Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0293-0007
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Final Approval of Indiana Fuel Grade Ethanol Production Rules
Posted Date: 2008-02-20T05:00Z

[Federal Register: February 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 34)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 9201-9203]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20fe08-15]                         

[[Page 9201]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0293; FRL-8529-8]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Indiana; VOC Emissions From Fuel Grade Ethanol Production Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a March 30, 2007, request from the Indiana 
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to revise the Indiana 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) by adding a volatile organic compound 
(VOC) rule for fuel grade ethanol production at dry mills as amendments 
to 326 IAC 8-5. This rule revision creates an industry-specific Best 
Available Control Technology (BACT) standard for new fuel grade ethanol 
production dry mills that replaces the otherwise required case-by-case 
SIP BACT determination for new facilities with the potential to emit 25 
tons or more of VOC per year. Indiana believes that this rule will 
increase the clarity, predictability and timeliness of its air permits 
for this particular group of sources. These rules were proposed for 
approval on September 13, 2007, and comments were received on October 
8, 2007.

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0293. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal, 
Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6052 before visiting the Region 5 
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052, rosenthal.steven@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Public Comments Were Received on the Proposed Approval and 
What Is EPA's Response?
II. What Action Is EPA Taking and What Is the Reason for This 
Action?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Public Comments Were Received on the Proposed Approval and What 
Is EPA's Response?

    EPA received three comments on its September 13, 2007, proposal 
from The Natural Resource Group (NRG), as follows:
    Comment 1. NRG is concerned that the amendments do not address 
technologies other than those specifically identified (i.e., thermal 
oxidizers, wet scrubbers, and flares). This rule should still allow a 
dry-mill ethanol plant to perform a case-by-case BACT determination if 
the facility believes that it has a technology that can achieve low VOC 
emissions without the additional capital costs and energy use required 
to control emissions with the technologies identified in the rule.
    EPA response 1. Without this rule, new facilities not regulated by 
a provision in 326 IAC Article 8 that have potential emissions of 25 
tons or more of VOC per year are required to reduce VOC emissions using 
BACT. Establishing BACT is a case-by-case determination based on the 
maximum reduction in emissions that is technically feasible, while 
taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impact. 
According to Indiana, establishing industry-specific BACT standards in 
place of case-by-case BACT will improve the clarity, predictability and 
timeliness of permit decisions involving sources that are currently 
subject to 326 IAC 8-1-6. NRG's approach would revert this rule to 
case-by-case BACT determinations for the subject ethanol plants and 
eliminate its primary purpose. In addition, if a new and superior 
technology is established for ethanol plants, Indiana has the option of 
amending this rule to allow such technology.
    Comment 2. NRG stated that the basis for the VOC destruction and 
concentration is not identified in the rule, and that in order to make 
a VOC concentration legitimate, there must be a specific test method to 
determine the concentration. It is, therefore, very important that the 
rule state a basis for the concentration limit, because the levels 
identified in the rule are not attainable under some of the potential 
bases that could be required by IDEM.
    EPA response 2. EPA agrees with NRG that a specific test method is 
needed to implement the 10 ppm and 20 ppm alternative control 
requirements for thermal oxidizers and wet scrubbers, respectively, in 
rule 326 IAC 8-5-6. After discussions with EPA, Region 5, in a December 
19, 2007, letter from Daniel Murray, Assistant Commissioner for the 
Office of Air Quality, IDEM stated that it would be acceptable to 
measure the 10 ppm and 20 ppm concentration limits using EPA Method 
25(A), expressed as equivalent ethanol, with the calibration gas being 
a mixture of ethanol in air.
    Comment 3. NRG also noted that the rule currently excludes wet-mill 
ethanol plants that steep or soak the corn in order to separate the 
kernel, presumably because the emission characteristics for such 
facilities are different from dry-mill ethanol plants and require case-
by-case determinations. According to NRG, however, technologies are 
currently in development that may allow dry-mill ethanol plants to 
separate the kernel without using a wet process. This technology has 
the potential to reduce the VOC emissions from the spent grain dryers 
due to the potential reduction in spent grain throughput. The emissions 
from dry-mill ethanol plants with dry kernel separation technology may 
be comparable to that of wet-mill ethanol plant dryers with one key 
difference; dry-mill plants will only dry the spent grain while the 
other parts of the kernel that are removed prior to fermentation can be 
further processed or shipped without drying. For this reason, NRG 
believes that this rule should also exclude dry-mill ethanol plants 
that use dry separation technologies.
    EPA response 3. The definition in 326 IAC 8-5-6(b)(1) of ``Dry 
mill'' is ``an ethanol production operation that uses the whole corn 
kernel to produce a meal that is then used to produce alcohol * * *.'' 
Because 326 IAC 8-5 does not cover dry-mill ethanol plants with dry 
kernel separation technology, NRG's concerns have been addressed.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking and What Is the Reason for This Action?

    We are approving revisions to the Indiana SIP in two areas: (1) To 
amend 326 IAC 8-5-1, Applicability of Rule; and (2) to add 326 IAC 8-5-
6, Fuel

[[Page 9202]]

Grade Ethanol Facilities. It should be noted that approval of this rule 
does not in any way affect the applicability of Nonattainment New 
Source Review or Prevention of Significant Deterioration to subject 
sources.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is 
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this 
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state 
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that 
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action 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.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    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 April 21, 2008. 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 5, 2008.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(182) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (182) On March 30, 2007, Indiana submitted final adopted revisions, 
which amend 326 IAC 8-5-1, concerning rule applicability, and add 326 
IAC 8-5-6, fuel grade ethanol production at dry mills, to its VOC rules 
as a requested revision to the Indiana state implementation plan. By 
letter of December 19, 2007, Indiana stated that it would be acceptable 
to measure the concentration limits in 326 IAC 8-5-6 using EPA Method 
25(a) expressed as equivalent ethanol with the calibration gas being a 
mixture of ethanol in air. EPA is approving these revisions, 
authorizing Indiana to establish an

[[Page 9203]]

industry-specific State BACT standard for fuel grade ethanol production 
at dry mill facilities that emit 25 tons or more of VOC per year.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. The following sections of the 
Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) are incorporated by reference. 326 
IAC 8-5-1, ``Applicability of Rule'', and 326 IAC 8-5-6 ``Fuel Grade 
Ethanol Production at Dry Mills''. Approved by the Attorney General 
February 16, 2007. Approved by the Governor February 16, 2007. Filed 
with the Publisher February 20, 2007. Published on the Indiana Register 
Web site March 21, 2007, Document Identification Number (DIN):20070321-
IR-326050197FRA. Effective March 22, 2007.
    (ii) Additional materials. A December 19, 2007, letter from Daniel 
Murray, Assistant Commissioner of the Indiana Department of 
Environmental management, Office of Air Quality, which states that it 
would be acceptable to measure the concentration limits in 326 IAC 8-5-
6 using EPA Method 25(a) expressed as equivalent ethanol with the 
calibration gas being a mixture of ethanol in air.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-2893 Filed 2-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P