```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14025-14030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05953]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969; EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0704; FRL-9943-76-Region 5]

Indiana; Ohio; Wisconsin; Disapproval of Interstate Transport 
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
disapprove elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from 
Indiana and Ohio regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 
110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS), and to partially approve and partially 
disapprove elements of the SIP submission from Wisconsin addressing the 
same requirements. The infrastructure requirements are designed to 
ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality 
management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities 
under the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure 
requirements concerning interstate transport provisions. Ohio, Indiana, 
and Wisconsin made SIP submissions that, among other things, certified 
that their existing SIPs were sufficient to meet the interstate 
transport infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA 
is proposing to disapprove portions of submissions from Indiana and 
Ohio, and to partially approve and partially disapprove a portion of 
Wisconsin's submission addressing these requirements.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before 
April 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0969 (Indiana and Ohio) and EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0704 (Wisconsin) 
at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. 
For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of 
submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is

[[Page 14026]]

restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must 
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered 
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you 
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment 
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, 
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission 
methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-9401, arra.sarah@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. Background
II. EPA's Review
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    This rulemaking addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements 
in three infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the applicable 
infrastructure requirements with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS: a 
December 12, 2011, submission from the Indiana Department of 
Environmental Management (IDEM), clarified in a May 24, 2012, letter; a 
December 27, 2012, submission from the Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency (Ohio EPA); and a June 20, 2013, submission from the Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), clarified in a January 28, 
2015, letter.
    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type 
arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), 
states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter 
period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a 
national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision 
thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the 
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The 
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP 
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not 
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new 
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address. EPA 
commonly refers to such state plans as ``infrastructure SIPs.''
    This rulemaking proposes action on three CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements of these submissions. In particular, 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state 
from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS (``prong 
one''), or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (``prong two''), 
by any another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that 
infrastructure SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other 
type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures 
required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality 
(``prong three'') and to protect visibility (``prong four'') in another 
state. This rulemaking addresses prongs one, two, and four of this CAA 
section. The majority of the other infrastructure elements were 
approved in rulemakings on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23713) for Indiana; 
October 16, 2014 (79 FR 62019) for Ohio; and September 11, 2015 (80 FR 
54725) for Wisconsin.

II. EPA's Review

    On September 13, 2013, EPA issued ``Guidance on Infrastructure 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections 
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 Guidance). This guidance provides, 
among other things, recommendations on the development of 
infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ As noted in the 2013 
Guidance, pursuant to CAA section 110(a), states must provide 
reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all 
infrastructure SIP submissions. IDEM, Ohio EPA, and WDNR provided 
public comment opportunities on their SIP submissions. In this action 
of proposed rulemaking, EPA is also soliciting comment on our 
evaluation of each state's infrastructure SIP submission. The states 
summarized how various components of their SIPs met each of the 
applicable requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 
as applicable. The following review evaluates only the state's 
submissions for three CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2013 Guidance does not make recommendations with respect 
to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements--i.e., prongs one and two. EPA 
issued the Guidance shortly after the D.C. Circuit decision in EME 
Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which had interpreted the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the 
uncertainty created by that ongoing litigation, EPA elected at the 
time to not provide additional guidance on those requirements. As 
guidance is neither binding, nor required by statute, whether EPA's 
elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on 
a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Prongs One and Two

    IDEM's submission addressing the prong one and two requirements 
states that it is currently ``in the process of promulgating rules'' to 
implement EPA's 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). IDEM 
noted, however, that at the time of its submission CSAPR was being 
implemented pursuant to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). IDEM did 
not cite any additional rules or regulations controlling emissions from 
the state or otherwise provide any additional analysis regarding the 
impacts of emissions from sources in Indiana on air quality in other 
states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Ohio EPA's submission cited various state rules related generally 
to interstate transport of pollutants including rules concerning stack 
height requirements, acid rain permits and compliance, the nitrogen 
oxide budget trading program, the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and 
the Clean Air Mercury Rule. Ohio EPA also noted EPA's development of 
CAIR and regional haze programs that help address interstate transport. 
Finally, Ohio EPA noted that it has ``responded to requests'' from 
Indiana and West Virginia to ameliorate interstate transport by 
revising state rules applicable to Hamilton and Jefferson Counties. 
Ohio EPA did not provide any additional analysis regarding the impacts 
of emissions from sources in Ohio on air quality in other states with 
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, particularly as to whether the state 
rules identified in its submission are sufficient to prohibit emissions 
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the standard in other states.
    WDNR's submission states that the Wisconsin SIP implements the 
state portions of CAIR as a means of addressing the interstate 
transport of ozone precursors, and that current state and regional 
controls are sufficient to meet the state's transport obligations. WDNR 
also noted that it has ``the authority to develop'' additional control 
requirements once the EPA complies with the DC Circuit's opinion in EME

[[Page 14027]]

Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (2012), instructing EPA to 
quantify each state's significant contribution to air quality problems 
in other states before requiring states to submit SIPs addressing such 
pollution. Subsequent to WDNR's submission, however, the U.S. Supreme 
Court reversed the DC Circuit. See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 
134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). WDNR has not supplemented its initial 
submission and did not provide any additional analysis regarding the 
impacts of emissions from sources in Wisconsin on air quality in other 
states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Although many of the programs and rules cited by Ohio EPA, IDEM, 
and WDNR reduce precursor emissions that contribute to ozone formation 
and interstate transport, they were not developed to address interstate 
transport for the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS. None of the states 
have demonstrated how these programs and rules provide sufficient 
controls on emissions to address interstate transport for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. IDEM in particular does not cite any rules currently being 
implemented by the state that are part of Indiana's approved SIP or 
that are being submitted as part of the present SIP submission to 
address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, instead Indiana 
refers only to rules that it anticipates may be implemented by the 
state in the future.
    Ohio EPA and WDNR's submissions both rely on the states' 
implementation of CAIR, which was designed to address the 1997 Ozone 
NAAQS, but not the more stringent 2008 ozone standard being evaluated 
in this action. Regardless, neither the states nor EPA are currently 
implementing the ozone-season NOX trading program 
promulgated in CAIR, as it has been replaced by CSAPR.
    In turn, CSAPR addresses interstate transport requirements for the 
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS. Because the three submissions addressed by this 
action concern states' interstate transport obligations for a different 
and more stringent standard (the 2008 ozone NAAQS), it is not 
sufficient to merely cite as evidence of compliance that these older 
programs have been implemented by the states or EPA.\2\ These 
submissions all lack any technical analysis evaluating or demonstrating 
whether emissions in each state impact air quality in other states with 
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, the submissions themselves do 
not provide EPA with a basis to agree with the conclusions that the 
states already have adequate provisions in their SIPs to address CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This is particularly true where, as here, the states have 
failed to include any analysis of the downwind impacts of emissions 
originating within their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v. 
EPA, 608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3-4 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although these submissions contain no data or analysis to support 
their conclusions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA has 
recently shared technical information with states to facilitate their 
efforts to address interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS. EPA developed this technical information following the same 
approach used to evaluate interstate contribution in CSAPR in order to 
support the recently proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for 
the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015) (``CSAPR Update 
Rule'').
    In CSAPR, EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine 
whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality 
problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution 
did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state 
was not considered ``linked'' to identified downwind nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly 
contribute or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those 
downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's 
emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality 
and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions 
reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe 
it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to 
establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of 
interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.
    In CSAPR, EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of one 
percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one 
percent was appropriate. EPA evaluated the comments received and 
ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low 
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small, 
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors 
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a 
higher or lower threshold than one percent, EPA compiled the 
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of 
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. EPA's 
analysis showed that the one percent threshold captures a high 
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states, 
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger 
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent 
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting 
downwind receptors would be excluded. In addition, EPA determined that 
it was important to use a relatively lower one percent threshold 
because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone 
even at low levels. EPA also determined that a lower threshold such as 
0.5 percent would result in relatively modest increases in the overall 
percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport 
captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent level. EPA 
determined that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission 
reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have 
a very small impact on those receptors--an indicator that emission 
controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality 
impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a 
threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.''
    In the final CSAPR, EPA determined that one percent was a 
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple 
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low 
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and EPA's 
previous use of a one percent threshold in CAIR. EPA used a single 
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The projected 
contribution from each state was averaged over multiple days with 
projected high modeled ozone, and then compared to the one percent 
threshold. We concluded that this approach for setting and applying the 
air quality threshold for ozone was appropriate because it provided a 
robust metric, was consistent with the approach for fine particulate 
matter used in CSAPR, and because it took into account, and would be 
applicable to, any future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm. EPA has 
subsequently proposed to use the same threshold for purposes of 
evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone standard 
in the CSAPR Update Rule.
    On August 4, 2015, EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 
containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR approach to 
contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. The modeling data released in this

[[Page 14028]]

NODA was also used to support the proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The 
moderate area attainment date for the 2008 ozone standard is July 20, 
2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by this attainment deadline, 
states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, EPA 
proposed that 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for the 
purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA 
used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations 
at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state 
ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used 
the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) 
to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions 
scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites 
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used nationwide 
state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source 
Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis 
technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case 
NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the 
2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for 
a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and 
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting 
technical support documents have been included in the docket for this 
SIP action. The modeling data released in the NODA on August 4, 2015, 
and the CSAPR Update are the most up-to-date information EPA has 
developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind 
air quality problems. As discussed in the CSAPR Update proposal for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS, the air quality modeling: (1) Identified locations in 
the U.S. where EPA expects nonattainment or maintenance problems in 
2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance 
receptors), and (2) quantified the projected contributions of emissions 
from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at those receptors 
in 2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720-30, December 3, 2015). Consistent with 
CSAPR, EPA proposed to use a threshold of one percent of the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS (0.75 parts per billion) to identify linkages between upwind 
states and downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors. EPA 
proposed that eastern states with contributions to a specific receptor 
that meet or exceed this screening threshold are considered ``linked'' 
to that receptor, and were analyzed further to quantify available 
emissions reductions necessary to address interstate transport to these 
receptors.
    The results of EPA's air quality modeling with respect to Ohio, 
Indiana, and Wisconsin are summarized in Table 1 below. That modeling 
indicates that emissions from Ohio and Indiana are linked to both 
nonattainment and maintenance receptors in downwind states, and that 
Wisconsin is linked only to downwind maintenance receptors.

          Table 1--CSAPR Update Proposal Contributions to Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Downwind
                         Largest contribution    Largest contribution     nonattainment     Downwind maintenance
         State             to nonattainment         to maintenance      receptors located   receptors located in
                                                                            in states              states
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana...............  6.24 ppb..............  14.95 ppb.............  Connecticut and    Kentucky, Maryland,
                                                                         Wisconsin.         Michigan, New
                                                                                            Jersey, New York,
                                                                                            Ohio and
                                                                                            Pennsylvania.
Ohio..................  2.18 ppb..............  7.92 ppb..............  Connecticut and    Connecticut,
                                                                         Wisconsin.         Kentucky, Maryland,
                                                                                            Michigan, New
                                                                                            Jersey, New York,
                                                                                            and Pennsylvania.
Wisconsin.............  0.34 ppb..............  2.59 ppb..............  .................  Michigan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the most recent technical analysis available to EPA 
contradicts Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin's conclusion that each state's 
SIP contains adequate provisions to address interstate transport as to 
the 2008 ozone standard.
    EPA is proposing to disapprove the Indiana and Ohio SIPs for both 
the prong one and prong two requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As explained above, the IDEM and Ohio EPA SIP 
submissions do not provide an adequate technical analysis demonstrating 
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting 
emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, EPA's 
most recent modeling indicates that emissions from those states are 
projected to significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment and 
maintenance receptors in other states.
    EPA is proposing to disapprove the Wisconsin SIP for the prong two 
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. As explained above, the WDNR SIP submission does not 
provide an adequate technical analysis demonstrating that the state's 
SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with the 2008 
ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, EPA's most recent modeling 
indicates that emissions from Wisconsin are projected to contribute to 
projected downwind maintenance receptors in another state.
    However, EPA is proposing to approve the Wisconsin SIP for the 
prong one requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Although WDNR did not provide information or 
analyses explaining why existing SIP provisions are adequate to prevent 
significant contribution to nonattainment in downwind states, EPA's 
independent modeling presented in the NODA and the CSAPR Update Rule 
indicates that Wisconsin emissions are not linked to any projected 
downwind nonattainment receptors. Accordingly, EPA proposes to find 
that the Wisconsin SIP has adequate provisions to prevent such 
significant contribution to nonattainment as to the 2008 ozone 
standard, and to accordingly approve the SIP for the prong one 
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 
ozone NAAQS.

B. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Prong Four Only

    No action is being taken today on prong three relating to PSD. This 
prong was approved for Indiana on April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23713) and for 
Ohio on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10591), and will be acted on for 
Wisconsin in a future rulemaking.
    The 2013 Guidance states that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)'s prong 
four requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA 
has

[[Page 14029]]

found to adequately address any contribution of a state's sources to 
impacts on visibility programs in other states. The Guidance lays out 
two ways in which a state's infrastructure SIP may comply with prong 
four. The first way is through an air agency's confirmation in its 
infrastructure SIP submission that it has an EPA-approved regional haze 
SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. These 
sections specifically require that a state participating in a regional 
planning process include all measures needed to achieve its 
apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through 
that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that 
emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not 
interfering with measures in other air agencies' plans to protect 
visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze 
SIP, a state may meet its prong four requirements through a 
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP that emissions within its 
jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect 
visibility. Such a submission would need to include measures to limit 
visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform 
with any mutually agreed regional haze reasonable progress goals for 
mandatory Class I areas in other states.
What is EPA's assessment of the states' prong four submissions?
    For prong four, relating to protection of visibility in another 
state, in this rulemaking EPA is proposing to disapprove the relevant 
portion of the SIPs for Ohio and Indiana. On September 11, 2015 (80 FR 
54725), EPA approved Wisconsin's visibility requirements for the 2008 
ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in this rulemaking, no action is necessary 
regarding Wisconsin's prong four requirements.
    IDEM's submission acknowledges that Indiana is subject to the 
regional haze program, which addresses visibility-impairing pollutants. 
EPA finalized a limited approval of Indiana's regional haze SIP 
submission for, among other things, BART for non-electric generating 
units (EGUs) and PM from EGUs on June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34218).
    Ohio EPA's submission also mentions the regional haze program for 
addressing visibility, as well as the air agency's work with Federal 
Land Managers to address proposed major new sources in the state. EPA 
finalized a limited approval of Ohio's regional haze SIP submission 
for, among other things, non-EGUs on July 2, 2012 (77 FR 39177).
    However, Indiana and Ohio's regional haze plans both rely on CAIR 
for addressing visibility for EGUs. EPA had originally found that CAIR 
was an acceptable solution for meeting the requirement of the regional 
haze program for EGUs.\3\ However, the D.C Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA 
with instructions to replace that rulemaking with a new rulemaking 
consistent with the Court's opinion.\4\ Subsequently EPA issued a 
rulemaking stating that CAIR's replacement, CSAPR, could be used to 
satisfy the EGU portion of the regional haze plans. June 7, 2012 (77 FR 
33642). In that same rulemaking, EPA issued limited disapprovals of 
Indiana and Ohio's regional haze SIP submissions, among other states, 
and issued FIPs that allowed CSAPR to meet the regional haze 
requirements for EGUs in applicable states (77 FR 33642).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air 
Interstate Rule: Demonstration that CAIR Satisfies the ``Better-
than-BART'' Test As proposed in the Guidelines for Making BART 
Determinations.'' March 2005.
    \4\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896; modified by 550 
F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although both Indiana and Ohio have approved regional haze plans 
for their non-EGUs, they do not have fully approved regional haze SIPs 
in place because both States' EGU-related obligations are satisfied by 
EPA's CSAPR-based FIPs. Furthermore, neither Indiana nor Ohio has 
provided a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission showing 
that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air 
agencies' plans to protect visibility. Because the States have failed 
to meet either option for satisfying their prong four obligations laid 
out in the 2013 Guidance, EPA is proposing to disapprove prong four for 
the infrastructure element under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 
2008 ozone standard.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of submissions from 
Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin certifying that each of their current SIPs 
are sufficient to meet the required infrastructure element under CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, specifically prongs 
one, two, and four for Indiana and Ohio, and prong two for Wisconsin. 
In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the prong one portion of 
Wisconsin's SIP submission with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This rulemaking does not impose an information collection burden 
under the provisions of the PRA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is 
any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency 
may certify that a rulemaking will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves 
regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive 
economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action 
merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
proposed rule.

[[Page 14030]]

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children 
because it proposes to disapprove a state rule.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by 
this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or 
indigenous populations.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 7, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016-05953 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```