10644 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

■ i. Under the heading ‘‘Uterus’’ remove 

the entry ‘‘Displacement’’ and its 

diagnostic code ‘‘7622’’. 

■ j. Remove the heading ‘‘Vulva disease 

or injury of’’ and add in its place ‘‘Vulva 

or clitoris, disease or injury of’’. 

The additions and revisions to read as 

follows: 

Appendix C to Part 4—Alphabetical 

Index of Disabilities 

Diagnostic 

code No. 

*******

Female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD) ............................................................................................................................................. 7632 

* * * * * * * 

Injury: 

* * * * * * * 

Breast ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7631 

*******

Neoplasms: 

Benign: 

Breast .................................................................................................................................................................................... 7631 

* * * * * * * 

Gynecological ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7628 

*******

Malignant: 

Breast .................................................................................................................................................................................... 7630 

*******

Gynecological ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7627 

*******

Pelvic organ prolapse due to injury or disease or surgical complications of pregnancy, including uterine or vaginal vault 

prolapse, cystocele, urethrocele, rectocele, enterocele, or combination ......................................................................................... 7621 

*******

Vulva or clitoris, disease or injury of ................................................................................................................................................... 7610 

*******

[FR Doc. 2015–03851 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0991; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0435; FRL–9923–43–Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of state implementation plan 

(SIP) submissions from Indiana 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). 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. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0991 (2010 NO2

infrastructure SIP elements) and Docket 

ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0435 

(2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP elements) 

by one of the following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office 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 

Docket ID. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0991 

and EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0435. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at www.regulations.gov, 

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 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10645 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov your email 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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. We recommend that 

you telephone Sarah Arra, 

Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886– 

9401 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

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. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

these SIP submissions? 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review of 

these SIP submissions? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What state SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses 

submissions from the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM). The state 

submitted its infrastructure SIP for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS on January 15, 2013, 

and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on May 22, 

2013. 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2010 NO2 and 

SO2 NAAQS. These submissions must 

contain any revisions needed for 

meeting the applicable SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that 

their existing SIPs for the NAAQS 

already meet those requirements. 

EPA highlighted this statutory 

requirement in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo) and has issued additional 

guidance documents, the most recent on 

September 13, 2013, ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ (2013 

Memo). The SIP submissions referenced 

in this rulemaking pertain to the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), and address the 2010 

NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. To the extent that 

the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program is nonNAAQS specific, a narrow evaluation of 

other NAAQS will be included in the 

appropriate sections. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from IDEM that address the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 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 has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10646 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

1See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964 at 

67034. 

2PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 

2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as 

‘‘coarse’’ particles. 

3 In EPA’s April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking 

for infrastructure SIPS for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, we stated that each state’s PSD program 

must meet applicable requirements for evaluation of 

all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (see 76 

FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in 

EPA’s August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking for 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 

77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state 

lacks provisions needed to adequately address NOX

as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors, PM2.5 and 

PM10 condensables, PM2.5 increments, or the 

Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the provisions 

of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a suitable PSD 

permitting program must be considered not to be 

met irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the 

requirement to submit an infrastructure SIP, 

including the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that purport to permit 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits with limited public process or 

without requiring further approval by 

EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA 

(‘‘director’s discretion’’); and, (iii) 

existing provisions for PSD programs 

that may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final New 

Source Review (NSR) Improvement 

Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 

13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’). Instead, EPA 

has the authority to address each one of 

these substantive areas in separate 

rulemakings. A detailed history, 

interpretation, and rationale as they 

relate to infrastructure SIP requirements 

can be found in EPA’s May 13, 2014, 

proposed rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure 

SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the 

scope of this rulemaking?’’ (see 79 FR 

27241 at 27242–27245). 

III. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate these SIP submissions? 

EPA’s guidance for these 

infrastructure SIP submissions is 

embodied in the 2007 Memo. 

Specifically, attachment A of this 

memorandum (Required Section 110 

SIP Elements) identifies the statutory 

elements that states need to submit in 

order to satisfy the requirements for an 

infrastructure SIP submission. EPA 

issued additional guidance documents, 

the most recent being the 2013 Memo 

which further clarifies aspects of 

infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS 

specific. 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review 

of these SIP submissions? 

As noted in the 2013 Memo, pursuant 

to section 110(a), states must provide 

reasonable notice and opportunity for 

public hearing for all infrastructure SIP 

submissions. IDEM provided the 

opportunity for public comment for its 

2010 NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

that ended on January 14, 2013. The 

state did not receive any comments 

during the comment period. IDEM 

provided the opportunity for public 

comment for its 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP that ended on May 17, 

2013. The state did not receive any 

comments during the comment period. 

EPA is also soliciting comment on our 

evaluation of the state’s infrastructure 

SIP submission in this notice of 

proposed rulemaking. IDEM provided 

detailed synopses of how various 

components of its SIP meet each of the 

requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 

2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS, as 

applicable. The following review 

evaluates the state’s submissions. 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures 

This section requires SIPs to include 

enforceable emission limits and other 

control measures, means or techniques, 

schedules for compliance, and other 

related matters. EPA has long 

interpreted emission limits and control 

measures for attaining the standards as 

being due when nonattainment 

planning requirements are due.1 In the 

context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is 

not evaluating the existing SIP 

provisions for this purpose. Instead, 

EPA is only evaluating whether the 

state’s SIP has basic structural 

provisions for the implementation of the 

NAAQS. 

IDEM’s authority to adopt emissions 

standards and compliance schedules is 

found at Indiana Code (IC) 13–14–8, IC 

13–17–3–4, IC 13–17–3–11, and IC 13– 

17–3–14. To maintain the 2010 NO2

NAAQS, Indiana implements nitrogen 

oxide controls and emission limits in 

326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 

10–1, 326 IAC 10–3, 326 IAC 10–5, and 

326 IAC 10–6. To maintain the 2010 SO2

NAAQS, Indiana implements SO2

controls and emission limits in 326 IAC 

7–1.1, 326 IAC 7–3, 326 IAC 7–4, and 

326 IAC 7–4.1 EPA proposes that 

Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

with respect to the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

As previously noted, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions or rules related 

to SSM or director’s discretion in the 

context of section 110(a)(2)(A). 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

This section requires SIPs to include 

provisions to provide for establishing 

and operating ambient air quality 

monitors, collecting and analyzing 

ambient air quality data, and making 

these data available to EPA upon 

request. This review of the annual 

monitoring plan includes EPA’s 

determination that the state: (i) Monitors 

air quality at appropriate locations 

throughout the state using EPAapproved Federal Reference Methods or 

Federal Equivalent Method monitors; 

(ii) submits data to EPA’s Air Quality 

System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, 

(iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with 

prior notification of any planned 

changes to monitoring sites or the 

network plan. 

IDEM continues to operate an air 

monitoring network; EPA approved the 

state’s 2014 Annual Air Monitoring 

Network Plan on October 30, 2013, 

including the plan for NO2 and SO2. 

IDEM enters air monitoring data into Air 

Quality System (AQS), and the state 

provides EPA with prior notification 

when changes to its monitoring network 

or plan are being considered. EPA 

proposes that Indiana has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 

2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures; PSD 

States are required to include a 

program providing for enforcement of 

all SIP measures and the regulation of 

construction of new or modified 

stationary sources to meet NSR 

requirements under PSD and NNSR 

programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 

160–169B) addresses PSD, while part D 

of the CAA (sections 171–193) addresses 

NNSR requirements. 

The evaluation of each state’s 

submission addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i) 

Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD 

provisions that explicitly identify 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor 

to ozone in the PSD program; (iii) 

identification of precursors to fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) and the 

identification of PM2.5 and PM10 2

condensables in the PSD program; (iv) 

PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; 

and, (v) GHG permitting and the 

‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 3


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10647 

4Similar changes were codified in 40 CFR 52.21. 

5EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 

2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA’s 

requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, 

Part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements 

for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 (Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08–1250). 

As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to 

nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements 

for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR rule in 

order to comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, EPA’s approval of Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP as to elements (C), (D)(i)(II), or (J) 

with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated 

by the 2008 implementation rule does not conflict 

with the court’s opinion. The Court’s decision with 

respect to the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also 

does not affect EPA’s action on the present 

infrastructure action. EPA interprets the CAA to 

exclude nonattainment area requirements, 

including requirements associated with a 

nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure 

SIP submissions due three years after adoption or 

revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are 

typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or 

attainment plan elements, which would be due by 

the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 

through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years 

following designations for some elements. 

Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

IDEM maintains an enforcement 

program to ensure compliance with SIP 

requirements. IC 13–14–1–12 provides 

the Commissioner with the authority to 

enforce rules ‘‘consistent with the 

purpose of the air pollution control 

laws.’’ Additionally, IC 13–14–2–7 and 

IC 13–17–3–3 provide the 

Commissioner with the authority to 

assess civil penalties and obtain 

compliance with any applicable rule a 

board has adopted in order to enforce 

air pollution control laws. Lastly, IC 13– 

14–10–2 allows for an emergency 

restraining order that prevents any 

person from causing, or introducing 

contaminants, that cause or contribute 

to air pollution. EPA proposes that 

Indiana has met the enforcement of SIP 

measures requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2010 

NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: PSD Provisions that 

Explicitly Identify NOX as a Precursor to 

Ozone in the PSD Program 

EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

was published on November 29, 2005 

(see 70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at 

71679, 71699–71700). This requirement 

was codified in 40 CFR 51.166.4

The Phase 2 Rule required that states 

submit SIP revisions incorporating the 

requirements of the rule, including 

these specific NOX as a precursor to 

ozone provisions, by June 15, 2007 (see 

70 FR 71612 at 71683, November 29, 

2005). 

EPA approved revisions to Indiana’s 

PSD SIP reflecting these requirements 

on July 2, 2014 (see 79 FR 37646, July 

2, 2014), and therefore proposes that 

Indiana has met this set of infrastructure 

SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: Identification of 

Precursors to PM2.5 and the 

Identification of PM2.5 and PM10

Condensables in the PSD Program 

On May 16, 2008 (see 73 FR 28321), 

EPA issued the Final Rule on the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 

NSR Rule finalized several new 

requirements for SIPs to address sources 

that emit direct PM2.5 and other 

pollutants that contribute to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. One of these 

requirements is for NSR permits to 

address pollutants responsible for the 

secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise 

known as precursors. In the 2008 rule, 

EPA identified precursors to PM2.5 for 

the PSD program to be SO2 and NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule 

also specifies that VOCs are not 

considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in 

the PSD program unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

emissions of VOCs in an area are 

significant contributors to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 

The explicit references to SO2, NOX, 

and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 

PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying 

pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5,

the 2008 NSR Rule also required states 

to revise the definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

as it relates to a net emissions increase 

or the potential of a source to emit 

pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i) define ‘‘significant’’ for 

PM2.5 to mean the following emissions 

rates: 10 tpy of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of 

SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX (unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

NOX emissions in an area are not a 

significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 

deadline for states to submit SIP 

revisions to their PSD programs 

incorporating these changes was May 

16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341, May 

16, 2008).5

The 2008 NSR Rule did not require 

states to immediately account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5

and PM10 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 

after January 1, 2011. This requirement 

is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions 

to states’ PSD programs incorporating 

the inclusion of condensables were 

required to be submitted to EPA by May 

16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341, May 

16, 2008). 

EPA approved revisions to Indiana’s 

PSD SIP reflecting these requirements 

on July 2, 2014 (see 79 FR 37646), and 

therefore proposes that Indiana has met 

this set of infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 4: PM2.5 Increments in the 

PSD Program 

On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the 

final rule on the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule 

established several components for 

making PSD permitting determinations 

for PM2.5, including a system of 

‘‘increments’’ which is the mechanism 

used to estimate significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for 

a pollutant. These increments are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6EPA proposed approval of revisions updating 

Indiana’s minor NSR construction permit rules on 

January 5, 2015 (see 80 FR 201). However, EPA 

believes that the rules that were in place at the time 

of Indiana’s submittal were adequate for the 

purposes of infrastructure for the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 

CFR 52.21(c), and are included in the 

table below. 

TABLE 1—PM2.5 INCREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE 2010 NSR RULE IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER

Annual 

arithmetic 

mean 

24-hour max 

Class I ....... 1 2 

Class II ...... 4 9 

Class III ..... 8 18 

The 2010 NSR Rule also established a 

new ‘‘major source baseline date’’ for 

PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new 

trigger date for PM2.5 as October 20, 

2011. These revisions are codified in 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and 

(b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule 

revised the definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ 

to include a level of significance of 0.3 

micrograms per cubic meter, annual 

average, for PM2.5. This change is 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). 

On July 12, 2012, and supplemented 

on December 12, 2012, IDEM submitted 

revisions intended to address the 

increments established by the 2010 NSR 

Rule for incorporation into the SIP, as 

well as the revised major source 

baseline date, trigger date, and baseline 

area level of significance for PM2.5. 

IDEM also requested that these revisions 

satisfy any applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements related to PSD. 

Specifically, revisions to 326 IAC 2–2– 

6(b) contain the Federal increments for 

PM2.5, 326 IAC 2–2–1(ee)(3) contains the 

new major source baseline date for 

PM2.5 of October 20, 2010, 326 IAC 2– 

2–1(gg)(1)(C) contains the new trigger 

date for PM2.5 of October 20, 2011, and 

326 IAC 2–2–1(f)(1) contains the new 

baseline area level of significance for 

PM2.5. It should be noted that Indiana’s 

submitted revisions explicitly include 

only the PM2.5 increments as they apply 

to Class II areas, and not the PM2.5

increments as they apply to Class I or 

Class III areas. However, Indiana’s 

requested revisions specify that if areas 

in the state are classified as Class I or 

III in the future, it would require that 

the PSD increments pursuant to 40 CFR 

52.21 be adhered to. 

On August 11, 2014 (79 FR 46709), 

EPA finalized approval of the applicable 

infrastructure SIP PSD revisions; 

therefore, we are proposing that Indiana 

has met this set of infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

with respect to the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 5: GHG Permitting and the 

‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ 

With respect to Elements C and J, EPA 

interprets the CAA to require each state 

to make an infrastructure SIP 

submission for a new or revised NAAQS 

that demonstrates that the air agency 

has a complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of Element D(i)(II) may 

also be satisfied by demonstrating that 

the air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program correctly addressing 

all regulated NSR pollutants. Indiana 

has shown that it currently has a PSD 

program in place that covers all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an 

air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source required to obtain a PSD permit. 

The Court also said that the EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). 

In order to act consistently with its 

understanding of the Court’s decision 

pending further judicial action to 

effectuate the decision, the EPA is not 

continuing to apply EPA regulations 

that would require that SIPs include 

permitting requirements that the 

Supreme Court found impermissible. 

Specifically, EPA is not applying the 

requirement that a state’s SIP-approved 

PSD program require that sources obtain 

PSD permits when GHGs are the only 

pollutant (i) that the source emits or has 

the potential to emit above the major 

source thresholds, or (ii) for which there 

is a significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v)). 

EPA anticipates a need to revise 

Federal PSD rules in light of the 

Supreme Court opinion. In addition, 

EPA anticipates that many states will 

revise their existing SIP-approved PSD 

programs in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. The timing and 

content of subsequent EPA actions with 

respect to the EPA regulations and state 

PSD program approvals are expected to 

be informed by additional legal process 

before the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not 

expecting states to have revised their 

PSD programs for purposes of 

infrastructure SIP submissions and is 

only evaluating such submissions to 

assure that the state’s program correctly 

addresses GHGs consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s decision. 

At present, EPA is proposing that 

Indiana’s SIP is sufficient to satisfy 

Elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect 

to GHGs because the PSD permitting 

program previously approved by EPA 

into the SIP continues to require that 

PSD permits (otherwise required based 

on emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs) contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

BACT. Although the approved Indiana 

PSD permitting program may currently 

contain provisions that are no longer 

necessary in light of the Supreme Court 

decision, this does not render the 

infrastructure SIP submission 

inadequate to satisfy Elements C, 

(D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the 

necessary PSD requirements at this 

time, and the application of those 

requirements is not impeded by the 

presence of other previously-approved 

provisions regarding the permitting of 

sources of GHGs that EPA does not 

consider necessary at this time in light 

of the Supreme Court decision. 

For the purposes of the 2010 NO2 and 

SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA 

reiterates that NSR reform regulations 

are not within the scope of these 

actions. Therefore, we are not taking 

action on existing NSR reform 

regulations for Indiana. EPA approved 

Indiana’s minor NSR program on 

October 7, 1994 (see 59 FR 51108); 6 and 

since that date, IDEM and EPA have 

relied on the existing minor NSR 

program to ensure that new and 

modified sources not captured by the 

major NSR permitting programs do not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

Certain sub-elements in this section 

overlap with elements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), section 110(a)(2)(E) and 

section 110(a)(2)(J). These links will be 

discussed in the appropriate areas 

below. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10649 

7The level of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for is 100 

parts per billion (ppb) and the form is the 3-year 

average of the annual 98th percentile of the daily 

1-hour maximum. For the most recent design 

values, see http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/

values.html. 

8 Indiana does have an approved regional haze 

plan for non-EGUs. Indiana’s plan for EGUs relied 

on the Clean Air Interstate Rule that has been 

recently superseded by the Cross State Air Pollution 

Rule to which Indiana EGU sources are also subject. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

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, or 

interfering with maintenance, of the 

NAAQS in another state. 

On February 17, 2012, EPA 

promulgated designations for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS, stating for the entire 

country that, ‘‘The EPA is designating 

areas as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ to 

mean that available information does 

not indicate that the air quality in these 

areas exceeds the 2010 NO2 NAAQS’’ 

(see 77 FR 9532). For comparison 

purposes, EPA examined the design 

values 7 from NO2 monitors in Indiana 

and surrounding states. The highest 

design value based on data collected 

between 2011 and 2013 was 64 ppb at 

a monitor in Chicago, IL, compared to 

the standard which is 100 ppb for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. Additionally, 

Indiana has SIP approved rules that 

limit NOX emissions, including rules in 

response to the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

at 326 IAC 24–1, controls for Clark and 

Floyd Counties at 326 IAC 10–1, 

specific source categories at 326 IAC 

10–3, limits on Internal Combustion 

Engines at 326 IAC 10–5 and limits for 

Indiana Gas and Electric Company at 

326 IAC 10–6. EPA believes that, in 

conjunction with the continued 

implementation of the state’s SIPapproved PSD and NNSR regulations 

found in 26 IAC 2–2, these low 

monitored values of NO2 will continue 

in and around Indiana. In other words, 

the NO2 emissions from Indiana are not 

expected to cause or contribute to a 

violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in 

another state, and these emissions are 

not likely to interfere with the 

maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

in another state. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Indiana has met this set of 

requirements related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS. EPA is not taking action on 

this infrastructure element in regards to 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and will do so in 

a future rule making. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires 

SIPs to include provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

to protect visibility in another state. 

EPA notes that Indiana’s satisfaction 

of the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD 

requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS 

has been detailed in the section 

addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA 

further notes that the proposed actions 

in that section related to PSD are 

consistent with the proposed actions 

related to PSD for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are reiterated 

below. 

EPA has previously approved 

revisions to Indiana’s SIP that meet 

certain requirements obligated by the 

Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. 

These revisions included provisions 

that: Explicitly identify NOX as a 

precursor to ozone, explicitly identify 

SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5, 

and regulate condensable PM2.5 and 

PM10 in applicability determinations 

and establishing emissions limits. EPA 

has also previously approved revisions 

to Indiana’s SIP that incorporate the 

PM2.5 increments and the associated 

implementation regulations including 

the major source baseline date, trigger 

date, and level of significance for PM2.5

per the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA is 

proposing that Indiana’s SIP contains 

provisions that adequately address the 

2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

States also have an obligation to 

ensure that sources located in 

nonattainment areas do not interfere 

with a neighboring state’s PSD program. 

One way that this requirement can be 

satisfied is through an NNSR program 

consistent with the CAA that addresses 

any pollutants for which there is a 

designated nonattainment area within 

the state. 

Indiana’s EPA-approved NNSR 

regulations are contained as part of its 

PSD program regulations, and can be 

found in 326 IAC 2–3 consistent with 40 

CFR 51.165, or appendix S to 40 CFR 

part 51. Therefore, EPA proposes that 

Indiana has met all of the applicable 

PSD requirements for the 2010 NO2 and 

SO2 NAAQS related to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are 

subject to visibility and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). The 2013 Memo states that 

these requirements can be satisfied by 

an approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, if 

required, or an approved SIP addressing 

regional haze. 

In this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove 

Indiana’s satisfaction of the visibility 

protection requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2010 NO2 or 

SO2 NAAQs. Instead, EPA will evaluate 

Indiana’s compliance with these 

requirements in a separate rulemaking.8

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each 

SIP to contain adequate provisions 

requiring compliance with the 

applicable requirements of section 126 

and section 115 (relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement, 

respectively). 

Section 126(a) requires new or 

modified sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential impacts from the 

source. The statute does not specify the 

method by which the source should 

provide the notification. States with 

SIP-approved PSD programs must have 

a provision requiring such notification 

by new or modified sources. A lack of 

such a requirement in state rules would 

be grounds for disapproval of this 

element. 

Indiana has provisions in its EPAapproved PSD program in 326 IAC 2–2– 

15(b)(3) requiring new or modified 

sources to notify neighboring states of 

potential negative air quality impacts, 

and has referenced this program as 

having adequate provisions to meet the 

requirements of section 126(a). EPA is 

proposing that Indiana has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 126(a) with respect to the 2010 

NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. Indiana does not 

have any obligations under any other 

subsection of section 126, nor does it 

have any pending obligations under 

section 115. EPA, therefore, is proposing 

that Indiana has met all applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

This section requires each state to 

provide for adequate personnel, 

funding, and legal authority under state 

law to carry out its SIP, and related 

issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also 

requires each state to comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

under section 128. 

Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, 

Funding, and Legal Authority Under 

State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and 

Related Issues 

Indiana’s biennial budget and its 

environmental performance partnership 

agreement with EPA document funding 

and personnel levels for IDEM every 

two years. As discussed in earlier 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

sections, IC 13–14–1–12 provides the 

Commissioner of IDEM with the 

authority to enforce air pollution control 

laws. Furthermore, IC 13–14–8, IC 13– 

17–3–11, and IC 13–17–3–14 contain 

the authority for IDEM to adopt air 

emissions standards and compliance 

schedules. EPA proposes that Indiana 

has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2010 

NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each 

SIP to contain provisions that comply 

with the state board requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. That provision 

contains two explicit requirements: (i) 

That any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under 

this chapter shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits and 

enforcement orders under this chapter, 

and (ii) that any potential conflicts of 

interest by members of such board or 

body or the head of an executive agency 

with similar powers be adequately 

disclosed. 

On November 29, 2012, IDEM 

submitted rules regarding its 

Environmental Rules Board at IC 13–13– 

8 for incorporation into the SIP, 

pursuant to section 128 of the CAA. On 

December 12, 2012, IDEM provided a 

supplemental submission clarifying that 

the Environmental Rules Board 

established by IC 13–13–8, which has 

the authority to adopt environmental 

regulations under IC 4–22–2 and IC 13– 

14–9, does not have the authority to 

approve enforcement orders or 

permitting actions as outlined in section 

128(a)(1) of the CAA. Therefore, section 

128(a)(1) of the CAA is not applicable in 

Indiana. 

Under section 128(a)(2), the head of 

the executive agency with the power to 

approve enforcement orders or permits 

must adequately disclose any potential 

conflicts of interest. IC 13–13–8–11 

‘‘Disclosure of conflicts of interest’’ 

contains provisions that adequately 

satisfy the requirements of section 

128(a)(2). This section requires that each 

member of the board shall fully disclose 

any potential conflicts of interest 

relating to permits or enforcement 

orders under the Federal CAA, as 

amended by the CAA Amendments of 

1990. IC 13–13–8–4 defines the 

membership of the board, and the 

commissioner (of IDEM) or his/her 

designee is explicitly included as a 

member of the board. Therefore, when 

evaluated together in the context of 

section 128(a)(2), the commissioner (of 

IDEM) or his/her designee must fully 

disclose any potential conflicts of 

interest relating to permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA. EPA 

concludes that IDEM’s submission as it 

relates to the state board requirements 

under section 128 is consistent with 

applicable CAA requirements. EPA 

approved these rules on December 6, 

2013 (78 FR 77599). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing that IDEM has satisfied the 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for this section of 

110(a)(2)(E) for the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

States must establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and submit periodic emissions 

reports. Each plan shall also require the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources. The state plan shall 

also require periodic reports on the 

nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such 

sources, and correlation of such reports 

by each state agency with any emission 

limitations or standards established 

pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

The Indiana state rules for monitoring 

requirements are contained in 326 IAC 

3. Additional emissions reporting 

requirements are found in 326 IAC 2–6. 

Emission reports are available upon 

request by EPA or other interested 

parties. EPA proposes that Indiana has 

satisfied the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) 

with respect to the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for authority that is analogous 

to what is provided in section 303 of the 

CAA, and adequate contingency plans 

to implement such authority. The 2013 

Memo states that infrastructure SIP 

submissions should specify authority, 

rested in an appropriate official, to 

restrain any source from causing or 

contributing to emissions which present 

an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health or 

welfare, or the environment. 

326 IAC 11–5 establishes air pollution 

episode levels based on concentrations 

of criteria pollutants. This rule requires 

that emergency reduction plans be 

submitted to the Commissioner of IDEM 

by major air pollution sources, and 

these plans must include actions that 

will be taken when each episode level 

is declared, to reduce or eliminate 

emissions of the appropriate air 

pollutants. Similarly, under IC 13–17–4, 

Indiana also has the ability to declare an 

air pollution emergency and order all 

persons causing or contributing to the 

conditions warranting the air pollution 

emergency to immediately reduce or 

discontinue emission of air 

contaminants. EPA proposes that 

Indiana has met the applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(G) related to authority 

to implement measures to restrain 

sources from causing or contributing to 

emissions which present an imminent 

and substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment 

with respect to the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires states to have 

the authority to revise their SIPs in 

response to changes in the NAAQS, 

availability of improved methods for 

attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA 

finding that the SIP is substantially 

inadequate. 

IDEM continues to update and 

implement needed revisions to 

Indiana’s SIP as necessary to meet 

ambient air quality standards. As 

discussed in previous sections, 

authority to adopt emissions standards 

and compliance schedules is found at IC 

13–4–8, IC 13–17–3–4, IC 13–17–3–11, 

and IC 13–17–3–14. EPA proposes that 

Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) 

with respect to the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment 

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part 

D 

The CAA requires that each plan or 

plan revision for an area designated as 

a nonattainment area meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of the 

CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment 

areas. 

EPA has determined that section 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA 

takes action on part D attainment plans 

through separate processes. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10651 

9See http://www.in.gov/idem/airquality/

2489.htm. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submissions 

from Indiana with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are 

described below. 

Sub-Element 1: Consultation With 

Government Officials 

States must provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

carrying out NAAQS implementation 

requirements. 

IDEM actively participates in the 

regional planning efforts that include 

state rule developers, representatives 

from the FLMs, and other affected 

stakeholders. Additionally, Indiana is 

an active member of the Lake Michigan 

Air Director’s Consortium, which 

consists of collaboration with the States 

of Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Ohio. EPA proposes that 

Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2010 NO2

and SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 2: Public Notification 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires 

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and must enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. 

IDEM monitors air quality data daily, 

and reports the air quality index to the 

interested public and media if 

necessary. IDEM also participates and 

submits information to EPA’s AIRNOW 

program, and maintains SmogWatch, 

which is an informational tool created 

by IDEM to share air quality forecasts 

for each day. SmogWatch provides daily 

information about ground-level ozone, 

particulate matter concentration levels, 

health information, and monitoring data 

for seven regions in Indiana. IDEM also 

maintains a publicly available Web site 

that allows interested members of the 

community and other stakeholders to 

view current monitoring data 

summaries, including those for NO2 and 

SO2.9 EPA proposes that Indiana has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) 

with respect to the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 3: PSD 

States must meet applicable 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) 

related to PSD. IDEM’s PSD program in 

the context of infrastructure SIPs has 

already been discussed in the 

paragraphs addressing section 

110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

EPA notes that the proposed actions for 

those sections are consistent with the 

proposed actions for this portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Therefore, EPA proposes that Indiana 

has met all of the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for PSD associated with 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(J) for the 2010 NO2

and SO2 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the CAA (which 

includes sections 169A and 169B). In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, we 

find that there is no new visibility 

obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. In other words, the 

visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 NO2 and 

SO2 NAAQS. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

SIPs must provide for performing air 

quality modeling for predicting effects 

on air quality of emissions from any 

NAAQS pollutant and submission of 

such data to EPA upon request. 

IDEM continues to review the 

potential impact of major and some 

minor new and modified sources using 

computer models. Indiana’s rules 

regarding air quality modeling are 

contained in 326 IAC 2–2–4, 326 IAC 2– 

2–5, 326 IAC 2–2–6, and 326 IAC 2–2– 

7. These modeling data are available to 

EPA or other interested parties upon 

request. EPA proposes that Indiana has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to 

the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

This section requires SIPs to mandate 

each major stationary source to pay 

permitting fees to cover the cost of 

reviewing, approving, implementing, 

and enforcing a permit. 

IDEM implements and operates the 

title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 

62969); revisions to the program were 

approved on August 13, 2002 (67 FR 

52615). In addition to the title V permit 

program, IDEM’s EPA-approved PSD 

program, specifically contained in 326 

IAC 2–1.1–07 contains the provisions, 

requirements, and structures associated 

with the costs for reviewing, approving, 

implementing, and enforcing various 

types of permits. EPA proposes that 

Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) 

with respect to the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

States must consult with and allow 

participation from local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

Any IDEM rulemaking procedure 

contained in IC 13–14–9 requires public 

participation in the SIP development 

process. In addition, IDEM ensures that 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 are 

satisfied during the SIP development 

process. EPA proposes that Indiana has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to 

the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve most 

elements of submissions from IDEM 

certifying that its current SIP is 

sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2010 NO2 and 

SO2 NAAQS. EPA’s proposed actions 

for the state’s satisfaction of 

infrastructure SIP requirements, by 

element of section 110(a)(2) are 

contained in the table below. 

Element 2010 NO2 2010 SO2

(A): Emission limits and other control measures .................................................................................................... A A 

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system .............................................................................................. A A 

(C): Program for enforcement of control measures ................................................................................................ A A 

(D)1: Interstate Transport- Significant contribution ................................................................................................. A NA 

(D)2: Interstate Transport- interfere with maintenance ........................................................................................... A NA 

(D)3: PSD ................................................................................................................................................................ A A 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Element 2010 NO2 2010 SO2

(D)4: Visibility ........................................................................................................................................................... NA NA 

(D)5: Interstate and International Pollution Abatement ........................................................................................... A A 

(E): Adequate resources .......................................................................................................................................... A A 

(E): State boards ..................................................................................................................................................... A A 

(F): Stationary source monitoring system ............................................................................................................... A A 

(G): Emergency power ............................................................................................................................................ A A 

(H): Future SIP revisions ......................................................................................................................................... A A 

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D .................................................................................. + + 

(J)1: Consultation with government officials ............................................................................................................ A A 

(J)2: Public notification ............................................................................................................................................ A A 

(J)3: PSD ................................................................................................................................................................. A A 

(J)4: Visibility protection ........................................................................................................................................... + + 

(K): Air quality modeling and data ........................................................................................................................... A A 

(L): Permitting fees .................................................................................................................................................. A A 

(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities ................................................................................. A A 

In the above table, the key is as follows: 

A .................... Approve. 

NA .................. No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

+ .................... Not germane to infrastructure 

SIPs. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Sulfur dioxide, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: February 12, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04014 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0969; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0991; EPA–R05–OAR–2013– 

0435; FRL–9923–42–Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Emission Limit Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

some elements of a state 

implementation plan (SIP) submission 

from Illinois regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 8-hour 

ground level ozone, 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). 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 is specifically looking at 

infrastructure requirements concerning 

emission limits and other control 

measures. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0969 (2008 ozone 

infrastructure elements), EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0991 (2010 NO2

infrastructure elements), or EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0435 (2010 SO2

infrastructure elements) by one of the 

following methods: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS