[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-29473]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA is approving revisions to particulate matter (PM)
emissions regulations for Union Tank Car's railcar manufacturing
facility located in Lake County, Indiana. The Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted the revised regulations to
EPA on April 30, 2002 and September 6, 2002 as an amendment to
Indiana's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions consist of
relaxing the PM limits for one emissions unit; however, actual
emissions will not increase, and the PM National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) should be protected. EPA is approving revisions for
Union Tank Car because complying with the current limits is infeasible,
and because the revisions should not harm air quality.
DATES: This rule is effective on January 21, 2003, unless the EPA
receives relevant adverse written comments by December 20, 2002. If EPA
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the
rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: You should mail written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
You may inspect copies of Indiana's submittal at: Regulation
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone: (312) 886-6524, E-Mail:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' are used we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is the EPA approving?
II. What Are the changes from the current rule?
III. What is the EPA's analysis of the supporting materials?
IV. What are the environmental effects of these actions?
V. What rulemaking actions are the EPA taking?
VI. Administrative requirements.
I. What Is the EPA Approving?
The EPA is approving revisions to the particulate matter emissions
regulations for Union Tank Car, which operates a railcar manufacturing
facility in Lake County, Indiana. IDEM submitted the revisions to EPA
on April 30, 2002 and September 6, 2002 as an amendment to Indiana's
SIP at 326 IAC 6-1-10.1.
II. What Are the Changes From the Current Rule?
IDEM changed the emission limits for particulate matter less than
10 [mu]m in diameter (PM-10) at the grit blasting unit from 0.002
pounds per ton (lbs/ton) to 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot
(gr/dscf), and from 0.020 to 9.9 pounds per hour (lb/hr). IDEM changed
the units from pounds per ton to grains per dry standard cubic foot
because grains per dry standard cubic foot can be measured directly.
The new limit of 9.9 lb/hr results from the unit emitting 0.01 gr/dscf
when operated at 117,000 actual cubic feet per minute (acf/min). IDEM
revised emission limits because the previous limits were far more
stringent than the limits for similar sources; and were not feasible.
III. What Is the EPA's Analysis of the Supporting Materials?
Indiana submitted a letter to EPA on May 6, 2002, in which it
stated that meeting the current PM-10 limits is infeasible for the
Union Tank Car grit blaster or any other similar sources. In that
letter, Indiana noted that the present limit of 0.020 lb/hr is
equivalent to 0.00039 gr/acf. Indiana stated that the Union Tank Car
limits are 100 times more stringent than those that apply to similar
Lake County, Indiana sources. The letter also indicated that the actual
PM-10 emissions from Union Tank Car will not increase as a result of
this regulatory change.
IV. What Are the Environmental Effects of These Actions?
Particulate matter interferes with lung function when inhaled.
Exposure to PM can cause heart and lung disease. PM also aggravates
asthma. Airborne particulate is the main source of haze that causes a
reduction in visibility. It also is deposited on the ground and in the
water. This harms the environment by changing the nutrient and chemical
Although Union Tank Car's allowable PM-10 emission limits are being
relaxed, its actual emissions will not increase. Indiana included the
company's actual emissions in the Lake County PM-10 modeling analysis,
which EPA approved on June 15, 1995 (60 FR 31412). In the Lake County
modeling analysis, Indiana showed that the PM-10 NAAQS will be
protected with Union Tank Car's current emission levels. Therefore,
this SIP revision should not harm air quality.
V. What Rulemaking Actions Are the EPA taking?
The EPA is approving, through direct final rulemaking, revisions to
the particulate matter emissions regulations for Union Tank Car in Lake
County, Indiana. The new PM-10 emission limits for the grit blasting
are 0.01 gr/dscf and 9.9 lb/hr.
We are publishing this action without a prior proposal because we
view these as noncontroversial revisions and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed.
This rule will be effective on January 21, 2003 without further notice
unless we receive relevant adverse written comment by December 20,
If the EPA receives adverse written comment, we will publish a final
rule informing the public that this rule will not take effect. We will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. The EPA does not intend to institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on these
actions must do so at this time.
VI. Administrative Requirements
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. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Effect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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.). 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).
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). 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. 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
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. 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.).
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.
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 January 21, 2003. 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.
Dated: October 15, 2002.
David A. Ullrich,
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:
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(153) to read
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(153) On April 30, 2002 and September 6, 2002, Indiana submitted
revised particulate matter regulations for Union Tank Car's railcar
manufacturing facility in Lake County, Indiana. The submittal amends
326 IAC 6-1-10.1. The revisions consist of relaxing the limits for the
grit blaster. The new limits are 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic
foot and 9.9 pounds per hour.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
Amendments to Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution
Control Board, Article 6: Particulate Rules, Rule 1: Non-attainment
Area Limitations, Section 10.1: Lake County PM10 emission
requirements. Filed with the Secretary of State on July 26, 2002 and
effective on August 25, 2002. Published in 25 Indiana Register 4076 on
September 1, 2002.
[FR Doc. 02-29473 Filed 11-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P