40184 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

7See Petition for Review, United States Postal 

Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm’n, No. 18–1059 (D.C. Cir. 

February 26, 2018). 

8See Unopposed Motion to Remand Case, United 

States Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm’n, No. 18– 

1059 (D.C. Cir. May 10, 2018). 

9See Order, United States Postal Serv. v. Postal 

Reg. Comm’n, No. 18–1059 (D.C. Cir. May 30, 2018). 

10See Updated Notice Under Rule 3010.23(d)(5), 

March 22, 2018. 

11See Order No. 4393 at 8–10 (justification for the 

reporting requirement). 

requirement implicates the price cap; 

and (2) show by a preponderance of the 

evidence, if the designation is 

challenged, that the price cap does not 

apply to the change. The Postal Service 

also petitioned the Court for review of 

this final rule.7

Shortly after the Commission adopted 

the final rule in this docket, the Court 

issued its decision in United States 

Postal Serv. v. Postal Reg. Comm’n, 886 

F.3d 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2018), vacating the 

Commission’s standard in Order No. 

3047. As a result of this decision, the 

Commission and the Postal Service filed 

a joint motion to remand the appeal of 

the final rule back to the Commission 

for further proceedings.8 The 

Commission institutes this NPR in 

response to the Court’s order granting 

the motion for remand.9

As indicated in Order No. 4393, in 

addition to the reporting requirement, 

the procedural rule set forth 

requirements designed to ensure 

compliance with the price cap based on 

the Commission’s standard articulated 

in Order No. 3047. Because the 

substantive standard established in 

Order No. 3047 was vacated by the 

Court, the Commission proposes to 

rescind part of the final rule that relies 

upon the standard. The Commission 

intends to develop an appropriate 

standard and propose other appropriate 

rules implementing that standard in due 

course. 

III. Description of the Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule revises 

§ 3010.23(d)(5). As described above, 

§ 3010.23(d)(5) institutes a reporting 

requirement whereby the Postal Service 

must provide published notice of all 

mail preparation changes in a single 

source. The Postal Service began 

complying with the reporting 

requirement on March 22, 2018.10 The 

rule also requires the Postal Service to 

(1) affirmatively designate whether or 

not an individual mail preparation 

change requires compliance with 

§ 3010.23(d)(2) in accordance with the 

standard set forth in Order No. 3047; 

and (2) demonstrate by a preponderance 

of the evidence, in response to a 

challenge, that a mail preparation 

change does not require compliance 

with § 3010.23(d)(2). Both the 

designation and evidentiary burden 

parts of the rule require a substantive 

standard. Because that standard was 

vacated and a new standard has yet to 

be developed, the proposed rule revises 

paragraph (d)(5) and removes the 

affirmative designation requirement and 

evidentiary burden. The reporting 

requirement will remain in the rule and 

exists independent of any standard as it 

is necessary to provide standardized, 

transparent reporting of mail 

preparation changes.11

Although the Commission is 

instituting a new proceeding to seek 

comment on an appropriate standard to 

determine when mail preparation 

changes are ‘‘changes in rates’’ under 39 

U.S.C. 3622, the absence of an 

immediate standard necessitates partial 

rescission of the rule. 

IV. Comments Requested 

Interested persons are invited to 

provide written comments concerning 

the proposed rule. As the Commission 

is instituting a separate proceeding for 

comments on a new standard, the 

comments should be limited to the 

revised procedural rule. 

Comments are due no later than 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice in the Federal Register. All 

comments and suggestions received will 

be available for review on the 

Commission’s website, http://

www.prc.gov. 

It is ordered: 

1. Interested persons may submit 

comments no later than 30 days from 

the date of the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. 

2. Kenneth E. Richardson will 

continue to serve as an officer of the 

Commission (Public Representative) to 

represent the interests of the general 

public in this proceeding. 

3. The Secretary shall arrange for 

publication of this order in the Federal 

Register. 

By the Commission. 

Stacy L. Ruble, 

Secretary. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3010 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend chapter III of title 39 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 3010—REGULATION OF RATES 

FOR MARKET DOMINANT PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation of part 3010 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503; 3662. 

■ 2. Amend § 3010.23 by revising 

paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 3010.23 Calculation of percentage 

change in rates. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(5) Procedures for mail preparation 

changes. The Postal Service shall 

provide published notice of all mail 

preparation changes in a single, publicly 

available source. The Postal Service 

shall file notice with the Commission of 

the single source it will use to provide 

published notice of all mail preparation 

changes. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–17499 Filed 8–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0700; FRL–9982– 

10—Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; CrossState Air Pollution Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

state submission concerning the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that 

was submitted by Indiana on November 

27, 2017 as a revision to the Indiana 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under 

CSAPR, large electricity generating units 

(EGUs) in Indiana are subject to Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring 

the units to participate in CSAPR’s 

Federal trading program for annual 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), one 

of CSAPR’s two Federal trading 

programs for annual emissions of sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), and one of CSAPR’s two 

Federal trading programs for ozone 

season emissions of NOX. This action 

would approve the State’s regulations 

requiring large Indiana EGUs to 

participate in new CSAPR state trading 

programs for annual NOX, annual SO2, 

and ozone season NOX emissions 

integrated with the CSAPR Federal 

trading programs, replacing the 

corresponding FIP requirements. EPA is 

proposing to approve the SIP revision 

because the submittal meets the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40185 

1Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate 

Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 

Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR 48208 (August 

8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and 

52.39 and subparts AAAAA through EEEEE of 40 

CFR part 97). 

2 In a separate action, EPA has proposed to 

determine that the emission reductions required 

under the FIPs promulgated in the CSAPR Update 

(see the next footnote) fully address the respective 

states’ good neighbor obligations with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. 83 FR 31915 (July 10, 2018). 

If that separate action is finalized as proposed, 

approval of Indiana’s SIP replacing the CSAPR 

Update FIP for the state’s sources as proposed in 

this action would fully address Indiana’s good 

neighbor obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

3See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The CSAPR 

Update was promulgated to address interstate 

pollution with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

and to address a judicial remand of certain original 

CSAPR ozone season NOX budgets promulgated 

with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 

at 74505. The CSAPR Update established new 

emission reduction requirements addressing the 

more recent NAAQS and coordinated them with the 

remaining emission reduction requirements 

addressing the older ozone NAAQS, so that starting 

in 2017, CSAPR includes two geographically 

separate trading programs for ozone season NOX

emissions covering EGUs in a total of 23 states. See 

40 CFR 52.38(b)(1)–(2). 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s regulations for 

approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision 

replacing the requirements of a CSAPR 

FIP. Under the CSAPR regulations, 

approval of the SIP revision would 

automatically eliminate Indiana’s units’ 

requirements under the corresponding 

CSAPR FIPs addressing Indiana’s 

interstate transport (or ‘‘good neighbor’’) 

obligations for the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS), the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

and the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Like the 

CSAPR FIP requirements that would be 

replaced, approval of the SIP revision 

would fully satisfy Indiana’s good 

neighbor obligations for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS and would 

partially satisfy Indiana’s good neighbor 

obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 13, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2017–0700 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401, 

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. Overview 

II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPRRelated SIP Revisions 

III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPRRelated SIP Revisions 

IV. Indiana’s SIP Submittal and EPA’s 

Analysis 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

November 27, 2017 submittal as a 

revision to the Indiana SIP to include 

CSAPR1 state trading programs for 

annual emissions of NOX and SO2 and 

ozone season emissions of NOX. Large 

EGUs in Indiana are subject to CSAPR 

FIPs that require the units to participate 

in the Federal CSAPR NOX Annual 

Trading Program, the Federal CSAPR 

SO2 Group 1 Trading Program, and the 

Federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 2 Trading Program. CSAPR also 

provides a process for the submission 

and approval of SIP revisions to replace 

the requirements of CSAPR FIPs with 

SIP requirements under which a state’s 

units participate in CSAPR state trading 

programs that are integrated with and, 

with certain permissible exceptions, 

substantively identical to the CSAPR 

Federal trading programs. 

The SIP revision proposed for 

approval would incorporate into 

Indiana’s SIP state trading program 

regulations for annual NOX, annual SO2, 

and ozone season NOX emissions that 

would replace EPA’s Federal trading 

program regulations for those emissions 

from Indiana units. EPA is proposing to 

approve the SIP revision because it 

meets the requirements of the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations for approval of a 

CSAPR full SIP revision replacing a 

Federal trading program with a state 

trading program that is integrated with 

and substantively identical to the 

Federal trading program. Under the 

CSAPR regulations, approval of the SIP 

revision would automatically eliminate 

the obligations of large EGUs in Indiana 

to participate in CSAPR’s Federal 

trading programs for annual NOX, 

annual SO2, and ozone season NOX

emissions under the corresponding 

CSAPR FIPs. EPA proposes to find that 

approval of the SIP revision would fully 

satisfy Indiana’s obligations pursuant to 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit 

emissions which will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS in any other 

state and would partially satisfy 

Indiana’s corresponding obligation with 

respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.2

II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPRRelated SIP Revisions 

EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 to 

address the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning 

interstate transport of air pollution. As 

amended (including the 2016 CSAPR 

Update 3), CSAPR requires 27 Eastern 

states to limit their statewide emissions 

of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate 

transported air pollution unlawfully 

impacting other states’ ability to attain 

or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions 

limitations are defined in terms of 

maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for 

emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, 

and/or ozone season NOX by each 

covered state’s large EGUs. The CSAPR 

state budgets are implemented in two 

phases of generally increasing 

stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets 

applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 

and the Phase 2 (and CSAPR Update) 

budgets applying to emissions in 2017 

and later years. As a mechanism for 

achieving compliance with the 

emissions limitations, CSAPR 

establishes five Federal emissions 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40186 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

4States must submit good neighbor SIPs within 

three years (or less, if the Administrator so 

prescribes) after a NAAQS is promulgated. CAA 

section 110(a)(1) and (2). Where EPA finds that a 

state fails to submit a required SIP or disapproves 

a SIP, EPA is obligated to promulgate a FIP 

addressing the deficiency. CAA section 110(c). 

5See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the 

ability to submit SIP revisions to meet their 

transport-related obligations using mechanisms 

other than the CSAPR Federal trading programs or 

integrated state trading programs. 

6States covered by both the CSAPR Update and 

the NOX SIP Call have the additional option to 

expand applicability under the CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 2 Trading Program to include nonEGUs that would have participated in the former 

NOX Budget Trading Program. 

7CSAPR also provides for a third, more 

streamlined form of SIP revision that is effective 

only for control periods in 2016 or 2018 (depending 

on the trading program) and is not relevant here. 

See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(3), (b)(3), (b)(7); 52.39(d), (g). 

8 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4), (b)(4), (b)(8); 52.39(e), (h). 

9 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5), (b)(9); 52.39(f), (i). 

10 40 CFR 52.38(a)(6), (b)(10)(i); 52.39(j). 

11 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv)–(v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v)–(vi), 

(b)(9)(vi)–(vii), (b)(10)(i); 52.39(f)(4)–(5), (i)(4)–(5), 

(j). 

12 40 CFR 52.38(a)(7), (b)(11)(i); 52.39(k). 

13 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(vi), (b)(4)(iii), 

(b)(5)(vii), (b)(8)(iv), (b)(9)(viii); 52.39(e)(2), (f)(6), 

(h)(2), (i)(6). 

trading programs: A program for annual 

NOX emissions, two geographically 

separate programs for annual SO2

emissions, and two geographically 

separate programs for ozone-season NOX

emissions. CSAPR also establishes FIP 

requirements applicable to the large 

EGUs in each covered state.4 Currently, 

the CSAPR FIP provisions require each 

state’s units to participate in up to three 

of the five CSAPR trading programs. 

CSAPR includes provisions under 

which states may submit and EPA will 

approve SIP revisions to modify or 

replace the CSAPR FIP requirements 

while allowing states to continue to 

meet their transport-related obligations 

using either CSAPR’s Federal emissions 

trading programs or state emissions 

trading programs integrated with the 

Federal programs, provided that the SIP 

revisions meet all relevant criteria.5

Through such a SIP revision, a state may 

replace EPA’s default provisions for 

allocating emission allowances among 

the state’s units, employing any stateselected methodology to allocate or 

auction the allowances, subject to 

timing conditions and limits on overall 

allowance quantities. In the case of 

CSAPR’s Federal trading programs for 

ozone season NOX emissions (or an 

integrated state trading program), a state 

may also expand trading program 

applicability to include certain smaller 

EGUs.6 If a state wants to replace 

CSAPR FIP requirements with SIP 

requirements under which the state’s 

units participate in a state trading 

program that is integrated with and 

identical to the Federal trading program 

even as to the allocation and 

applicability provisions, the state may 

submit a SIP revision for that purpose 

as well. However, no emissions budget 

increases or other substantive changes 

to the trading program provisions are 

allowed. A state whose units are subject 

to multiple CSAPR FIPs and Federal 

trading programs may submit SIP 

revisions to modify or replace either 

some or all of those FIP requirements. 

States can submit two basic forms of 

CSAPR-related SIP revisions effective 

for emissions control periods in 2017 or 

later years.7 Specific conditions for 

approval of each form of SIP revision 

are set forth in the CSAPR regulations, 

as described in section III below. Under 

the first alternative—an ‘‘abbreviated’’ 

SIP revision—a state may submit a SIP 

revision that upon approval replaces the 

default allowance allocation and/or 

applicability provisions of a CSAPR 

Federal trading program for the state.8

Approval of an abbreviated SIP revision 

leaves the corresponding CSAPR FIP 

and all other provisions of the relevant 

Federal trading program in place for the 

state’s units. 

Under the second alternative—a 

‘‘full’’ SIP revision—a state may submit 

a SIP revision that upon approval 

replaces a CSAPR Federal trading 

program for the state with a state trading 

program integrated with the Federal 

trading program, so long as the state 

trading program is substantively 

identical to the Federal trading program 

or does not substantively differ from the 

Federal trading program except as 

discussed above with regard to the 

allowance allocation and/or 

applicability provisions.9 For purposes 

of a full SIP revision, a state may either 

adopt state rules with complete trading 

program language, incorporate the 

Federal trading program language into 

its state rules by reference (with 

appropriate conforming changes), or 

employ a combination of these 

approaches. 

The CSAPR regulations identify 

several important consequences and 

limitations associated with approval of 

a full SIP revision. First, upon EPA’s 

approval of a full SIP revision as 

correcting the deficiency in the state’s 

implementation plan that was the basis 

for a particular set of CSAPR FIP 

requirements, the obligation to 

participate in the corresponding CSAPR 

Federal trading program is 

automatically eliminated for units 

subject to the state’s jurisdiction 

without the need for a separate EPA 

withdrawal action, so long as EPA’s 

approval of the SIP is full and 

unconditional.10 Second, approval of a 

full SIP revision does not terminate the 

obligation to participate in the 

corresponding CSAPR Federal trading 

program for any units located in any 

Indian country within the borders of the 

state, and if and when a unit is located 

in Indian country within a state’s 

borders, EPA may modify the SIP 

approval to exclude from the SIP, and 

include in the surviving CSAPR FIP 

instead, certain trading program 

provisions that apply jointly to units in 

the state and to units in Indian country 

within the state’s borders.11 Finally, if at 

the time a full SIP revision is approved 

EPA has already started recording 

allocations of allowances for a given 

control period to a state’s units, the 

Federal trading program provisions 

authorizing EPA to complete the process 

of allocating and recording allowances 

for that control period to those units 

will continue to apply, unless EPA’s 

approval of the SIP revision provides 

otherwise.12

III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPRRelated SIP Revisions 

Each CSAPR-related abbreviated or 

full SIP revision must meet the 

following general submittal conditions: 

• Timeliness and completeness of SIP 

submittal. The SIP submittal 

completeness criteria in section 2.1 of 

appendix V to 40 CFR part 51 apply. In 

addition, if a state wants to replace the 

default allowance allocation or 

applicability provisions of a CSAPR 

Federal trading program, the complete 

SIP revision must be submitted to EPA 

by December 1 of the year before the 

deadlines described below for 

submitting allocation or auction 

amounts to EPA for the first control 

period for which the state wants to 

replace the default allocation and/or 

applicability provisions.13 This SIP 

submission deadline is inoperative in 

the case of a SIP revision that seeks only 

to replace a CSAPR FIP and Federal 

trading program with a SIP and a 

substantively identical state trading 

program integrated with the Federal 

trading program. 

In addition to the general submittal 

conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated 

or full SIP seeking to address the 

allocation or auction of emission 

allowances must meet the following 

further conditions: 

• Methodology covering all 

allowances potentially requiring 

allocation. For each Federal trading 

program addressed by a SIP revision, 

the SIP revision’s allowance allocation 

or auction methodology must replace 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40187 

14 In the context of the approval conditions for 

CSAPR-related SIP revisions, an ‘‘existing unit’’ is 

a unit for which EPA has determined default 

allowance allocations (which could be allocations 

of zero allowances) in the rulemakings establishing 

and amending CSAPR. 

15 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i), (b)(4)(ii), 

(b)(5)(ii), (b)(8)(iii), (b)(9)(iii); 52.39(e)(1), (f)(1), 

(h)(1), (i)(1). 

16See 40 CFR 97.412(b)(10)(ii), 97.512(b)(10)(ii), 

97.612(b)(10)(ii), 97.712(b)(10)(ii), 97.812(b)(10)(ii). 17 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(5)(i)(A), 

(b)(4)(ii)(A), (b)(5)(ii)(A), (b)(8)(iii)(A), (b)(9)(iii)(A); 

52.39(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i), (i)(1)(i). 

18 40 CFR 52.38(b)(8)(iii)(A), (b)(9)(iii)(A). 

19 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(B)–(C), (a)(5)(i)(B)–(C), 

(b)(4)(ii)(B)–(C), (b)(5)(ii)(B)–(C), (b)(8)(iii)(B)–(C), 

(b)(9)(iii)(B)–(C); 52.39(e)(1)(ii)–(iii), (f)(1)(ii)–(iii), 

(h)(1)(ii)–(iii), (i)(1)(ii)–(iii). 

20 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(5)(i)(D), 

(b)(4)(ii)(D), (b)(5)(ii)(D), (b)(8)(iii)(D), (b)(9)(iii)(D); 

52.39(e)(1)(iv), (f)(1)(iv), (h)(1)(iv), (i)(1)(iv). 

21 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(8), 

(b)(9); 52.39(e), (f), (h), (i). 

22 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), 

(b)(5)(iii), (b)(8)(iii), (b)(9)(iv); 52.39(e)(1), (f)(2), 

(h)(1), (i)(2). 

both the Federal program’s default 

allocations to existing units 14 at 40 CFR 

97.411(a), 97.511(a), 97.611(a), 

97.711(a), or 97.811(a) as applicable, 

and the Federal trading program’s 

provisions for allocating allowances 

from the new unit set-aside (NUSA) for 

the state at 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 

97.412(a), 97.511(b)(1) and 97.512(a), 

97.611(b)(1) and 97.612(a), 97.711(b)(1) 

and 97.712(a), or 97.811(b)(1) and 

97.812(a), as applicable.15 In the case of 

a state with Indian country within its 

borders, while the SIP revision may 

neither alter nor assume the Federal 

program’s provisions for administering 

the Indian country NUSA for the state, 

the SIP revision must include 

procedures addressing the disposition of 

any otherwise unallocated allowances 

from an Indian country NUSA that may 

be made available for allocation by the 

state after EPA has carried out the 

Indian country NUSA allocation 

procedures.16

• Assurance that total allocations will 

not exceed the state budget. For each 

Federal trading program addressed by a 

SIP revision, the total amount of 

allowances auctioned or allocated for 

each control period under the SIP 

revision (prior to the addition by EPA of 

any unallocated allowances from any 

Indian country NUSA for the state) 

generally may not exceed the state’s 

emissions budget for the control period 

less the sum of the amount of any 

Indian country NUSA for the state for 

the control period and any allowances 

already allocated to the state’s units for 

the control period and recorded by 

EPA.17 Under its SIP revision, a state is 

free to not allocate allowances to some 

or all potentially affected units, to 

allocate or auction allowances to 

entities other than potentially affected 

units, or to allocate or auction fewer 

than the maximum permissible quantity 

of allowances and retire the remainder. 

Under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 2 Trading Program only, 

additional allowances may be allocated 

if the state elects to expand applicability 

to non-EGUs that would have been 

subject to the NOX Budget Trading 

Program established for compliance 

with the NOX SIP Call.18

• Timely submission of statedetermined allocations to EPA. The SIP 

revision must require the state to submit 

to EPA the amounts of any allowances 

allocated or auctioned to each unit for 

each control period (other than 

allowances initially set aside in the 

state’s allocation or auction process and 

later allocated or auctioned to such 

units from the set-aside amount) by the 

following deadlines.19 Note that the 

submission deadlines differ for amounts 

allocated or auctioned to units 

considered existing units for CSAPR 

purposes and amounts allocated or 

auctioned to other units. 

CSAPR NOX ANNUAL, CSAPR NOX OZONE SEASON GROUP 1, CSAPR SO2 GROUP 1, AND CSAPR SO2 GROUP 2 

TRADING PROGRAMS

Units Year of the control period Deadline for submission to EPA of allocations or 

auction results 

Existing ................................. 2017 and 2018 ................................................................ June 1, 2016. 

2019 and 2020 ................................................................ June 1, 2017. 

2021 and 2022 ................................................................ June 1, 2018. 

2023 and later years ....................................................... June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control 

period. 

Other .................................... All years .......................................................................... July 1 of the year of the control period. 

CSAPR NOX OZONE SEASON GROUP 2 TRADING PROGRAM

Units Year of the control period Deadline for submission to EPA of allocations or 

auction results 

Existing ................................. 2019 and 2020 ................................................................ June 1, 2018. 

2021 and 2022 ................................................................ June 1, 2019. 

2023 and 2024 ................................................................ June 1, 2020. 

2025 and later years ....................................................... June 1 of the fourth year before the year of the control 

period. 

Other .................................... All years .......................................................................... July 1 of the year of the control period. 

• No changes to allocations already 

submitted to EPA or recorded. The SIP 

revision must not provide for any 

change to the amounts of allowances 

allocated or auctioned to any unit after 

those amounts are submitted to EPA or 

any change to any allowance allocation 

determined and recorded by EPA under 

the Federal trading program 

regulations.20

• No other substantive changes to 

Federal trading program provisions. The 

SIP revision may not substantively 

change any other trading program 

provisions, except in the case of a SIP 

revision that also expands program 

applicability as described below.21 Any 

new definitions adopted in the SIP 

revision (in addition to the Federal 

trading program’s definitions) may 

apply only for purposes of the SIP 

revision’s allocation or auction 

provisions.22


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40188 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

23 40 CFR 52.38(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(i), (b)(8)(i), (b)(9)(i). 

24 40 CFR 52.38(b)(8)(ii), (b)(9)(ii). 

25 40 CFR 52.38(b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(8), (b)(9). 

26 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5), (b)(5), (b)(9); 52.39(f), (i). 

27 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv), (b)(9)(v); 

52.39(f)(3), (i)(3). 

28 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(v), (b)(9)(vi); 

52.39(f)(4), (i)(4). 

29 76 FR 48208, 48213 (August 8, 2011). 

30 81 FR 74504, 74506 (October 26, 2016). 

31 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2), (b)(2); 52.39(b); 52.789(a), 

(b); 52.790. 

In addition to the general submittal 

conditions, a CSAPR-related abbreviated 

or full SIP revision seeking to expand 

applicability under the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 1 or CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 2 Trading 

Programs (or an integrated state trading 

program) must meet the following 

further conditions: 

• Only electricity generating units 

with nameplate capacity of at least 15 

MWe. The SIP revision may expand 

applicability only to additional fossil 

fuel-fired boilers or combustion turbines 

serving generators producing electricity 

for sale, and only by lowering the 

generator nameplate capacity threshold 

used to determine whether a particular 

boiler or combustion turbine serving a 

particular generator is a potentially 

affected unit. The nameplate capacity 

threshold adopted in the SIP revision 

may not be less than 15 MWe.23 In 

addition or alternatively, applicability 

under the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season 

Group 2 Trading Program may be 

expanded to non-EGUs that would have 

been subject to the NOX Budget Trading 

Program established for compliance 

with the NOX SIP Call.24

• No other substantive changes to 

Federal trading program provisions. The 

SIP revision may not substantively 

change any other trading program 

provisions, except in the case of a SIP 

revision that also addresses the 

allocation or auction of emission 

allowances as described above.25

In addition to the general submittal 

conditions and the other applicable 

conditions described above, a CSAPRrelated full SIP revision must meet the 

following further conditions: 

• Complete, substantively identical 

trading program provisions. The SIP 

revision must adopt complete state 

trading program regulations 

substantively identical to the complete 

Federal trading program regulations at 

40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, 97.502 

through 97.535, 97.602 through 97.635, 

97.702 through 97.735, or 97.802 

through 97.835, as applicable, except as 

described above in the case of a SIP 

revision that seeks to replace the default 

allowance allocation and/or 

applicability provisions.26

• Only non-substantive substitutions 

for the term ‘‘State.’’ The SIP revision 

may substitute the name of the state for 

the term ‘‘State’’ as used in the Federal 

trading program regulations, but only to 

the extent that EPA determines that the 

substitutions do not substantively 

change the trading program 

regulations.27

• Exclusion of provisions addressing 

units in Indian country. The SIP 

revision may not impose requirements 

on any unit in any Indian country 

within the state’s borders and must not 

include the Federal trading program 

provisions governing allocation of 

allowances from any Indian country 

NUSA for the state.28

IV. Indiana’s SIP Submittal and EPA’s 

Analysis 

A. Indiana’s SIP Submittal 

In the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA 

determined that air pollution 

transported from EGUs in Indiana 

would unlawfully affect other states’ 

ability to attain or maintain the 1997 

Ozone NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

included Indiana in the CSAPR ozone 

season NOX trading program and the 

annual SO2 and NOX trading 

programs.29 In the CSAPR Update 

rulemaking, EPA determined that air 

pollution transported from EGUs in 

Indiana would unlawfully affect other 

states’ ability to attain or maintain the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS.30 Indiana’s units 

meeting the CSAPR applicability criteria 

are consequently currently subject to 

CSAPR FIPs that require participation in 

the CSAPR NOX Annual Trading 

Program, the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 

Trading Program, and the CSAPR NOX

Ozone Season Group 2 Trading 

Program.31

Indiana’s November 27, 2017 SIP 

submittal would incorporate into the 

SIP CSAPR state trading program 

regulations that would replace the 

CSAPR Federal trading program 

regulations with regard to Indiana units’ 

SO2 and NOX emissions. The SIP 

submittal includes Indiana Rules 326 

IAC 24–5, 24–6, and 24–7. In general, 

each of Indiana’s CSAPR state trading 

program rules is designed to replace the 

corresponding Federal trading program 

regulations. For example, Indiana Rule 

326 IAC 24–5, NOX Annual Trading 

Program, is designed to replace subpart 

AAAAA of 40 CFR part 97 (i.e., 40 CFR 

97.401 through 97.435). 

With regard to form, some of the 

individual rules for each Indiana 

CSAPR state trading program are set 

forth as full regulatory text—notably the 

rules governing allocation of the state 

trading budgets among the state’s 

EGUs—but most of the rules incorporate 

the corresponding Federal trading 

program section or sections by 

reference. 

With regard to substance, the rules for 

each Indiana CSAPR state trading 

program differ from the corresponding 

CSAPR Federal trading program 

regulations in two main ways. First, the 

Indiana rules omit some Federal trading 

program provisions not applicable to 

Indiana’s state trading programs, 

including provisions setting forth the 

amounts of emissions budgets, NUSAs, 

Indian country NUSAs, and variability 

limits for other states and provisions 

relating to EPA’s administration of 

Indian country NUSAs. Second, the 

Indiana rules contain provisions that 

replace the default allowance allocation 

methodology and process from the FIPs 

with Indiana’s own state-administered 

process. Indiana’s methodology for 

determining allocations to existing units 

generally provides for allocations based 

on each unit’s historical heat input 

subject to caps based on each unit’s 

historical maximum emissions. 

Indiana’s methodology for allocating 

NUSA allowances provides for 

allocations to new units based on each 

unit’s recent historical emissions 

followed by allocations to existing units 

of any allowances not allocated to new 

units. These methodologies are similar 

to the methodologies used by EPA to 

determine the default allocations to 

existing units and to annually allocate 

NUSA allowances under the Federal 

trading programs. However, while EPA’s 

default allocations to existing units are 

fixed for all future control periods, 

Indiana’s methodology calls for 

allocations for each successive control 

period to be calculated using more 

recent data on the units’ historical heat 

input and maximum emissions. 

The Indiana rules adopt the Phase 2 

NOX Annual, SO2 Group 1, and NOX

Ozone Season Group 2 budgets found at 

40 CFR 97.410(a)(4)(iv), 97.610(a)(2)(iv), 

and 97.810(a)(5)(i), respectively. 

Accordingly, EPA will evaluate the 

approvability of the Indiana SIP 

submission consistent with these 

budgets. 

B. EPA’s Analysis of Indiana’s SIP 

Submittal 

1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP 

Submittal 

Indiana is seeking to replace EPAdetermined allowance allocations with 

state-determined allocations starting 

with the 2021 control periods for all 

three CSAPR trading programs. For the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40189 

32See the June 11, 2018 letter from Assistant 

Commissioner Keith Bauges to Regional 

Administrator Cathy Stepp, available in the docket. 

NOX Annual and SO2 Group 1 trading 

programs, under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(B) 

and 52.39(f)(1)(ii), the deadline for 

submission of state-determined 

allocations for the 2021 control periods 

is June 1, 2018, triggering a December 1, 

2017 SIP submittal deadline for these 

programs under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(vi) 

and 52.39(f)(6). For the NOX Ozone 

Season Group 2 trading program, under 

40 CFR 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(B), the allocation 

submission deadline for the 2021 

control period is June 1, 2019, triggering 

a December 1, 2018 SIP submittal 

deadline for this program under 40 CFR 

52.38(b)(9)(viii). Indiana submitted its 

SIP revision to EPA on November 27, 

2017, and EPA has determined that the 

submittal complies with the applicable 

minimum completeness criteria in 

section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 

51. Indiana has therefore met the 

requirements for timeliness and 

completeness of its CSAPR SIP 

submittal for all three programs. 

2. Methodology Covering All 

Allowances Potentially Requiring 

Allocation 

In the rules for each Indiana trading 

program, section 2 adopts the full 

amount of the state’s budget under the 

corresponding Federal program, 

sections 4 and 5 contain provisions 

replacing the corresponding Federal 

program’s default allocations to existing 

units, and sections 6 and 7 contain 

provisions replacing the corresponding 

Federal program’s provisions for 

allocating allowances from the NUSAs. 

There are no Indian country NUSAs for 

Indiana, making it unnecessary for 

Indiana’s rules to contain provisions 

addressing the disposition of otherwise 

unallocated allowances from an Indian 

country NUSA after EPA has carried out 

the Indiana country NUSA allocation 

procedures. Indiana’s rules therefore 

meet the condition under 40 CFR 

52.38(a)(5)(i), 52.38(b)(9)(iii), and 

52.39(f)(1) that the state’s allocation 

methodology must cover all allowances 

potentially requiring allocation by the 

state. 

3. Assurance That Total Allocations 

Will Not Exceed the State Budget 

Indiana’s rules provide for allocation 

of total amounts of allowances equal to 

the emissions budgets set for Indiana for 

the control periods in 2017 and 

subsequent years under the three 

CSAPR trading programs. Indiana’s NOX

Annual trading budget is incorporated 

by reference in 326 IAC 24–5–2(a), 

Indiana’s NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

budget is incorporated in 326 IAC 24– 

6–2(a), and Indiana’s SO2 Group 1 

budget is incorporated by reference in 

326 IAC 24–7–2(a). Because there are no 

Indian country NUSAs for Indiana, 

there is no possibility that additional 

allowances will be made available for 

allocation under the state’s 

methodology, and EPA has not yet 

allocated or recorded CSAPR 

allowances for the control periods in 

2021 or later years for Indiana units. 

Indiana’s rules therefore meet the 

condition under 40 CFR 

52.38(a)(5)(i)(A), 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(A), and 

52.39(f)(1)(i) that, for each trading 

program, the total amount of allowances 

allocated under the SIP revision (before 

the addition of any otherwise 

unallocated allowances from an Indian 

country NUSA) may not exceed the 

state’s budget for the control period less 

the amount of the Indian country NUSA 

for the state and any allowances already 

allocated and recorded by EPA. 

4. Timely Submission of StateDetermined Allocations to EPA 

In the rules for each trading program, 

section 3 sets out the dates by which the 

state will submit state-determined 

allowance allocations to EPA. For 

existing units, by June 1, 2018, the state 

will submit allocations for the control 

periods in 2021 and 2022, and then, 

starting in 2019, by June 1 of every 

second year the state will submit 

allocations for the two control periods 

that are four and five years after the year 

of the submittal (for example, the 

submittal due by June 1, 2019 will 

include allocations for the 2023 and 

2024 control periods). For NUSA 

allowances, for each control period the 

state will submit first-round allocations 

by July 1 of the year of the control 

period and second-round allocations by 

February 6 of the year after the control 

period. These dates match or precede 

the applicable deadlines for submittal of 

existing unit allocations in 40 CFR 

52.38(a)(5)(i)(B), 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(B), and 

52.39(f)(1)(ii) and the applicable 

deadlines for submittal of NUSA 

allocations in 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(C), 

52.38(b)(9)(iii)(C), and 52.39(f)(1)(iii), 

thereby meeting the conditions 

requiring allocations to be submitted 

before these deadlines. 

5. No Changes to Allocations Already 

Submitted to EPA or Recorded 

The Indiana rules do not include any 

provisions allowing alteration of 

allocations after the allocation amounts 

have been provided to EPA and no 

provisions allowing alteration of any 

allocations made and recorded by EPA 

under the Federal trading program 

regulations, thereby meeting the 

condition under 40 CFR 

52.38(a)(5)(i)(D), 52.38(b)(9)(iii)(D), and 

52.39(f)(1)(iv). 

6. No Other Substantive Changes to 

Federal Trading Program Provisions 

As discussed above, Indiana’s rules 

generally incorporate by reference the 

corresponding provisions (including the 

definitions) of the Federal trading 

programs, except for the default Federal 

provisions addressing allowance 

allocations. The state has broad 

discretion to adopt any allowance 

allocation methodology, subject to 

limits on the total quantities of 

allowances allocated and the timing of 

submissions of allocation information to 

EPA. EPA believes that Indiana intends 

for the allocation provisions in its rules 

to adhere to the limits just noted, but 

EPA also identified several issues 

concerning provisions of the state rules 

that may not accurately reflect the 

state’s intent in adopting the provisions, 

as discussed below. By letter to EPA 

dated June 11, 2018, the state has 

clarified its interpretation of these rule 

provisions.32 EPA has confirmed that, as 

clarified, the only substantive changes 

in Indiana’s rules concern allowance 

allocations, and that these changes do 

not exceed the state’s broad discretion 

with regard to allowance allocations. 

The first issue concerns instances 

where the text of two of Indiana’s 

CSAPR rules indicates that references to 

the rules’ allocation provisions should 

be substituted for certain references to 

the default Federal allocation 

provisions, but the state rule text does 

not accurately identify the default 

Federal provisions being replaced. 

Indiana has clarified that, in the state’s 

NOX Ozone Season Group 2 rule at 326 

IAC 24–6–1(d)(3), the state interprets 

the rule text as replacing a reference to 

the default Federal allocation provisions 

at ‘‘40 CFR 97.811(a)(2) and (b) and 

97.812’’, not ‘‘40 CFR 97.811(a)(2) and 

(b) 97.812’’ as currently written in the 

rule text, and that in the state’s SO2

Group 1 rule at 326 IAC 24–7–1(d)(3), 

the state interprets the rule text as 

replacing the default Federal allocation 

provisions at ‘‘40 CFR 97.611(a)(2) and 

(b) and 97.612’’, not ‘‘40 CFR 

97.611(a)(2) and 97.611(b)’’ as currently 

written in the rule text. EPA agrees that 

the meaning of the rule text, as 

interpreted by the state, is clear from 

context. 

The second issue concerns an 

inaccurate terminology definition that 

appears in all three of Indiana’s CSAPR 

rules. In the nomenclature for the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40190 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

equation to calculate second-round 

NUSA allocations at 326 IAC 

24.5.7(a)(2)(B), 326 IAC 24.6.7(a)(2)(B), 

and 326 IAC 24.7.7(a)(2)(B), the rule text 

defines the term ‘‘sum’’ as ‘‘the total 

amount of allocations under this 

subdivision’’. In context, the definition 

of ‘‘sum’’ as written cannot be correct 

because it is circular with the term ‘‘unit 

allowance’’ in the same equation, and if 

the definition were correct, the only 

situation in which the two sides of the 

equation could be equal—i.e., where the 

total number of allowances available for 

second-round NUSA allocations equals 

the sum of the eligible units’ historical 

emissions less the sum of the eligible 

units’ first-round NUSA allocations—is 

a situation in which the equation is not 

supposed to be used. In its letter, 

Indiana has clarified that the state 

interprets the term ‘‘sum’’ instead to 

mean ‘‘the sum under this 

subdivision’’—that is, subdivision (2)— 

which elsewhere in subdivision (2) is 

further defined as the ‘‘the sum of the 

positive differences determined under 

subdivision (1)’’. EPA agrees that the 

state’s interpretation of the rule text is 

reasonable in context and notes that it 

causes the equation to allocate 

allowances in the same manner as EPA’s 

default NUSA allocation methodology 

would allocate allowances in an 

analogous situation. 

The third issue also arises in all three 

of Indiana’s CSAPR rules and concerns 

a potential conflict between two 

requirements of the state’s allocation 

methodology. The first requirement, set 

forth at 326 IAC 24–5–5(d)(3) and (e)(1), 

326 IAC 24–6–5(d)(3) and (e)(1), and 

326 IAC 24–7–5(d)(3) and (e)(1), caps 

the allocation from the state’s ‘‘existing 

unit budget’’ to each individual existing 

unit at an amount based on the unit’s 

historical emissions. The second 

requirement, set forth at 326 IAC 24–5– 

5(e)(3), 326 IAC 24–6–5(e)(3), and 326 

IAC 24–7–5(e)(3), directs the state to 

repeat its allocation calculations ‘‘until 

the entire existing unit budget is 

allocated.’’ Under Indiana’s allocation 

methodology, unlike EPA’s default 

allocation methodology, the set of 

historical emissions data used to 

determine the caps on individual units’ 

allocations is periodically updated, 

creating the possibility that for some 

future control period, the sum of the 

individual units’ applicable caps will be 

less than the total amount of the existing 

unit budget, causing a conflict between 

these two requirements. In the 

clarification letter, Indiana 

acknowledges the potential for the 

conflict of the two requirements, 

however did not find this to be an issue 

for the 2021 and 2022 allocation cycles. 

Indiana will watch for this issue with 

future allocation cycles and will revise 

the SIP in a timely matter if it becomes 

necessary. This would include the 

possibility of an emergency rule if the 

normal rule process was not expeditious 

enough. EPA agrees that this is a 

reasonable approach if this becomes an 

issue in future allocation cycles. 

EPA concludes that the state’s 

allocation methodology, as clarified 

above, does not exceed the state’s broad 

discretion regarding allowance 

allocations and that the state’s rules 

make no other substantive changes to 

the Federal trading program provisions, 

thereby meeting the condition in 40 CFR 

52.38(a)(5), 52.39(f), and 52.38(b)(9). 

7. Complete, Substantively Identical 

Trading Program Provisions 

As discussed above, the Indiana SIP 

revision adopts state budgets identical 

to the Phase 2 budgets for Indiana under 

the Federal trading programs and adopts 

almost all of the provisions of the 

Federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading 

Program, CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading 

Program, and CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 2 Trading Program, with 

the exception of differences in the 

allocation methodology. Under the 

state’s rules, Indiana will determine 

allowance allocations beginning with 

the 2021 control periods. 

With a few exceptions, the rules 

comprising Indiana’s CSAPR state 

trading program for annual NOX

emissions either incorporate by 

reference or adopt full-text replacements 

for all of the provisions of 40 CFR 

97.402 through 97.435; the rules 

comprising Indiana’s CSAPR state 

trading program for NOX ozone season 

emissions either incorporate by 

reference or adopt full-text replacements 

for all of the provisions of 40 CFR 

97.802 through 97.835; and the rules 

comprising Indiana’s CSAPR state 

trading program for SO2 emissions 

either incorporate by reference or adopt 

full-text replacements for all of the 

provisions of 40 CFR 97.602 through 

97.635. The major exception, which as 

discussed above is a permissible 

substantive change, is that Indiana has 

adopted rule provisions for a stateadministered allocation methodology 

replacing the default EPA-administered 

allocation methodology. The additional 

minor exceptions discussed below are 

likewise either permissible or required. 

The first additional exception is that 

the Indiana rules do not incorporate the 

provisions of 40 CFR 97.410(a) and (b), 

97.810(a) and (b), and 97.610(a) and (b) 

setting forth the amounts of the Phase 1 

emissions budgets, NUSAs, and 

variability limits for Indiana and the 

amounts of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 

emissions budgets, NUSAs, Indian 

country NUSAs, and variability limits 

for other states. Omission of the Indiana 

Phase 1 emissions budget, NUSA, and 

variability limit amounts is appropriate 

because Indiana’s state trading programs 

do not apply to emissions occurring in 

Phase 1 of CSAPR. Omission of the 

Phase 1 and Phase 2 budget, NUSA, 

Indian country NUSA, and variability 

limit amounts for other states from state 

trading programs in which only Indiana 

units participate does not undermine 

the completeness of Indiana’s state 

trading programs. Indiana’s rules 

incorporate or include full-text 

replacement provisions for the 

remaining provisions of 40 CFR 97.410, 

97.810, and 97.610 that are relevant to 

trading programs applicable only to 

Indiana units during the control periods 

in 2021 and later years. 

The second additional exception is 

that the Indiana rules do not incorporate 

40 CFR 97.421(a) through (d), 97.821(a) 

through (c), and 97.621(a) through (d) 

setting forth the recordation schedules 

for allowance allocations for control 

periods in years before 2021. Omission 

of these provisions is non-substantive 

because Indiana’s rules apply only to 

allocations for control periods in 2021 

and later years. 

The third additional exception is that 

the Indiana rules do not incorporate 

certain provisions of the Federal 

program regulations concerning EPA’s 

administration of Indian country 

NUSAs. Omission of these provisions 

from Indiana’s state trading program 

rules is required, as discussed below. 

None of the omissions undermines 

the completeness of Indiana’s state 

trading programs, and EPA has 

preliminarily determined that Indiana’s 

SIP revision makes no substantive 

changes to the provisions of the Federal 

trading program regulations. Thus, 

Indiana’s SIP revision meets the 

condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5), 

52.38(b)(9), and 52.39(f) that the SIP 

revision must adopt complete state 

trading program regulations 

substantively identical to the complete 

Federal trading program regulations at 

40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, 97.802 

through 97.835, and 97.602 through 

97.635, respectively, except to the 

extent permitted in the case of a SIP 

revision that seeks to replace the default 

allowance allocation and/or 

applicability provisions. 

8. Only Non-Substantive Substitutions 

for the Term ‘‘State’’ 

Indiana’s CSAPR program rules do 

not make any substitutions for the term 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40191 

33As noted in footnote 2 above, in a separate 

action EPA has proposed to make a determination 

that, if finalized, would cause approval of this SIP 

revision to also fully satisfy Indiana’s good neighbor 

obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

34 40 CFR 52.38(a)(6), (b)(10)(i), 52.39(j); see also 

52.789(a)(1), 52.789(b)(2); 52.790(a). 

’’State,’’ rendering moot the condition in 

40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iii), 52.38(b)(9)(v), 

and 52.39(f)(3) that any such 

substitutions must be non-substantive. 

9. Exclusion of Provisions Addressing 

Units in Indian Country 

Indiana Rules 326 IAC 24–5–1(a), 326 

IAC 24–6–1(a), and 326 IAC 24–7–1(a) 

incorporate by reference the 

applicability provisions of the Federal 

trading program rules at 40 CFR 97.404, 

97.804, and 97.604, respectively. There 

is no Indian country (as defined for 

purposes of CSAPR) within Indiana’s 

borders, so the applicability provisions 

of the Indiana rules necessarily do not 

extend to any units in Indian country. 

In addition, Indiana’s SIP revision 

excludes the Federal trading program 

provisions related to EPA’s process for 

allocating and recording allowances 

from Indian country NUSAs (i.e., 40 

CFR 97.411(b)(2), 97.411(c)(5)(iii), 

97.412(b), 97.421(h), and 97.421(j) for 

the NOX Annual program; 40 CFR 

97.811(b)(2), 97.811(c)(5)(iii), 97.812(b), 

97.821(h), and 97.821(j) for the NOX

Ozone Season Group 2 program; and 40 

CFR 97.611(b)(2), 97.611(c)(5)(iii), 

97.612(b), 97.621(h), and 97.621(j) for 

the SO2 Group 1 program). Indiana’s SIP 

revision therefore meets the conditions 

under 52.38(a)(5)(iv), 52.38(b)(9)(vi), 

and 52.39(f)(4) that a SIP submittal must 

not impose any requirement on any unit 

in Indian country within the borders of 

the State and must exclude certain 

provisions related to administration of 

Indian country NUSAs. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve Indiana’s 

November 27, 2017, submittal, 

incorporating Indiana CSAPR rules in 

326 IAC 24–5, 24–6, and 24–7, as a 

revision to Indiana’s SIP. These state 

rules establish Indiana CSAPR state 

trading programs for annual NOX, ozone 

season NOX, and annual SO2 emissions 

for units in the state. The Indiana 

CSAPR state trading programs would be 

integrated with the Federal CSAPR NOX

Annual Trading Program, the Federal 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

Trading Program, and the Federal 

CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program, 

respectively, and would be 

substantively identical to the Federal 

trading programs except for the 

allowance allocation provisions. If EPA 

approves the SIP revision, Indiana units 

would generally be required to meet 

requirements under Indiana’s CSAPR 

state trading programs equivalent to the 

requirements the units otherwise would 

have been required to meet under the 

corresponding CSAPR Federal trading 

programs. This proposed approval also 

includes the repeal of Indiana CAIR 

rules which have been replaced by 

CSAPR for applicable EGUs. The rules 

being repealed from the SIP are 326 IAC 

24–1, 24–2, and 24–3 (except 3–1, 3–2, 

3–4, and 3–11). EPA is proposing to 

approve the SIP revision because it 

meets the requirements of the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations for approval of a 

CSAPR full SIP revision replacing a 

Federal trading program with a state 

trading program that is integrated with 

and substantively identical to the 

Federal trading program except for 

permissible differences, as discussed in 

section IV above. 

EPA promulgated FIPs requiring 

Indiana units to participate in the 

Federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading 

Program, the Federal CSAPR SO2 Group 

1 Trading Program, and the Federal 

CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 

Trading Program in order to address 

Indiana’s obligations under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the absence 

of SIP provisions addressing those 

requirements. Approval of Indiana’s SIP 

submittal adopting CSAPR state trading 

program rules for annual NOX, annual 

SO2, and ozone season NOX

substantively identical to the 

corresponding CSAPR Federal trading 

program regulations (or differing only 

with respect to the allowance allocation 

methodology) would fully satisfy 

Indiana’s obligation pursuant to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit 

emissions which will significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS in any other 

state and partially satisfy Indiana’s 

corresponding obligation with respect to 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS.33 Approval of 

the SIP submittal therefore would 

correct the same deficiency in the SIP 

that otherwise would be corrected by 

those CSAPR FIPs. Under the CSAPR 

regulations, upon EPA’s full and 

unconditional approval of a SIP revision 

as correcting the SIP’s deficiency that is 

the basis for a particular CSAPR FIP, the 

requirement to participate in the 

corresponding CSAPR Federal trading 

program is automatically eliminated for 

units subject to the state’s jurisdiction 

(but not for any units located in any 

Indian country within the state’s 

borders).34 Approval of Indiana’s SIP 

submittal establishing CSAPR state 

trading program rules for annual NOX, 

annual SO2, and ozone season NOX

emissions therefore would result in 

automatic termination of the 

requirements of Indiana units to 

participate in the Federal CSAPR NOX

Annual Trading Program, the Federal 

CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program, 

and the Federal CSAPR NOX Ozone 

Season Group 2 Trading Program. 

In the SIP submittal, IDEM also 

requested approval of a revision to 326 

IAC 26–1–5 replacing reliance on CAIR 

in the state’s Regional Haze program 

with reliance on CSAPR. EPA will act 

on this request in a separate rulemaking. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this document, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Indiana rules 326 IAC 24–5, 326 IAC 

24–6, and 326 IAC 24–7, effective 

November 24, 2017. EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these materials 

generally available through 

www.regulations.gov and at the EPA 

Region 5 office (please contact the 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble for more information). 

VII. 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); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
40192 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: July 30, 2018. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17357 Filed 8–13–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 216 

[Docket No. 170908881–8680–01] 

RIN 0648–BH25 

Subsistence Taking of Northern Fur 

Seals on the Pribilof Islands 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to modify the 

subsistence use regulations for the 

Eastern Pacific stock of northern fur 

seals (Callorhinus ursinus) in response 

to a petition from the Aleut Community 

of St. Paul Island, Tribal Government 

(ACSPI). The Fur Seal Act (FSA) 

prohibits all taking of northern fur seals 

except in accordance with regulations 

authorizing Alaska Natives who reside 

on the Pribilof Islands (Pribilovians) to 

take northern fur seals for subsistence 

uses in compliance with a number of 

explicit regulatory restrictions. The 

proposed rule would simplify the 

existing regulations and would enable 

Pribilovians on St. Paul Island to 

resume traditional cultural practices 

that are prohibited by existing 

regulations, with no adverse 

consequences to northern fur seals at 

the population level. The proposed rule 

would streamline and simplify the 

regulations and otherwise eliminate 

several duplicative and unnecessary 

regulations governing St. Paul and St. 

George Islands. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than September 13, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2017–0117 by either of the 

following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

www.regulations.gov/#!docket

Detail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0117, click 

the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, complete 

the required fields, and enter or attach 

your comments. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Jon Kurland, Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Protected Resources, 

Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen 

Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 

21668, Juneau, AK 99802–1668. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). 

A 2005 Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for Setting Annual 

Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur 

Seals on the Pribilof Islands (EIS), 2014 

Final Supplemental EIS for Management 

of Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur 

Seals on St. George Island (SEIS), and 

2017 Draft Supplemental EIS for 

Management of Subsistence Harvest of 

Northern Fur Seals on St. Paul Island 

(DSEIS) are available on the internet at 

the following address under the NEPA 

Analyses tab: https://alaskafisheries.

noaa.gov/pr/fur-seal. 

Electronic copies of the Regulatory 

Impact Review (RIR) prepared for this 

proposed action are available at: https:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/pr/fur-seal. 

A list of all the references cited in this 

proposed rule may be found on 

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ 

protectedresources/seals/fur.htm. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to NMFS at the 

above address and by email to Error! 

Hyperlink reference not valid.OIRA_

Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

(202) 395–5806. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Williams, NMFS Alaska 

Region, (907) 271–5117, 

michael.williams@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

St. Paul Island and St. George Island 

are remote islands located in the Bering 

Sea populated by Alaska Native 

residents who rely upon marine 

mammals as a major food source and 

cornerstone of their culture. The taking 

of North Pacific fur seals (northern fur 

seals) is prohibited by the FSA unless 

expressly authorized by the Secretary of 

Commerce through regulation. Pursuant 

to the FSA (16 U.S.C. 1151–1175), it is 

unlawful, except as provided in the 

chapter or by regulation of the Secretary 

of Commerce, for any person or vessel 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1