Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 23713 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have determined that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves the 

establishment of a safety zone. This rule 

is categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 

2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T05–0117 to read as 

follows: 

165.T05–0117 Safety Zone, Southern 

Branch Elizabeth River; Chesapeake, VA. 

(a) Definitions. For the purposes of 

this section: 

Captain of the Port means the 

Commander, Sector Hampton Roads. 

Participants mean individuals 

responsible for launching the fireworks. 

Representative means any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been authorized to act 

on the behalf of the Captain of the Port. 

(b) Locations. The following area is a 

safety zone: 

(1) All waters of the Southern Branch 

of the Elizabeth River within a 140 foot 

radius of the fireworks display in 

approximate position 36°48′31.0818′′ N, 

076°17′14.2506′′ W, located near the 

Elizabeth River Park, Chesapeake, 

Virginia. 

(c) Regulations. 

(1) All persons are required to comply 

with the general regulations governing 

safety zones in § 165.23 of this part. 

(2) With the exception of participants, 

entry into or remaining in this safety 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads 

or his designated representatives. 

(3) All vessels underway within this 

safety zone at the time it is implemented 

are to depart the zone immediately. 

(4) The Captain of the Port, Hampton 

Roads or his representative can be 

reached at telephone number (757) 668– 

5555. 

(5) The Coast Guard vessels enforcing 

the safety zone can be contacted on 

VHF–FM marine band radio channel 13 

(165.65Mhz) and channel 16 (156.8 

Mhz). 

(6) This section applies to all persons 

or vessels wishing to transit through the 

safety zone except participants and 

vessels that are engaged in the following 

operations: 

(i) Enforcing laws; 

(ii) servicing aids to navigation, and 

(iii) Emergency response vessels. 

(7) The U.S. Coast Guard may be 

assisted in the patrol and enforcement 

of the safety zone by Federal, State, and 

local agencies. 

(d) Enforcement periods. This rule 

will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 9 

p.m. on May 30, 2015. 

Dated: April 17, 2015. 

Christopher S. Keane, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. 2015–10018 Filed 4–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0969; FRL–9926–81– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve elements of a state 

implementation plan (SIP) submission 

by Indiana regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

2008 ozone 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. The 

proposed rulemaking associated with 

this final action was published on 

August 19, 2013, and EPA received two 

comment letters during the comment 

period, which ended on September 18, 

2013. The concerns raised in these 

letters, as well as EPA’s responses, will 

be addressed in this final action. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 29, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0969. 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., Confidential Business Information 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

23714 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 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 is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

A. What does this rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses a 

December 12, 2011, submission from the 

Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) intended to meet 

the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

B. Why did the state make this SIP 

submission? 

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 2008 ozone 

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 ozone already 

meet those requirements. 

EPA has highlighted this statutory 

requirement in multiple guidance 

documents, including the most recent 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ issued on 

September 13, 2013. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon Indiana’s SIP 

submission that addresses the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

2008 ozone NAAQS. The requirement 

for states to make SIP submissions 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 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction (‘‘SSM’’)at sources, that 

may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s 

policies addressing such excess 

emissions; (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 (collectively referred to as 

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

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

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 

rulemaking. A detailed rationale, 

history, and interpretation related to 

infrastructure SIP requirements can be 

found in our 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). 

In addition, EPA is not acting on 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interstate 

transport significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance, a 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with 

respect to visibility, and 110(a)(2)(J) 

with respect to visibility. EPA is also 

not acting on section 110(a)(2)(I)— 

Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan 

Revisions Under Part D, in its entirety. 

The rationale for not acting on elements 

of these requirements was included in 

EPA’s August 19, 2013, proposed 

rulemaking or discussed below in 

today’s response to comments. 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

The public comment period for EPA’s 

proposed actions with respect to 

Indiana’s satisfaction of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS closed on 

September 18, 2013. EPA received two 

comment letters, which were from the 

Sierra Club and the state of Connecticut. 

A synopsis of the comments contained 

in these letters and EPA’s responses are 

provided below. 

Comment 1: The Sierra Club states 

that, on its face, the CAA ‘‘requires I– 

SIPs to be adequate to prevent violations 

of the NAAQS.’’ In support, the 

commenter quotes the language in 

section 110(a)(1) that requires states to 

adopt a plan for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS and the language in section 

110(a)(2)(A) which requires SIPs to 

include enforceable emissions 

limitations as may be necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA and which 

commenters claimed include the 

maintenance plan requirement. Sierra 

Club notes the CAA definition of 

‘‘emission limit’’ and reads these 

provisions together to require 

‘‘enforceable emission limitations on 

source emissions sufficient to ensure 

maintenance of the NAAQS.’’ 

Response 1: EPA disagrees that 

section 110 must be interpreted in the 

manner suggested by Sierra Club. 

Section 110 is only one provision that 

is part of the complex structure 

governing implementation of the 

NAAQS program under the CAA, as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 23715 

amended in 1990, and it must be 

interpreted in the context of not only 

that structure, but also of the historical 

evolution of that structure. In light of 

the revisions to section 110 since 1970 

and the later-promulgated and more 

specific planning requirements of the 

CAA, EPA interprets the requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(A) that the plan 

provide for ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement’’ to mean 

that the infrastructure SIP must contain 

enforceable emission limits that will aid 

in attaining and/or maintaining the 

NAAQS and that the state demonstrate 

that it has the necessary tools to 

implement and enforce a NAAQS, such 

as adequate state personnel and an 

enforcement program. 

With regard to the requirement for 

emission limitations, EPA has 

interpreted this to mean that, for 

purposes of section 110, the state may 

rely on measures already in place to 

address the pollutant at issue or any 

new control measures that the state may 

choose to submit. As EPA stated in 

‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements 

under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2),’’ dated September 13, 2013 

(Infrastructure SIP Guidance), ‘‘[t]he 

conceptual purpose of an infrastructure 

SIP submission is to assure that the air 

agency’s SIP contains the necessary 

structural requirements for the new or 

revised NAAQS, whether by 

establishing that the SIP already 

contains the necessary provisions, by 

making a substantive SIP revision to 

update the SIP, or both. Overall, the 

infrastructure SIP submission process 

provides an opportunity . . . to review 

the basic structural requirements of the 

air agency’s air quality management 

program in light of each new or revised 

NAAQS.’’ Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

at p. 2. 

Comment 2: Sierra Club cites two 

excerpts from the legislative history of 

the CAA Amendments of 1970 asserting 

that they support an interpretation that 

SIP revisions under CAA section 110 

must include emissions limitations 

sufficient to show maintenance of the 

NAAQS in all areas of Indiana. Sierra 

Club also contends that the legislative 

history of the CAA supports the 

interpretation that infrastructure SIPs 

under section 110(a)(2) must include 

enforceable emission limitations, citing 

the Senate Committee Report and the 

subsequent Senate Conference Report 

accompanying the 1970 CAA. 

Response 2: The CAA, as enacted in 

1970, including its legislative history, 

cannot be interpreted in isolation from 

the later amendments that refined that 

structure and deleted relevant language 

from section 110 concerning 

demonstrating attainment. In any event, 

the two excerpts of legislative history 

the commenter cites merely provide that 

states should include enforceable 

emission limits in their SIPs; they do 

not mention or otherwise address 

whether states are required to include 

maintenance plans for all areas of the 

state as part of the infrastructure SIP. 

Comment 3: Sierra Club cites to 40 

CFR 51.112(a), providing that each plan 

must ‘‘demonstrate that the measures, 

rules, and regulations contained in it are 

adequate to provide for the timely 

attainment and maintenance of the 

[NAAQS].’’ The commenter asserts that 

this regulation requires all SIPs to 

include emissions limits necessary to 

ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The 

commenter states that ‘‘[a]lthough these 

regulations were developed before the 

Clean Air Act separated Infrastructure 

SIPs from nonattainment SIPs—a 

process that began with the 1977 

amendments and was completed by the 

1990 amendments—the regulations 

apply to I–SIPs.’’ The commenter relies 

on a statement in the preamble to the 

1986 action restructuring and 

consolidating provisions in part 51, in 

which EPA stated that ‘‘[i]t is beyond 

the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address 

the provisions of Part D of the Act. . . .’’ 

51 FR 40656 (November 7, 1986). 

Response 3: The commenter’s reliance 

on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its 

argument that infrastructure SIPs must 

contain emission limits ‘‘adequate to 

prohibit NAAQS violations’’ and 

adequate or sufficient to ensure the 

maintenance of the NAAQS is not 

supported. As an initial matter, EPA 

notes and the commenter recognizes 

this regulatory provision was initially 

promulgated and ‘‘restructured and 

consolidated’’ prior to the CAA 

Amendments of 1990, in which 

Congress removed all references to 

‘‘attainment’’ in section 110(a)(2)(A). In 

addition, it is clear on its face that 40 

CFR 51.112 applies to plans specifically 

designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA 

interprets these provisions to apply 

when states are developing ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs such as the detailed 

attainment and maintenance plans 

required under other provisions of the 

CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in 

1990, such as section 175A and 182. 

The commenter suggests that these 

provisions must apply to section 110 

SIPs because in the preamble to EPA’s 

action ‘‘restructuring and consolidating’’ 

provisions in part 51, EPA stated that 

the new attainment demonstration 

provisions in the 1977 Amendments to 

the CAA were ‘‘beyond the scope’’ of 

the rulemaking. It is important to note, 

however, that EPA’s action in 1986 was 

not to establish new substantive 

planning requirements, but rather to 

consolidate and restructure provisions 

that had previously been promulgated. 

EPA noted that it had already issued 

guidance addressing the new ‘‘Part D’’ 

attainment planning obligations. Also, 

as to maintenance regulations, EPA 

expressly stated that it was not making 

any revisions other than to re-number 

those provisions. Id. at 40657. 

Although EPA was explicit that it was 

not establishing requirements 

interpreting the provisions of new ‘‘part 

D’’ of the CAA, it is clear that the 

regulations being restructured and 

consolidated were intended to address 

control strategy plans. In the preamble, 

EPA clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112 

was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (‘‘Control 

strategy: SOX and PM (portion)’’), 51.14 

(‘‘Control strategy: CO, HC, Ox and NO2

(portion)’’), 51.80 (‘‘Demonstration of 

attainment: Pb (portion)’’), and 51.82 

(‘‘Air quality data (portion)’’). Id. at 

40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 

51.112 contains consolidated provisions 

that are focused on control strategy SIPs, 

and the infrastructure SIP is not such a 

plan. 

Comment 4: Sierra Club references 

two prior EPA rulemaking actions 

where EPA disapproved or proposed to 

disapprove SIPs, and claimed they were 

actions in which EPA relied on section 

110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject 

infrastructure SIPs. The commenter first 

points to a 2006 partial approval and 

partial disapproval of revisions to 

Missouri’s existing plan addressing the 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. In that 

action, EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) as 

a basis for disapproving a revision to the 

state plan on the basis that the state 

failed to demonstrate the SIP was 

sufficient to ensure maintenance of the 

SO2 NAAQS after revision of an 

emission limit and cited to 40 CFR 

51.112 as requiring that a plan 

demonstrates the rules in a SIP are 

adequate to attain the NAAQS. Second, 

commenter cites a 2013 proposed 

disapproval of a revision to the SO2 SIP 

for Indiana, where the revision removed 

an emission limit that applied to a 

specific emissions source at a facility in 

the state. EPA relied on 40 CFR 

51.112(a) in proposing to reject the 

revision, stating that the state had not 

demonstrated that the emission limit 

was ‘‘redundant, unnecessary, or that its 

removal would not result in or allow an 

increase in actual SO2 emissions.’’ EPA 

further stated in that proposed 

disapproval that the state had not 

demonstrated that removal of the limit 

would not ‘‘affect the validity of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

23716 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

emission rates used in the existing 

attainment demonstration.’’ 

Response 4: EPA does not agree that 

the two prior actions referenced by the 

commenter establish how EPA reviews 

infrastructure SIPs. It is clear from both 

the final Missouri rule and the now final 

Indiana rule that EPA was not reviewing 

initial infrastructure SIP submissions 

under section 110 of the CAA, but rather 

reviewing revisions that would make an 

already approved SIP designed to 

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS 

less stringent. 

EPA’s partial approval and partial 

disapproval of revisions to restrictions 

on emissions of sulfur compounds for 

the Missouri SIP addressed a control 

strategy SIP and not an infrastructure 

SIP (71 FR 12623). 

The Indiana action provides even less 

support for the commenter’s position 

(78 FR 78720). The review in that rule 

was of a completely different 

requirement than the 110(a)(2)(A) SIP. 

Rather, in that case, the state had an 

approved SO2 attainment plan and was 

seeking to remove from the SIP, 

provisions relied on as part of the 

modeled attainment demonstration. 

EPA determined that the state had failed 

to demonstrate under section 110(l) of 

the CAA that the SIP revision would not 

result in increased SO2 emissions and 

thus not interfere with attainment of the 

NAAQS. Nothing in that rulemaking 

addresses the necessary content of the 

initial infrastructure SIP for a new or 

revised NAAQS. Rather, it is simply 

applying the clear statutory requirement 

that a state must demonstrate why a 

revision to an approved attainment plan 

will not interfere with attainment of the 

NAAQS. 

Comment 5: Sierra Club discusses 

several cases applying to the CAA 

which it claims support its contention 

that courts have been clear that section 

110(a)(2)(A) requires enforceable 

emissions limits in infrastructure SIPs 

to prevent violations of the NAAQS and 

demonstrate maintenance throughout 

the area. Sierra Club first cites to 

language in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 

78 (1975), addressing the requirement 

for ‘‘emission limitations’’ and stating 

that emission limitations ‘‘are specific 

rules to which operators of pollution 

sources are subject, and which if 

enforced should result in ambient air 

which meet the national standards.’’ 

Sierra Club also cites to Pennsylvania 

Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 932 

F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for the 

proposition that the CAA directs EPA to 

withhold approval of a SIP where it 

does not ensure maintenance of the 

NAAQS and Mision Industrial, Inc. v. 

EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), 

which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the 

CAA of 1970. The commenter contends 

that the 1990 Amendments do not alter 

how courts have interpreted the 

requirements of section 110, quoting 

Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. 

EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in 

turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the 

CAA and also stated that ‘‘SIPs must 

include certain measures Congress 

specified’’ to ensure attainment of the 

NAAQS. The commenter also quotes 

several additional opinions in this vein. 

Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 

F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (‘‘The 

Clean Air Act directs states to develop 

implementation plans—SIPs—that 

‘assure’ attainment and maintenance of 

[NAAQS] through enforceable emissions 

limitations’’); Hall v. EPA 273 F.3d 

1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001) (‘‘Each State 

must submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the 

manner in which [NAAQS] will be 

achieved and maintained within each 

air quality control region in the state’’). 

The commenter also cites Mich. Dept. of 

Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 

(6th Cir. 2000) for the proposition that 

EPA may not approve a SIP revision that 

does not demonstrate how the rules 

would not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

Response 5: None of the cases the 

commenter cites supports the 

commenter’s contention that section 

110(a)(2)(A) requires that infrastructure 

SIPs include detailed plans providing 

for attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do 

they shed light on how section 

110(a)(2)(A) may reasonably be 

interpreted. With the exception of 

Train, 421 U.S. 60, none of the cases the 

commenter cites concerned the 

interpretation of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of 

the pre-1990 Act). Rather, in the context 

of a challenge to an EPA action, 

revisions to a SIP that were required and 

approved as meeting other provisions of 

the CAA or in the context of an 

enforcement action, the court references 

section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 

110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the 

background section of its decision. 

In Train, a case that was decided 

almost 40 years ago, the court was 

addressing a state revision to an 

attainment plan submission made 

pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the 

sole statutory provision at that time 

regulating such submissions. The issue 

in that case concerned whether changes 

to requirements that would occur before 

attainment was required were variances 

that should be addressed pursuant to 

the provision governing SIP revisions or 

were ‘‘postponements’’ that must be 

addressed under section 110(f) of the 

CAA of 1970, which contained 

prescriptive criteria. The court 

concluded that EPA reasonably 

interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict 

a state’s choice of the mix of control 

measures needed to attain the NAAQS 

and that revisions to SIPs that would 

not impact attainment of the NAAQS by 

the attainment date were not subject to 

the limits of section 110(f). Thus, the 

issue was not whether a section 110 SIP 

needs to provide for attainment or 

whether emissions limits are needed as 

part of the SIP; rather the issue was 

which statutory provision governed 

when the state wanted to revise the 

emission limits in its SIP if such 

revision would not impact attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. To the 

extent the holding in the case has any 

bearing on how section 110(a)(2)(A) 

might be interpreted, it is important to 

realize that in 1975, when the opinion 

was issued, section 110(a)(2)(B) (the 

predecessor to section 110(a)(2)(A)) 

expressly referenced the requirement to 

attain the NAAQS, a reference that was 

removed in 1990. 

The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of 

Envtl. Resources was also decided based 

on the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. 

At issue was whether EPA properly 

rejected a revision to an approved plan 

where the inventories relied on by the 

state for the updated submission had 

gaps. The court quoted section 

110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in 

support of EPA’s disapproval, but did 

not provide any interpretation of that 

provision. Yet, even if the court had 

interpreted that provision, EPA notes 

that it was modified by Congress in 

1990; thus, this decision has little 

bearing on the issue here. 

At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 

F.2d 123, was the definition of 

‘‘emissions limitation’’ not whether 

section 110 requires the state to 

demonstrate how all areas of the state 

will attain and maintain the NAAQS as 

part of their infrastructure SIPs. The 

language from the opinion the 

commenter quotes does not interpret but 

rather merely describes section 

110(a)(2)(A). The commenters do not 

raise any concerns about whether the 

measures relied on by the state in the 

infrastructure SIP are ‘‘emissions 

limitations’’ and the decision in this 

case has no bearing here. 

In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 

F.3d 1174, the court was reviewing a 

Federal implementation plan that EPA 

promulgated after a long history of the 

state failing to submit an adequate state 

implementation plan. The court cited 

generally to sections 107 and 

110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the 

proposition that SIPs should assure 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 23717 

1While it is true that there may be some monitors 

within a state with values so high as to make a 

nonattainment designation of the county with that 

monitor almost a certainty, the geographic 

boundaries of the nonattainment area associated 

with that monitor would not be known until EPA 

issues final designations. 

attainment and maintenance of NAAQS 

through emission limitations but this 

language was not part of the court’s 

holding in the case. 

The commenter suggests that Alaska 

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 540 U.S. 

461, stands for the proposition that the 

1990 CAA Amendments do not alter 

how courts interpret section 110. This 

claim is inaccurate. Rather, the court 

quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as 

noted previously, differs from the pre1990 version of that provision and the 

court makes no mention of the changed 

language. Furthermore, the commenter 

also quotes the court’s statement that 

‘‘SIPs must include certain measures 

Congress specified’’ but that statement 

specifically referenced the requirement 

in section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires 

an enforcement program and a program 

for the regulation of the modification 

and construction of new sources. 

Notably, at issue in that case was the 

state’s ‘‘new source’’ permitting 

program, not its infrastructure SIP. 

Two of the cases the commenter cites, 

Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 230 F.3d 

181, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret 

CAA section 110(l), the provision 

governing ‘‘revisions’’ to plans, and not 

the initial plan submission requirement 

under section 110(a)(2) for a new or 

revised NAAQS, such as the 

infrastructure SIP at issue in this 

instance. In those cases, the courts cited 

to section 110(a)(2)(A) solely for the 

purpose of providing a brief background 

of the CAA. 

Comment 6: Sierra Club contends that 

EPA cannot approve the section 

110(a)(2)(A) portion of Indiana’s 2008 

ozone infrastructure SIP revision 

because an infrastructure SIP should 

include enforceable emission limits to 

prevent NAAQS violations in areas not 

designated nonattainment. Specifically, 

Sierra Club cited air monitoring reports 

for Clark, Floyd, and LaPorte Counties 

indicating violations of the NAAQS 

based on 2010–2012 and 2011–2013 

design values and air quality monitoring 

reports for Greene County indicating 

violations based on data from 2010– 

2012. The commenter alleges that these 

violations demonstrate that the 

infrastructure SIP fails to ensure that air 

pollution levels meet or are below the 

level of the NAAQS and thus the 

infrastructure SIP must be disapproved. 

Sierra Club noted that the violation of 

the NAAQS based on data from 2010– 

2012 had been known for over four 

months, and that Indiana failed to 

strengthen its infrastructure SIP and 

address the violations by enacting 

enforceable limits. 

Furthermore, the commenter suggests 

that the state adopt specific controls that 

they contend are cost-effective for 

reducing NOx, a precursor to ozone. 

Response 6: We disagree with the 

commenter that infrastructure SIPs must 

include detailed attainment and 

maintenance plans for all areas of the 

state and must be disapproved if air 

quality data that became available late 

in the process or after the SIP was due 

and submitted changes the status of 

areas within the state. We believe that 

section 110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably 

interpreted to require states to submit 

SIPs that reflect the first step in their 

planning for attaining and maintaining 

a new or revised NAAQS and that they 

contain enforceable control measures 

and a demonstration that the state has 

the available tools and authority to 

develop and implement plans to attain 

and maintain the NAAQS. 

The suggestion that the infrastructure 

SIP must include measures addressing 

violations of the standard that did not 

occur until shortly before or even after 

the SIP was due and submitted cannot 

be supported. The CAA provides states 

with three years to develop 

infrastructure SIPs and states cannot 

reasonably be expected to address the 

annual change in an area’s design value 

for each year over that period. 

Moreover, the CAA recognizes and has 

provisions to address changes in air 

quality over time, such as an area 

slipping from attainment to 

nonattainment or changing from 

nonattainment to attainment. These 

include provisions providing for 

redesignation in section 107(d) and 

provisions in section 110(k)(5) allowing 

EPA to call on the state to revise its SIP, 

as appropriate. 

We do not believe that section 

110(a)(2)(A) requires detailed planning 

SIPs demonstrating either attainment or 

maintenance for specific geographic 

areas of the state. The infrastructure SIP 

is triggered by promulgation of the 

NAAQS, not designation. Moreover, 

infrastructure SIPs are due three years 

following promulgation of the NAAQS 

and designations are not due until two 

years (or in some cases three years) 

following promulgation of the NAAQS. 

Thus, during a significant portion of the 

period that the state has available for 

developing the infrastructure SIP, it 

does not know what the designation 

will be for individual areas of the state.1

In light of the structure of the CAA, 

EPA’s long-standing position regarding 

infrastructure SIPs is that they are 

general planning SIPs to ensure that the 

state has adequate resources and 

authority to implement a NAAQS in 

general throughout the state and not 

detailed attainment and maintenance 

plans for each individual area of the 

state. 

Our interpretation that infrastructure 

SIPs are more general planning SIPs is 

consistent with the statute as 

understood in light of its history and 

structure. When Congress enacted the 

CAA in 1970, it did not include 

provisions requiring states and the EPA 

to label areas as attainment or 

nonattainment. Rather, states were 

required to include all areas of the state 

in ‘‘air quality control regions’’ (AQCRs) 

and section 110 set forth the core 

substantive planning provisions for 

these AQCRs. At that time, Congress 

anticipated that states would be able to 

address air pollution quickly pursuant 

to the very general planning provisions 

in section 110 and could bring all areas 

into compliance with the NAAQS 

within five years. Moreover, at that 

time, section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified 

that the section 110 plan provide for 

‘‘attainment’’ of the NAAQS and section 

110(a)(2)(B) specified that the plan must 

include ‘‘emission limitations, 

schedules, and timetables for 

compliance with such limitations, and 

such other measures as may be 

necessary to insure attainment and 

maintenance [of the NAAQS].’’ 

In 1977, Congress recognized that the 

existing structure was not sufficient and 

many areas were still violating the 

NAAQS. At that time, Congress for the 

first time added provisions requiring 

states and EPA to identify whether areas 

of the state were violating the NAAQS 

(i.e., were nonattainment) or were 

meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were 

attainment) and established specific 

planning requirements in section 172 

for areas not meeting the NAAQS. 

In 1990, many areas still had air 

quality not meeting the NAAQS and 

Congress again amended the CAA and 

added yet another layer of more 

prescriptive planning requirements for 

each of the NAAQS, with the primary 

provisions for ozone in section 182. At 

that same time, Congress modified 

section 110 to remove references to the 

section 110 SIP providing for 

attainment, including removing preexisting section 110(a)(2)(A) in its 

entirety and renumbering subparagraph 

(B) as section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Additionally, Congress replaced the 

clause ‘‘as may be necessary to insure 

attainment and maintenance [of the 

NAAQS]’’ with ‘‘as may be necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

23718 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements of this chapter.’’ Thus, the 

CAA has significantly evolved in the 

more than 40 years since it was 

originally enacted. While at one time 

section 110 did provide the only 

detailed SIP planning provisions for 

states and specified that such plans 

must provide for attainment of the 

NAAQS, under the structure of the 

current CAA, section 110 is only the 

initial stepping-stone in the planning 

process for a specific NAAQS. And, 

more detailed, later-enacted provisions 

govern the substantive planning 

process, including planning for 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

For all of the above reasons, we 

disagree with the commenter that EPA 

must disapprove an infrastructure SIP 

revision if there are monitored 

violations of the standard in the state 

and the section 110(a)(2)(A) revision 

does not have detailed plans for 

demonstrating how the state will bring 

that area into attainment. Rather, EPA 

believes that the proper inquiry at this 

juncture is whether the state has met the 

basic structural SIP requirements 

appropriate when EPA is acting upon 

the submittal. 

Moreover, Indiana’s SIP contains 

existing emission reduction measures 

that control emissions of VOCs and NOX

found in 326 IAC 8 and 326 IAC 10, 

respectively. Indiana’s SIP revision 

reflects several provisions that have the 

ability to reduce ground level ozone and 

its precursors. The Indiana SIP relies on 

measures and programs used to 

implement previous ozone NAAQS. 

Because there is no substantive 

difference between the previous ozone 

NAAQS and the more recent ozone 

NAAQS, other than the level of the 

standard, the provisions relied on by 

Indiana will provide benefits for the 

new NAAQS; in other words, the 

measures reduce overall ground-level 

ozone and its precursors and are not 

limited to reducing ozone levels to meet 

one specific NAAQS. Further, in 

approving Indiana’s infrastructure SIP 

revision, EPA is affirming that Indiana 

has sufficient authority to take the types 

of actions required by the CAA in order 

to bring such areas back into attainment. 

Comment 7: Sierra Club asserted that 

Indiana’s infrastructure SIP fails to meet 

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

and section 110(a)(2)(E) because IC 13– 

14–8–8 contains provisions that would 

allow the board to grant variances to 

rules when the rules would impose 

‘‘undue hardships or burden.’’ The 

commenter noted that EPA had cited IC 

13–14–8 as one of IDEM’s mechanisms 

for satisfying the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) and section 

110(a)(2)(E), but contended that the 

variance provisions in IC 13–14–8–8 are 

too broad and vague to ensure that 

emission limits and controls are 

properly enforced, or to ensure that 

adequate legal authority is provided to 

carry out Indiana’s SIP. Therefore, EPA 

cannot approve IC 13–14–8 to meet any 

requirements of section 110. 

Response 7: EPA disagrees the 

commenter’s claim that Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP fails to meet the 

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

section 110(a)(2)(E). As an initial matter, 

IC 13–14–8–8 is not a regulation that 

has been approved into the SIP. Thus, 

any variance granted by the state 

pursuant to this provision would not 

modify the requirements of the SIP. 

Furthermore, for a variance from the 

state to be approved into the SIP, a 

demonstration must be made under 

CAA section 110(l) showing that the 

revision does not interfere with any 

requirements of the act including 

attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. 

We disagree that the existence of this 

provision as solely a matter of state law 

means that the state does not have 

adequate authority to carry out the 

implementation plan. 

Comment 8: Sierra Club asserted that 

EPA must disapprove Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP because it does not 

address the visibility provisions under 

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

commenter noted that EPA’s basis for 

proposing approval for the visibility 

protection provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) was contingent upon 

EPA’s claim that Indiana has an 

approved regional haze SIP. The 

commenter contended that Indiana’s 

regional haze SIP was only partially 

approved and no action has been taken 

on issues addressing the Best Available 

Retrofit Technology requirements for 

EGUs. Therefore, the commenter 

believes that EPA must disapprove the 

visibility protection requirements found 

in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP. 

Response 8: The commenter is correct 

that EPA issued a limited disapproval of 

Indiana’s regional haze SIP. Our limited 

disapproval was based on Indiana’s 

reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR) to satisfy certain requirements 

for controlling emissions of SO2 and 

NOX from EGUs. EPA also issued a 

limited approval of the remaining 

portion of the regional haze plan. 

However, in response to this comment, 

EPA is not taking final action today on 

the portion of Indiana’s infrastructure 

SIP addressing the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility. 

Comment 9: Sierra Club asserted that 

EPA must disapprove Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP because it does not 

address the visibility protection 

provisions, as described above, for 

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

contended that EPA did not provide a 

rationale for why the visibility 

provisions in section 110(a)(2)(J) are not 

applicable to the 2008 Pb and 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

Response 9: The visibility 

requirements in part C of the CAA that 

are referenced in section 110(a)(2)(J) are 

not affected by the establishment or 

revision of a NAAQS. As a result, there 

are no ‘‘applicable’’ visibility protection 

obligations associated with the 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Because there are no 

applicable requirements, states are not 

required to address section 110(a)(2)(J) 

in their infrastructure SIP. 

Comment 10: Sierra Club stated that 

EPA cannot approve Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP, specifically the 

infrastructure element under section 

110(a)(2)(A), for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

because the state has not incorporated 

this NAAQS into the SIP. Instead, the 

commenter noted that the SIP at the 

time of proposed rulemaking, 

specifically at 326 Indiana 

Administrative Code (IAC) 1–3– 

4(b)(4)(B), contained the older 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997. 

Response 10: In a rulemaking 

published on December 18, 2014 (79 FR 

75527), EPA approved revisions to 

Indiana’s SIP incorporating the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

Comment 11: Sierra Club asserted that 

EPA must clarify two repealed 

regulations that were cited in the 

proposed rulemaking. Specifically, the 

commenter observed that EPA cited 326 

IAC 11–5 as helping Indiana satisfy the 

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

‘‘Emergency Powers’’ and IC 13–4–8 

which was cited to satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(H), ‘‘Future SIP Revisions.’’ 

Response 11: EPA did not intend to 

engender any confusion with these 

citations. The commenter is correct in 

noting that 326 IAC 11–5 has been 

repealed. That rule was of little 

relevance to section 110(a)(2)(G) and 

was incorrectly cited; the correct 

citation that was provided by IDEM is 

SIP-approved IAC 1–5, ‘‘Alert Levels.’’ 

In a similar manner, IDEM provided IC 

13–14–8 as helping to meet the 

requirements under section 110(a)(2)(H), 

but EPA incorrectly cited IC 13–4–8. 

Comment 12: Sierra Club asserted that 

EPA must disapprove portions of 

Indiana’s infrastructure SIP for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS addressing certain PM2.5

requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C). 

In particular, the commenter objected to 

the fact that Indiana has not codified the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 23719 

increments for areas designated as class 

I or class III for PM2.5. The commenter 

noted that while Indiana does not have 

class I or class III areas, the increments 

for class I and class III areas are still a 

requirement to satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(C). The commenter contends it 

is insufficient for EPA to ‘‘hope’’ that 

the state will adopt the increments if 

areas in the state are later redesignated 

to class I or class III, and therefore EPA 

must disapprove this section of 

Indiana’s infrastructure SIP. 

Response 12: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s view that Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP related to section 

110(a)(2)(C) must be disapproved 

because the state has not codified the 

PM2.5 increments for class I and class III 

areas as provided at 40 CFR 52.166(c) 

and 40 CFR 52.21(c). As explained in 

the August 19, 2013, proposed approval, 

Indiana does not currently have any 

areas designated class I or class III for 

PM2.5. Accordingly, EPA does not 

consider the PM2.5 increments for class 

I and class III areas to be necessary for 

the implementation of PSD permitting 

in Indiana at this time. In the event that 

areas in Indiana are one day classified 

as class I or class III, EPA expects IDEM 

to adopt these increments and submit 

them for incorporation into the SIP (see 

78 FR 50360 at 50364). Federal 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(g)(1) and 

52.21(g)(1) specify that if a state seeks to 

have an area reclassified to either class 

I or class III, it must submit such a 

request as a revision to its SIP for 

approval by the EPA Administrator. 

Thus, no areas in Indiana can be 

reclassified to class I or class III without 

EPA approval, and the process of 

evaluating such a request for approval 

requires a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking process. The EPA and other 

interested parties can evaluate the 

adequacy of Indiana’s PSD regulations 

as they apply to the proposed 

reclassified area at that time and, if 

necessary, initiate a process to cure any 

identified deficiency. However, at this 

time, EPA does not believe there to be 

an applicability gap for the PM2.5

increments as they apply in the state of 

Indiana. 

Comment 13: The State of 

Connecticut asserts that its ability to 

attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS is 

substantially compromised by the 

transport of pollution from upwind 

states. Specifically, modeling conducted 

by both the Ozone Transport 

Commission and EPA as part of the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

shows emissions from Indiana 

contributing to the nonattainment 

problem in Connecticut. The State of 

Connecticut states that it has done its 

share to reduce in-state emissions, and 

EPA should ensure that each upwind 

state addresses contribution to another 

downwind state’s nonattainment. With 

regard to the ‘‘good neighbor provision’’ 

in Section 1109(a)(1) of the CAA, 

Connecticut characterizes Indiana’s 

2008 ozone submission as relying on 

state regulations which implement the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule and CSAPR, 

and that such programs were intended 

by EPA to address the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS and not the more stringent 2008 

standard. Connecticut asserts EPA 

should therefore disapprove the Indiana 

submission. Connecticut also states that, 

under section 110(a)(2), Indiana was 

required to submit a complete SIP that 

demonstrated compliance with the good 

neighbor provision of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Connecticut further 

suggests that the CAA does not give EPA 

discretion to take no action on the 

submitted good neighbor provisions on 

the grounds of taking a separate action. 

Instead, it asserts that the only action 

available to EPA is to determine the 

approvability of the good neighbor 

provision of Indiana’s 2008 ozone 

NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission, 

or promulgate a FIP under section 

110(c)(1) within two years. 

Response 13: As explained in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), 

this action does not address, for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, the good neighbor 

provision in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

which prohibits emissions that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state. Thus, to the extent the comment 

relates to the substance or approvability 

of the good neighbor provision in 

Indiana’s 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP 

submission, the comment is not relevant 

to the present rulemaking. As stated 

herein and in the NPR, EPA will take 

later, separate action to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s 

argument that EPA cannot approve a SIP 

without the good neighbor provision. 

Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA authorizes 

EPA to approve a plan in full, 

disapprove it in full, or approve it in 

part and disapprove it in part, 

depending on the extent to which such 

plan meets the requirements of the 

CAA. This authority to approve the 

states’ SIP revisions in separable parts 

was included in the 1990 Amendments 

to the CAA to overrule a decision in the 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

holding that EPA could not approve 

individual measures in a plan 

submission without either approving or 

disapproving the plan as a whole. See 

S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 22, 1990 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 (discussing the 

express overruling of Abramowitz v. 

EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

The Agency interprets its authority 

under section 110(k)(3) as affording it 

the discretion to approve or 

conditionally approve individual 

elements of Indiana’s infrastructure 

submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

separate and apart from any action with 

respect to the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that 

NAAQS. EPA views discrete 

infrastructure SIP requirements, such as 

the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as 

severable from the other infrastructure 

elements, and interprets section 

110(k)(3) as allowing EPA to act on 

individual severable measures in a plan 

submission. In short, EPA has discretion 

under section 110(k) to act upon the 

various individual elements of the 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission, 

separately or together, as appropriate. 

The commenter raises no compelling 

legal or environmental rationale for an 

alternate interpretation. 

EPA notes, however, that it is working 

with state partners to assess next steps 

to address air pollution that crosses 

state boundaries and will later take a 

separate action to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA’s approval of the Indiana 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS for the portions 

described in the NPR is, therefore, 

appropriate. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

For the reasons discussed in our 

August 19, 2013, proposed rulemaking 

and in the above responses to public 

comments, EPA is taking final action to 

approve Indiana’s infrastructure SIP for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS as proposed 

with the exception of not taking final 

action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with 

respect to visibility. In EPA’s August 19, 

2013, proposed rulemaking for these 

infrastructure SIPs, EPA also proposed 

to approve Indiana’s satisfaction of the 

state board requirements contained in 

section 128 of the CAA, as well as 

certain PSD requirements obligated by 

EPA’s October 20, 2010, final rule on 

the ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs), Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule), 

and the infrastructure requirements for 

the 2008 lead NAAQS. The final 

approvals for each of the above 

requirements were published in the 

Federal Register on December 24, 2013 

(see 78 FR 77599, state board 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

23720 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements), July 2, 2014 (see 79 FR 

37646, 2010 NSR Rule requirements), 

August 11, 2013 (see 78 FR 46709, 2010 

NSR Rule requirements, continued), and 

October 16, 2014 (see 79 FR 62035, 2008 

Lead Infrastructure requirements). In 

today’s rulemaking, we are taking final 

action on only the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Our final actions by element of 

section 110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are 

contained in the table below. 

Element 2008 Ozone 

NAAQS 

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

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

(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures ................................................................................................................................................... A 

(C)2: PSD ............................................................................................................................................................................................ A 

(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS ......................................................................................... NA 

(D)2: PSD ............................................................................................................................................................................................ A 

(D)3: Visibility Protection ..................................................................................................................................................................... NA 

(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement ................................................................................................................................................... A 

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

(E)1: Adequate resources .................................................................................................................................................................... A 

(E)2: State boards ............................................................................................................................................................................... A 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(J)4: Visibility protection (Regional Haze) ........................................................................................................................................... NA 

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

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

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

In the table above, the key is as 

follows: 

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

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

IV. 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 June 29, 2015. 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).) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 82 / Wednesday, April 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 23721 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 16, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

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 

(e) is amended by adding an entry in 

alphabetical order for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana date EPA Approval Explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 

Ozone NAAQS.

12/12/2011 4/29/2015, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) except visibility, (D)(ii), (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J) except visibility, (K), (L), and (M). 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–09883 Filed 4–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0755; FRL–9926–95– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Visibility Protection 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to 

the Washington State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) that were submitted by the 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) on 

January 27, 2014. These revisions 

implement the preconstruction 

permitting regulations for large 

industrial (major source) facilities in 

attainment and unclassifiable areas, 

called the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. The PSD 

program in Washington has been 

historically operated under a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP). This 

approval of Ecology’s PSD program 

narrows the FIP to include only those 

few facilities, emission sources, 

geographic areas, and permits for which 

Ecology does not have PSD permitting 

jurisdiction or authority. The EPA is 

also approving Ecology’s visibility 

protection permitting program which 

overlaps significantly with the PSD 

program. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

May 29, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0755. 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, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information the disclosure 

of which 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 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Unit, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. The 

EPA requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt at (206) 553–0256, 

hunt.jeff@epa.gov, or by using the above 

EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials ‘‘Act’’ or 

‘‘CAA’’ mean or refer to the Clean Air 

Act, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

(ii) The words ‘‘EPA’’, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or 

‘‘our’’ mean or refer to the 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials ‘‘SIP’’ mean or refer 

to State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words ‘‘Washington’’ and 

‘‘State’’ mean the State of Washington. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background Information 

On January 27, 2014, Ecology 

submitted revisions to update the 

general air quality regulations contained 

in Chapter 173–400 of the Washington 

Administrative Code (WAC) that apply 

to sources within Ecology’s jurisdiction, 

including minor new source review, 

major source nonattainment new source 

review (major NNSR), PSD, and the 

visibility protection (visibility) program. 

On October 3, 2014, the EPA finalized 

approval of provisions contained in 

Chapter 173–400 WAC that apply 

generally to all sources under Ecology’s 

jurisdiction, but stated that we would 

act separately on the major sourcespecific permitting programs in a 

phased approach (79 FR 59653). On 

November 7, 2014, the EPA finalized the 

second phase in the series, approving 

the major NNSR regulations contained 

in WAC 173–400–800 through 173–400– 

860, as well as other parts of Chapter 

173–400 WAC that support major NNSR 

(79 FR 66291). 

On January 7, 2015, the EPA proposed 

approval of the remainder of Ecology’s 

January 27, 2014 submittal, covering the 

PSD and visibility requirements for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES