Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 48733 

EPA-APPROVED VIRGINIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/Subject State effective date EPA Approval date Explanation [former SIP citation] 

*******

9 VAC 5, Chapter 20 ..... General Provisions 

*******

Part II .............................. Air Quality Programs 

*******

5–20–203 ....................... Air Quality Maintenance 

Areas .............................

3/11/15 8/14/15 [Insert Federal 

Register Citation].

List of maintenance areas revised to include 

Northern Virginia localities for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5). 

5–20–204 ....................... Nonattainment Areas .... 3/11/15 8/14/15 [Insert Federal 

Register Citation].

List of nonattainment areas revised to exclude 

Northern Virginia localities for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5). 

*******

[FR Doc. 2015–20023 Filed 8–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0991; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0435; FRL–9932–15-Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana and Ohio; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve elements of state 

implementation plan (SIP) submissions 

by Indiana regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS), and by Ohio regarding the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110 of the CAA for the 2010 SO2

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 requirements of 

the CAA. The proposed rulemaking for 

Ohio’s 2010 SO2 infrastructure 

submittal associated with today’s final 

action was published on July 25, 2014, 

and EPA received one comment letter 

during the comment period, which 

ended on August 25, 2015. In the July 

25, 2014 rulemaking, EPA also proposed 

approval for Ohio’s 2008 lead, 2008 

ozone, and 2010 NO2 infrastructure 

submittals. Those approvals have been 

finalized in separate rulemakings. The 

proposed rulemaking for Indiana’s 2010 

NO2 and SO2 infrastructure submittals 

associated with today’s final action was 

published on February 27, 2015, and 

EPA received one comment letter during 

the comment period, which ended on 

March 30, 2015. The concerns raised in 

these letters, as well as EPA’s responses, 

are addressed in this final action. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0991 (2010 

NO2 infrastructure elements) or EPA– 

R05–OAR–2013–0435 (2010 SO2

infrastructure elements). 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 

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 these SIP 

submissions? 

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 these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What does this rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses 

infrastructure SIP submissions from the 

Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted on 

January 15, 2013, for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS and on May 22, 2013, for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. This rulemaking also 

addresses infrastructure SIP 

submissions from the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(OEPA) submitted on June 7, 2013, for 

the 2010 SO2 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
48734 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

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 NO2 and SO2

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 and 

Ohio’s SIP submissions that address the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

2010 SO2 NAAQS and also the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS for Indiana. 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 for the 

Indiana and Ohio 2010 SO2 submittals, 

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

with respect to visibility, and 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to visibility for 

the 2010 NO2 and SO2 submittals for 

Indiana and the 2010 SO2 submittal for 

Ohio, and portions of 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to PSD for Ohio’s 2010 SO2

submittal. EPA has already taken action 

on the portion related to PSD for Ohio’s 

2010 SO2 infrastructure submittal in the 

February 27, 2015 rulemaking (see 80 

FR 10591). 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 is discussed below in today’s 

response to comments. 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

EPA received one comment letter 

from the Sierra Club regarding its July 

25, 2014, proposed rulemaking (79 FR 

43338) on Ohio’s 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

Infrastructure SIP submittal. EPA did 

not receive any comments on its 

February 27, 2015, proposed rulemaking 

(80 FR 10644) on Indiana’s 2010 NO2

NAAQS Infrastructure SIP, but did 

receive one comment from the Sierra 

Club relevant to the SO2 submittal. The 

majority of the SO2-related comments 

from the Sierra Club for Indiana and 

Ohio are identical. The comments are 

summarized and responded to together; 

however, the few differences in the 

comments are explicitly pointed out. 

Comment 1: Sierra Club contends that 

the plain language of section 

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

legislative history of the CAA require 

the inclusion of enforceable emission 

limits in an infrastructure SIP to prevent 

NAAQS exceedances in areas not 

designated nonattainment. Sierra Club 

also asserts that the Ohio and Indiana 

2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP revisions 

did not revise the existing SO2 emission 

limits in response to the 2010 SO2

NAAQS and failed to comport with 

CAA requirements for SIPs to establish 

enforceable emission limits that are 

adequate to prohibit NAAQS 

exceedances in areas not designated 

nonattainment. 

The Sierra Club states that, on its face, 

the CAA ‘‘requires I–SIPs to be adequate 

to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS.’’ 

In support, the Sierra Club quotes the 

language in section 110(a)(1) which 

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 Sierra Club claims 

include the maintenance plan 

requirement. Sierra Club notes the CAA 

definition of emission limit and reads 

these provisions together to require 

‘‘enforceable emission limits on source 

emissions sufficient to ensure 

maintenance of the NAAQS.’’ 

Response 1: EPA disagrees that 

section 110 is clear ‘‘on its face’’ and 

must be interpreted in the manner 

suggested by Sierra Club. Section 110 is 

only one provision that is part of the 

complicated structure governing 

implementation of the NAAQS program 

under the CAA, as 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 48735 

‘‘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, for purposes of section 110, that 

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 Clean Air Act 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. 

The Sierra Club makes general 

allegations that Ohio and Indiana do not 

have sufficient protective measures to 

prevent SO2 NAAQS exceedances. EPA 

addressed the adequacy of Ohio and 

Indiana’s infrastructure SIPs for 

110(a)(2)(A) purposes to meet applicable 

requirements of the CAA in the 

proposed rulemakings and explained 

why the SIPs include enforceable 

emission limitations and other control 

measures necessary for maintenance of 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS throughout the 

state. For Ohio, these limits are found in 

Chapter 3745–18, Sulfur Dioxide 

Limitations, of Ohio’s SIP. For Indiana, 

these limits are found in 326 Indiana 

Administrative Code (IAC) 7–1.1, 326 

IAC 7–4, and 326 IAC 7–4.1. As 

discussed in the proposed rulemakings, 

EPA finds that these provisions 

adequately address section 110(a)(2)(A) 

to aid in attaining and/or maintaining 

the applicable NAAQS, and finds that 

Ohio and Indiana have demonstrated 

that they have the necessary tools to 

implement and enforce these NAAQS. 

Comment 2: The Sierra Club cites 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].’’ It asserts that this regulation 

requires all SIPs to include emissions 

limits necessary to ensure attainment of 

the NAAQS. The Sierra Club 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.’’ It 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, 40656 (November 7, 1986). 

Response 2: The Sierra Club’s reliance 

on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its 

argument that infrastructure SIPs must 

contain emission limits ‘‘adequate to 

prohibit NAAQS exceedances’’ and 

adequate or sufficient to ensure the 

maintenance of the NAAQS is not 

supported. As an initial matter, EPA 

notes and the Sierra Club recognizes 

that 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 sections 175A, 182, and 

192. The Sierra Club 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 merely 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. 51 FR at 40657. 

Although EPA was explicit that it was 

not establishing requirements 

interpreting the provisions of the new 

‘‘Part D’’ of title I 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 3: The Sierra Club 

references two prior EPA rulemaking 

actions where EPA disapproved or 

proposed to disapprove SIPs, and claims 

that they were actions in which EPA 

relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 

CFR 51.112 to reject infrastructure SIPs. 

It first points to a 2006 partial approval 

and partial disapproval of revisions to 

Missouri’s existing plan addressing the 

SO2 NAAQS (71 FR 12623). In that 

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

the CAA 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, 

Sierra Club cites a 2013 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 (78 FR 

78721). In its proposed disapproval, 

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 emission rates used 

in the existing attainment 

demonstration.’’ 

The Sierra Club also asserts that EPA 

stated in its 2013 infrastructure SIP 

guidance that states could postpone 

specific requirements for start-up 

shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), but 

did not specify the postponement of any 

other requirements. The commenter 

concludes that emissions limits 

ensuring attainment of the standard 

cannot be delayed. 

Response 3: EPA does not agree that 

the two prior actions referenced by the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
48736 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Sierra Club establish how EPA reviews 

infrastructure SIPs. It is clear from both 

the final Missouri rulemaking and the 

proposed and final Indiana rulemakings 

that EPA was not reviewing initial 

infrastructure SIP submissions under 

section 110 of the CAA, but rather 

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. The Indiana action provides even 

less support for the Sierra Club’s 

position. The review in that rule was of 

a completely different requirement than 

the section 110(a)(2)(A) SIP. 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 proposed that the 

State had failed to demonstrate under 

section 110(l) of the CAA why the SIP 

revision would not result in increased 

SO2 emissions and thus 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. 

EPA also does not agree that any 

requirements related to emission limits 

have been postponed. As stated in a 

previous response, EPA interprets the 

requirements under 110(a)(2)(A) to 

include 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, for purposes of 

section 110, that 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. Emission limits providing for 

attainment of a new standard are 

triggered by the designation process and 

have a different schedule in the CAA 

than the submittal of infrastructure SIPs. 

As discussed in detail in the proposed 

rules, EPA finds that the Ohio and 

Indiana SIPs meet the appropriate and 

relevant structural requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA that will 

aid in attaining and/or maintaining the 

NAAQS, and that the States have 

demonstrated that they have the 

necessary tools to implement and 

enforce a NAAQS. 

Comment 4: Sierra Club also 

discusses several cases applying 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. 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 to 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 Sierra Club 

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’’); 

Conn. Fund for Env’t, Inc. v. EPA, 696 

F.2d 169, 172 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (CAA 

requires SIPs to contain ‘‘measures 

necessary to ensure attainment and 

maintenance of NAAQS’’). Finally, the 

commenter 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 4: None of the cases the 

Sierra Club cites support its contention 

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

infrastructure SIPs must 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, 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 CAA). Rather, the courts 

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

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

background sections of decisions in the 

context of challenges to EPA actions on 

revisions to SIPs that were required and 

approved as meeting other provisions of 

the CAA or in the context of an 

enforcement action. 

In Train, 421 U.S. 60, 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) to not 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 48737 

1While the Sierra Club does contend that the 

State shouldn’t be allowed to rely on emission 

reductions that were developed for the prior SO2

standards (which we address herein), it does not 

claim that any of the measures are not ‘‘emissions 

limitations’’ within the definition of the CAA. 

2Sierra Club asserts its modeling followed 

protocols pursuant to 40 CFR part 50, Appendix W, 

EPA’s March 2011 guidance for implementing the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, and EPA’s December 2013 SO2

NAAQS Designation Technical Assistance 

Document for the for both Indiana and Ohio. 

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 Sierra 

Club quotes does not interpret but rather 

merely describes section 110(a)(2)(A). 

Sierra Club does 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.1

In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 

F.3d 1174, the Court was reviewing a 

Federal implementation plan (FIP) that 

EPA promulgated after a long history of 

the state failing to submit an adequate 

SIP in response to EPA’s finding under 

section 110(k)(5) that the previously 

approved SIP was substantially 

inadequate to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS, which triggered the state’s 

duty to submit a new SIP to show how 

it would remedy that deficiency and 

attain the NAAQS. The Court cited 

generally sections 107 and 110(a)(2)(A) 

of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs 

should assure attainment and 

maintenance of NAAQS through 

emission limitations, but this language 

was not part of the Court’s holding in 

the case, which focused instead on 

whether EPA’s finding of SIP 

inadequacy, disapproval of portions of 

the state’s responsive SIP and 

attainment demonstration, and adoption 

of a remedial FIP were lawful. 

The Sierra Club 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 Sierra Club 

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 Sierra Club 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 

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

purpose of providing a brief background 

of the CAA. 

Finally, in Conn. Fund for Env’t, Inc. 

v. EPA, 696 F.2d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1982), 

the D.C. Circuit was reviewing EPA 

action on a control measure SIP 

provision which adjusted the percent of 

sulfur permissible in fuel oil. The D.C. 

Circuit focused on whether EPA needed 

to evaluate effects of the SIP revision on 

one pollutant or effects of change on all 

possible pollutants; therefore, the D.C. 

Circuit did not address required 

measures for infrastructure SIPs, and 

nothing in the opinion addressed 

whether infrastructure SIPs needed to 

contain measures to ensure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS. 

Comment 5: Citing section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Sierra Club 

contends that EPA may not approve the 

proposed infrastructure SIPs because 

they do not include enforceable one 

hour SO2 emission limits for sources 

that show NAAQS exceedances through 

modeling. Sierra Club asserts the 

proposed infrastructure SIPs fail to 

include enforceable one hour SO2

emissions limits or other required 

measures to ensure attainment and 

maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in areas 

not designated nonattainment as 

required by section 110(a)(2)(A). Sierra 

Club asserts that emission limits are 

especially important for meeting the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS because SO2 impacts 

are strongly source-oriented. Sierra Club 

states that coal-fired electric generating 

units (EGUs) are large contributors to 

SO2 emissions but contends that Ohio 

and Indiana did not demonstrate that 

emissions allowed by the proposed 

infrastructure SIPs from such large 

sources of SO2 will ensure compliance 

with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

For Ohio, the Sierra Club claims that 

the proposed infrastructure SIP would 

allow major sources to continue 

operating with present emission limits. 

Sierra Club then refers to air dispersion 

modeling it conducted for three coalfired EGUs in Ohio including the 

Cardinal Power Plant (Brilliant), the 

Sammis Station (Stratton), and the 

Zimmer Plant (Moscow). Sierra Club 

asserts that the results of the air 

dispersion modeling it conducted 

employing EPA’s AERMOD program for 

modeling used the plants’ allowable and 

actual emissions, and showed that the 

plants could cause exceedances of the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS with either allowable 

emissions at all three facilities or actual 

emissions at the Zimmer Plant.2

For Indiana, the Sierra Club also 

claims that the proposed infrastructure 

SIP would allow major sources to 

continue operating with present 

emission limits. Sierra Club then refers 

to air dispersion modeling it conducted 

for three coal-fired EGUs in Indiana, 

including the A.B. Brown Plant (Mount 

Vernon), the Clifty Creek Plant 

(Madison), and the Gibson Plant 

(Owensville). Sierra Club asserts that 

the results of the air dispersion 

modeling it conducted employing EPA’s 

AERMOD program for modeling used 

the plants’ allowable and actual 

emissions, and showed the plants could 

cause exceedances of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS with either allowable or actual 

emissions at all three facilities. 

Based on the modeling, Sierra Club 

asserts that the Ohio and Indiana SO2

infrastructure SIP submittals authorize 

these EGUs to cause exceedances of the 

NAAQS with allowable and actual 

emission rates, and therefore that the 

infrastructure SIP fails to include 

adequate enforceable emission 

limitations or other required measures 

for sources of SO2 sufficient to ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. As a result, Sierra Club 

claims EPA must disapprove Ohio and 

Indiana’s proposed SIP revisions. In 

addition, Sierra Club asserts that 

additional emission limits should be 

imposed on the plants that ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS at all times. 

Response 5: EPA believes that section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA is reasonably 

interpreted to require states to submit 

SIPs that reflect the first step in their 

planning for attainment and 

maintenance of a new or revised 

NAAQS. These SIP revisions, also 

known as infrastructure SIPs, should 

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. In light of the 

structure of the CAA, EPA’s longVerDate Sep<11>2014 20:18 Aug 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14AUR1.SGM 14AUR1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
48738 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

3 In EPA’s final SO2 NAAQS preamble (75 FR 

35520 (June 22, 2010)) and subsequent draft 

guidance in March and September 2011, EPA had 

expressed its expectation that many areas would be 

initially designated as unclassifiable due to 

limitations in the scope of the ambient monitoring 

network and the short time available before which 

states could conduct modeling to support their 

designations recommendations due in June 2011. In 

order to address concerns about potential violations 

in these potentially unclassifiable areas, EPA 

initially recommended that states submit 

substantive attainment demonstration SIPs based on 

air quality modeling by June 2013 (under section 

110(a)) that show how their unclassifiable areas 

would attain and maintain the NAAQS in the 

future. Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour 

SO2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper for Discussion, May 

2012 (for discussion purposes with Stakeholders at 

meetings in May and June 2012), available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/

implement.html. However, EPA clearly stated in 

this 2012 Draft White Paper its clarified 

implementation position that it was no longer 

recommending such attainment demonstrations for 

unclassifiable areas for June 2013 infrastructure 

SIPs. Id. EPA had stated in the preamble to the 

NAAQS and in the prior 2011 draft guidance that 

EPA intended to develop and seek public comment 

on guidance for modeling and development of SIPs 

for sections 110 and 191 of the CAA. Section 191 

of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs in 

accordance with section 172 for areas designated 

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. As mentioned above, with regard 

to the requirement for emission 

limitations, EPA has interpreted this to 

mean that states 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. 

EPA’s interpretation that 

infrastructure SIPs are more general 

planning SIPs is consistent with the 

CAA 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 a new 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 that 

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 a 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. At that same time, Congress 

modified section 110 to remove 

references to the section 110 SIP 

providing for attainment, including 

removing pre-existing 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 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 of the 

CAA 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. In addition, more detailed, 

later-enacted provisions govern the 

substantive planning process, including 

planning for attainment of the NAAQS, 

depending upon how air quality status 

is judged under other provisions of the 

CAA, such as the designations process 

under section 107. 

As stated in response to a previous 

comment, EPA asserts that section 110 

of the CAA is only one provision that 

is part of the complicated structure 

governing implementation of the 

NAAQS program under the CAA, as 

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 reasonably interprets the 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) of 

the CAA 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 must 

demonstrate that it has the necessary 

tools to implement and enforce a 

NAAQS, such as an adequate 

monitoring network and an enforcement 

program. As discussed above, EPA has 

interpreted the requirement for emission 

limitations in section 110 to mean that 

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. Finally, as 

EPA stated in the Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance which specifically provides 

guidance to states in addressing the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, ‘‘[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.’’ Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance at p. 2. 

On April 12, 2012, EPA explained its 

expectations regarding the 2010 SO2

NAAQS infrastructure SIPs via letters to 

each of the states. EPA communicated 

in the April 2012 letters that all states 

were expected to submit SIPs meeting 

the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements 

under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA by 

June 2013. At the time, the EPA was 

undertaking a stakeholder outreach 

process to continue to develop possible 

approaches for determining attainment 

status with the SO2 NAAQS and 

implementing this NAAQS. EPA was 

abundantly clear in the April 2012 

letters to states that EPA did not expect 

states to submit substantive attainment 

demonstrations or modeling 

demonstrations showing attainment for 

potentially unclassifiable areas in 

infrastructure SIPs due in June 2013, as 

EPA had previously suggested in its 

2010 SO2 NAAQS preamble based upon 

information available at the time and in 

prior draft implementation guidance in 

2011 while EPA was gathering public 

comment. The April 2012 letters to 

states recommended states focus 

infrastructure SIPs due in June 2013, 

such as Ohio and Indiana’s SO2

infrastructure SIP, on ‘‘traditional 

infrastructure elements’’ in section 

110(a)(1) and (2) rather than on 

modeling demonstrations for future 

attainment for potentially unclassifiable 

areas.3


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 48739 

nonattainment with the SO2 NAAQS. After seeking 

such comment, EPA has now issued guidance for 

the nonattainment area SIPs due pursuant to 

sections 191 and 172. See Guidance for 1-Hour SO2

Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, Stephen D. 

Page, Director, EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors 

Regions 1–10, April 23, 2014. In September 2013, 

EPA had previously issued specific guidance 

relevant to infrastructure SIP submissions due for 

the NAAQS, including the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance. 

Therefore, EPA continues to believe 

that the elements of section 110(a)(2) 

which address SIP revisions for 

nonattainment areas including measures 

and modeling demonstrating attainment 

are due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 

under part D of title I. The CAA directs 

states to submit these 110(a)(2) elements 

for nonattainment areas on a separate 

schedule from the ‘‘structural 

requirements’’ of 110(a)(2) which are 

due within three years of adoption or 

revision of a NAAQS. The infrastructure 

SIP submission requirement does not 

move up the date for any required 

submission of a part D plan for areas 

designated nonattainment for the new 

NAAQS. Thus, elements relating to 

demonstrating attainment for areas not 

attaining the NAAQS are not necessary 

for states to include in the infrastructure 

SIP submission, and the CAA does not 

provide explicit requirements for 

demonstrating attainment for areas 

potentially designated as 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ (or that have not yet 

been designated) regarding attainment 

with a particular NAAQS. 

As stated previously, EPA believes 

that the proper inquiry at this juncture 

is whether Ohio and Indiana have met 

the basic structural SIP requirements 

appropriate at the point in time EPA is 

acting upon the infrastructure submittal. 

Emissions limitations and other control 

measures needed to attain the NAAQS 

in areas designated nonattainment for 

that NAAQS are due on a different 

schedule from the section 110 

infrastructure elements. States, like 

Ohio and Indiana, may reference preexisting SIP emission limits or other 

rules contained in part D plans for 

previous NAAQS in an infrastructure 

SIP submission. For example, Ohio and 

Indiana submitted lists of existing 

emission reduction measures in the SIP 

that control emissions of SO2 as 

discussed above in response to a prior 

comment and discussed in detail in our 

proposed rulemakings. Ohio and 

Indiana’s SIP revisions reflect several 

provisions that have the ability to 

reduce SO2. Although the Ohio and 

Indiana SIPs rely on measures and 

programs used to implement previous 

SO2 NAAQS, these provisions will 

provide benefits for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. The identified Ohio and 

Indiana SIP measures help to reduce 

overall SO2 and are not limited to 

reducing SO2 levels to meet one specific 

NAAQS. 

Additionally, as discussed in EPA’s 

proposed rules, Ohio and Indiana have 

the ability to revise their SIPs when 

necessary (e.g, in the event the 

Administrator finds their plans to be 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS or otherwise meet all 

applicable CAA requirements) as 

required under element H of section 

110(a)(2). 

EPA believes the requirements for 

emission reduction measures for an area 

designated nonattainment to come into 

attainment with the 2010 primary SO2

NAAQS are in sections 172 and 192 of 

the CAA, and, therefore, the appropriate 

time for implementing requirements for 

necessary emission limitations for 

demonstrating attainment with the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS is through the attainment 

planning process contemplated by those 

sections of the CAA. On August 5, 2013, 

EPA designated as nonattainment most 

areas in locations where existing 

monitoring data from 2009–2011 

indicated violations of the 2010 SO2

standard. EPA designated Lake County 

and portions of Clermont, Morgan, 

Washington, and Jefferson Counties in 

Ohio and portions of Marion, Morgan, 

Daviess, Pike, and Vigo Counties in 

Indiana as nonattainment areas for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 78 FR 47191 (August 

5, 2013). In separate future actions, EPA 

will address the designations for all 

other areas for which the Agency has yet 

to issue designations. See, e.g., 79 FR 

27446 (May 13, 2014) (proposing 

process and timetables by which state 

air agencies would characterize air 

quality around SO2 sources through 

ambient monitoring and/or air quality 

modeling techniques and submit such 

data to the EPA for future attainment 

status determinations under the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS). For the areas designated 

nonattainment in August 2013 within 

Ohio and Indiana, attainment SIPs were 

due by April 4, 2015, and must contain 

demonstrations that the areas will attain 

as expeditiously as practicable, but no 

later than October 4, 2018, pursuant to 

sections 172, 191 and 192, including a 

plan for enforceable measures to reach 

attainment of the NAAQS. EPA believes 

it is not appropriate to bypass the 

attainment planning process by 

imposing separate requirements outside 

the attainment planning process. Such 

actions would be disruptive and 

premature absent exceptional 

circumstances and would interfere with 

a state’s planning process. See In the 

Matter of EME Homer City Generation 

LP and First Energy Generation Corp., 

Order on Petitions Numbers III–2012– 

06, III–2012–07, and III 2013–01 (July 

30, 2014) (hereafter, Homer City/

Mansfield Order) at 10–19 (finding 

Pennsylvania SIP did not require 

imposition of SO2 emission limits on 

sources independent of the part D 

attainment planning process 

contemplated by the CAA). EPA 

believes that the history of the CAA and 

intent of Congress for the CAA as 

described above demonstrate clearly 

that it is within the section 172 and 

general part D attainment planning 

process that Ohio and Indiana must 

include additional SO2 emission limits 

on sources in order to demonstrate 

future attainment, where needed. 

The Sierra Club’s reliance on 40 CFR 

51.112 to support its argument that 

infrastructure SIPs must contain 

emission limits adequate to provide for 

timely attainment and maintenance of 

the standard is also not supported. As 

explained previously in response to the 

background comments, EPA notes this 

regulatory provision clearly on its face 

applies to plans specifically designed to 

attain the NAAQS and not to 

infrastructure SIPs which show the 

states have in place structural 

requirements necessary to implement 

the NAAQS. Therefore, EPA finds 40 

CFR 51.112 inapplicable to its analysis 

of the Ohio and Indiana SO2

infrastructure SIPs. 

As noted in EPA’s preamble for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, determining 

compliance with the SO2 NAAQS will 

likely be a source-driven analysis, and 

EPA has explored options to ensure that 

the SO2 designations process 

realistically accounts for anticipated 

SO2 reductions at sources that we 

expect will be achieved by current and 

pending national and regional rules. See 

75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). As 

mentioned previously above, EPA has 

proposed a process to address 

additional areas in states which may not 

be attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See 

79 FR 27446 (May, 13, 2014, proposing 

process for gather further information 

from additional monitoring or modeling 

that may be used to inform future 

attainment status determinations). In 

addition, in response to lawsuits in 

district courts seeking to compel EPA’s 

remaining designations of undesignated 

areas under the NAAQS, EPA has been 

placed under a court order to complete 

the designations process under section 

107. However, because the purpose of 

an infrastructure SIP submission is for 

more general planning purposes, EPA 

does not believe Ohio and Indiana were 

obligated during this infrastructure SIP 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
48740 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

planning process to account for 

controlled SO2 levels at individual 

sources. See Homer City/Mansfield 

Order at 10–19. 

Regarding the air dispersion modeling 

conducted by Sierra Club pursuant to 

AERMOD for the coal-fired EGUs, EPA 

is not at this stage prepared to opine on 

whether it demonstrates violations of 

the NAAQS, and does not find the 

modeling information relevant at this 

time for review of an infrastructure SIP. 

While EPA has extensively discussed 

the use of modeling for attainment 

demonstration purposes and for 

designations and other actions in which 

areas’ air quality status is determined, 

EPA has recommended that such 

modeling was not needed for the SO2

infrastructure SIPs needed for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. See April 12, 2012, letters 

to states regarding SO2 implementation 

and Implementation of the 2010 Primary 

1-Hour SO2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper 

for Discussion, May 2012, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/

sulfurdioxide/implement.html. In 

contrast, EPA recently discussed 

modeling for designations in our May 

14, 2014, proposal at 79 FR 27446 and 

for nonattainment planning in the April 

23, 2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2

Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions. 

In conclusion, EPA disagrees with 

Sierra Club’s statements that EPA must 

disapprove Ohio and Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions because 

they do not establish at this time 

specific enforceable SO2 emission limits 

either on coal-fired EGUs or other large 

SO2 sources in order to demonstrate 

attainment with the NAAQS. 

Comment 6: Sierra Club asserts that 

modeling is the appropriate tool for 

evaluating adequacy of infrastructure 

SIPs and ensuring attainment and 

maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

It refers to EPA’s historic use of air 

dispersion modeling for attainment 

designations as well as ‘‘SIP revisions.’’ 

The Sierra Club cites to Vehicle Mfrs. 

Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 

463 U.S. 29,43 (1983) and NRDC v. EPA, 

571 F.3d 1245, 1254 (D.C. Cir. 2009) for 

the general proposition that it would be 

arbitrary and capricious for an agency to 

ignore an aspect of an issue placed 

before it and for the statement that an 

agency must consider information 

presented during notice-and-comment 

rulemaking. 

The Sierra Club cites prior EPA 

statements that the Agency has used 

modeling for designations and 

attainment demonstrations, including 

statements in the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

preamble, EPA’s 2012 Draft White Paper 

for Discussion on Implementing the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS, and a 1994 SO2

Guideline Document, as modeling could 

better address the source-specific 

impacts of SO2 emissions and historic 

challenges from monitoring SO2

emissions. The Sierra Club discusses 

EPA’s history of employing air 

dispersion modeling for increment 

compliance verifications in the 

permitting process for the PSD program 

and discusses different scenarios where 

the AERMOD model functions 

appropriately. 

The Sierra Club asserts that EPA’s use 

of air dispersion modeling was upheld 

in GenOn REMA, LLC v. EPA, 722 F.3d 

513 (3rd Cir. 2013) where an EGU 

challenged EPA’s use of CAA section 

126 to impose SO2 emission limits on a 

source due to cross-state impacts. The 

Sierra Club claims that the Third Circuit 

in GenOn REMA upheld EPA’s actions 

after examining the record which 

included EPA’s air dispersion modeling 

of the one source as well as other data. 

Finally, the Sierra Club agrees that 

Ohio and Indiana have the authority to 

use modeling for attainment 

demonstrations, but claims that Ohio 

and Indiana’s proposed SO2

infrastructure SIPs lack emission 

limitations informed by air dispersion 

modeling and therefore fail to ensure 

Ohio and Indiana will achieve and 

maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Sierra 

Club claims Ohio and Indiana must 

require adequate one hour SO2 emission 

limits in the infrastructure SIP that 

show no exceedances of NAAQS when 

modeled. 

For Indiana, the Sierra Club 

specifically points out the need for 

modeling demonstrated by Duke 

Energy’s Gibson Plant. It alleges that the 

air monitor is not showing the true 

picture of the occurring violations. The 

Sierra Club states that its model predicts 

no impact at the monitor, but violations 

nearby. 

Response 6: EPA agrees with the 

Sierra Club that air dispersion 

modeling, such as AERMOD, can be an 

important tool in the CAA section 107 

designations process, in the attainment 

SIP process pursuant to sections 172 

and 192, including supporting required 

attainment demonstrations, and in other 

actions in which areas’ air quality status 

is determined. EPA agrees that prior 

EPA statements, EPA guidance, and case 

law support the use of air dispersion 

modeling in these processes, as well as 

in analyses of whether existing 

approved SIPs remain adequate to show 

attainment and maintenance of the SO2

NAAQS. However, EPA disagrees with 

the Sierra Club that EPA must 

disapprove Ohio’s and Indiana’s SO2

infrastructure SIPs for their alleged 

failure to include source-specific SO2

emission limits that show no 

exceedances of the NAAQS when 

modeled, since this is not an action in 

which air quality status is being 

determined or for which there is a duty 

for the States to demonstrate future 

attainment of the NAAQS in areas that 

may be violating it. 

As discussed previously and in the 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA 

believes the 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 and that 

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 the new 

or revised NAAQS. See Infrastructure 

SIP Guidance at p. 2. EPA believes the 

attainment planning process detailed in 

part D of the CAA, including attainment 

SIPs required by sections 172 and 192 

for areas not attaining the NAAQS, is 

the appropriate place for the state to 

evaluate measures needed to bring 

nonattainment areas into attainment 

with a NAAQS and to impose additional 

emission limitations such as SO2

emission limits on specific sources as 

needed to achieve such future 

attainment. While EPA had initially 

suggested in the final 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

preamble (75 FR 35520) and subsequent 

draft guidance in March and September 

2011 that EPA recommended states 

submit substantive attainment 

demonstration SIPs based on air quality 

modeling in section 110(a) SIPs due in 

June 2013 to show how areas expected 

to be designated as unclassifiable would 

attain and maintain the NAAQS, these 

initial statements in the preamble and 

2011 draft guidance were based on 

EPA’s initial expectation that most areas 

would by June 2012 be initially 

designated as unclassifiable due to 

limitations in the scope of the ambient 

monitoring network and the short time 

available before which states could 

conduct modeling to support 

designations recommendations in 2011. 

However, after receiving comments from 

the states regarding these initial 

statements and the timeline for 

implementing the NAAQS, EPA 

subsequently stated in the April 12, 

2012, letters to the states and in the May 

2012 Implementation of the 2010 

Primary 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS, Draft 

White Paper for Discussion that EPA 

was clarifying its implementation 

position and that EPA was no longer 

recommending such attainment 

demonstrations supported by air 

dispersion modeling for unclassifiable 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 48741 

4The February 6, 2013 ‘‘Next Steps for Area 

Designations and Implementation of the Sulfur 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ 

one of the April 12, 2012 state letters, and the May 

2012 Draft White Paper are available at http://

www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/

implement.html. 

areas (which had not yet been 

designated) for June 2013 infrastructure 

SIPs. EPA reaffirmed this position that 

EPA did not expect attainment 

demonstrations for areas not designated 

nonattainment for infrastructure SIPs in 

the February 6, 2013, memorandum, 

‘‘Next Steps for Area Designations and 

Implementation of the Sulfur Dioxide 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard.’’ 4 As previously mentioned, 

EPA had stated in the preamble to the 

NAAQS and in the prior 2011 draft 

guidance that EPA intended to develop 

and seek public comment on guidance 

for modeling and development of SIPs 

for sections 110, 172 and 191–192 of the 

CAA. After receiving such further 

comment, EPA has now issued guidance 

for the nonattainment area SIPs due 

pursuant to sections 191–192 and 172 

and proposed a process for further 

designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 

which could include use of air 

dispersion modeling. See April 23, 

2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2

Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions 

and 79 FR 27446 (proposing process and 

timetables for additional gathering of 

information to support future 

attainment status determinations 

informed through ambient monitoring 

and/or air quality modeling). While the 

EPA guidance for attainment SIPs and 

the proposed process for additional 

information gathering discusses use of 

air dispersion modeling, EPA’s 2013 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance did not 

require use of air dispersion modeling to 

inform emission limitations for section 

110(a)(2)(A) to ensure no exceedances of 

the NAAQS when sources are modeled. 

Therefore, as discussed previously, EPA 

believes the Ohio and Indiana SO2

infrastructure SIP submittals contains 

the structural requirements to address 

elements in section 110(a)(2) as 

discussed in detail in our proposed 

approval and in our response to a prior 

comment. EPA believes infrastructure 

SIPs are general planning SIPs to ensure 

that a state has adequate resources and 

authority to implement a NAAQS. 

Infrastructure SIP submissions are not 

intended to act or fulfill the obligations 

of a detailed attainment and/or 

maintenance plan for each individual 

area of the state that is not attaining the 

NAAQS. While infrastructure SIPs must 

address modeling authorities in general 

for section 110(a)(2)(K), EPA believes 

110(a)(2)(K) requires infrastructure SIPs 

to provide the state’s authority for air 

quality modeling and for submission of 

modeling data to EPA, not specific air 

dispersion modeling for large stationary 

sources of pollutants such as SO2 in a 

SO2 infrastructure SIP. In the proposed 

rules for this action, EPA provided a 

detailed explanation of Ohio’s and 

Indiana’s abilities and authorities to 

conduct air quality modeling when 

required and their authority to submit 

modeling data to the EPA. 

EPA finds Sierra Club’s discussion of 

case law and guidance to be irrelevant 

to our analysis here of the Ohio and 

Indiana infrastructure SIPs, as this SIP 

for section 110(a) is not an attainment 

SIP required to demonstrate attainment 

of the NAAQS pursuant to section 172. 

In addition, Sierra Club’s comments 

relating to EPA’s use of AERMOD or 

modeling in general in designations 

pursuant to section 107 are likewise 

irrelevant as EPA’s present approval of 

Ohio’s and Indiana’s infrastructure SIPs 

are unrelated to the section 107 

designations process. Nor is our action 

on this infrastructure SIP related to any 

new source review (NSR) or PSD permit 

program issue. As outlined in the 

August 23, 2010, clarification memo, 

‘‘Applicability of Appendix W Modeling 

Guidance for the 1-hour SO2 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ (U.S. 

EPA, 2010a), AERMOD is the preferred 

model for single source modeling to 

address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as part of 

the NSR/PSD permit programs. 

Therefore, as attainment SIPs, 

designations, and NSR/PSD actions are 

outside the scope of a required 

infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS for section 110(a), EPA 

provides no further response to the 

Commenter’s discussion of air 

dispersion modeling for these 

applications. If Sierra Club resubmits its 

air dispersion modeling for the Ohio 

and Indiana EGUs, or updated modeling 

information in the appropriate context 

where an evaluation of areas’ air quality 

status is being conducted, including the 

Gibson Plant referenced in this 

comment, EPA will address the 

resubmitted modeling or updated 

modeling in the appropriate future 

context when an analysis of whether 

Ohio and Indiana’s emissions limits are 

adequate to show attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS is 

warranted. 

The Sierra Club correctly noted that 

the Third Circuit upheld EPA’s section 

126 Order imposing SO2 emissions 

limitations on an EGU pursuant to CAA 

section 126. GenOn REMA, LLC v. EPA, 

722 F.3d 513. Pursuant to section 126, 

any state or political subdivision may 

petition EPA for a finding that any 

major source or group of stationary 

sources emits or would emit any air 

pollutant in violation of the prohibition 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which 

relates to significant contributions to 

nonattainment or maintenance in 

another state. The Third Circuit upheld 

EPA’s authority under section 126 and 

found EPA’s actions neither arbitrary 

nor capricious after reviewing EPA’s 

supporting docket which included air 

dispersion modeling as well as ambient 

air monitoring data showing violations 

of the NAAQS. The Sierra Club appears 

to have cited this matter to demonstrate 

again EPA’s use of modeling for certain 

aspects of the CAA. EPA agrees with the 

Sierra Club regarding the appropriate 

role air dispersion modeling has for 

designations, attainment SIPs, and 

demonstrating significant contributions 

to interstate transport. However, EPA’s 

approval of Ohio and Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIPs is based on our 

determination that Ohio and Indiana 

have the required structural 

requirements pursuant to section 

110(a)(2) in accordance with our 

explanation of the intent for 

infrastructure SIPs as discussed in the 

2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance. 

Therefore, while air dispersion 

modeling may be appropriate for 

consideration in certain circumstances, 

EPA does not find air dispersion 

modeling demonstrating no exceedances 

of the NAAQS to be a required element 

before approval of infrastructure SIPs 

for section 110(a) or specifically for 

110(a)(2)(A). Thus, EPA disagrees with 

the Sierra Club that EPA must require 

additional emission limitations in the 

Ohio and Indiana SO2 infrastructure 

SIPs informed by air dispersion 

modeling and demonstrating attainment 

and maintenance of the 2010 NAAQS. 

In its comments, Sierra Club relies on 

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n and NRDC v. 

EPA to support its comments that EPA 

must now consider the Sierra Club’s 

modeling data based on administrative 

law principles regarding consideration 

of comments provided during a 

rulemaking process. EPA notes that it 

has considered the modeling submitted 

by the Sierra Club, as well as all of its 

submitted comments, to the extent that 

they are germane to the action being 

undertaken here. This action is not, in 

addition to being the traditional action 

on infrastructure SIPs described above, 

a response to a separate administrative 

petition to determine the air quality 

status of Ohio and Indiana generally. 

Therefore, the information Sierra Club 

has submitted regarding such a potential 

determination is not germane to this 

action. As discussed in detail in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
48742 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

5As stated previously, EPA will take later, 

separate action on portions of Ohio and Indiana’s 

SO2 infrastructure SIP submittal including the 

portions of the SIP submittal addressing section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and the visibility portion of 

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

Responses above, EPA does not believe 

the infrastructure SIPs required by 

section 110(a) must contain emission 

limits demonstrating future attainment 

with a NAAQS. Part D of the CAA 

contains numerous requirements for the 

NAAQS attainment planning process 

including requirements for attainment 

demonstrations in section 172 

supported by appropriate modeling. As 

also discussed previously, section 107 

supports EPA’s use of modeling in the 

designations process. In Catawba, the 

D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s consideration 

of data or factors for designations other 

than ambient monitoring. EPA does not 

believe state infrastructure SIPs must 

contain emission limitations informed 

by air dispersion modeling 

demonstrating current future NAAQS 

attainment in order to meet the 

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

Thus, EPA has not evaluated the 

persuasiveness of the Commenter’s 

submitted modeling for that purpose, 

and finds that it is not relevant to the 

approvability of Ohio’s and Indiana’s 

proposed infrastructure SIPs for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

For the reasons discussed in our 

February 27, 2015, proposed rulemaking 

and in the above responses to public 

comments, EPA is taking final action to 

approve Indiana’s infrastructure SIP for 

the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS as 

proposed. 

For the reasons discussed in our July 

25, 2014, proposed rulemaking, EPA is 

taking final action to approve Ohio’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS as proposed. In the July 25, 

2014, rulemaking, EPA also proposed 

approval for Ohio’s 2008 lead, 2008 

ozone, and 2010 NO2 infrastructure 

submittals. Those approvals have been 

finalized in separate rulemakings (see 

79 FR 60075, October 6, 2014, and 79 

FR 62019, October 16, 2014). In today’s 

rulemaking, we are taking final action 

on only the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

for Ohio. Our final actions by element 

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

contained in the table below.5

Element 

2010 NO2

NAAQS for 

Indiana 

2010 SO2

NAAQS for 

Indiana 

2010 SO2

NAAQS for 

Ohio 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the table above, the key is as 

follows: 

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

a .................... Approved in a previous 

Rulemaking. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 157 / Friday, August 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 48743 

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 October 13, 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).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: August 3, 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 entries in 

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

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 

NO2 NAAQS’’ and ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 

SO2 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 2010 

NO2 NAAQS.

1/15/2013 8/14/2015, [insert Federal 

Register citation].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

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

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) except visibility, (K), (L), and 

(M). 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS.

5/22/2013 8/14/2015, [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). 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.1891 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1891 Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements. 

* * * * * 

(h) Approval—In a June 7, 2013, 

submittal, Ohio certified that the State 

has satisfied the infrastructure SIP 

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

through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. We are not finalizing 

action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)— 

Interstate transport prongs 1 and 2 or 

visibility portions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J). 

[FR Doc. 2015–20020 Filed 8–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0496; FRL–9931–06] 

Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerances 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes 

tolerances for residues of fludioxonil in 

or on carrots, the stone fruit group 12– 

12, and the rapeseed subgroup 20A, 

except flax seed. Interregional Research 

Project Number 4 (IR–4) requested the 

tolerances for carrots and the stone fruit 

group 12–12, and Syngenta Crop 

Protection requested the tolerance for 

the rapeseed subgroup 20A under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

August 14, 2015. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before October 13, 2015, and must 

be filed in accordance with the 

instructions provided in 40 CFR part 

178 (see also Unit I.C. of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0496, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES