Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana, 42495-42499 [05-14601]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 141 / Monday, July 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this
rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. This proposed rule fits
paragraph 34(g) as it suspends a portion
of an existing safety and security zone
and adds a temporary safety and
security zone.
A final ‘‘Environmental Analysis
Check List’’ and a final ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ will be
available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
I
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226 and 1231; 46
U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
§ 165.160
2. Suspend paragraphs(a)(2) and (b)
within § 165.160 from July 8, 2005 to
January 8, 2006.
I 3. Add temporary § 165.T01–072 from
July 8, 2005 to January 8, 2006 to read
as follows:
§ 165.T01–072 Safety and Security Zone:
Designated Vessels, New York Captain of
the Port Zone.
(a) Location. The following areas are
safety and security zones: All waters of
the New York Marine Inspection Zone
and Captain of the Port Zone within a
100-yard radius of any Designated
Vessels.
(b) Designated Vessels (DVs). For the
purposes of this section, Designated
Vessels include: Ferries, as defined in
46 CFR 2.10–25, that are certificated to
carry 150 or more passengers; other
vessels certificated to carry 150 or more
14:59 Jul 22, 2005
Dated: July 8, 2005.
Glenn A. Wiltshire,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, New York.
[FR Doc. 05–14588 Filed 7–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Amended]
I
VerDate jul<14>2003
passengers; vessels carrying government
officials or dignitaries requiring
protection by the U.S. Secret Service, or
other Federal, State or local law
enforcement agency; and barges or ships
carrying petroleum products, chemicals,
or other hazardous cargo.
(c) Regulations. (1) The general
regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23
and 165.33 apply.
(2) All persons and vessels must
comply with the Coast Guard Captain of
the Port or designated on-scene patrol
personnel. On-scene Coast Guard patrol
personnel include commissioned,
warrant, and petty officers of the Coast
Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast
Guard Auxiliary, and local, state, and
federal law enforcement vessels. Upon
being hailed by siren, radio, flashing
light or other means from a U.S. Coast
Guard vessel or other vessel with onscene patrol personnel aboard, the
operator of the vessel shall proceed as
directed.
(3) The Captain of the Port will notify
the maritime community of periods
during which these zones will be
enforced by methods in accordance with
33 CFR 165.7.
(d) Effective Dates. This rule will be
enforced from July 8, 2005 to January 8,
2006.
Jkt 205001
[R05–OAR–2004–IN–0001; FRL–7930–9]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Indiana
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: On July 9, 2002, the Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a
request that EPA approve a revision to
its process weight rate rule into the
Indiana State Implementation Plan
(SIP). The revision clarifies rule
applicability, corrects incorrect weights
presented in the process weight rate
table included in the rule, allows certain
sources to demonstrate compliance with
the rule by adopting and substituting
work standard practices, clarifies the
definitions of particulate and particulate
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42495
matter, and reduces duplicative
recordkeeping requirements contained
in the rule. EPA is approving the State’s
request.
DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ rule is
effective on September 23, 2005, unless
EPA receives adverse written comments
by August 24, 2005. If EPA receives
adverse comment, it will publish a
timely withdrawal of the rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
Submit comments, identified by
Regional Material in EDocket (RME) ID
No. R05–OAR–2004–IN–0001, by one of
the following methods: Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Regional RME,
EPA’s electronic public docket and
comments system, is EPA’s preferred
method for receiving comments. Once
in the system, select ‘‘quick search,’’
then key in the appropriate RME Docket
identification number. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
Fax: (312) 886–5824.
Mail: You may send written
comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
Hand delivery: Deliver your
comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office’s normal
hours of operation. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
RME ID No. R05–OAR–2004–IN–0001.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through RME, regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and
the federal regulations.gov Web site are
‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
42496
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 141 / Monday, July 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through RME or
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section I of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of the related proposed rule which is
published in the Proposed Rules section
of this Federal Register.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the RME
index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in RME or
in hard copy at Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. We
recommend that you telephone Christos
Panos, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
353–8328 before visiting the Region 5
office. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christos Panos, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8328;
panos.christos@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document
and Other Related Information?
C. How and To Whom Do I Submit
Comments?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Changes Did the State Include in
This Sip Revision Request and What Is
EPA’s Analysis of These Revisions?
IV. Rulemaking Action
V. Did Indiana Hold a Public Hearing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:59 Jul 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
This action is rulemaking on a
revision to the process weight rate rules
in the Indiana SIP. The rules establish
limitations for particulate emissions
from manufacturing processes in
Indiana.
B. How Can I Get Copies of This
Document and Other Related
Information?
1. The Regional Office has established
an electronic public rulemaking file
available for inspection at RME under
ID No. R05–OAR–2004–IN–0001, and a
hard copy file which is available for
inspection at the Regional Office. The
official public file consists of the
documents specifically referenced in
this action, any public comments
received, and other information related
to this action. Although a part of the
official docket, the public rulemaking
file does not include CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. The official public
rulemaking file is the collection of
materials that is available for public
viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air
and Radiation Division, EPA Region 5,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. EPA requests that, if at
all possible, you contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The Regional Office’s
official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
excluding Federal holidays.
2. Electronic Access. You may access
this Federal Register document
electronically through the
regulations.gov Web site located at
https://www.regulations.gov where you
can find, review, and submit comments
on Federal rules that have been
published in the Federal Register, the
Government’s legal newspaper, and that
are open for comment.
For public commenters, it is
important to note that EPA’s policy is
that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public
viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as
EPA receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. When EPA
identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide
a reference to that material in the
version of the comment that is placed in
the official public rulemaking file. The
entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
at the Regional Office for public
inspection.
C. How and To Whom Do I Submit
Comments?
You may submit comments
electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper
receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
rulemaking identification number by
including the text ‘‘Public comment on
proposed rulemaking Region 5 Air
Docket R05–OAR–2004–IN–0001’’ in
the subject line on the first page of your
comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment
period will be marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not
required to consider these late
comments.
For detailed instructions on
submitting public comments and on
what to consider as you prepare your
comments see the ADDRESSES section
and the section I General Information of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of the related proposed rule which is
published in the Proposed Rules section
of this Federal Register.
II. What Is the Background for This
Action?
On July 9, 2002, the State of Indiana
submitted a requested revision to the
Indiana SIP. These amendments
concern Title 326 of the Indiana
Administrative Code (326 IAC) 6–3, the
State’s process weight rate rule. The
main purposes of the rule amendments
were to:
(1) Clarify rule applicability by
narrowing the definition of ‘‘process’’ to
manufacturing processes and by
expanding the list of exempted sources;
(2) Correct incorrect weights
presented in the process weight rate
table included in this rule;
(3) Substitute work standard practices
for surface coating manufacturing
processes instead of demonstrating
compliance with the emission factor
derived from the process weight rate
table;
(4) Clarify the definitions of
‘‘particulate’’ and ‘‘particulate matter’’;
and
(5) Reduce duplicative record keeping
requirements.
These changes are discussed in
greater detail below.
III. What Changes Did the State Include
in This Sip Revision Request and What
Is EPA’s Analysis of These Revisions?
Rule 326 IAC 6–3–1
Applicability
In section 1(a), the new term
‘‘manufacturing processes’’ has been
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 141 / Monday, July 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
substituted for the term ‘‘process
operations’’ in the earlier version of the
rule. The term ‘‘manufacturing
processes’’ is defined to consist of
processes that are associated with the
production of a product, as opposed to
things such as maintenance and
housekeeping activities.
This definition change clarifies
IDEM’s original intent in promulgating
the rule. Thus, ‘‘manufacturing process’’
encompasses all of the sources and
activities of the former definition of
‘‘process.’’ The State made this change
to increase the rule’s precision and to
distinguish the term ‘‘manufacturing
process’’ from the term ‘‘process’’ in 326
IAC 1–2–58. This revision will neither
add to nor delete sources that are
currently subject to 326 IAC Article 6.
Section 1(b) adds additional
manufacturing process exemptions for
the following sources: (1) For dip
coating, roll coating, flow coating and
brush coating processes subject to the
requirements of 326 IAC 11–1, (2) for
welding using less than 635 pounds of
rod or wire per day, (3) for torch cutting
using less than 3,400 inches per hour of
stock one inch or less in diameter, (4)
for noncontact cooling tower systems,
(5) for applications of aerosol coating
products used to repair minor surface
damage and imperfections, (6) for trivial
activities as defined in 326 IAC 2–7–
1(40),1 (7) for manufacturing processes
with potential emissions less than .0551
pounds per hour, and (8) for surface
coating manufacturing processes not
listed in (1) above that use less than 5
gallons per day.
All but five of these exemptions are
for sources whose emissions Indiana
considers to be ‘‘de minimis,’’ i.e., with
potential emissions less than 0.551
pound/hour. Combustion for indirect
heating, incineration, open burning and
foundry cupolas are regulated in other
sections of the SIP. According to IDEM,
noncontact cooling tower systems are
inherently compliant under the
equation used to determine emission
rates in 326 IAC 6–3–2(e).
Revised Section 1(c) states that Rule
326 IAC 6–3–1 shall not apply if a
particulate matter limitation established
in a new source permit or other rule is
more stringent.
326 IAC 6–3–1.5 Definitions
This new section of this rule contains
definitions for ‘‘aerosol coating
products,’’ ‘‘manufacturing process,’’
‘‘particulate,’’ ‘‘particulate matter’’ and
1 This section defines particulate matter
emissions with an aerodynamic diameter less than
or equal to ten (10) micrometers (PM10) and
potential uncontrolled emissions that are equal to
or less than one (1) pound per day as trivial.
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:59 Jul 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
42497
326 IAC 2–7, 326 IAC 2–8 or 326 IAC
2–9.
Revised Section 2(d)(4) exempts
surface coating manufacturing processes
326 IAC 6–3–2 Particulate Emission
that use less than five gallons of coating
Limitations, Work Practices, and Control per day, as defined in 326 IAC 1(b)(15)
Technologies
of this rule. If coating application rates
increase to greater than five gallons per
Revised Section 2(a) states that any
day, at any time, control devices must
manufacturing process listed in
be in place. A manufacturing process
subsections (b) through (d) shall follow
that is subject to this subsection shall
the stated work practices and control
remain subject to it notwithstanding any
technologies. All other manufacturing
subsequent decrease in gallons of
processes subject to rule 326 IAC 6–3
coating used.
shall calculate emission limitations
Revised Section 2(e) provides that
according to requirements in
manufacturing processes, to which
subsection(e). Subsection (a) also
control measures listed in subsections
provides for the calculation of a
(b) through (d) above do not apply, shall
particulate emission limit based on the
calculate allowable emissions utilizing
following equation: E=8.6P0.67 for
the process weight rate table
cement manufacturing kilns
incorporated in this subsection of the
commencing operation prior to
rule. The allowable rate of emission
December 6, 1968 and with process
shall be based on the process weight
weight equal to or below 30 tons per
hour. If process weight is greater than 30 rate for a manufacturing process. When
the process weight rate is less than 100
tons per hour, the emission limit is
pounds per hour, the allowable rate of
based on the following equation:
E=15.0P0.50, where E is the Emission rate emissions is 0.551 pound per hour.
in pounds per hour and P is the process When the process weight rate exceeds
200 tons per hour, the allowable
weight rate in tons per hour.
emission may exceed that shown in the
Revised Section 2(c) provides that
table, provided the concentration of
catalytic cracking units commencing
particulate in the discharge gasses to the
operation prior to December 6, 1968 and
atmosphere is less than 0.10 pound per
equipped with cyclone separators,
1,000 pounds of gasses.
electrostatic precipitators or other gasEPA has reviewed these rule revisions
cleaning systems shall recover 99.97%
and determined that incorporating them
or more of the circulating catalyst or
into the Indiana SIP is appropriate. The
total gas-borne particulate.
changes made to the rules are minor in
Revised Section 2(d) provides that
scope. They clarify rule applicability,
surface coating, reinforced plastics
correct incorrect weights presented in
composites fabricating manufacturing
the process weight rate table included in
processes and graphic arts
the rule, allow certain sources to
manufacturing processes shall be
demonstrate compliance with the rule
controlled by a dry particulate filter,
by adopting and substituting work
waterwash, or an equivalent control
standard practices, clarify the
device subject to: (1) Operation in
definitions of particulate and particulate
accordance with manufacturer’s
matter, and reduce duplicative record
specifications; and (2) if overspray is
keeping requirements contained in the
visibly detected at the exhaust or
rule.
accumulates on the ground, the source
Indiana did not intend for lowshall inspect the control device and
emitting processes to be subject to the
either repair it or operate it so that no
original process weight rule. These
overspray is visibly detectable. If
source do not jeopardize the PM
overspray is detected, the source shall
National Ambient Air Quality
maintain a record of the action taken as
Standards, nor are they subject to
a result of the inspection, any repairs of Prevention of Significant Deterioration,
the control device, or change in
New Source Review, or other State
operations so that overspray is not
permitting requirements. Applying this
visibly detected. These records must be
rule to such small sources would
maintained for 5 years. The significant
impose unreasonable administrative and
change in 2(d) is that the rule
compliance burdens on these sources.
acknowledges that if overspray is
IV. Rulemaking Action
detected a repair may be unnecessary,
where an operating change can
For the reasons stated above, EPA
eliminate the overspray.
approves the incorporation into the
Indiana SIP of 326 IAC 6–3–1, 6–3–1.5
Revised Section 2(d)(3) exempts
and 6–3–2. We are publishing this
sources from the requirements of
action without prior proposal because
Section 2(d)(2) so long as they operate
according to a valid permit issued under we view this as a noncontroversial
‘‘surface coating.’’ These definitions are
to be used if there is a conflict between
326 IAC 6–3 and 326 IAC 1–2.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
42498
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 141 / Monday, July 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register
publication, we are publishing a
separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the state plan if
relevant adverse written comments are
filed. This rule will be effective
September 23, 2005 without further
notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by August
24, 2005. If we receive such comments,
we will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA
will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so
at this time. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective
September 23, 2005.
V. Did Indiana Hold a Public Hearing?
The State of Indiana Air Pollution
Control Board (Board) held three public
hearings on these rule revisions. Four
commenters provided testimony at the
first public hearing held on April 12,
2001. Seven commenters provided
testimony at the second public hearing
held on August 1, 2001. These
comments led to revisions of the rule
which was then presented to the Board
for final adoption at the third public
hearing held on February 6, 2002.
Although two commenters provided
testimony at this hearing, the Board
determined that these comments were
previously addressed and warranted no
further action.
VI. 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 That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
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).
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:59 Jul 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 preexisting 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
(59 FR 22951, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 September 23,
2005. 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, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 141 / Monday, July 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: June 16, 2005.
Margaret Guerriero,
Acting 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:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart P—Indiana
2. Section 52.770 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(160) to read as
follows:
I
§ 52.770
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(160) On July 9, 2002, Indiana
submitted revised process weight rate
rules as a requested revision to the
Indiana State Implementation Plan. The
changes clarify rule applicability,
correct errors in the process weight rate
table, allow sources to substitute work
standard practices instead of the process
weight rate table. They clarify the
definitions of particulate and particulate
matter. They also reduce duplicative
recordkeeping.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Indiana Administrative Code Title
326: Air Pollution Control Board,
Article 6: Particulate Rules Rule 3:
Particulate Emission Limitations for
Manufacturing Process. 6–3–1
Applicability, 6–3–1.5 Definitions and
6–3–2 Particulate emission limitations,
work practices, and control
technologies. Adopted by the Indiana
Air Pollution Control Board on February
6, 2002. Filed with the Secretary of State
May 13, 2002, effective June 12, 2002.
[FR Doc. 05–14601 Filed 7–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW–FRL–7940–3]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
submitted by Bayer Material Science
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:59 Jul 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
LLC (Bayer) to exclude (or delist) a
certain liquid waste generated by its
Baytown, TX plant from the lists of
hazardous wastes. This final rule
responds to the petition submitted by
Bayer to delist K027, K104, K111, and
K112 treated effluent generated from the
facility’s waste water treatment plant.
After careful analysis and use of the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) EPA has concluded the
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste.
This exclusion applies to 18,071,150
cubic yards (5.745 billion gallons) per
year of the Outfall 007 Treated Effluent.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) when discharged
in accordance with the facility’s TPDES
permit.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for
viewing in EPA Freedom of Information
Act review room on the 7th floor from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call
(214) 665–6444 for appointments. The
reference number for this docket is [R6–
TXDEL–FY04–BAYER]. The public may
copy material from any regulatory
docket at no cost for the first 100 pages
and at a cost of $0.15 per page for
additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben
Banipal, Section Chief of the Corrective
Action and Waste Minimization
Section, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division (6PD–C),
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202.
For technical information concerning
this document, contact Michelle Peace,
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, (6PD–C),
Dallas, Texas 75202, at (214) 665–7430,
or peace.michelle@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
C. What Are the Limits of This Exclusion?
D. How Will Bayer Manage the Waste if It
Is Delisted?
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion
Effective?
F. How Does This Final Rule Affect States?
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities to
Delist a Waste?
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
42499
C. What Information Must the Generator
Supply?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Bayer Petition EPA To
Delist?
B. How Much Waste Did Bayer Propose To
Delist?
C. How Did Bayer Sample and Analyze the
Waste Data in This Petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
A. Who Submitted Comments on the
Proposed Rule?
B. What Were the Comments and What Are
EPA’s Responses to Them?
V. Regulatory Impact
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
VIII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
IX. Executive Order 13045
X. Executive Order 13084
XI. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
XII. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
XIII. Executive Order 13211
XIV. Executive Order 12988
XV. Congressional Review Act
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
After evaluating the petition, EPA
proposed, on October 4, 2004 to exclude
the waste from the lists of hazardous
waste under 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32
(see 69 FR 59156). EPA is finalizing the
decision to grant Bayer’s delisting
petition to have its Outfall 007 Treated
Effluent generated from treating waste
waters at the plant subject to certain
continued verification and monitoring
conditions.
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
Bayer’s petition requests a delisting
from the K027, K104, K111, and K112,
waste listings under 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22. Bayer does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for
which EPA listed it. Bayer also believes
no additional constituents or factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
EPA’s review of this petition included
consideration of the original listing
criteria and the additional factors
required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984. See section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and
40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4) (hereinafter all
sectional references are to 40 CFR
unless otherwise indicated). In making
the final delisting determination, EPA
evaluated the petitioned waste against
the listing criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this
review, EPA agrees with the petitioner
that the waste is nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. If
EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42495-42499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14601]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R05-OAR-2004-IN-0001; FRL-7930-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 9, 2002, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a request that EPA approve a revision to
its process weight rate rule into the Indiana State Implementation Plan
(SIP). The revision clarifies rule applicability, corrects incorrect
weights presented in the process weight rate table included in the
rule, allows certain sources to demonstrate compliance with the rule by
adopting and substituting work standard practices, clarifies the
definitions of particulate and particulate matter, and reduces
duplicative recordkeeping requirements contained in the rule. EPA is
approving the State's request.
DATES: This ``direct final'' rule is effective on September 23, 2005,
unless EPA receives adverse written comments by August 24, 2005. If EPA
receives adverse comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will
not take effect.
Submit comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket (RME)
ID No. R05-OAR-2004-IN-0001, by one of the following methods: Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Regional RME, EPA's
electronic public docket and comments system, is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Once in the system, select ``quick search,''
then key in the appropriate RME Docket identification number. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
Fax: (312) 886-5824.
Mail: You may send written comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Hand delivery: Deliver your comments to: John M. Mooney, Chief,
Criteria Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to RME ID No. R05-OAR-2004-IN-
0001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through RME, regulations.gov,
or e-mail. The EPA RME Web site and the federal regulations.gov Web
site are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment.
[[Page 42496]]
If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through RME
or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to
Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the related
proposed rule which is published in the Proposed Rules section of this
Federal Register.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
RME index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in RME
or in hard copy at Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
We recommend that you telephone Christos Panos, Environmental Engineer,
at (312) 353-8328 before visiting the Region 5 office. This Facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christos Panos, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8328;
panos.christos@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related
Information?
C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Changes Did the State Include in This Sip Revision Request
and What Is EPA's Analysis of These Revisions?
IV. Rulemaking Action
V. Did Indiana Hold a Public Hearing?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
This action is rulemaking on a revision to the process weight rate
rules in the Indiana SIP. The rules establish limitations for
particulate emissions from manufacturing processes in Indiana.
B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?
1. The Regional Office has established an electronic public
rulemaking file available for inspection at RME under ID No. R05-OAR-
2004-IN-0001, and a hard copy file which is available for inspection at
the Regional Office. The official public file consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. Although a part of the
official docket, the public rulemaking file does not include CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The
official public rulemaking file is the collection of materials that is
available for public viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the regulations.gov Web site located at https://
www.regulations.gov where you can find, review, and submit comments on
Federal rules that have been published in the Federal Register, the
Government's legal newspaper, and that are open for comment.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office,
as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in
the version of the comment that is placed in the official public
rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted
material, will be available at the Regional Office for public
inspection.
C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text
``Public comment on proposed rulemaking Region 5 Air Docket R05-OAR-
2004-IN-0001'' in the subject line on the first page of your comment.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
For detailed instructions on submitting public comments and on what
to consider as you prepare your comments see the ADDRESSES section and
the section I General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of the related proposed rule which is published in the Proposed
Rules section of this Federal Register.
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
On July 9, 2002, the State of Indiana submitted a requested
revision to the Indiana SIP. These amendments concern Title 326 of the
Indiana Administrative Code (326 IAC) 6-3, the State's process weight
rate rule. The main purposes of the rule amendments were to:
(1) Clarify rule applicability by narrowing the definition of
``process'' to manufacturing processes and by expanding the list of
exempted sources;
(2) Correct incorrect weights presented in the process weight rate
table included in this rule;
(3) Substitute work standard practices for surface coating
manufacturing processes instead of demonstrating compliance with the
emission factor derived from the process weight rate table;
(4) Clarify the definitions of ``particulate'' and ``particulate
matter''; and
(5) Reduce duplicative record keeping requirements.
These changes are discussed in greater detail below.
III. What Changes Did the State Include in This Sip Revision Request
and What Is EPA's Analysis of These Revisions?
Rule 326 IAC 6-3-1 Applicability
In section 1(a), the new term ``manufacturing processes'' has been
[[Page 42497]]
substituted for the term ``process operations'' in the earlier version
of the rule. The term ``manufacturing processes'' is defined to consist
of processes that are associated with the production of a product, as
opposed to things such as maintenance and housekeeping activities.
This definition change clarifies IDEM's original intent in
promulgating the rule. Thus, ``manufacturing process'' encompasses all
of the sources and activities of the former definition of ``process.''
The State made this change to increase the rule's precision and to
distinguish the term ``manufacturing process'' from the term
``process'' in 326 IAC 1-2-58. This revision will neither add to nor
delete sources that are currently subject to 326 IAC Article 6.
Section 1(b) adds additional manufacturing process exemptions for
the following sources: (1) For dip coating, roll coating, flow coating
and brush coating processes subject to the requirements of 326 IAC 11-
1, (2) for welding using less than 635 pounds of rod or wire per day,
(3) for torch cutting using less than 3,400 inches per hour of stock
one inch or less in diameter, (4) for noncontact cooling tower systems,
(5) for applications of aerosol coating products used to repair minor
surface damage and imperfections, (6) for trivial activities as defined
in 326 IAC 2-7-1(40),\1\ (7) for manufacturing processes with potential
emissions less than .0551 pounds per hour, and (8) for surface coating
manufacturing processes not listed in (1) above that use less than 5
gallons per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This section defines particulate matter emissions with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to ten (10) micrometers
(PM10) and potential uncontrolled emissions that are
equal to or less than one (1) pound per day as trivial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All but five of these exemptions are for sources whose emissions
Indiana considers to be ``de minimis,'' i.e., with potential emissions
less than 0.551 pound/hour. Combustion for indirect heating,
incineration, open burning and foundry cupolas are regulated in other
sections of the SIP. According to IDEM, noncontact cooling tower
systems are inherently compliant under the equation used to determine
emission rates in 326 IAC 6-3-2(e).
Revised Section 1(c) states that Rule 326 IAC 6-3-1 shall not apply
if a particulate matter limitation established in a new source permit
or other rule is more stringent.
326 IAC 6-3-1.5 Definitions
This new section of this rule contains definitions for ``aerosol
coating products,'' ``manufacturing process,'' ``particulate,''
``particulate matter'' and ``surface coating.'' These definitions are
to be used if there is a conflict between 326 IAC 6-3 and 326 IAC 1-2.
326 IAC 6-3-2 Particulate Emission Limitations, Work Practices, and
Control Technologies
Revised Section 2(a) states that any manufacturing process listed
in subsections (b) through (d) shall follow the stated work practices
and control technologies. All other manufacturing processes subject to
rule 326 IAC 6-3 shall calculate emission limitations according to
requirements in subsection(e). Subsection (a) also provides for the
calculation of a particulate emission limit based on the following
equation: E=8.6P0.67 for cement manufacturing kilns
commencing operation prior to December 6, 1968 and with process weight
equal to or below 30 tons per hour. If process weight is greater than
30 tons per hour, the emission limit is based on the following
equation: E=15.0P0.50, where E is the Emission rate in
pounds per hour and P is the process weight rate in tons per hour.
Revised Section 2(c) provides that catalytic cracking units
commencing operation prior to December 6, 1968 and equipped with
cyclone separators, electrostatic precipitators or other gas-cleaning
systems shall recover 99.97% or more of the circulating catalyst or
total gas-borne particulate.
Revised Section 2(d) provides that surface coating, reinforced
plastics composites fabricating manufacturing processes and graphic
arts manufacturing processes shall be controlled by a dry particulate
filter, waterwash, or an equivalent control device subject to: (1)
Operation in accordance with manufacturer's specifications; and (2) if
overspray is visibly detected at the exhaust or accumulates on the
ground, the source shall inspect the control device and either repair
it or operate it so that no overspray is visibly detectable. If
overspray is detected, the source shall maintain a record of the action
taken as a result of the inspection, any repairs of the control device,
or change in operations so that overspray is not visibly detected.
These records must be maintained for 5 years. The significant change in
2(d) is that the rule acknowledges that if overspray is detected a
repair may be unnecessary, where an operating change can eliminate the
overspray.
Revised Section 2(d)(3) exempts sources from the requirements of
Section 2(d)(2) so long as they operate according to a valid permit
issued under 326 IAC 2-7, 326 IAC 2-8 or 326 IAC 2-9.
Revised Section 2(d)(4) exempts surface coating manufacturing
processes that use less than five gallons of coating per day, as
defined in 326 IAC 1(b)(15) of this rule. If coating application rates
increase to greater than five gallons per day, at any time, control
devices must be in place. A manufacturing process that is subject to
this subsection shall remain subject to it notwithstanding any
subsequent decrease in gallons of coating used.
Revised Section 2(e) provides that manufacturing processes, to
which control measures listed in subsections (b) through (d) above do
not apply, shall calculate allowable emissions utilizing the process
weight rate table incorporated in this subsection of the rule. The
allowable rate of emission shall be based on the process weight rate
for a manufacturing process. When the process weight rate is less than
100 pounds per hour, the allowable rate of emissions is 0.551 pound per
hour. When the process weight rate exceeds 200 tons per hour, the
allowable emission may exceed that shown in the table, provided the
concentration of particulate in the discharge gasses to the atmosphere
is less than 0.10 pound per 1,000 pounds of gasses.
EPA has reviewed these rule revisions and determined that
incorporating them into the Indiana SIP is appropriate. The changes
made to the rules are minor in scope. They clarify rule applicability,
correct incorrect weights presented in the process weight rate table
included in the rule, allow certain sources to demonstrate compliance
with the rule by adopting and substituting work standard practices,
clarify the definitions of particulate and particulate matter, and
reduce duplicative record keeping requirements contained in the rule.
Indiana did not intend for low-emitting processes to be subject to
the original process weight rule. These source do not jeopardize the PM
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, nor are they subject to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration, New Source Review, or other
State permitting requirements. Applying this rule to such small sources
would impose unreasonable administrative and compliance burdens on
these sources.
IV. Rulemaking Action
For the reasons stated above, EPA approves the incorporation into
the Indiana SIP of 326 IAC 6-3-1, 6-3-1.5 and 6-3-2. We are publishing
this action without prior proposal because we view this as a
noncontroversial
[[Page 42498]]
amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a
separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the state
plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be
effective September 23, 2005 without further notice unless we receive
relevant adverse written comments by August 24, 2005. If we receive
such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date
by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final
action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective September 23, 2005.
V. Did Indiana Hold a Public Hearing?
The State of Indiana Air Pollution Control Board (Board) held three
public hearings on these rule revisions. Four commenters provided
testimony at the first public hearing held on April 12, 2001. Seven
commenters provided testimony at the second public hearing held on
August 1, 2001. These comments led to revisions of the rule which was
then presented to the Board for final adoption at the third public
hearing held on February 6, 2002. Although two commenters provided
testimony at this hearing, the Board determined that these comments
were previously addressed and warranted no further action.
VI. 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 That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy 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 (59
FR 22951, 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 September 23, 2005. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 42499]]
Dated: June 16, 2005.
Margaret Guerriero,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
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]
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)(160) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(160) On July 9, 2002, Indiana submitted revised process weight
rate rules as a requested revision to the Indiana State Implementation
Plan. The changes clarify rule applicability, correct errors in the
process weight rate table, allow sources to substitute work standard
practices instead of the process weight rate table. They clarify the
definitions of particulate and particulate matter. They also reduce
duplicative recordkeeping.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6: Particulate Rules Rule 3: Particulate Emission
Limitations for Manufacturing Process. 6-3-1 Applicability, 6-3-1.5
Definitions and 6-3-2 Particulate emission limitations, work practices,
and control technologies. Adopted by the Indiana Air Pollution Control
Board on February 6, 2002. Filed with the Secretary of State May 13,
2002, effective June 12, 2002.
[FR Doc. 05-14601 Filed 7-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
