67186 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0074; FRL–9953–14– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Temporary 

Alternate Opacity Limits for American 

Electric Power, Rockport 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to 

the Indiana State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), authorizing temporary alternate 

opacity limits (TAOLs) at the American 

Electric Power, Rockport (AEP 

Rockport) facility during periods of 

boiler startup and shutdown. This 

action is consistent with the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), the Indiana SIP, and EPA 

policy regarding emissions during 

periods of startup and shutdown. 

Indiana has provided an air quality 

analysis demonstrating that this revision 

will continue to protect the applicable 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) in Spencer County, Indiana. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 31, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0074. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either through 

www.regulations.gov or at the 

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 Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–6524 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@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 is the background for this action? 

II. What is EPA’s response to comment? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

EPA is approving into the Indiana SIP 

TAOLs for AEP Rockport Units #1 and 

Unit #2, which apply only during 

narrowly-drawn periods of boiler 

startup and shutdown. These two 

identical 1,300-megawatt coal-fired 

boilers are each equipped with an 

electrostatic precipitator (ESP) to 

control PM2.5 emissions. 

More specifically, 326 Indiana 

Administrative Code (IAC) 5–1–8 

authorizes AEP Rockport to exceed the 

applicable SIP opacity limit only under 

the following circumstances: (1) During 

startup, for a period not to exceed two 

hours (twenty six-minute averaging 

periods), or until the flue gas 

temperature reaches 250 degrees 

Fahrenheit at the ESP inlet, whichever 

occurs first; and (2) during shutdown, 

once the flue gas temperatures has 

dropped below 250 degrees Fahrenheit 

at the ESP inlet, for a period not to 

exceed one and one-half hours (fifteen 

six-minute averaging periods). 

EPA proposed to approve these 

alternate limits as revisions to Indiana 

SIP on December 28, 2015 (80 FR 

80719). In this action, EPA is 

responding to comments submitted in 

response to its proposal and approving 

the AEP Rockport TAOLs. This is 

because they meet the criteria contained 

in Indiana SIP rule 326 IAC 5–1–3(d) as 

an appropriate method in determining 

alternative limits for facilities during 

startup and shutdown periods. These 

limits are also consistent with the CAA 

and applicable EPA policy. As 

discussed in EPA’s proposal, AEP 

Rockport has met all of these criteria. 

EPA has also previously approved 

TAOLs for 22 other Indiana power 

plants, all of which are controlled with 

ESPs (67 FR 46589, July 16, 2002). 

These TAOLs contained similar limits, 

and EPA’s basis for approval was 

analogous. The approach taken by 

Indiana in establishing all of these 

TAOLs is also consistent with section 

110 of the CAA and the criteria 

contained in EPA’s September 20, 1999 

guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown.’’ 

As discussed in the proposal, EPA has 

evaluated Continuous Opacity 

Monitoring System (COMS) data from 

the AEP Rockport facility and 

conducted air dispersion modeling in 

the surrounding area. The COMS data 

showed that, between 2009 and 2013, 

AEP’s emissions were in compliance 

with the SIP opacity rule 99.81 percent 

of the time. Conversely, AEP’s 

emissions exceeded the opacity 

standards just 0.19 percent of the time, 

which includes the startup and 

shutdown periods covered by the 

TAOL. 

After EPA received public comments 

in response to the proposal, the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) performed an 

additional air quality analysis in 

response to specific comments. AEP 

provided a revised emission profile for 

PM describing hourly emissions during 

a 24-hour period, including a startup 

event, in which the ESP would be 

entirely shut down during hours 9 and 

10. IDEM made the conservative 

assumption that all of the boilers’ PM10

emissions were 100 percent PM2.5. The 

new analysis also considered two 

scenarios, in which one boiler is starting 

up while the other boiler is either not 

operating, or operating at its full, steady 

rate. Both boilers at Rockport exhaust 

through a common stack. The two 

scenarios represent the stack exhaust 

and dispersion rates for a boiler startup/ 

shutdown event. IDEM modeled one 

scenario which assumed that the ESP is 

completely offline for the two hours of 

highest oil and coal combustion. 

IDEM’s modeling followed EPA’s 

guidance in 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

W, using the current version of the 

AERMOD modeling system, over a full 

receptor grid, with five years of recent 

surface meteorological data from 

Evansville, Indiana (2010–2014). IDEM 

also included background from the nearby Dale monitor, in response to Sierra 

Club comments. The modeling with the 

background results yielded a 24-hour 

PM2.5 value of 26.06 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3), which is well 

below the 2012 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

of 35 mg/m3. 

II. What is EPA’s response to comment? 

EPA received comment letters from 

AEP and the Sierra Club, both on 

January 27, 2016. 

The AEP comment letter supports the 

approval of 326 IAC 5–1–8 into the 

Indiana SIP. Sierra Club’s comments are 

provided and addressed below. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the fact that AEP Rockport often does 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67187 

not meet applicable opacity limitations 

is not sufficient to demonstrate that it 

cannot meet these limits. The 

commenter asserts that there are 

numerous options that might be 

effective in reducing emissions during 

startup and shutdown periods, 

including revamping plant maintenance 

practices, installing baghouses after the 

ESPs to collect uncontrolled PM, and 

using a startup fuel other than fuel oil. 

Response: The TAOLs at AEP 

Rockport are needed during startup and 

shutdown because of temperature 

limitations of the ESP, which has 

lowered efficiency at times when 

temperatures are below 250 degrees. 

(See 67 FR 46589, July 16, 2002). In 

addition, AEP Rockport has provided 

data showing that during periods of low 

temperature when the control 

technology cannot efficiently control 

particulates, there may be violations of 

the SIP opacity limits. During normal 

operations, however, emission limits are 

met. The COMs data submitted by AEP 

Rockport demonstrate that it has 

operated in a manner consistent with 

good air pollution control and 

maintenance practices. The data show 

that, between 2009 and 2013, the facility 

was in compliance 99.81 percent of the 

time, and exceeded the opacity 

standards just 0.19 percent of the time. 

This includes the startup and shutdown 

periods covered by the TAOL. 

The commenter suggests that other 

control devices should be added to the 

facility, or that there should be a fuel 

switch. EPA disagrees for several 

reasons. First, considering additional 

controls or changes in fuel is not a 

criterion in the Indiana SIP for 

evaluating the approvability of a TAOL. 

In addition, even if AEP Rockport were 

to add or modify its control such as by 

adding a fabric filter (baghouse), similar 

technical issues could also occur during 

the low-temperature, low-flow scenario 

of startups and shutdowns. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the fact that AEP Rockport often meets 

applicable opacity limitations during 

startup and shutdown proves that it can 

meet these limits. To support this claim, 

the commenter cites opacity records 

from the facility on two specific dates in 

August 1999 in which the opacity did 

not exceed 40 percent during one 

startup event and one shutdown event. 

While conceding that these records also 

show violating emissions during 

startups and shutdowns on other 

occasions, the commenter further notes 

that the same records show that the 

facility was also able to comply with the 

opacity limits during startups and 

shutdowns as recently as last year. 

Response: Because AEP Rockport 

often meets its limits speaks to the fact 

that it currently operates the controls in 

a fashion that is consistent with the 

TAOL approval criterion of maintaining 

and operating controls in a way to 

minimize emissions. AEP Rockport’s 

control system also operates effectively 

during normal operations, enabling it to 

meet its opacity limitations. As 

explained in EPA’s proposal, the need 

for a TAOL occurs only during startup 

and shutdown periods—when ESP 

effectiveness is hampered by 

temperature (See 67 FR 46589, July 16, 

2002). 

AEP Rockport’s COM data from 2001 

to 2004, and 2007 to 2013, indicate 

opacity exceedances during startup and 

shutdown periods, which shows this 

has been a long-running technical issue. 

EPA has also reviewed the opacity 

exceedance report summary for 2007 to 

2013. It shows that AEP Rockport 

averaged 2 startups per year and 4.7 

shutdowns per year that exceeded the 

opacity limitations. 

There are aspects of ESP operation 

that cannot be predicted or controlled 

during unit startups. Therefore, it is 

impractical to set an opacity limitation 

during startup and shutdown periods, 

particularly given the noted history of 

limited exceedances and the potential 

for more irregular opacity episodes. 

Given that EPA expects SIP compliance 

100 percent of the time, the fact that a 

source may ‘‘often’’ meet applicable 

emission limits is not sufficient. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the air quality demonstration made in 

2001 or 2004 is obsolete due to changing 

conditions that impact opacity 

compliance at the AEP Rockport. The 

commenter further asserted that the 

documents AEP submitted in support of 

its TAOL petition are outdated and fail 

to satisfy the requirements in 326 IAC 

5–1–3–(d)(2)(B). 

Response: The requirements of 326 

IAC 5–1–3(d)(2)(B) were fulfilled for the 

AEP Rockport facility with the 

information provided by Indiana in 

2015. This is current information, as 

Indiana evaluated the AEP Rockport 

TAOLs in 2014. The current data for 

AEP Rockport show it operates in 

manner that minimizes opacity 

emissions during both normal operation 

and during startup and shutdown 

periods. 

AEP’s updated COMs data, which 

reflects maintenance changes, upgrades, 

retrofits, or alterations at the facility, 

still records exceedances during some 

start-up and shutdown events during 

2009 through 2013. This data which 

accounts for recent changes in 

conditions shows that there is an 

ongoing technical issue with the ESP 

temperature limitations during start-up 

and shutdowns that necessitates the 

TAOLs. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the 2004 modeling does not address the 

current NAAQS. The Indiana SIP 

requires the owner or operator to 

demonstrate the TAOL will not impact 

the maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

commenter asserted that AEP Rockport’s 

2004 demonstration is clearly 

inadequate in that it does not address 

subsequently-adopted PM NAAQS, 

because the demonstration did not 

address the 2012 24-hour and annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Response: The submission by Indiana 

contained both 2004 and updated 2013 

modeling. The modeling provided to 

EPA for SIP approval included an 

analysis of both PM10 and PM2.5. The 

analysis used a conservative assumption 

that 100 percent of PM10 equals the 

PM2.5 concentrations emitted. EPA 

concurred with this analysis, which 

further showed that the TAOL would 

not interfere with the NAAQS for fine 

particulate matter. 

In addition, in response to the 

comment, Indiana performed and 

provided EPA with an updated 

AERMOD modeling analysis. The 

modeling shows that the PM2.5 NAAQS 

should remain protected in Spencer 

County, Indiana with the TAOLs in 

place. More specifically, the results 

yielded a 24-hour PM2.5 value of 26.06 

mg/m3, which is well below the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. Indiana did 

not address the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

as the TAOL is only intended to address 

short-term situations. The 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS protects public health in this 

scenario. EPA also considered the 2012 

NAAQS, and evaluated modeled 

concentrations from the TAOLs, using 

an hourly value of 1.59 mg/m3 from the 

modeled scenario that would best 

represent a contribution to an annual 

average. EPA a determined that the 

modeled annual average combined with 

background concentrations (for current 

monitored data of 10.1 mg/m3 for 2013– 

2015 period, and 9.3 for the current 

annual period) would be less than the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 mg/m3. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the 2004 modeling assumes PM 

emission will be controlled in ways the 

TAOL does not require. More 

specifically, AEP Rockport assumed that 

its ESPs would be partially energized 

and reducing particulate matter 

emissions, albeit at only 60 percent 

efficiency. Rockport’s operating permit 

excuses it from running the ESPs during 

startup and shutdown. The emissions 

rate both Indiana and AEP Rockport 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
67188 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

used is based on the assumption that 

AEP Rockport will take steps to 

minimize opacity that are not required 

by law. 

Response: EPA believes that the 

modeling done in support of the TAOL 

is an appropriate representation of the 

impact of the TAOL on the NAAQS. The 

parameters used in the modeling are 

consistent with EPA SSM guidance and 

rules (see, e.g., 80 FR 33840), and reflect 

the operations at the facility, because 

Indiana has found through review of the 

reported data that AEP Rockport’s ESP 

typically provides 75 percent control 

efficiency or more during startup. 

It should also be noted that AEP 

Rockport is subject to other rules that 

limit its emissions, such as the Mercury 

and Air Toxics (MATS) rule (40 CFR 

part 63, subpart UUUUU). Controlling 

PM emissions under the MATS rule will 

further limit the opacity from the AEP 

Rockport units. Indiana’s analysis 

without ESP control still shows the air 

quality will be protected. Therefore, 

EPA believes that the assumption of 60 

percent efficiency in the modeling is 

conservative, and shows that the 

NAAQS would be protected at a level 

well below the standard. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

the 2013 modeling is unrealistic and 

retains flaws from the 2004 modeling. 

Some of the key modeling assumptions 

that Indiana used are unrealistic. These 

assumptions cut in both directions: 

Some overestimate air quality impact 

and some underestimate air quality 

impact. Indiana assumed that there was 

no background PM2.5 concentration. 

Indiana’s justifications for using a zero 

background PM concentration do not 

withstand scrutiny. Assuming zero 

background concentration for PM2.5

produces an air quality modeling result 

that cannot be relied upon to show 

NAAQS compliance. The 2013 annual 

mean for PM2.5 at the Dale, Spencer 

County, Indiana monitor was 10.20 mg/ 

m3. Indiana’s modeling yielded an 

eighth high 24-hour PM2.5 value of 22 

mg/m3. Even though the methodology for 

calculating these values is very 

different, adding them yields a total of 

32.2 mg/m3. 

Response: The commenter notes in its 

own analysis that the modeling, with 

background concentration, still yield 

results that are below the standard of 35 

mg/m3. 

The revised modeling analysis by 

Indiana addressed the concerns raised 

by the commenter. Background data was 

taken from the Dale monitor in Spencer 

County, Indiana. AEP Rockport is also 

in Spencer County, Indiana, about 20 

miles from the Dale monitor. The latest 

three years of monitoring data from 

2013–2015 were used. The background 

value of 23 mg/m3 does include the 

expected impact from AEP Rockport’s 

startup and shutdown periods, as no 

adjustment to the data was made. Thus, 

both Indiana and EPA considered a 

conservative background concentration 

in their evaluations of the AEP Rockport 

TAOLs. 

Indiana’s 2013 modeling is 

conservative in several additional ways. 

The dispersion modeling used averaged 

stack temperatures and flow rates in the 

startup process (which were not from 

the same hour the emissions value came 

from). Using the good engineering 

practice stack height of 220.7 m, instead 

of the actual 272.5 m stack height, also 

leads to a conservative estimate of 

dispersion and, therefore, 

conservatively high concentration 

results. The analysis used a cold-unit 

startup, which is expected to produce 

more opacity than a warm-unit startup. 

(A warm-unit startup is when the boiler 

is still warm, a scenario that could come 

from frequent startups and shutdowns.) 

Indiana used coarse particulate matter 

(PM10) emission rates in its modeling 

analysis, making the conservative 

assumption that those emissions were 

100 percent PM2.5. Indiana compared 

the model result to the 24-hour PM2.5

standard and determined that the 

NAAQS were protected. 

A scenario considering two hours of 

uncontrolled emissions during startup 

gave a maximum concentration of 3.06 

mg/m3. Adding in the background 

concentration yields a total value of 

26.06 mg/m3. A second scenario was 

considered with one unit starting up 

while the other unit is in normal 

operation. This scenario yields a total 

concentration of 24.59 mg/m3. The 

higher stack temperature and greater 

flow rate increase the dispersion 

characteristics leading to the lower 

concentration. Thus, the first scenario 

provides a worst-case analysis with a 

background concentration and no ESP 

operation during startup, and it still 

demonstrates attainment of the 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Comment: The commenter stated that 

Indiana has not demonstrated that this 

TAOL is needed and justifiable, as 

required by 326 IAC 5–1–3(d)(2). The 

commenter noted that the Indiana SIP 

requires the owner to demonstrate that 

a particular TAOL is needed and 

justifiable during periods of startup and 

shutdown. The TAOL should be 

narrowly tailored and all steps must be 

taken to minimize emissions during 

startup and shutdown. 

Response: The criteria for 

demonstrating that a TAOL is needed 

and justifiable are provided in SIP rule 

326 IAC 5–1–3(d)(2). As discussed 

above, the need in this case is supported 

by both the COMs data showing 

exceedances and the limitations of the 

technology due to low temperatures 

specific to startup and shutdown. 

The AEP Rockport TAOLs also meet 

the criteria contained in EPA’s SSM 

guidance and rules (see, e.g., 80 FR 

33840). The TAOLs are narrowly 

tailored, as they apply only to Rockport 

Unit 1 and Unit 2. They also align the 

previously approved Indiana TAOLs as 

it is a coal-fired utility boiler controlled 

with an ESP. The data provided on 

previous startups and shutdowns for 

both units indicated the TAOLs were set 

properly to minimize emissions during 

startup and shutdown. AEP Rockport 

has satisfied the criteria for approval. 

Further, the AEP Rockport startup and 

shutdown TAOLs are consistent with 

the previously approved TAOLs at other 

similar Indiana facilities (See 67 FR 

46589, July, 16, 2002). The TAOLs for 

AEP Rockport were also tailored 

specifically to the facility using 

monitored COM data to determine 

opacity limits that were appropriate 

given the operational limitations of the 

specific parameters on the ESP for AEP 

Rockport. AEP Rockport has 

demonstrated that the PM2.5 NAAQS 

and thus the area’s air quality will 

remain protected. The reports on the 

startups and shutdown do show the 

periods when the current opacity 

limitations are exceeded occurred 

during 14 startups and 33 shutdowns 

from 2007 to 2013, which is an average 

of 2.0 startup and 4.7 shutdown 

exceedances per year. Just one startup 

(2.1 hours) and two shutdowns (1.7 and 

2.0 hours) during 2007 to 2013 exceeded 

the proposed TAOLs. 

The air quality analysis of the TAOLs 

shows that the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is 

protected, and EPA’s analysis of the 

annual standard based on the modeling 

provided supports that the annual PM2.5

standard is protected. Compliance with 

this standard protects the public health 

from short-term events such as startups 

and shutdowns. 

Comment: The proposed TAOLs 

include no upper limits on opacity 

during the specified timeframe. As such, 

they could potentially allow extremely 

high opacity scenarios. There is no 

concrete restriction on how many times 

AEP Rockport may startup or shutdown 

each unit in a year, or even in a week. 

The combination of these two events 

raises the potential for serious impacts 

on ambient air quality. 

AEP Rockport has not demonstrated it 

requires a wholesale exemption from 

numerical opacity limits when the 

TAOL would apply. None of the opacity 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67189 

1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997). 

records show opacity reaching levels 

near 100 percent for two hours during 

a startup. AEP assumed the ESPs would 

run at 60 percent efficiency before the 

flue gas temperature reaches 250 °F. 

Furthermore, AEP Rockport claimed 

that 60 percent control efficiency was a 

low estimate. If true, that means AEP 

Rockport could partially control its 

opacity during the startup and 

shutdown periods. The TAOLs simply 

grants AEP Rockport an unneeded, 

unjustified free pass during the 

specified time period. 

Response: EPA agrees that the data 

indicates opacity does not approach 100 

percent opacity. The opacity readings 

vary in time and opacity level, which 

makes setting numerical opacity 

limitations impractical. While there is 

not a percent opacity limit, the TAOL 

does provide meaningful constraints of 

time and temperature that the facility 

must follow that limits the emissions 

during startup and shutdowns. The 

TAOL for unit startup is only allowed 

until the exhaust temperature reaches 

250 °F at the ESP inlet, up to a 

maximum of 20 six-minute averaging 

periods (2 hours). The TAOL for unit 

shutdown begins when the exhaust 

temperature declines below 250 °F at 

the ESP inlet and goes for up to 15 sixminute averaging periods (1.5 hours). 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the addition of the 

AEP Rockport TAOL to 326 IAC 5–1–8 

to the Indiana SIP. The rule provides 

AEP Rockport Units #1 and Unit #2 

with TAOLs under certain 

circumstances during unit startup and 

shutdown periods. All available data 

support that the AEP Rockport TAOLs 

are set at an appropriate level. The AEP 

Rockport TAOLs meet the requirements 

of 326 IAC 5–1–3(d)(2). The AEP 

Rockport TAOLs also meet the other 

requirements of 326 IAC 5–1–3(d), as 

approved into the Indiana SIP. 

This action is consistent with the 

CAA, the Indiana SIP, and EPA policy 

regarding emissions during periods of 

startup and shutdown. Indiana has 

provided an air quality analysis 

demonstrating that the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

Spencer County should continue to be 

protected with the revision. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation 

by reference of the Indiana Regulations 

described in the amendments to 40 CFR 

part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these 

materials have been approved by EPA 

for inclusion in the State 

implementation plan, have been 

incorporated by reference by EPA into 

that plan, are fully federally enforceable 

under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA 

as of the effective date of the final 

rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will 

be incorporated by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in the 

next update to the SIP compilation.1

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these documents generally 

available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA 

Region 5 Office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

V. 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 Orders 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). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 29, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
67190 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1See Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for 

the 2008 Ozone NAAQS (September 7, 2016), 

available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/finalcross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. 

2See 40 CFR 52.38 and 52.39. 

3See CSAPR Allowance Allocations Final Rule 

TSD, available at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/

final-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. 

4See 40 CFR 97.811(a)(1). The approach of 

allocating emission allowances to existing EGUs as 

provided in a NODA was established in the original 

CSAPR and was unchanged in the CSAPR Update. 

See, e.g., 40 CFR 97.511(a)(1). 

Dated: September 19, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by adding an entry under 

‘‘Article 5. Opacity Regulations’’ ‘‘Rule 

1. Opacity Limitations’’ for 5–1–8 in 

numerical order to read as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana citation Subject 

Indiana 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Notes 

*******

Article 5. Opacity Regulations 

Rule 1. Opacity Limitations 

*******

5–1–8 ........................ Site-specific temporary alternate 

opacity limitations.

12/6/2014 9/30/2016, [insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–23296 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0500; FRL–9953–30– 

OAR] 

Availability of Data on Allocations of 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

Allowances to Existing Electricity 

Generating Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; notice of data 

availability (NODA). 

SUMMARY: Under the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading program 

regulations, the EPA allocates emission 

allowances to existing electricity 

generating units (EGUs) as provided in 

a notice of data availability (NODA). In 

the CSAPR Update promulgated earlier 

this year, the EPA finalized default 

allocations of CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 2 allowances for the 

control periods in 2017 and subsequent 

years to existing EGUs in 22 eastern 

states for which the EPA finalized 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)— 

Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, 

Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, 

Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin. Through this NODA, the 

EPA is providing notice of the 

availability of data on these allowance 

allocations to existing units, as well as 

the data upon which the allocations are 

based. 

DATES: September 30, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions concerning this notice should 

be addressed to Michael Cohen, at (202) 

343–9497 or cohen.michael@epa.gov; or 

Robert Miller, at (202) 343–9077 or 

miller.robertl@epa.gov. The mailing 

address for each of these individuals is 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204M, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

CSAPR allowance trading programs 

require affected EGUs to hold emission 

allowances sufficient to cover their 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and/ 

or sulfur dioxide in each control period. 

In the CSAPR Update for the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), the EPA established new 

emissions budgets for ozone season NOX

emissions in 2017 and subsequent years 

for 22 eastern states and promulgated 

FIP provisions requiring affected EGUs 

in those states to participate in the 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

Trading Program.1 Beginning with the 

2018 control period, each covered state 

generally has the option to determine 

how the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 2 allowances in its state 

emissions budget should be allocated 

among the state’s EGUs through a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision.2

However, for the 2017 control period, 

and by default for subsequent control 

periods in situations where a state has 

not provided the EPA with the state’s 

own allocations pursuant to an 

approved SIP revision, the allocations 

are made by the EPA. 

In the case of units that commenced 

commercial operations before January 1, 

2015, termed ‘‘existing’’ units for 

purposes of this trading program, the 

EPA determined default allocations for 

all control periods in the CSAPR Update 

rulemaking, according to a methodology 

finalized in the rulemaking but not 

included in the regulatory text.3

Through this NODA, the EPA is 

providing notice of the availability of 

unit-level default allocations of CSAPR 

NOX Ozone Season Group 2 allowances 

for EGUs that commenced commercial 

operation before January 1, 2015, as 

required by the CSAPR regulations.4

The data are contained in an Excel 

spreadsheet titled ‘‘Unit-Level 

Allocations and Underlying Data for the 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES