### 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 NO**  2 **and SO** 2 **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 (NO 2 ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) 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 NO 2 infrastructure SIP elements) and Docket
ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0435 (2010 SO 2 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


### 10645 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules

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 NO 2 NAAQS on January 15, 2013, and the 2010 SO 2 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 NO 2 and
SO 2 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 PM 2.5 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
NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS. To the extent that the prevention of significantdeterioration (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 NO 2 and SO 2 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


### 10646 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules

1 See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964 at

67034. 2 PM 10 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS ( see 77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to adequately address NO X as a precursor to ozone, PM 2.5 precursors, PM 2.5 and
PM 10 condensables, PM 2.5 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 NO 2 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 NO 2 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 SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 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 SO 2 NAAQS, Indiana implements SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 locationsthroughout 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 NO 2 and SO 2 . 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 (NO X ) as a precursor to ozone in the PSD program; (iii) identification of precursors to fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) and the identification of PM 2.5 and PM 10 2 condensables in the PSD program; (iv)
PM 2.5 increments in the PSD program; and, (v) GHG permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 3


### 10647 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules

4 Similar changes were codified in 40 CFR 52.21. 5 EPA 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 PM 10 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 PM 2.5 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
NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS.

Sub-Element 2: PSD Provisions that Explicitly Identify NO X 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 NO X 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 NO X 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 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS. Sub-Element 3: Identification of
Precursors to PM 2.5 and the Identification of PM 2.5 and PM 10 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 (PM 2.5 )’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPs to address sources that emit direct PM 2.5 and other pollutants that contribute to secondary
PM 2.5 formation. One of these requirements is for NSR permits to address pollutants responsible for the secondary formation of PM 2.5, otherwise known as precursors. In the 2008 rule, EPA identified precursors to PM 2.5 for the PSD program to be SO 2 and NO X (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NO X emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area’s ambient PM 2.5 concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule also specifies that VOCs are not considered to be precursors to PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 concentrations.

The explicit references to SO 2, NO X , and VOCs as they pertain to secondary
PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5, 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
PM 2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tpy of direct PM 2.5 ; 40 tpy of
SO 2 ; and 40 tpy of NO X (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
NO X emissions in an area are not a significant contributor to that area’s ambient PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 and PM 10 emission limits in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for PM 2.5 and PM 10 condensables for applicability determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for PM 2.5 and
PM 10 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 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS.

Sub-Element 4: PM 2.5 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 (PM 2.5 )—Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). This rule established several components for making PSD permitting determinations for PM 2.5 , including a system of ‘‘increments’’ which is the mechanism used to estimate significant deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. These increments are


### 10648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules

6 EPA 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 NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS. codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c), and are included in the table below.



### TABLE 

### 1—PM 2.5 

### I NCREMENTS 

### E STAB



### LISHED BY THE 

### 2010 NSR R ULE IN 

### M ICROGRAMS PER 

### C UBIC 

### M ETER

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
PM 2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new trigger date for PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5. 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 PM 2.5
. 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
PM 2.5 , 326 IAC 2–2–1(ee)(3) contains the new major source baseline date for
PM 2.5 of October 20, 2010, 326 IAC 2– 2–1(gg)(1)(C) contains the new trigger date for PM 2.5 of October 20, 2011, and 326 IAC 2–2–1(f)(1) contains the new baseline area level of significance for
PM 2.5 . It should be noted that Indiana’s submitted revisions explicitly include only the PM 2.5 increments as they apply to Class II areas, and not the PM 2.5 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and
SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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.


### 10649 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules

7 The level of the 2010 NO 2 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
NO 2 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 NO 2 NAAQS’’ ( see 77 FR 9532). For comparison purposes, EPA examined the design values 7 from NO 2 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 NO 2 NAAQS. Additionally, Indiana has SIP approved rules that limit NO X 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 continuedimplementation of the state’s SIPapproved PSD and NNSR regulations found in 26 IAC 2–2, these low monitored values of NO 2 will continue in and around Indiana. In other words, the NO 2 emissions from Indiana are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS in another state, and these emissions are not likely to interfere with the maintenance of the 2010 NO 2 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 NO 2 NAAQS. EPA is not taking action on this infrastructure element in regards to the 2010 SO 2 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 NO 2 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 NO X as a precursor to ozone, explicitly identify
SO 2 and NO X as precursors to PM 2.5 , and regulate condensable PM 2.5 and
PM 10 in applicability determinations and establishing emissions limits. EPA has also previously approved revisions to Indiana’s SIP that incorporate the
PM 2.5 increments and the associated implementation regulations including the major source baseline date, trigger date, and level of significance for PM 2.5 per the 2010 NSR Rule. EPA is proposing that Indiana’s SIP contains provisions that adequately address the
2010 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and
SO 2 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 NO 2 or SO 2 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
NO 2 and SO 2 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


### 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
NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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.


### 10651 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules

9 See 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and
SO 2 . 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and
SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and SO 2 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 NO 2 and
SO 2 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 NO 2 2010 SO 2

(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


### 10652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Element 2010 NO 2 2010 SO 2

(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**  **NO** 2 **, and 2010 SO** 2 **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 (NO 2 ), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) 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 NO 2 infrastructure elements), or EPA–R05– OAR–2013–0435 (2010 SO 2 infrastructure elements) by one of the following methods: