Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9395 

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, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: February 11, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–03894 Filed 2–24–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9396 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1Sierra Club et al. v. EPA, No. 3:13–cv–3953–SI 

(N.D.Cal.) 

2 Draft SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling 

Technical Assistance Document. December 2013. 

http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/

SO2ModelingTAD.pdf. 

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

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 coalfired 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. 

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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9397 

February 22, 1979, Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

of 0.69 pounds per MMBTU for coalfired 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0438; FRL 9942–75– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri; Emissions Inventory and 

Emissions Statement for the Missouri 

Portion of the St. Louis MO-IL Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS