72976 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

watercraft and will not be significantly 

impacted. The drawbridge will open if 

at least 24-hours advance notice is given 

and will close for up to 72 hours 

provided 72-hours advance notice is 

given to the USCG District Eight 

Western Rivers Bridge Branch. This 

temporary deviation has been 

coordinated with waterway users. No 

objections were received. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: November 24, 2014. 

Eric A. Washburn, 

Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28842 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0206; FRL–9920–20- 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; 

Nitrogen Oxide Combustion Turbine 

Alternative Control Requirements for 

the Milwaukee-Racine Former 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 24, 2014, the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) submitted revisions 

to the limits found in its nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) combustion turbine rule for the 

Milwaukee-Racine area formerly 

nonattainment for the 1997 ozone 

standard. This revision is contained in 

‘‘2013 Wisconsin Act 91—Senate Bill 

371,’’ which provides for alternative 

NOX requirements, subject to 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

approval on a case-by-case basis, to 

determine whether these alternative 

limits satisfy the reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA 

proposed to approve this rule as a 

revision to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) on April 30, 2014, and 

received adverse comments. EPA 

subsequently issued a supplemental 

proposal on October 9, 2014, to address 

the issue of whether the SIP revision 

satisfies certain anti-backsliding 

requirements of the CAA. EPA received 

an adverse comment on this 

supplemental proposal on October 23, 

2014. After duly considering both this 

comment and the adverse comments 

received in response to the April 30, 

2014, proposal, EPA is approving this 

rule because the process established 

will ensure that modified sources meet 

RACT and the revision meets the antibacksliding requirements of the CAA. 

This final action addresses all of these 

adverse comments. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 9, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0206. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the 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 Steven 

Rosenthal, at (312) 886–6052 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 

Engineer, Air Programs Branch (AR– 

18J), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 866–6052, 

rosenthal.steven@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 for this final 

approval? 

II. What are EPA’s response to comments? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this final 

approval? 

A detailed background for this 

approval is contained in the April 30, 

2014, direct final rule (79 FR 24337), 

which can also be found in the docket 

for this action. 

Under Wisconsin’s current SIPapproved NOX control program, NR 428, 

existing simple cycle combustion 

turbines larger than 84 megawatts (MW) 

that undergo a major modification after 

February 2001 must meet the emission 

limitations set forth in s. NR 

428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a. This provision 

sets NOX emission limits of 12 or 25 

parts per million dry volume (ppmdv) at 

15% oxygen (O2), on a 30-day rolling 

basis, when firing natural gas or 

distillate oil, respectively. 

The WDNR originally set the NOX

emission limitations for combustion 

turbines, in NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a., 

based on the mistaken assumption that 

dry low NOX (DLN) combustion 

technology was feasible and available 

for both new and modified combustion 

turbines and that such technology was 

capable of meeting the established 

emission limitations. As previously 

stated, the emission limitations in NR 

428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a. apply to simple 

cycle combustion turbines that are 

larger than 84 MW (of which there are 

only four in the Milwaukee-Racine 

maintenance area) and undergo a major 

modification. These four combustion 

turbines are the model 11N turbines that 

were manufactured by ASEA BrownBoveri (ABB) and are operated by We 

Energies at its Paris generating facility. 

These four combustion turbines were 

designed and manufactured to use water 

injection instead of DLN technology to 

control NOX emissions. Use of water 

injection limits NOX emissions to the 

alternate levels provided by Wisconsin 

Act 91 (25 ppmdv, for natural gas and 

65 ppmdv for oil), but cannot achieve 

the emission limits required by NR 

428.04(2)(g), Wis. Admin. Code (12 and 

25 ppmdv). These combustion turbines 

are all located in an area that is 

designated attainment for both the 1997 

and 2008 ozone standards, although 

there is a monitor in the area with a 

design value that exceeds the 2008 

ozone standard for the most recent 

three-year period for which certified 

data are available (2011–2013). 

For reasons described in the April 30, 

2014, direct final rule (79 FR 24337), 

WDNR has determined that the 

previously-approved SIP NOX emission 

limits for simple cycle combustion 

turbines that undergo a major 

modification in the Milwaukee-Racine 

area are not feasible for the four existing 

combustion turbines to which these 

limits would apply. EPA agrees with 

this determination. The Wisconsin 

legislature adopted s. 285.27(3m), which 

became effective on December 15, 2013, 

to establish feasible RACT limits in the 

event of a major modification. EPA finds 

that these limits constitute RACT and 

issued both a direct final rule and a 

proposed rule to approve the rule into 

the SIP. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 72977 

1As noted above, EPA believes that the emissions 

rates in the SIP are technically infeasible for these 

sources to meet. 

2As the offset is for NOX emissions, the analysis 

is equally applicable to the NAAQS for ozone and 

nitrogen dioxide. 

In response to EPA’s rulemaking, the 

Sierra Club and Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center provided comments 

objecting to the proposed revision. One 

of their comments stated that because 

two of We Energies’ units had 

undergone modifications in 2002, they 

were subject to the lower limits of s. NR 

428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a. and, as a result, 

the SIP revision was relaxing the limits 

for these units and that ‘‘EPA has done 

no analysis of whether this increase 

would result in problems maintaining 

compliance with ozone standards or 1- 

hour NO2 standards.’’ 

In response to this comment, EPA 

withdrew the direct final rule and 

published a supplemental proposal on 

October 9, 2014, explaining its basis for 

concluding that the SIP revision 

satisfies the anti-backsliding 

requirements of section 110(l) of the 

CAA. The Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center submitted an adverse 

comment in response to this 

supplemental proposal. 

II. What are EPA’s responses to 

comments? 

A. On May 30, 2014, David Bender 

provided the following comment on 

behalf of the Sierra Club and Midwest 

Environmental Defense Center. 

Comment—The proposed SIP revision 

is an unlawful backslide that increases 

allowable emissions. Contrary to EPA’s 

suggestion that Wis. Stat. section 

285.27(3m) ‘‘will not increase allowable 

NOX emission rates above current levels 

for the affected combustion turbines,’’ 

that the provisions of section 

285.27(3m) ‘‘are significantly more 

stringent than the ROP emission 

limitations’’ and ‘‘do not relax current 

allowable emission requirements,’’ the 

statute is clearly a backslide from the 

limits that currently apply under the 

approved Wisconsin SIP. 

The Paris Generating Station emission 

units P01 and P04 were modified in 

June 2002. Therefore, from June 2002, to 

the present, those units were subject to 

the 12 ppmdv and 25 ppmdv limits in 

NR 428.04(2)(g)1.a. and 2.a. when 

burning natural gas and oil, 

respectively. WDNR’s submission 

incorrectly suggests that currentlyapplicable NOX limits are higher than 

the proposed 25 ppm limit, when in fact 

the currently applicable NOX limits are 

significantly lower than 25 ppm. The 

limits that EPA proposes to adopt would 

increase the allowable emissions from 

units P01 and P04 by more than 100 

percent. This is an unlawful backslide. 

Moreover, EPA has done no analysis of 

whether this increase would result in 

problems maintaining compliance with 

ozone standards or 1-hour NO2

standards. 

EPA response—EPA notes the point 

raised by the commenters that, although 

the rule is not expected to result in any 

units operating at higher emissions rates 

than in the past, the rule would increase 

the emissions limits applicable to these 

sources under the SIP.1 Section 110(l) of 

the CAA provides in part that, ‘‘The 

Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a [SIP] if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 7501 of this title), or any 

other applicable requirement of [the 

Act].’’ 

In order to avoid any potential for 

interference with attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS for ozone 

and nitrogen dioxide, Wisconsin has 

identified contemporaneous, offsetting 

emission reductions of NOX from a 

different emission source to compensate 

for the change in the SIP limits for NOX

proposed in the rule at issue.2 We 

explained in the supplemental proposal 

for this action (79 FR 61042) how 

Wisconsin calculated the appropriate 

amounts of offsets, and additional 

information on the source of the offsets. 

Wisconsin submitted to EPA 54.6 tons 

per year of excess NOX emission credits 

generated by the South Oak Creek (SOC) 

Unit 5 generating facility to be used to 

address potential backsliding under this 

SIP revision. Wisconsin also notes that 

a total of 61,970 tons of NOX was 

emitted in the Milwaukee-Racine ozone 

area from all sources in 2011. The 

emission reductions of 54.6 tons per 

year being addressed here for antibacksliding represents less than 0.07% 

of that total. Taking these offsets into 

account, EPA has concluded that 

approval of this SIP revision will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the ozone or NO2

NAAQS, or any other applicable CAA 

requirement. 

B. On October 23, 2014, Karen J.T. 

Jansen, on behalf of the Midwest 

Environmental Defense Center, 

submitted the following comment in 

response to EPA’s supplemental 

proposed rule. 

Comment—The proposed rule 

constitutes impermissible backsliding 

under CAA Section 110(l) and the EPA 

should not approve the proposed rule. 

The Paris Generating Station emission 

units P01 and P04 underwent a major 

modification in June 2002, which 

changed those units’ NOX emission 

limits to 12 ppmdv when burning gas 

and 25 ppmdv when burning oil. The 

proposed rule would raise these limits 

to 25/65 ppmdv. This is a huge increase. 

According to the WDNR, the amount of 

NOX at issue is only .07% of the ozone 

area’s total; however, each increase in 

NOX emission limits contributes to SIP 

attainment or non-attainment. 

Increasing these NOX limits by over 

100% contributes, however 

incrementally, to unlawful backsliding. 

While the WDNR has identified the 

SOC Unit 5 as an offsetting option, it 

assumes that the Paris Generating 

Station was meeting the 25 ppmdv 

limits, while it actually regularly 

exceeded 25 ppmdv. The station is 

currently shut down due to a 

compliance order from the WDNR, so its 

actual emissions are unknown. Based on 

its past history, it is likely that the Paris 

Generating Station will exceed the 

calculated 25 ppmdv. Because of the 

unlawful backsliding, the EPA must 

reject the proposed rule. 

EPA response—As discussed above, 

EPA agrees that the rule would increase 

the emissions limits applicable to these 

sources under the SIP. In order to avoid 

any potential for interference with 

attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS for ozone and nitrogen oxide, 

Wisconsin has identified 

contemporaneous, offsetting emission 

reductions of NOX from a different 

emission source to compensate for the 

change in the SIP limits for NOX

proposed in the rule at issue. 

Wisconsin has identified enforceable 

emission reductions to be used in 

offsetting the 54.6 tons per year of 

excess emissions in order to offset any 

backsliding. These emission reductions 

are generated by enforceable emission 

limitations currently in place for the 

SOC Unit 5 electric generating facility, 

which operates in the MilwaukeeRacine former ozone nonattainment 

area. 

There is no guarantee that any source 

will always comply with its SIP limit. 

However, if the Paris units exceed their 

SIP limits, they become subject to an 

enforcement action. Furthermore, 

Wisconsin has documented that the 

Paris combustion turbines have been in 

compliance with the 25 ppmdv limit 

since at least May 2009. 

C. On May 30, 2014, David Bender 

also provided the following comment on 

behalf of the Sierra Club and Midwest 

Environmental Defense Center. 

Comment—EPA relies on a best 

available control technology (BACT) 

determination by WDNR in 2008 for the 

Concord Generating Station to find that 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
72978 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

technology is too costly to be the basis 

for a RACT limit for the Paris plant. The 

only basis for finding 25/65 ppm is an 

appropriate RACT limit is the Concord 

BACT determination. But, because the 

Concord BACT determination was 

wrong, there is no basis to find that the 

25/65 ppm limit constitutes RACT. The 

commenter goes on to criticize 

Wisconsin’s BACT determination both 

for incorrectly determining the costeffectiveness of an SCR to be $8,236 per 

ton of NOX removed and also for its 

criteria in evaluating BACT. 

EPA response—The purpose of our 

referring to the Concord BACT 

determination process was to explain 

how the State identified the issue that 

the emission limits in the approved SIP, 

which were based on DLN technology, 

were adopted in error. Based on the 

information submitted by the State, we 

agree that DLN is not feasible at this 

time for the four combustion turbines to 

which the limits that were promulgated 

in error might apply. This action is not 

reviewing or approving the BACT 

process for the Concord facility. 

Once the State identified the 

infeasibility of the standards in the 

existing SIP, a determination of RACT 

was made. For purposes of meeting the 

RACT requirement of the CAA, the 

BACT determination is not dispositive 

as the two standards are different. RACT 

is ‘‘reasonably available control 

technology’’ and BACT is ‘‘best 

available control technology.’’ For 

purposes of determining whether the 

revised limits are RACT, the State 

looked at emission limits that apply to 

similar turbines at other facilities. None 

of those facilities were subject to limits 

tighter than those the State of Wisconsin 

has adopted and the commenter does 

not identify any sources subject to 

tighter RACT limits. Moreover, we note 

that before a turbine would be subject to 

the newly adopted, less stringent limits, 

the source would need to demonstrate 

that it was not technologically or 

economically feasible to meet the tighter 

limits and EPA would need to approve 

such demonstration. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving Section 

1.285.27(3m), into Wisconsin’s NOX

SIP. 

Section 553(d) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. chapter 

5, generally provides that rules may not 

take effect earlier than 30 days after they 

are published in the Federal Register. 

However, APA section 553(d) allows an 

effective date less than 30 days after 

publication for a rule that ‘‘that grants 

or recognizes an exemption or relieves 

a restriction.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). Since 

today’s action relieves a restriction (i.e., 

NOX emission limits of 12 or 25 ppmdv 

at 15% O2, on a 30-day rolling basis) 

that prohibited these turbines from 

operating, EPA is making this action 

effective immediately upon publication. 

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 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). 

This rule 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 as specified by Executive 

Order 13175, nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

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 February 9, 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, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Nitrogen oxides. 

Dated: November 24, 2014. 

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. Section 52.2570 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(133) to read as 

follows: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 236 / Tuesday, December 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 72979 

§ 52.2570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(133) On February 24, 2014, the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources submitted revisions to its 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) combustion 

turbine rule for the Milwaukee-Racine 

former nonattainment area for the 1997 

ozone standard. This revision is 

contained in ‘‘2013 Wisconsin Act 91— 

Senate Bill 371’’ which allows 

alternative NOX emission requirements 

for simple cycle combustion turbines, 

that undergo a modification on or after 

February 1, 2001, if dry low NOX

combustion is not technically or 

economically feasible. This revision is 

approvable because it provides for 

alternative NOX requirements subject to 

EPA approval on a case-by-case basis 

and therefore satisfies the reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act). 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

Wisconsin statute, Section 285.27(3m), 

Exemption from Standards for Certain 

Combustion Turbines, as revised by 

2013 Wisconsin Act 91 enacted 

December 13, 2013. (A copy of 2013 

Wisconsin Act 91 is attached to Section 

285.27(3m) to verify the enactment 

date.) 

[FR Doc. 2014–28727 Filed 12–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0968; FRL–9920–15– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Open Burning Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a November 

14, 2011, request by Indiana to revise 

the state implementation plan (SIP) to 

update the open burning provisions in 

Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative 

Code (IAC), Article 4, Rule 1 (326 IAC 

4–1), Open Burning Rule. This action 

applies statewide, with the exception of 

Clark, Floyd, Lake and Porter counties. 

EPA is approving this rule for 

attainment counties and is taking no 

action on the rule for Clark, Floyd, Lake 

and Porter counties which are 

nonattainment or maintenance areas for 

ozone (O3) or particulate matter (PM). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 8, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0968. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the 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 Charles 

Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–6031 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, 

hatten.charles@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 EPA addressing in this document? 

II. Public Comments Received and EPA’s 

Response 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is EPA addressing in this 

document? 

On September 17, 2014 (79 FR 55641, 

79 FR 55712), EPA published a direct 

final approval of revisions to 326 IAC 4– 

1, Indiana’s open burning rule. The 

revisions improve and expand the 

applicability of open burning and its 

impact on air quality statewide. 

On November 5, 2014, EPA withdrew 

the direct final approval because of an 

adverse comment (79 FR 65589). In this 

document EPA is responding to the 

comment and taking final action to 

approve Indiana’s SIP revision request. 

II. Public Comment Received and EPA’s 

Response 

EPA received one adverse comment 

on the September 17, 2014, proposed 

approval of this Indiana rule. 

Comment: Commenter disagrees with 

approval of Indiana’s open burning rule. 

Commenter says the wind in Indiana 

moves in an easterly direction and that 

fine PM emissions from Indiana 

contributes to the cause of serious 

health effects (lung cancer, heart attacks, 

strokes, asthma, pneumonia, and 

allergies) for all people breathing the 

polluted air from Indiana. The 

commenter also said that the allowance 

of open burning hurts the nation and 

raises the concern of huge health costs 

for people breathing dirty air from 

Indiana. 

EPA Response: EPA agrees that 

exposure to fine PM may be linked to 

a number of health related problems. 

The revision to rule 326 IAC 4–1 

strengthens Indiana’s existing open 

burning rule by reducing the amount of 

open burning allowed to take place in 

Indiana, thereby reducing the exposure 

of the general population to PM 

emissions and minimizing health care 

costs. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the November 14, 

2011, request by IDEM to revise 

Indiana’s SIP to update 326 IAC 4–1, 

Indiana’s Open Burning Rule, because 

reducing open burning will reduce PM, 

volatile organic compounds, and other 

pollutants. EPA’s action applies 

statewide, with the exception of Clark, 

Floyd, Lake and Porter counties. EPA is 

taking no action in Clark, Floyd, Lake, 

and Porter counties which are 

nonattainment or maintenance areas for 

O3 or PM. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act 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 Clean Air Act. 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.); 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES