[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16591-16595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7718]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.<SUP>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.

    \1\The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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; 
[[Page 16592]] 
    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.<SUP>2

    \2\Also, Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan 
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of 
Section 110(a)(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 [[Page 16593]] 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.<SUP>3

    \3\USEPA has issued technological and economic parameters that 
should be considered in determining RACT for a particular source 
(see 57 FR 18073-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (<greek-m>g/m<SUP>3).
    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 <greek-m>g/m<SUP>3 (the 24-hour PM 
standard is 150 <greek-m>g/m<SUP>3). The final modeling also predicts 
attainment of the annual PM standard. The highest 5-year average 
predicted PM concentration is 47.7 <greek-m>g/m<SUP>3 (the standard is 
50 <greek-m>g/m<SUP>3). [[Page 16594]] 
    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 
13.1<greek-m>g/m<SUP>3 and 14.9<greek-m>g/m<SUP>3 respectively. This 
compares to an average annual background PM concentration of 
23<greek-m>g/m<SUP>3 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 [[Page 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-for-profit 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