35380 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

therefore, preparation of an 

environmental impact statement will 

not be required. An environmental 

assessment will be prepared after the 

public notice period is closed and all 

comments have been received and 

considered. It will be available from the 

District office listed at the end of FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. 

d. Unfunded Mandates Act. This 

proposed rule does not impose an 

enforceable duty among the private 

sector and, therefore, is not a Federal 

private sector mandate and is not 

subject to the requirements of Section 

202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (Pub. L. 104–4, 109 Stat. 48, 

2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). We have also 

found under Section 203 of the Act, that 

small governments will not be 

significantly or uniquely affected by this 

regulation. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334 

Danger zones, Navigation (water), 

Restricted areas, Waterways. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 

33 CFR part 334 as follows: 

PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND 

RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 334 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 

40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3). 

2. Revise § 334.480 to read as follows: 

§ 334.480 Archers Creek, Ribbon Creek, 

and Broad River; U.S. Marine Corps Recruit 

Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina; danger 

zones. 

(a) The areas. (1) The danger zone on 

Archers Creek (between the Broad River 

and Beaufort River), Ribbon Creek, and 

the Broad River shall encompass all 

navigable waters of the United States, as 

defined at 33 CFR part 329, adjacent to 

the existing rifle range. This area is 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following coordinates: Commencing 

from the shoreline at the southernmost 

portion of the area, at latitude 32°19′59′′ 

N, longitude 80°42′54′′ W, thence to a 

point at latitude 32°20′05′′ N, longitude 

80°43′16′′ W, thence to a point at 

latitude 32°21′40′′ N, longitude 

80°44′54′′ W, thence to a point at 

latitude 32°22′20′′ N, longitude 

80°43′52′′ W, thence to a point on the 

shoreline at latitude 32°21′34′′ N, 

longitude 80°42′48′′ W, thence follow 

the mean high water line southwesterly 

around Horse Island approximately 2.3 

nautical miles to a point at latitude to 

latitude 32°21′22′′ N, longitude 

80°42′30′′ W, thence to a point on the 

shoreline at latitude 32°20′56′′ N, 

longitude 80°41′50′′ W, thence follow 

the mean high water line southwesterly 

approximately 2.2 nautical miles to 

terminate at the southernmost portion of 

the area. 

(2) The danger zone on the Broad 

River shall encompass all navigable 

waters of the United States, as defined 

at 33 CFR part 329, adjacent to the 

existing pistol range. This area is 

bounded by a line connecting the 

following coordinates: Commencing 

from the shoreline at the easternmost 

portion of the area, at latitude 32°19′36′′ 

N, longitude 80°42′34′′ W, thence to a 

point at latitude 32°19′23′′ N, longitude 

80°42′50′′ W, thence to a point at 

latitude 32°19′06′′ N, longitude 

80°43′31′′ W, thence to a point at 

latitude 32°19′28′′ N, longitude 

80°43′54′′ W, thence to a point at 

latitude 32°19′59′′ N, longitude 

80°43′28′′ W, thence to a point on the 

shoreline at latitude 32°20′10′′ N, 

longitude 80°43′10′′ W, and thence 

follow the mean high water line 

southeasterly approximately 0.75 

nautical miles to terminate at the 

easternmost portion of the area. 

(b) The regulations. (1) All persons, 

vessels, or other watercraft are 

prohibited from entering, transiting, 

anchoring, or drifting within the danger 

zones described in paragraph (a) of this 

section when the adjacent rifle or pistol 

ranges on Parris Island are in use. 

(2) Firing over these ranges will 

normally take place between the hours 

of 6 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, and from 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. on 

Saturday, National holidays excepted, 

and at other times as designated and 

properly published by the Commanding 

General, U.S. Marine Corps Recruit 

Depot Parris Island. 

(3) Warning signs indicating the 

periods when the rifle range is in use 

will be posted by the entrances to 

Archers Creek and Ribbon Creek. In 

addition, warning signs will be placed 

along the shoreline on the Broad River 

near the upstream and downstream 

boundaries of both the rifle range and 

the pistol range. 

(4) Warning flags shall be flown from 

the top of the lookout tower and on the 

rifle range and pistol range during 

actual firing. In addition, a sentry 

lookout will be on duty during actual 

firing and a patrol boat will be 

accessible for clearing the area and 

warning all approaching vessels of the 

danger zone and the schedule of firing. 

(5) During storms or similar 

emergencies these areas shall be opened 

to vessels to reach safety without undue 

delay for the preservation of life and 

property. 

(c) Enforcement. The regulations in 

this section shall be enforced by the 

Commanding General, U.S. Marine 

Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island and/ 

or such persons or agencies as he/she 

may designate. 

Dated: June 10, 2011. 

Michael G. Ensch, 

Chief, Operations and Regulatory, Directorate 

of Civil Works. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15091 Filed 6–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–1024; FRL–9320–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a draft revision to the Indiana State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) to 

EPA on December 3, 2010, for parallel 

processing. The proposed SIP revision 

modifies Indiana’s Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program 

to establish appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to Indiana’s 

PSD permitting requirements for their 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. EPA is 

proposing approval of Indiana’s 

December 3, 2010, SIP revision because 

the Agency has made the preliminary 

determination that this SIP revision is in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA regulations regarding 

PSD permitting for GHGs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–1024, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 35381 

1 ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ 

75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 

2 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Continued 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2010– 

1024. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Sam 

Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–3189 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam 

Portanova, Environmental Engineer, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–3189, 

portanova.sam@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 should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Indiana’s Submittal for Parallel Processing 

III. What is the background for this proposed 

action? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Indiana’s 

proposed SIP revision? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Indiana’s Submittal for Parallel 

Processing 

On December 3, 2010, IDEM 

submitted a draft SIP revision request to 

EPA to establish appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

or modified stationary sources become 

subject to Indiana’s PSD permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions. Final 

approval of this SIP revision request 

will be consistent with the provisions of 

EPA’s Tailoring Rule,1 which 

established appropriate GHG emission 

thresholds for determining the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG-emitting sources, ensuring that 

smaller GHG sources emitting less than 

these thresholds are not subject to 

permitting requirements. Pursuant to 

section 110 of the CAA, EPA is 

proposing to approve this revision into 

the Indiana SIP. 

Because this draft SIP revision is not 

yet state-effective, Indiana requested 

that EPA ‘‘parallel process’’ the SIP 

revision. Under this procedure, the EPA 

Regional Office works closely with the 

state while developing new or revised 

regulations. Generally, the state submits 

a copy of the proposed regulation or 

other revisions to EPA before 

concluding its rulemaking process. EPA 

reviews this proposed state action and 

prepares a proposed rulemaking action. 

EPA publishes this proposed 

rulemaking in the Federal Register and 

solicits public comment in 

approximately the same timeframe 

during which the state finalizes its 

rulemaking process. 

After Indiana submits the formal 

state-effective SIP revision request, EPA 

will prepare a final rulemaking action 

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 action. If the changes are 

significant, then EPA may be obliged to 

repropose the action. 

III. What is the background for this 

proposed action? 

This section briefly summarizes EPA’s 

recent GHG-related actions that provide 

the background for this proposed action. 

More detailed discussion of the 

background is found in the preambles 

for those actions. In particular, the 

background is contained in what we call 

the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,2 and 

in the preambles to the actions it cites. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

35382 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 82536 

(December 30, 2010). 

3 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 

4 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

5 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

6Specifically, by notice dated December 13, 2010, 

EPA finalized a ‘‘SIP Call’’ that would require those 

states with SIPs that have approved PSD programs 

but do not authorize PSD permitting for GHGs to 

submit a SIP revision providing such authority. 

‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,’’ 75 

FR 77698 (Dec. 13, 2010). EPA has begun making 

findings of failure to submit that would apply in 

any state unable to submit the required SIP revision 

by its deadline, and finalizing FIPs for such states. 

See, e.g., ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue 

Permits Under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State 

Implementation Plan Revisions Required for 

Greenhouse Gases,’’ 75 FR 81874 (December 29, 

2010); ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue 

Permits Under the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,’’ 75 

FR 82246 (December 30, 2010). Because Indiana’s 

SIP already authorizes Indiana to regulate GHGs 

once GHGs become subject to PSD requirements on 

January 2, 2011, Indiana is not subject to the 

proposed SIP Call or FIP. 

7 ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning 

Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State 

Implementation Plans; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 82536 

(December 30, 2010). 

8Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31,517/1. 

9SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82,540/2. 

10 Id. at 82,542/3. 

11 Id. at 82,544/1. 

12 Id. at 82,540/2. 

A. GHG-Related Actions 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

distinct from one another, establish the 

overall framework for this proposed 

action on the Indiana SIP. Four of these 

actions include, as they are commonly 

called, the ‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ 

and ‘‘Cause or Contribute Finding,’’ 

which EPA issued in a single final 

action,3 the ‘‘Johnson Memo 

Reconsideration,’’ 4 the ‘‘Light-Duty 

Vehicle Rule,’’ 5 and the ‘‘Tailoring 

Rule.’’ Taken together and in 

conjunction with the CAA, these actions 

established regulatory requirements for 

GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles 

and new motor vehicle engines; 

determined that such regulations, when 

they took effect on January 2, 2011, 

subjected GHGs emitted from stationary 

sources to PSD requirements; and 

limited the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG sources on a 

phased-in basis. EPA took this last 

action in the Tailoring Rule, which, 

more specifically, established 

appropriate GHG emission thresholds 

for determining the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG-emitting sources. 

PSD is implemented through the SIP 

system, and so in December 2010, EPA 

promulgated several rules to implement 

the new GHG PSD SIP program. 

Recognizing that some states had 

approved SIP PSD programs that did not 

apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP 

call and, for some of these states, a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).6

Recognizing that other states had 

approved SIP PSD programs that do 

apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for 

sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 

tons per year (tpy) of GHG, and that do 

not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to 

the higher thresholds in the Tailoring 

Rule, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP 

Narrowing Rule. Under that rule, EPA 

withdrew its approval of the affected 

SIPs to the extent those SIPs covered 

GHG-emitting sources below the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA based its 

action primarily on the ‘‘error 

correction’’ provisions of CAA section 

110(k)(6). 

B. Indiana’s Actions 

On July 23, 2010, Indiana provided a 

letter to EPA, in accordance with a 

request to all states from EPA in the 

Tailoring Rule, with confirmation that 

the state has the authority to regulate 

GHGs in its PSD program. The letter 

also confirmed that current Indiana 

rules require regulating GHGs at the 

existing 100/250 tpy threshold, rather 

than at the higher thresholds set in the 

Tailoring Rule. See the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking for a copy of 

Indiana’s letter. 

In the SIP Narrowing Rule, published 

on December 30, 2010, EPA withdrew 

its approval of Indiana’s SIP, among 

other SIPs, to the extent that SIP applies 

PSD permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions from sources emitting at 

levels below those set in the Tailoring 

Rule.7 As a result, Indiana’s current 

approved SIP provides the state with 

authority to regulate GHGs, but only at 

and above the Tailoring Rule thresholds; 

and Federally requires new and 

modified sources to receive a PSD 

permit based on GHG emissions only if 

they emit at or above the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds. 

Indiana is currently in the process of 

amending its state regulations to also 

incorporate the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds, and has submitted its draft 

regulations to EPA for parallel 

processing. Indiana is seeking to revise 

its SIP to incorporate expected state 

regulatory changes adopted at the local 

level into the Federally-approved SIP. 

Doing so will clarify the applicable 

thresholds in the Indiana SIP. 

The basis for this SIP revision is that 

limiting PSD applicability to GHG 

sources to the higher thresholds in the 

Tailoring Rule is consistent with the SIP 

provisions that provide required 

assurances of adequate resources, and 

thereby addresses the flaw in the SIP 

that led to the SIP Narrowing Rule. 

Specifically, CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) 

includes as a requirement for SIP 

approval that states provide ‘‘necessary 

assurances that the State * * * will 

have adequate personnel [and] funding 

* * * to carry out such [SIP].’’ In the 

Tailoring Rule, EPA established higher 

thresholds for PSD applicability to 

GHG-emitting sources on grounds that 

the states generally did not have 

adequate resources to apply PSD to 

GHG-emitting sources below the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds,8 and no state, 

including Indiana, asserted that it did 

have adequate resources to do so.9

In the SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found 

that the affected states, including 

Indiana, had a flaw in their SIPs at the 

time they submitted their PSD 

programs, which was that the 

applicability of the PSD programs was 

potentially broader than the resources 

available to them under their SIP.10

Accordingly, for each affected state, 

including Indiana, EPA concluded that 

EPA’s action in approving the SIP was 

in error, under CAA section 110(k)(6), 

and EPA rescinded its approval to the 

extent the PSD program applies to GHGemitting sources below the Tailoring 

Rule thresholds.11 EPA recommended 

that states adopt a SIP revision to 

incorporate the Tailoring Rule 

thresholds, thereby (i) assuring that 

under state law, only sources at or above 

the Tailoring Rule thresholds would be 

subject to PSD; and (ii) avoiding 

confusion under the Federally-approved 

SIP by clarifying that the SIP applies to 

only sources at or above the Tailoring 

Rule thresholds.12

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Indiana’s 

proposed SIP revision? 

The regulatory revisions that IDEM 

submitted for parallel processing on 

December 3, 2010, establish thresholds 

for determining which stationary 

sources and modifications become 

subject to permitting requirements for 

GHG emissions under Indiana’s PSD 

program. Specifically, the submittal 

includes changes to Indiana’s PSD 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 117 / Friday, June 17, 2011 / Proposed Rules 35383 

13Attachment A to the December 3, 2010, 

submittal includes revisions to 326 IAC 2–7 to add 

GHG provisions to Indiana’s Title V regulations. 

However, these regulations are not part of the SIP 

and IDEM has not included 326 IAC 2–7 in the 

December 3, 2010, request for SIP approval. IDEM 

intends to make a separate submittal requesting 

approval of the 326 IAC 2–7 regulatory revisions. 

regulations at 326 Indiana 

Administrative Code (IAC) 2–2–1 and 

326 IAC 2–2–4.13

Indiana is currently a SIP-approved 

state for the PSD program, and has 

incorporated EPA’s 2002 NSR reform 

revisions (67 FR 80186) for PSD into its 

SIP (72 FR 33395). In a letter provided 

to EPA on July 23, 2010, Indiana 

notified EPA of its interpretation that 

the state currently has the authority to 

regulate GHGs under its 326 IAC 2–2 

PSD regulations. The current Indiana 

program (adopted prior to the 

promulgation of EPA’s Tailoring Rule) 

applies to major stationary sources 

(having the potential to emit at least 100 

tpy or 250 tpy or more of a regulated 

NSR pollutant, depending on the type of 

source) or modifications undertaken in 

areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable with respect to the 

NAAQS. 

Indiana has revised 326 IAC 2–2–1 to 

add GHG-related language to the 

definitions of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

and ‘‘significant’’ and to add a new 

definition for ‘‘subject to regulation.’’ 

We find these revisions to be consistent 

with the Tailoring Rule. 

In 326 IAC 2–2–4, Indiana has added 

language that says the air quality 

analysis requirements of this section 

shall not apply with respect to GHGs. 

This does not affect the air qualityrelated requirements elsewhere in the 

PSD rule, including requirements for 

source information (326 IAC 2–2–10), 

additional impact analysis (326 IAC 2– 

2–7), or additional requirements for 

sources impacting Federal Class I areas 

(326 IAC 2–2–14). We find this revision 

to be approvable. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve Indiana’s 

December 3, 2010, SIP submittal, 

relating to PSD requirements for GHGemitting sources in 326 IAC 2–2–1 and 

326 IAC 2–2–4. Specifically, Indiana’s 

December 3, 2010, proposed SIP 

revision establishes appropriate 

emissions thresholds for determining 

PSD applicability to new and modified 

GHG-emitting sources in accordance 

with EPA’s Tailoring Rule. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that this SIP submittal is approvable 

because it is in accordance with the 

CAA and EPA regulations regarding 

PSD permitting for GHGs. 

If EPA does approve Indiana’s 

changes to its air quality regulations to 

incorporate the appropriate thresholds 

for GHG permitting applicability into 

Indiana’s SIP, then 40 CFR 52.773(k), as 

included in EPA’s SIP Narrowing Rule, 

which codifies EPA’s limiting its 

approval of Indiana’s PSD SIP to not 

cover the applicability of PSD to GHGemitting sources below the Tailoring 

Rule thresholds, is no longer necessary. 

In this proposed action, EPA is also 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 52.773 to 

remove this unnecessary regulatory 

language. 

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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: June 9, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–15102 Filed 6–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0197; FRL–8877–9] 

RIN 2070–ZA11 

Pesticides; Policies Concerning 

Products Containing Nanoscale 

Materials; Opportunity for Public 

Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed policy statement. 

SUMMARY: EPA seeks comment on 

several possible approaches for 

obtaining information about what 

nanoscale materials are present in 

registered pesticide products. Under one 

approach, EPA would use section 6(a)(2) 

of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to obtain 

information regarding what nanoscale 

material is present in a registered 

pesticide product and its potential 

effects on humans or the environment. 

If EPA adopts this approach, 40 CFR 

152.50(f)(3) would also require the 

inclusion of such information with any 

application for registration of a pesticide 

product that contains a nanoscale 

material. Under an alternative approach, 

EPA would obtain such information 

using Data Call-In notices (DCIs) under 

FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B). If EPA adopts 

this alternate approach, EPA would also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS