```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9395-9397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03893]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0075; EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0090; FRL-9942-72-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Commissioner's Orders for A.B. Brown 
and Clifty Creek

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve revisions to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) 
to EPA on January 27, 2016, and February 5, 2016, for parallel 
processing. The submittal consists of orders issued by the Commissioner 
of IDEM that require more stringent sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
emissions limits than those currently contained in the SIP for 
Vectren's A. B. Brown Generating Station (``A.B. Brown'') and Indiana-
Kentucky Electric Corporation's Clifty Creek Generating Station 
(``Clifty Creek''). IDEM submitted these limits to enable the areas 
near these generating stations to qualify for being designated 
``attainment'' of the 2010 primary SO2 National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS), a matter that will be addressed in a 
separate future rulemaking. EPA's approval of these revisions to the 
Indiana SIP would make the Commissioner's orders' SO2 
emissions limits federally enforceable.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0075 for A.B. Brown or EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0090 for Clifty Creek 
at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 
For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of 
submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, 
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6832, 
Liljegren.Jennifer@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. Why did IDEM issue these Commissioner's Orders?
II. What are the SO2 limits in these Commissioner's 
Orders?
III. By what criterion is EPA reviewing this SIP revision?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Why did IDEM issue these Commissioner's Orders?

    On January 27, 2016, and February 5, 2016, IDEM submitted for 
parallel processing draft revisions to its SIP consisting of orders 
issued by IDEM's Commissioner that establish more stringent 
SO2 emissions limits than those currently contained in the 
SIP for A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek. IDEM established these 
SO2 emissions limits to enable the areas near A.B. Brown and 
Clifty Creek to qualify in the future for being designated 
``attainment'' of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. Under a

[[Page 9396]]

Federal consent decree, EPA is required to designate, under the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS, certain areas in the United States including the 
areas near A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek by July 2, 2016. The history of 
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and the consent decree is explained below 
in order to provide a more detailed explanation of the context for 
IDEM's request for EPA approval of these SO2 limits into the 
SIP.
    On June 3, 2010, pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA), EPA revised the primary (health-based) SO2 NAAQS by 
establishing a new one-hour standard codified at 40 CFR 50.17 (75 FR 
35520). Pursuant to section 107(d) of the CAA, EPA must designate areas 
as either ``unclassifiable,'' ``attainment,'' or ``nonattainment'' for 
the 2010 one-hour SO2 primary NAAQS. Under Section 107(d) of 
the CAA, a nonattainment area is any area that does not meet the NAAQS 
or that contributes to a violation in a nearby area. An attainment area 
is any area, other than a nonattainment area, that meets the NAAQS. 
Unclassifiable areas are those that cannot be classified on the basis 
of available information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS.
    On August 5, 2013, EPA published a final rule establishing air 
quality designations for 29 areas in the United States for the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS, based on recorded air quality monitoring data 
from 2009-2011 that showed violations of the NAAQS (78 FR 47191). In 
that rulemaking, EPA committed to address, in separate future actions, 
the designations for all other areas for which EPA was not yet prepared 
to issue designations.
    Following the initial August 5, 2013, designations, three lawsuits 
were filed against EPA in different U.S. District Courts, alleging EPA 
had failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under the CAA by not 
designating all portions of the country by the June 2013 deadline. In 
an effort intended to resolve the litigation in one of those cases, 
plaintiffs Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council and 
EPA filed a proposed consent decree with the U.S. District Court for 
the Northern District of California. On March 2, 2015, the court 
entered the consent decree and issued an enforceable order for EPA to 
complete the area designations according to the court-ordered 
schedule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sierra Club et al. v. EPA, No. 3:13-cv-3953-SI (N.D.Cal.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By no later than July 2, 2016, (16 months from the court's order), 
EPA must designate two groups of areas: (1) Areas that have newly 
monitored violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and (2) areas 
that contain any stationary sources that had not been announced as of 
March 2, 2015, for retirement and that according to the EPA's Air 
Markets Database emitted in 2012 either (i) more than 16,000 tons of 
SO2 or (ii) more than 2,600 tons of SO2 with an 
annual average emission rate of at least 0.45 pounds (lbs) of 
SO2 per million British thermal units (MMBTU). In the 
consent decree, ``announced for retirement'' means any stationary 
source with a coal-fired unit that as of January 1, 2010, had a 
capacity of over 5 megawatts and otherwise meets the emissions criteria 
is excluded from the July 2, 2016, deadline if it had announced through 
a company public announcement, public utilities commission filing, 
consent decree, public legal settlement, final state or federal permit 
filing, or other similar means of communication, by March 2, 2015, that 
it will cease burning coal at that unit.
    A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek each meet the second criterion for the 
July 2, 2016, deadline. That is, neither has been ``announced for 
retirement'' and both emitted in 2012 either (i) more than 16,000 tons 
of SO2 or (ii) more than 2,600 tons of SO2 with 
an annual average emission rate of at least 0.45 lbs of SO2 
per MMBTU. Specifically, A.B. Brown emitted 7,091 tons of 
SO2 in 2012 and had an emissions rate of 0.521 lbs 
SO2/MMBTU in 2012. Clifty Creek emitted 52,839 tons of 
SO2 in 2012 and had an emissions rate of 1.767 lbs 
SO2/MMBTU in 2012. In absence of new SO2 
emissions limits, A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek cannot demonstrate 
modeled attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in accordance with 
EPA's Draft SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance 
Document.\2\ Therefore, IDEM conducted air dispersion modeling using 
the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency 
Regulatory Model (AERMOD) version 15181 in accordance with appendix W 
of part 51 of chapter 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to 
determine new, more stringent SO2 emissions limits for A.B. 
Brown and Clifty Creek that should result in the areas near these 
generating stations showing modeled attainment of the 2010 
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Draft SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance 
Document. December 2013. http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/SO2ModelingTAD.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEM has requested that EPA approve Commissioner's Order 2016-01 
for A.B. Brown and Commissioner's Order 2016-02 for Clifty Creek into 
Indiana's SIP. EPA's approval of the new SO2 emissions 
limits contained in these orders into Indiana's SIP would make these 
SO2 emissions limits federally enforceable. Once these 
SO2 emissions limits have become federally enforceable, IDEM 
intends to use them to demonstrate AERMOD-modeled attainment for the 
2010 SO2 NAAQS for the areas near A.B. Brown and Clifty 
Creek. To be clear, the purpose of this rulemaking is to take action on 
IDEM's request to approve these SO2 emissions limits into 
the Indiana SIP and thereby make them federally enforceable. The 
purpose of this rulemaking is not to take action on whether these 
SO2 emissions limits are adequate for EPA to designate 
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the areas near A.B. 
Brown and Clifty Creek. EPA intends to designate the areas near the 
sources that meet the criteria for the first phase of the consent 
decree designations, including the areas near A.B. Brown and Clifty 
Creek, under a separate rulemaking.
    EPA cannot take final action to approve the orders into Indiana's 
SIP until the state completes its public comment process and submits 
the final orders to EPA as SIP revision requests. In the meantime, 
Indiana requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the SIP revision to 
expedite action on the Commissioner's orders. Under this procedure, the 
state submitted a copy of the proposed revisions to EPA before 
completing its public comment process. EPA is publishing this proposed 
rulemaking in the Federal Register and is soliciting public comment in 
approximately the same timeframe during which the state is soliciting 
public comment. After Indiana submits the final SIP revision request, 
EPA will prepare a final rulemaking for the SIP revision. If changes 
are made to the SIP revision after EPA's proposed rulemaking, such 
changes must be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking. If the changes 
are significant, then EPA may need to repropose the rulemaking.

II. What are the SO2 limits in these Commissioner's Orders?

    For A.B. Brown, Indiana issued Commissioner's Order 2016-01 on 
January 11, 2016, with a compliance date of April 19, 2016. This order 
established two new limits for A.B. Brown: One limit for Unit 1 when 
running alone and one limit for Units 1 and 2 when running 
simultaneously. The emissions limits are 0.855 lbs of SO2 
per MMBTU for coal-fired boiler Unit 1 operating alone and 0.426 lbs of 
SO2 per MMBTU for Units 1 and 2 operating simultaneously. 
These limits supplement a limit contained in a

[[Page 9397]]

February 22, 1979, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 
of 0.69 pounds per MMBTU for coal-fired boiler Unit 2. Note that the 
limit on Unit 1 emissions alone (0.855 lbs per MMBTU) is higher (less 
restrictive) than the limit on combined emissions from Units 1 and 2 
(0.426 lbs per MMBTU). Because Unit 2 has more impact per pound of 
emissions than Unit 1 due to dispersion characteristics, the plant can 
emit more and still not cause violations of the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS when only Unit 1 is operating than when both Units 1 and 2 are 
operating.
    For Clifty Creek, Indiana issued Commissioner's Order 2016-02 on 
February 1, 2016, with a compliance date of April 19, 2016. This order 
established a combined emission limit for the six coal-fired boilers 
(Units No. 1 through No. 6) located at Clifty Creek of 2,624.5 lbs of 
SO2 per hour as a 720 operating hour rolling average when 
any of Units No.1 through No. 6, or any combination thereof, is 
operating.

III. By what criteria is EPA reviewing this SIP revision?

    EPA is evaluating this revision on the basis of whether it 
strengthens Indiana's SIP. Prior to Commissioner's Order 2016-01, A.B. 
Brown had an SO2 emissions limit in its operating permit of 
6.0 lbs SO2 per MMBTU for coal-fired boiler Unit 1. Prior to 
Commissioner's Order 2016-02 Clifty Creek had an SO2 
emissions limit in its operating permit for Units 1 through 6 not to 
exceed 7.52 lbs of SO2 per MMBTU on a thirty (30) day 
rolling weighted average. The new SO2 emissions limits 
established by IDEM in Commissioner's Order 2016-01 and Commissioner's 
Order 2016-02 for A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek, respectively, are more 
stringent than the previous limits and will therefore strengthen 
Indiana's SIP.
    The adequacy of these limits for providing for attainment is not a 
prerequisite for approval of these limits. Nevertheless, the purpose of 
these limits is to provide for attainment, and EPA is working with 
Indiana to assure a proper analysis of the adequacy of these limits for 
this purpose. If these limits become SIP-approved and thereby federally 
enforceable in a timely fashion, formal evaluation of the adequacy of 
these limits to provide for attainment will be conducted as part of the 
process of rulemaking on the 2010 SO2 NAAQS designation for 
these areas.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the SO2 emissions limits in 
Commissioner's Order 2016-01 and Commissioner's Order 2016-02 into the 
Indiana SIP. EPA confirms that the SO2 emissions limits for 
A. B. Brown (Commissioner's Order 2016-01) and Clifty Creek 
(Commissioner's Order 2016-02) are more stringent than the previous 
SO2 emissions limits for these sources. By approving these 
Commissioner's orders into the Indiana SIP, these SO2 
emissions limits will become federally enforceable and strengthen the 
Indiana SIP.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference Commissioner's Order No. 2016-01 issued to Vectren's A. B. 
Brown Generating Station, effective January 11, 2016, and 
Commissioner's Order No. 2016-02 issued to Indiana-Kentucky Electric 
Corporation's Clifty Creek Generating Station, effective February 1, 
2016. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or 
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 11, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016-03893 Filed 2-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```