply the

interpretations as expressed in the

General Preamble, taking into

consideration the special factual issues

presented.

Part D of Title I contains the

provisions applicable to nonattainment

areas. Moderate PM nonattainment areas

must meet the applicable requirements

set out in Subparts 1 (sections 171–179B

of the Act) and 4 (sections 188–190 of

the Act) of Part D. Subpart 1 contains

provisions generally applicable to all

nonattainment areas and Subpart 4

contains provisions specifically

applicable to PM nonattainment areas.

At times, Subparts 1 and 4 overlap or

conflict. USEPA has attempted to clarify

the relationship among these various

provisions in the General Preamble and,

as appropriate, in this proposed rule.

Under Part D, those States containing

initial moderate PM nonattainment

areas were required to submit, among

other things, the following provisions by

November 15, 1991:

1. Provisions to assure that reasonably

available control measures (RACM)

(including such reductions from

existing sources in the area as may be

obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of reasonably available

control technology—RACT) shall be

implemented;
16592 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Proposed Rules

2Also, Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that

plan provisions for nonattainment areas meet the

applicable provisions of Section 110(a)(2).

2. Either a demonstration (including

air quality modeling) that the plan will

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994, or a demonstration

that attainment by that date is

impracticable;

3. Quantitative milestones which are

to be achieved every 3 years and which

demonstrate reasonable further progress

(RFP) toward attainment by December

31, 1994; and

4. Control requirements applicable to

major stationary sources of PM

precursors, except where the

Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly

to PM levels which exceed the NAAQS

in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and

189 of the Act.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out

provisions governing USEPA’s review of

SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565–13566).

In this proposed rule, USEPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

request submitted to USEPA on June 16,

1993, and supplemented on December

9, 1993, September 8, 1994, and

November 17, 1994, for the Lake County

nonattainment area. The submittal

repeals rules 326 Indiana

Administrative Code (IAC) 5–1–6, 6–1–

10, and 6–1–11. The submittal contains

the following new or revised rules:

326 IAC 1–2–32.1* .. ‘‘Gooseneck cap’’

definition

326 IAC 1–2–34.1* .. ‘‘Jumper pipe’’ definition

326 IAC 1–2–62.1* .. ‘‘Quench car’’ definition

326 IAC 1–2–63.1* .. ‘‘Quench reservoir’’

definition

326 IAC 1–2–63.2* .. ‘‘Quench tower’’ definition

326 IAC 5–1–1* ....... Applicability of rule

326 IAC 5–1–2* ....... Visible emission limitations

326 IAC 5–1–3* ....... Temporary exemptions

326 IAC 5–1–4* ....... Compliance determination

326 IAC 5–1–5* ....... Violations

326 IAC 5–1–7* ....... State implementation

plan revisions

326 IAC 6–1–10.1(a–

k).

Lake County PM10

emissions requirements

326 IAC 6–1–10.2 .... Lake County PM10

coke battery emissions requirements

326 IAC 6–1–11.1 .... Lake County fugitive

particulate matter

control requirements

326 IAC 11–3–2(a–f

and i)*.

Emission limitations

326 IAC 11–3–4* ..... Compliance determination

While some of these rules apply

strictly to Lake County, others (marked

above with an asterisk) are intended to

have state-wide applicability. The

USEPA is proposing to approve the

rules marked above with an asterisk for

the entire state of Indiana. The others

are being approved for sources in Lake

County only.

Public comments are solicited on the

requested SIP revision and on USEPA’s

proposed rulemaking action. The

USEPA will consider any comments

received during the public comment

period before taking final action on the

requested SIP revision. Presented below

are the SIP requirements under which

the submittal was reviewed, and the

results of USEPA’s review.

1. Procedural Requirements

The Act requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans for

submission to USEPA. Section 110(a)(2)

of the Act provides that each

implementation plan submitted by a

State must be adopted after reasonable

notice and public hearing.2

The USEPA also must determine

whether a submittal is complete and

therefore warrants further USEPA

review and action (see section 110(k)(1)

and 57 FR 13565). The USEPA’s

completeness criteria for SIP submittals

are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix

V (1991), as amended by 57 FR 42216

(August 26, 1991). The USEPA attempts

to make completeness determinations

within 60 days of receiving a submittal.

However, a submittal is deemed

complete by operation of law if a

completeness determination is not made

by USEPA 6 months after receipt of the

submission.

The State of Indiana held a public

hearing on October 22, 1992, in Gary,

Indiana to receive public comment on

the requested implementation plan

revision for the Lake County PM

nonattainment area. Following the

public hearing the plan was adopted by

the State on May 12, 1993, and

submitted to USEPA on June 16, 1993,

as a SIP revision request. Supplemental

submittals were made with cover letters

dated December 9, 1993, September 8,

1994, and November 17, 1994.

The SIP revision request was

reviewed by USEPA to determine

completeness shortly after its submittal,

in accordance with the completeness

criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V (1991), as amended by 57

FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The

submittal was found to be complete and

a letter dated July 13, 1993, was sent to

the Commissioner, Office of Air

Management, Indiana Department of

Environmental Management (IDEM),

indicating the completeness of the

submittal and the next steps to be taken

in the review process.

2. Accurate Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires

that nonattainment plan provisions

include a comprehensive, accurate,

current inventory of actual emissions

from all sources of relevant pollutants in

the nonattainment area. Further, for the

attainment demonstration, the SIP must

contain a comprehensive, accurate, and

current inventory of allowable

emissions in the area. Because the

submission of an emissions inventory is

necessary to an area’s attainment

demonstration (or demonstration that

the area cannot practicably attain), the

emissions inventory must be received

with the submission (see 57 FR 13539).

The emissions inventory information

was compiled from data supplied by

individual companies, permit

applications in the IDEM files, and

information from personnel at local

agencies. The emissions inventory

contains information on approximately

900 point and area sources. The Lake

County PM emissions inventory is

dominated by industrial sources,

including metal manufacturers, mineral

product manufacturers, and food/

agricultural facilities. For further

information on the emissions inventory,

see the Technical Support Document

available at the above address.

The USEPA is proposing to approve

the emissions inventory because it is

generally accurate and comprehensive,

and provides a sufficient basis for

determining the adequacy of attainment

demonstration for this area consistent

with the requirements of sections

172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(k) of the Act.

3. RACM (Including RACT)

As noted above, the State must submit

provisions for initial moderate PM

nonattainment areas to assure that

RACM (including RACT) are

implemented (see sections 172(c)(1) and

189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble

contains a detailed discussion of

USEPA’s interpretation of the RACM

(including RACT) requirement (see 57

FR 13539–13545 and 13560–13561).

The USEPA’s interpretation of this

requirement is set out here only in

broad terms.

The State should first identify

available control measures and evaluate

them for their reasonableness in light of

the feasibility of the controls and the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16593

3USEPA has issued technological and economic

parameters that should be considered in

determining RACT for a particular source (see 57

FR 18073–74).

attainment needs of the area. A State

may reject an available control measure

if the measure is technologically

infeasible or the cost of the control is

unreasonable. The State must

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS

as expeditiously as practicable but no

later than December 31, 1994, unless the

State demonstrates that attainment by

that date is impracticable. Therefore, if

a State adopts less than all available

measures but demonstrates, adequately

and appropriately, that RFP and

attainment of the PM NAAQS is

assured, and application of all such

available measures would not result in

attainment any faster, then a plan which

requires implementation of less than all

available measures may be approved as

meeting the RACM requirement. As a

suggested starting point, USEPA has

identified reasonably available control

measures for sources of fugitive dust,

residential wood combustion, and

prescribed burning (see 57 FR 18072–

18074, April 28, 1992). The State should

add to the list of available measures in

an area any measures that public

commenters demonstrate may well be

reasonably available in a particular

circumstance.

The RACT for a particular source is

similarly determined. The USEPA’s

longstanding definition of RACT is the

lowest emission limitation that a

particular source is capable of meeting

by the application of control technology

that is reasonably available considering

technological and economic feasibility

(see 57 FR 13541). Thus, USEPA

recommends that available control

technology be applied to those existing

sources in the area that are reasonable

to control in light of the attainment

needs of the area and the feasibility of

controls.3

A State should submit a reasoned

justification for partial or full rejection

of any available control measure

(including any available control

technology) that explains, with

appropriate documentation, why each

rejected control measure is infeasible or

otherwise unreasonable and, therefore,

does not constitute RACM (or RACT) for

the area. In those PM nonattainment

areas where mobile sources significantly

contribute to the PM air quality

problem, States also must address the

section 108(f) transportation control

measures (see 57 FR 13561).

The limitations on point sources in

Lake County include source-specific

emissions limits in terms of pounds per

ton (lb/ton), pounds per hour (lbs/hr),

pounds per Million British Thermal

Units (lb/MMBTU), and grains per dry

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf). There are

also source-specific opacity limits

ranging from 5–20 percent on certain

sources in the nonattainment area.

These limits are listed in Title 326

Indiana Administrative Code (326 IAC)

6–1–10.1. Compliance with these

emissions limits is to be determined

using Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, part 60 (40 CFR part 60),

appendix M, Methods 201 and 201A for

PM; 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,

Methods 5, 5A, 5D, 5E or 17 for Total

Suspended Particulate; and 40 CFR part

60, appendix A, Method 9 for opacity

limits. Other limitations on point

sources include emission limits on coke

ovens located in Lake County (326 IAC

6–1–10.2) and a general 20 percent

opacity limit for all sources in the

nonattainment area (326 IAC 5–1–2).

Limitations on sources of fugitive

emissions in Lake County include a 10

percent opacity limit for paved roads

and parking lots, unpaved roads and

parking lots, and wind erosion from

storage piles (326 IAC 6–1–11.1(d)).

Subsection (e) of this rule also requires

sources to submit control plans which

will achieve compliance with the

limitations of subsection (d). These

plans are to include maps and

descriptions of facilities, descriptions of

the proposed control measures and

practices to be implemented, and a

schedule for achieving compliance with

the rule.

The USEPA has reviewed the State’s

explanation and associated

documentation and concluded that it

adequately justifies the control

measures to be implemented. By this

notice, USEPA is proposing to approve

the control strategy.

4. Attainment Demonstration

As noted above, the State must submit

a demonstration for initial moderate PM

nonattainment areas (including air

quality modeling) showing that the plan

will provide for attainment as

expeditiously as practicable but no later

than December 31, 1994 (see section

189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). Alternatively,

the State must show that attainment by

December 31, 1994 is impracticable. In

the General Preamble, USEPA indicated

that the attainment demonstrations for

the initial moderate areas must follow

existing modeling guidelines for PM or,

if appropriate, may be developed

consistent with the supplemental

attainment demonstration policy issued

for initial areas (see 57 FR 13539).

IDEM began the Lake County

modeling study in 1989, using version

88348 of the Industrial Source Complex

Short Term model (ISCST). An updated

version of ISCST, 90346, was used for

the final runs. Version 93109 of the

Industrial Source Complex Long Term

model (ISCLT2) was used to determine

annual average concentrations. Version

93109 is the most recent version of

ISCLT2, and the versions of ISCST used

by the State were current at the time of

application. Therefore, their use is

approvable by USEPA. Future SIP

revision requests submitted to USEPA

must demonstrate attainment of the

NAAQS through modeling performed in

accordance with current USEPA

modeling guidance.

IDEM modeled a total of 540 sources,

all with emissions greater than one ton

per year. Smaller sources were excluded

from the modeling. Direction-specific

building dimensions were input for

facilities which chose to provide the

information. The annual concentrations

modeled represent the actual hours of

operation of sources which contributed

significantly to high annual

concentrations.

Average background concentrations

for each wind sector were derived from

measurements taken at ten local PM

monitors during the years 1990 through

1992. The monitors were located in

Lake County, Indiana; Porter County,

Indiana; and Cook County, Illinois.

While the background concentrations

were developed so as not to include

measurements directly influenced by

the emissions from large facilities,

monitors within the modeled area were

expected to account for the influence of

small sources which were not included

in the modeled source inventory. IDEM

arrived at an average annual background

concentration of 23 micrograms per

cubic meter (μg/m3).

IDEM ran the models with five years

of meteorological data (1984–1988) from

the Hammond and Whiting Towers,

which are located in Lake County.

IDEM’s final receptor network focused

on hot spots pinpointed by earlier

modeling runs. Receptors were also

placed in Illinois in order to assess

interstate impacts. Modeling showed

that the Indiana sources did not violate

the NAAQS in Illinois.

The final modeling shows that the

Lake County PM nonattainment area

will attain the 24-hour PM standard.

The highest sixth high predicted 24-

hour concentration is 149.9 μg/m3 (the

24-hour PM standard is 150 μg/m3). The

final modeling also predicts attainment

of the annual PM standard. The highest

5-year average predicted PM

concentration is 47.7 μg/m3 (the

standard is 50 μg/m3).
16594 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Proposed Rules

To have attained the PM NAAQS, an

area must have an average of no more

than 1.0 expected exceedance of the 24-

hour PM NAAQS per year for the

previous 3 years at any monitor. In

addition, the average of the annual PM

concentrations for the previous 3 years

at any monitor must be below the

annual standard.

A preliminary review of the Lake

County air quality monitoring data

indicates that the area is attaining the

PM NAAQS. No monitor in the Lake

County area has shown an exceedance

of the annual PM NAAQS in the last 3

years. In addition, the worst-case

monitor in the Lake County PM

nonattainment area shows an average of

0.75 expected exceedance per year for

1992, 1993, and 1994. The USEPA will

make a formal determination of the

attainment status of the Lake County PM

nonattainment area at a later date.

5. PM Precursors

The control requirements which are

applicable to major stationary sources of

PM must also apply to major stationary

sources of PM precursors unless the

USEPA determines such sources do not

contribute significantly to PM levels

which exceed the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards in that area (see

section 189(e) of the Act). PM

precursors are pollutants emitted as

gases that undergo chemical

transformations to become particulate,

and principally include sulfates and

nitrates. The control requirements that

apply to major stationary sources in PM

nonattainment areas generally include

the following: reasonably available

control technology, which applies in

moderate PM nonattainment areas; best

available control technology, which

applies in serious PM nonattainment

areas; and control requirements under

the applicable new source review

provisions, such as the lowest

achievable emission rate. The General

Preamble (see 57 FR 13539–13540 and

13541–13542) contains a lengthy

discussion on control requirements for

PM precursors in moderate

nonattainment areas and on the type of

technical information USEPA will rely

on in making any determinations under

section 189(e).

Filter analysis data from ambient

monitors in Cook County, Illinois (the

data was collected in 1992) were used

to assess the significance of PM

precursors in the Lake County, Indiana

PM nonattainment area. The monitors

used are located at the Washington

School and the Bright School in the city

of Chicago, Illinois. These monitors are

located approximately .6 and 1.75 miles,

respectively, west of the Lake County

nonattainment area. Besides the close

proximity, these sites are also

appropriate because the source mix in

southeast Chicago closely approximates

that of the Lake County nonattainment

area.

The mean sulfate concentration plus

the mean nitrate concentration for the

Washington school and Bright school

monitors were 13.1μg/m3 and 14.9μg/m3

respectively. This compares to an

average annual background PM

concentration of 23μg/m3 in the Lake

County nonattainment area. This

illustrates the relative insignificance of

the impact of PM precursors, and

supports representing PM precursor

impacts as part of the background

concentration.

Further considerations also argue

against applying the same control

requirements for precursor sources as

for direct emission sources. The

climatology in northwest Indiana is

such that precursor emission control for

a particular source would not have a

significant effect until far downwind.

Title IV of the Clean Air Act mandates

significant particulate precursor

emission reductions in Indiana, after

which the impacts of these sources on

particulate matter concentrations will be

even less significant.

For these reasons, it is appropriate to

conclude that precursors do not

contribute significantly to particulate

matter concentrations in the Lake

County nonattainment area. This

finding is based on the current character

of the area including, for example, the

existing mix of sources in the area. It is

possible, therefore, that future growth

could change the significance of

precursors in the area. The USEPA

intends to issue future guidance

addressing such potential changes in the

significance of precursor emissions in

an area.

6. Quantitative Milestones and

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The PM nonattainment area plan

revisions demonstrating attainment

must contain quantitative milestones,

which are to be achieved every 3 years,

until the area is redesignated to

attainment. The plan also must

demonstrate RFP, as defined in section

171(1), toward attainment by December

31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act).

Reasonable further progress is defined

in section 171(1) as such annual

incremental reductions in emissions of

the relevant air pollutant as are required

by part D or may reasonably be required

by the Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

NAAQS by the applicable date.

For the initial moderate PM

nonattainment areas, the emissions

reductions progress made between the

SIP submittal due date of November 15,

1991 and the attainment date of

December 31, 1994, (only 46 days

beyond the November 15, 1994

milestone date) will satisfy the first

milestone requirement. The de minimis

timing differential makes it

administratively impracticable to

require separate milestone and

attainment demonstrations.

In implementing RFP for an initial

moderate area, USEPA has reviewed the

attainment demonstration and control

strategy for the area to determine

whether the initial milestones have been

satisfied, and to determine whether

annual incremental reductions different

from those provided in the SIP may be

necessary to ensure attainment of the

PM NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see

section 171(1)). As indicated, Indiana’s

PM SIP submittal for the Lake County

PM nonattainment area shows that the

PM NAAQS will be attained by

December 31, 1994. Also, a preliminary

review of the monitored air quality data

shows that the area is in attainment of

the PM NAAQS. Therefore, the RFP

requirement has been satisfied.

7. Enforceability

All measures and other elements in

the SIP must be enforceable by the State

and USEPA. See sections 172(c)(6),

110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556. The

USEPA criteria addressing the

enforceability of SIPs and SIP revisions

were stated in a September 23, 1987

memorandum (with attachments) from

the Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, et al., entitled ‘‘Review of

State Implementation Plans and

Revisions for Enforceability and Legal

Sufficiency,’’ and with an attached

memorandum with the same date and

title which contained more detailed

guidance from the Associate

Enforcement Counsel for Air

Enforcement, et al. (see 57 FR 13541).

The particular control measures

contained in the SIP are addressed

above under the section headed ‘‘RACM

(including RACT).’’ These control

measures apply to the types of activities

identified in that discussion, including,

for example, grain loading limits, lb/ton

limits, and lb/MMBTU limits for point

sources and opacity limits for roadways

and storage piles. The SIP provides that

these control measures apply to the

Lake County nonattainment area.

Upon initial review of Indiana’s

submittal, USEPA identified two

enforcement concerns. The first

enforcement concern was related to the

20 percent opacity limit as it applies to
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 62 / Friday, March 31, 1995 / Proposed Rules 16595

coal preheater bypass stacks at U.S.

Steel. A number of years ago, Indiana

issued a variance to these stacks under

a previous State rule. The USEPA

requested IDEM’s interpretation of how

the variance relates to the new rule. On

November 17, 1994, IDEM submitted to

USEPA a letter clarifying this issue. In

the letter, IDEM stated that ‘‘no variance

currently exists for the U.S. Steel. Any

variance from a previous, repealed rule

that existed prior to the adoption of 326

IAC 5–1–2(2)(B) has been superseded by

the revised PM rule.’’ Therefore, this

issue has been resolved.

The second enforcement concern was

related to the shutdown of the A. Metz

Asphalt Company in Gary, Indiana.

IDEM did not include this source in the

emissions inventory because it is not

currently operating, but the plant still

has a limit in the State rules. The

USEPA was concerned about the

enforceability of the shutdown, and the

possibility that the plant might resume

operation. In a November 17, 1994,

letter, IDEM assured USEPA that the A.

Metz Asphalt Company has not

operated since 1989, and does not have

a valid operating permit. IDEM stated

that restarting of operations at this plant

would trigger Indiana’s new source

review permitting process. Therefore,

this issue has been resolved.

8. Contingency Measures

As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the

Act, all moderate nonattainment area

SIPs that demonstrate attainment must

include contingency measures. See

generally 57 FR 13543–13544.

Contingency measures should consist of

other available measures that are not

part of the area’s control strategy. These

measures were to have been submitted

by November 15, 1993, for initial

moderate nonattainment areas. These

measures must take effect without

further action by the State or USEPA,

upon a determination by USEPA that

the area has failed to make RFP or attain

the PM NAAQS by the applicable

statutory deadline.

On January 25, 1994, a letter was sent

to the State indicating that the USEPA

was making a finding that the State of

Indiana had failed to submit PM

contingency measures for the Lake

County PM nonattainment area. The

letter also stated that Indiana would

have 18 months from the date of the

letter to make a complete submission of

PM contingency measures before

USEPA would be mandated to impose

sanctions as identified in section 179(b)

of the amended Act. The USEPA is

currently working with IDEM to develop

the required PM contingency measures.

The USEPA will take separate

rulemaking action on the contingency

plan for the Lake County nonattainment

area.

III. USEPA’s Proposed Rulemaking

Action

USEPA is proposing to approve the

plan revision submitted to USEPA by

the State of Indiana on June 16, 1993,

and supplemented on December 9,

1993, September 8, 1994, and November

17, 1994, for the Lake County PM

nonattainment area. Among other

things, the State of Indiana has

demonstrated through modeling that the

Lake County moderate PM

nonattainment area will attain the PM

NAAQS by December 31, 1994. In

addition, a preliminary review of the

monitored air quality data for the Lake

County area shows that this area is in

attainment of the NAAQS.

As noted, additional submittals for

the initial moderate PM nonattainment

areas are due at later dates. The USEPA

will determine the adequacy of any such

submittals as appropriate.

USEPA is requesting comments on the

requested SIP revision and this

proposed rule. As indicated at the outset

of this dowment, USEPA will consider

any comments received by May 1, 1995.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget has exempted

this regulatory action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the 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, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids USEPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds. See

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A. , 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control,

Intergovernmental relations, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 21, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7718 Filed 3–30–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P