Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 62035 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 December 15, 2014. 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, which 

satisfies certain infrastructure 

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

CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the 

State of West Virginia, 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, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: September 30, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

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. 

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry for 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide NAAQS at the end of the table 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval 

date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-Hour 

Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS.

Statewide ........... 6/25/13 10/16/14 [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (enforcement and minor new 

source review), (D)(ii), (E)(i) and (iii), (F), (G), (H), 

(J) (consultation, public notification, and visibility 

protection), (K), (L), and (M). 

[FR Doc. 2014–24658 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0888; FRL–9917–61– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve elements of a state 

implementation plan (SIP) submission 

by Indiana regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

2008 lead (Pb) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. The 

proposed rulemaking associated with 

today’s final action was published on 

August 19, 2013, and EPA received one 

comment letter during the comment 

period, which ended on September 18, 

2013. The concerns raised in this letter, 

as well as EPA’s responses, will be 

addressed in this final action. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0888. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly-available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62036 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This 

facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. We recommend that 

you telephone Sarah Arra at (312) 886– 

9401 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

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

arra.sarah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

A. What does this rulemaking address? 

B. Why did the state make this SIP 

submission? 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

A. What does this rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses a 

December 12, 2011, submission from the 

Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) intended to meet 

the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

B. Why did the state make this SIP 

submission? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

These submissions must contain any 

revisions needed for meeting the 

applicable SIP requirements of section 

110(a)(2), or certifications that their 

existing SIPs for Pb already meet those 

requirements. 

EPA has highlighted this statutory 

requirement in multiple guidance 

documents, including the most recent 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ issued on 

September 13, 2013. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission Indiana that addresses the 

infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for 

states to make SIP submissions of this 

type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 

years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),’’ and these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction (‘‘SSM’’)at sources, that 

may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s 

policies addressing such excess 

emissions; (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that purport to 

permit revisions to SIP approved 

emissions limits with limited public 

process or without requiring further 

approval by EPA, that may be contrary 

to the CAA (collectively referred to as 

‘‘director’s discretion’’); and, (iii) 

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Instead, EPA has the 

authority to address each one of these 

substantive areas in separate 

rulemaking. A detailed rationale, 

history, and interpretation related to 

infrastructure SIP requirements can be 

found in our May 13, 2014, proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the 

scope of this rulemaking?’’ (see 79 FR 

27241 at 27242—27245). 

In addition, on a portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J)—visibility protection. EPA 

is also not acting on section 

110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment Area Plan 

or Plan Revisions Under Part D, in its 

entirety. The rationale for not acting on 

elements of these requirements was 

included in EPA’s August 19, 2013, 

proposed rulemaking or discussed 

below in today’s response to comments. 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

The public comment period for EPA’s 

proposed actions with respect to 

Indiana’s satisfaction of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for the 

2008 Pb NAAQS closed on September 

18, 2013. EPA received one comment 

letter, which was from the Sierra Club, 

and a synopsis of the comments 

contained in this letter and EPA’s 

responses, are provided below. 

Comment 1: The Sierra Club states 

that on its face the CAA ‘‘requires I–SIPs 

to be adequate to prevent violations of 

the NAAQS.’’ In support, the 

commenter quotes the language in 

section 110(a)(1) which requires states 

to adopt a plan for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS and the language in section 

110(a)(2)(A) which requires SIPs to 

include enforceable emissions 

limitations as may be necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CAA and which 

commenters claimed include the 

maintenance plan requirement. Sierra 

Club notes the CAA definition of 

emission limit and reads these 

provisions together to require 

‘‘enforceable emission limitations on 

source emissions sufficient to ensure 

maintenance of the NAAQS.’’ 

Response 1: EPA disagrees that 

section 110 must be interpreted in the 

manner suggested by Sierra Club. 

Section 110 is only one provision that 

is part of the complex structure 

governing implementation of the 

NAAQS program under the CAA, as 

amended in 1990, and it must be 

interpreted in the context of not only 

that structure, but also of the historical 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 62037 

evolution of that structure. In light of 

the revisions to section 110 since 1970 

and the later-promulgated and more 

specific planning requirements of the 

CAA, EPA interprets the requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(A) that the plan 

provide for ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement’’ to mean 

that the infrastructure SIP must contain 

enforceable emission limits that will aid 

in attaining and/or maintaining the 

NAAQS and that the state demonstrate 

that it has the necessary tools to 

implement and enforce a NAAQS, such 

as adequate state personnel and an 

enforcement program. With regard to 

the requirement for emission 

limitations, EPA has interpreted this to 

mean that, for purposes of section 110, 

the state may rely on measures already 

in place to address the pollutant at issue 

or any new control measures that the 

state may choose to submit. As EPA 

stated in ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ dated 

September 13, 2013 (Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance), ‘‘[t]he conceptual purpose of 

an infrastructure SIP submission is to 

assure that the air agency’s SIP contains 

the necessary structural requirements 

for the new or revised NAAQS, whether 

by establishing that the SIP already 

contains the necessary provisions, by 

making a substantive SIP revision to 

update the SIP, or both. Overall, the 

infrastructure SIP submission process 

provides an opportunity . . . to review 

the basic structural requirements of the 

air agency’s air quality management 

program in light of each new or revised 

NAAQS.’’ Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

at p. 2. 

Comment 2: Sierra Club also cites two 

excerpts from the legislative history of 

the CAA Amendments of 1970 claiming 

they support an interpretation that SIP 

revisions under CAA section 110 must 

include emissions limitations sufficient 

to show maintenance of the NAAQS in 

all areas of Indiana. Sierra Club also 

contends that the legislative history of 

the CAA supports the interpretation that 

infrastructure SIPs under section 

110(a)(2) must include enforceable 

emission limitations, citing the Senate 

Committee Report and the subsequent 

Senate Conference Report 

accompanying the 1970 CAA. 

Response 2: The CAA, as enacted in 

1970, including its legislative history, 

cannot be interpreted in isolation from 

the later amendments that refined that 

structure and deleted relevant language 

from section 110 concerning 

demonstrating attainment. In any event, 

the two excerpts of legislative history 

the commenter cites merely provide that 

states should include enforceable 

emission limits in their SIPs; they do 

not mention or otherwise address 

whether states are required to include 

maintenance plans for all areas of the 

state as part of the infrastructure SIP. 

Comment 3: The commenter cites to 

40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that each 

plan must ‘‘demonstrate that the 

measures, rules, and regulations 

contained in it are adequate to provide 

for the timely attainment and 

maintenance of the [NAAQS].’’ The 

commenter asserts that this regulation 

requires all SIPs to include emissions 

limits necessary to ensure attainment of 

the NAAQS. The commenter states that 

‘‘[a]lthough these regulations were 

developed before the Clean Air Act 

separated Infrastructure SIPs from 

nonattainment SIPs—a process that 

began with the 1977 amendments and 

was completed by the 1990 

amendments—the regulations apply to 

I–SIPs.’’ The commenter relies on a 

statement in the preamble to the 1986 

action restructuring and consolidating 

provisions in part 51, in which EPA 

stated that ‘‘[i]t is beyond the scope of 

th[is] rulemaking to address the 

provisions of Part D of the Act. . . .’’ 51 

FR 40656 (November 7, 1986). 

Response 3: The commenter’s reliance 

on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its 

argument that infrastructure SIPs must 

contain emission limits ‘‘adequate to 

prohibit NAAQS violations’’ and 

adequate or sufficient to ensure the 

maintenance of the NAAQS is not 

supported. As an initial matter, EPA 

notes and the commenter recognizes 

this regulatory provision was initially 

promulgated and ‘‘restructured and 

consolidated’’ prior to the CAA 

Amendments of 1990, in which 

Congress removed all references to 

‘‘attainment’’ in section 110(a)(2)(A). In 

addition, it is clear on its face that 40 

CFR 51.112 applies to plans specifically 

designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA 

interprets these provisions to apply 

when states are developing ‘‘control 

strategy’’ SIPs such as the detailed 

attainment and maintenance plans 

required under other provisions of the 

CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in 

1990, such as section 175A and 182. 

The commenter suggests that these 

provisions must apply to section 110 

SIPs because in the preamble to EPA’s 

action ‘‘restructuring and consolidating’’ 

provisions in part 51, EPA stated that 

the new attainment demonstration 

provisions in the 1977 Amendments to 

the CAA were ‘‘beyond the scope’’ of 

the rulemaking. It is important to note, 

however, that EPA’s action in 1986 was 

not to establish new substantive 

planning requirements, but rather to 

consolidate and restructure provisions 

that had previously been promulgated. 

EPA noted that it had already issued 

guidance addressing the new ‘‘Part D’’ 

attainment planning obligations. Also, 

as to maintenance regulations, EPA 

expressly stated that it was not making 

any revisions other than to re-number 

those provisions. Id. at 40657. 

Although EPA was explicit that it was 

not establishing requirements 

interpreting the provisions of new ‘‘part 

D’’ of the CAA, it is clear that the 

regulations being restructured and 

consolidated were intended to address 

control strategy plans. In the preamble, 

EPA clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112 

was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (‘‘Control 

strategy: SOX and PM (portion)’’), 51.14 

(‘‘Control strategy: CO, HC, OX and NO2

(portion)’’), 51.80 (‘‘Demonstration of 

attainment: Pb (portion)’’), and 51.82 

(‘‘Air quality data (portion)’’). Id. at 

40660. Thus, the present-day 51.112 

contains consolidated provisions that 

are focused on control strategy SIPs, and 

the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan. 

Comment 4: The commenter 

references two prior EPA rulemaking 

actions where EPA disapproved or 

proposed to disapprove SIPs, and 

claimed they were actions in which EPA 

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

CFR 51.112 to reject infrastructure SIPs. 

The commenter first points to a 2006 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of revisions to Missouri’s existing plan 

addressing the sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

NAAQS. In that action, EPA cited 

section 110(a)(2)(A) as a basis for 

disapproving a revision to the State plan 

on the basis that the State failed to 

demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to 

ensure maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS 

after revision of an emission limit and 

cited to 40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that 

a plan demonstrates the rules in a SIP 

are adequate to attain the NAAQS. 

Second, commenter cites a 2013 

proposed disapproval of a revision to 

the SO2 SIP for Indiana, where the 

revision removed an emission limit that 

applied to a specific emissions source at 

a facility in the State. EPA relied on 40 

CFR 51.112(a) in proposing to reject the 

revision, stating that the State had not 

demonstrated that the emission limit 

was ‘‘redundant, unnecessary, or that its 

removal would not result in or allow an 

increase in actual SO2 emissions.’’ EPA 

further stated in that proposed 

disapproval that the State had not 

demonstrated that removal of the limit 

would not ‘‘affect the validity of the 

emission rates used in the existing 

attainment demonstration.’’ 

Response 4: EPA does not agree that 

the two prior actions referenced by the 

commenter establish how EPA reviews 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62038 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

infrastructure SIPs. It is clear from both 

the final Missouri rule and the now final 

Indiana rule that EPA was not reviewing 

initial infrastructure SIP submissions 

under section 110 of the CAA, but rather 

reviewing revisions that would make an 

already approved SIP designed to 

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS 

less stringent. EPA’s partial approval 

and partial disapproval of revisions to 

restrictions on emissions of sulfur 

compounds for the Missouri SIP 

addressed a control strategy SIP and not 

an infrastructure SIP (71 FR 12623). The 

Indiana action provides even less 

support for the commenter’s position 

(78 FR 78720). The review in that rule 

was of a completely different 

requirement than the 110(a)(2)(A) SIP. 

Rather, in that case, the State had an 

approved SO2 attainment plan and was 

seeking to remove from the SIP, 

provisions relied on as part of the 

modeled attainment demonstration. 

EPA determined that the State had 

failed to demonstrate under section 

110(l) of the CAA why the SIP revision 

would not result in increased SO2

emissions and thus interfere with 

attainment of the NAAQS. Nothing in 

that rulemaking addresses the necessary 

content of the initial infrastructure SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS. Rather, it 

is simply applying the clear statutory 

requirement that a state must 

demonstrate why a revision to an 

approved attainment plan will not 

interfere with attainment of the NAAQS. 

Comment 5: Sierra Club discusses 

several cases applying to the CAA 

which Sierra Club claims support their 

contention that courts have been clear 

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

enforceable emissions limits in 

infrastructure SIPs to prevent violations 

of the NAAQS. Sierra Club first cites to 

language in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 

78 (1975), addressing the requirement 

for ‘‘emission limitations’’ and stating 

that emission limitations ‘‘are specific 

rules to which operators of pollution 

sources are subject, and which if 

enforced should result in ambient air 

which meet the national standards.’’ 

Sierra Club also cites to Pennsylvania 

Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 932 

F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for the 

proposition that the CAA directs EPA to 

withhold approval of a SIP where it 

does not ensure maintenance of the 

NAAQS and Mision Industrial, Inc. v. 

EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), 

which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the 

CAA of 1970. The commenter contends 

that the 1990 Amendments do not alter 

how courts have interpreted the 

requirements of section 110, quoting 

Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. 

EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in 

turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the 

CAA and also stated that ‘‘SIPs must 

include certain measures Congress 

specified’’ to ensure attainment of the 

NAAQS. The commenter also quotes 

several additional opinions in this vein. 

Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 

F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (‘‘The 

Clean Air Act directs states to develop 

implementation plans—SIPs—that 

‘assure’ attainment and maintenance of 

[NAAQS] through enforceable emissions 

limitations’’); Hall v. EPA 273 F.3d 

1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001) (‘‘Each State 

must submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the 

manner in which [NAAQS] will be 

achieved and maintained within each 

air quality control region in the State’’). 

The commenter also cites Mich. Dept. of 

Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 

(6th Cir. 2000) for the proposition that 

EPA may not approve a SIP revision that 

does not demonstrate how the rules 

would not interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

Response 5: None of the cases the 

commenter cites supports the 

commenter’s contention that section 

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

SIPs include detailed plans providing 

for attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do 

they shed light on how section 

110(a)(2)(A) may reasonably be 

interpreted. With the exception of 

Train, 421 U.S. 60, none of the cases the 

commenter cites concerned the 

interpretation of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of 

the pre-1990 Act). Rather, in the context 

of a challenge to an EPA action, 

revisions to a SIP that were required and 

approved as meeting other provisions of 

the CAA or in the context of an 

enforcement action, the court references 

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

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

background section of its decision. 

In Train, a case that was decided 

almost 40 years ago, the Court was 

addressing a state revision to an 

attainment plan submission made 

pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the 

sole statutory provision at that time 

regulating such submissions. The issue 

in that case concerned whether changes 

to requirements that would occur before 

attainment was required were variances 

that should be addressed pursuant to 

the provision governing SIP revisions or 

were ‘‘postponements’’ that must be 

addressed under section 110(f) of the 

CAA of 1970, which contained 

prescriptive criteria. The court 

concluded that EPA reasonably 

interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict 

a state’s choice of the mix of control 

measures needed to attain the NAAQS 

and that revisions to SIPs that would 

not impact attainment of the NAAQS by 

the attainment date were not subject to 

the limits of section 110(f). Thus the 

issue was not whether a section 110 SIP 

needs to provide for attainment or 

whether emissions limits are needed as 

part of the SIP; rather the issue was 

which statutory provision governed 

when the state wanted to revise the 

emission limits in its SIP if such 

revision would not impact attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. To the 

extent the holding in the case has any 

bearing on how section 110(a)(2)(A) 

might be interpreted, it is important to 

realize that in 1975, when the opinion 

was issued, section 110(a)(2)(B) (the 

predecessor to section 110(a)(2)(A)) 

expressly referenced the requirement to 

attain the NAAQS, a reference that was 

removed in 1990. 

The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of 

Envtl. Resources was also decided based 

on the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. 

At issue was whether EPA properly 

rejected a revision to an approved plan 

where the inventories relied on by the 

state for the updated submission had 

gaps. The court quoted section 

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

support of EPA’s disapproval, but did 

not provide any interpretation of that 

provision. Yet, even if the court had 

interpreted that provision, EPA notes 

that it was modified by Congress in 

1990; thus, this decision has little 

bearing on the issue here. 

At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 

F.2d 123, was the definition of 

‘‘emissions limitation’’ not whether 

section 110 requires the state to 

demonstrate how all areas of the state 

will attain and maintain the NAAQS as 

part of their infrastructure SIPs. The 

language from the opinion the 

commenter quotes does not interpret but 

rather merely describes section 

110(a)(2)(A). The commenters do not 

raise any concerns about whether the 

measures relied on by the state in the 

infrastructure SIP are ‘‘emissions 

limitations’’ and the decision in this 

case has no bearing here. In Mont. 

Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, 

the court was reviewing a Federal 

implementation plan that EPA 

promulgated after a long history of the 

state failing to submit an adequate state 

implementation plan. The court cited 

generally to section 107 and 110(a)(2)(A) 

of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs 

should assure attainment and 

maintenance of NAAQS through 

emission limitations but this language 

was not part of the court’s holding in 

the case. The commenter suggests that 

Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 540 

U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 62039 

the 1990 CAA Amendments do not alter 

how courts interpret section 110. This 

claim is inaccurate. Rather, the court 

quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as 

noted previously, differs from the pre1990 version of that provision and the 

court makes no mention of the changed 

language. Furthermore, the commenter 

also quotes the court’s statement that 

‘‘SIPs must include certain measures 

Congress specified’’ but that statement 

specifically referenced the requirement 

in section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires 

an enforcement program and a program 

for the regulation of the modification 

and construction of new sources. 

Notably, at issue in that case was the 

state’s ‘‘new source’’ permitting 

program, not its infrastructure SIP. 

Two of the cases the commenter cites, 

Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 230 F.3d 

181, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret 

CAA section 110(l), the provision 

governing ‘‘revisions’’ to plans, and not 

the initial plan submission requirement 

under section 110(a)(2) for a new or 

revised NAAQS, such as the 

infrastructure SIP at issue in this 

instance. In those cases, the courts cited 

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

purpose of providing a brief background 

of the CAA. 

Comment 6: The commenter asserted 

that Indiana’s infrastructure SIP fails to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(A) and section 110(a)(2)(E) 

because IC 13–14–8–8 contains 

provisions that would allow the board 

to grant variances to rules when the 

rules would impose ‘‘undue hardships 

or burden.’’ The commenter noted that 

EPA had cited IC 13–14–8 as one of 

IDEM’s mechanisms for satisfying the 

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

section 110(a)(2)(E), but contended that 

the variance provisions in IC 13–14–8– 

8 are too broad and vague to ensure that 

emission limits and controls are 

properly enforced, or to ensure that 

adequate legal authority is provided to 

carry out Indiana’s SIP. Therefore, EPA 

cannot approve IC 13–14–8 to meet any 

requirements of section 110. 

Response 6: EPA disagrees the 

commenter’s claim that Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP fails to meet the 

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

section 110(a)(2)(E). As an initial matter, 

IC 13–14–8–8 is not a regulation that 

has been approved into the SIP. Thus, 

any variance granted by the state 

pursuant to this provision would not 

modify the requirements of the SIP. 

Furthermore, for a variance from the 

state to be approved into the SIP, a 

demonstration must be made under 

CAA section 110(l) showing that the 

revision does not interfere with any 

requirements of the act including 

attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. 

We disagree that the existence of this 

provision as solely a matter of State law 

means that the State does not have 

adequate authority to carry out the 

implementation plan. 

Comment 7: The commenter asserted 

that EPA must disapprove Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP because it does not 

address the visibility provisions under 

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

commenter noted that EPA’s basis for 

proposing approval for the visibility 

protection provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) was contingent upon 

EPA’s claim that Indiana has an 

approved regional haze SIP. The 

commenter contended that Indiana’s 

regional haze SIP was only partially 

approved and no action has been taken 

on issues addressing the Best Available 

Retrofit Technology requirements for 

EGUs. Therefore, the commenter 

believes that EPA must disapprove the 

visibility protection requirements found 

in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP. 

Response 7: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

of the CAA requires that states have a 

SIP, or submit a SIP revision, containing 

provisions ‘‘prohibiting any source or 

other type of emission activity within 

the state from emitting any air pollutant 

in amounts which will . . . interfere 

with measures required to be included 

in the applicable implementation plan 

for any other State under part C [of the 

CAA] to protect visibility.’’ States were 

required to submit a SIP by December 

2007 with measures to address regional 

haze—visibility impairment that is 

caused by the emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area. 

Under the regional haze program, each 

State with a Class I area must submit a 

SIP with reasonable progress goals for 

each such area that provides for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days and ensures no 

degradation of the best days. 

Because of the often significant 

impacts on visibility from the interstate 

transport of pollutants, we interpret the 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions of section 

110 of the CAA described above as 

requiring states to include in their SIPs 

measures to prohibit emissions that 

would interfere with the reasonable 

progress goals set to protect Class I areas 

in other states. This is consistent with 

the requirements in the regional haze 

program which explicitly require each 

State to address its share of the emission 

reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for 

surrounding Class I areas. 64 FR 35714, 

35735 (July 1, 1999). States working 

together through a regional planning 

process are required to address an 

agreed upon share of their contribution 

to visibility impairment in the Class I 

areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii). Indiana worked through 

a regional planning organization, the 

Midwest Regional Planning 

Organization (Midwest RPO), and 

consulted directly with other states to 

develop strategies to address regional 

haze in the Class I areas potentially 

affected by emissions from Indiana. 

The commenter is correct that EPA 

issued a limited disapproval of 

Indiana’s regional haze SIP, but our 

limited disapproval was based on 

Indiana’s reliance on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy certain 

requirements for controlling emissions 

of SO2 and NOX from EGUs. EPA 

disagrees, however, with the commenter 

that because Indiana’s regional haze SIP 

did not fully meet certain requirements 

for controlling emissions of SO2 and 

NOX, EPA must disapprove its 

infrastructure SIP for Pb. 

Pb generally has an insignificant 

impact on visibility. According to the 

Memorandum from Mark Schmidt, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS), when evaluating 

the extent that Pb could impact 

visibility, Pb-related visibility impacts 

were found to be insignificant (e.g., less 

than 0.10%) (‘‘Ambient Pb’s 

Contribution to Class 1 Area Visibility 

Impairment,’’ June 17, 2011). There is 

no evidence in Indiana’s regional haze 

SIP to indicate that emissions of Pb from 

sources in the state were anticipated to 

cause or contribute to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area. In 

addition, nothing in the Indiana 

regional haze SIP indicates that any 

state assumed (or requested) that 

Indiana would be making reductions in 

emission of Pb to improve visibility. As 

such, the reasonable progress goals for 

the Class I areas in nearby states do not 

reflect any assumptions regarding Pb 

emissions from Indiana. Given this, we 

conclude that the Indiana SIP contains 

adequate measures to ensure that 

emissions of Pb from sources in the 

State will not interfere with the 

reasonable progress goals of nearby 

Class I areas. 

Comment 8: The commenter asserted 

that EPA must disapprove Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP because it does not 

address the visibility protection 

provisions, as described above, for 

section 110(a)(2)(J). The commenter 

contended that EPA did not provide a 

rationale for why the visibility 

provisions in section 110(a)(2)(J) are not 

applicable to the 2008 Pb and 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62040 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Response 8: The visibility provisions 

in section 110(a)(2)(J) are not applicable 

to the 2008 Pb NAAQS for the following 

reason. Under 40 CFR part 51 subpart P, 

implementing the visibility 

requirements of CAA title I, part C, 

states are subject to requirements for 

RAVI, new source review for possible 

impacts on air quality related values in 

Class I areas, and regional haze 

planning. Specific requirements 

stemming from these CAA sections are 

codified at 40 CFR 55 part 51, subpart 

P. However, when the EPA establishes 

or revises a NAAQS, these requirements 

under part C do not change. The EPA 

believes that there are no new visibility 

protection requirements under part C as 

a result of a revised NAAQS. Therefore, 

there are no newly applicable visibility 

protection obligations pursuant to 

Element J after the promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS. 

Comment 9: The commenter asserted 

that EPA must clarify two repealed 

regulations that were cited in the 

proposed rulemaking. Specifically, the 

commenter observed that EPA cited 326 

IAC 11–5 as helping Indiana satisfy the 

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

‘‘Emergency Powers’’ and IC 13–4–8 

which was cited to satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(H), ‘‘Future SIP Revisions.’’ 

Response 9: EPA did not intend to 

engender any confusion with these 

citations. The commenter is correct in 

noting that 326 IAC 11–5 has been 

repealed. That rule was of little 

relevance to section 110(a)(2)(G) and 

was incorrectly cited; the correct 

citation that was provided by IDEM is 

SIP-approved IAC 1–5, ‘‘Alert Levels.’’ 

In a similar manner, IDEM provided IC 

13–14–8 as helping to meet the 

requirements under section 110(a)(2)(H), 

but EPA incorrectly cited IC 13–4–8. 

Comment 10: The commenter asserted 

that EPA must disapprove portions of 

Indiana’s infrastructure SIP for the 2008 

Pb NAAQS addressing certain PM2.5

requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C). 

In particular, the commenter objected 

that Indiana has not codified the 

increments for areas designated Class I 

or Class III for PM2.5. The commenter 

noted that while Indiana does not have 

Class I or Class III areas, the increments 

for Class I and Class III areas are still a 

requirement to satisfy section 

110(a)(2)(C). The commenter contends it 

is insufficient for EPA to ‘‘hope’’ that 

the state will adopt the increments if 

areas in the state are later redesignated 

to Class I or Class III, and therefore EPA 

must disapprove this section of 

Indiana’s infrastructure SIP. 

Response 10: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s view that Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIP related to section 

110(a)(2)(C) must be disapproved 

because the state has not codified the 

PM2.5 increments for Class I and Class 

III areas as provided at 40 CFR 52.166(c) 

and 40 CFR 52.21(c). As explained in 

the August 19, 2013 proposed approval, 

Indiana does not currently have any 

areas designated Class I or Class III for 

PM2.5. Accordingly, EPA does not 

consider the PM2.5 increments for Class 

I and Class III areas to be necessary for 

the implementation of PSD permitting 

in Indiana at this time. In the event that 

areas in Indiana are one day classified 

as Class I or Class III, EPA expects IDEM 

to adopt these increments and submit 

them for incorporation into the SIP (see 

78 FR 50360 at 50364). Section 40 CFR 

51.166(g)(1) and 52.21(g)(1) specify that 

if a state seeks to have an area 

reclassified to either Class I or Class III, 

it must submit such a request as a 

revision to its SIP for approval by the 

EPA Administrator. Thus, no areas in 

Indiana can be reclassified to Class I or 

Class III without EPA approval, and the 

process of evaluating such a request for 

approval requires a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking process. The EPA and other 

interested parties can evaluate the 

adequacy of Indiana’s PSD regulations 

as they apply to the proposed 

reclassified area at that time and, if 

necessary, initiate a process to cure any 

identified deficiency. However, at this 

time, EPA does not believe there to be 

an applicability gap for the PM2.5

increments as they apply in the state of 

Indiana. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

For the reasons discussed in our 

August 19, 2013, proposed rulemaking 

and in the above responses to public 

comments, EPA is taking final action to 

approve, as proposed, Indiana’s 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS. In EPA’s August 19, 2013, 

proposed rulemaking for these 

infrastructure SIPs, we also proposed to 

approve Indiana’s satisfaction of the 

state board requirements contained in 

section 128 of the CAA, as well as 

certain PSD requirements obligated by 

EPA’s October 20, 2010, final rule on 

the ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)—Increments, Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC)’’ (2010 NSR Rule). 

The final approvals for each of the 

above requirements were published in 

the Federal Register on December 24, 

2013 (see 78 FR 77599, state board 

requirements), July 2, 2014 (see 79 FR 

37646, 2010 NSR Rule requirements) 

and August 11, 2013 (see 79 FR 46709, 

2010 NSR Rule requirements, 

continued). EPA also proposed 

rulemaking on the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

and will be taking final action in a 

separate rulemaking. In today’s 

rulemaking, we are taking final action 

on only the infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

Our final actions by element of section 

110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are contained in 

the table below. 

Element 2008 Pb 

NAAQS 

(A): Emission limits and other 

control measures .................. A 

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

(C)1: Enforcement of SIP 

measures .............................. A 

(C)2: PSD Provisions for Pb 

and ozone ............................. A 

(C)3: PM2.5 precursors and 

PM2.5/PM10 condensables for 

PSD ....................................... A 

(C)4: PM2.5 increments for PSD A 

(C)5: GHG permitting thresholds in PSD regulations ........ A 

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

(D)2: PSD ................................. ** 

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

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

(D)5: International Pollution 

Abatement ............................. A 

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

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

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

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

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

(I): Nonattainment area plan or 

plan revisions under part D .. NA 

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

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

(J)3: PSD .................................. ** 

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

(K): Air quality modeling and 

data ....................................... A 

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

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

In the table above, the key is as 

follows: 

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

NA ...... No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

D ......... Disapprove. 

+ ......... Not relevant in these actions. 

** ........ Previously discussed in element 

(C). 

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. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 62041 

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 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), 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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 15, 

2014. 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, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 30, 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. Amend § 52.770, paragraph (e) table 

by adding an entry in alphabetical order 

for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana date EPA approval Explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.12/12/2011 10/16/2014, [INSERT 

FEDERAL REGISTER 

CITATION].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

* * * * * * * 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62042 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2014–24493 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0969; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0991; EPA–R05–OAR–2013– 

0435; FRL–9917–60–Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve some elements and disapprove 

other elements of a state 

implementation plan (SIP) submission 

from Illinois regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. Illinois 

already administers Federally 

promulgated regulations that address 

the disapprovals described in this 

rulemaking. Therefore, the state will not 

be obligated to submit any new or 

additional regulations as a result of this 

final disapproval. The proposed 

rulemaking associated with this final 

action was published on July 14, 2014, 

and EPA received one comment letter 

during the comment period, which 

ended on August 13, 2014. The 

concerns raised in this letter, as well as 

EPA’s responses, will be addressed in 

this final action. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0969 (2008 ozone 

infrastructure SIP elements), Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0991 (2010 

NO2 infrastructure SIP elements), and 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2013– 

0435 (2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP 

elements). All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publiclyavailable only in hard copy. Publiclyavailable docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. We recommend that 

you telephone Sarah Arra at (312) 886– 

9401 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

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

arra.sarah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What state SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What state SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses a 

December 31, 2012, submission and a 

June 11, 2014, clarification from the 

Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (Illinois EPA) intended to 

address all applicable infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

B. Why did the state make these SIP 

submissions? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone, 

2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These 

submissions must contain any revisions 

needed for meeting the applicable SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2), or 

certifications that their existing SIPs for 

the NAAQS already meet those 

requirements. 

EPA has highlighted this statutory 

requirement in multiple guidance 

documents, including the most recent 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ issued on 

September 13, 2013. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from Illinois that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. The requirement for states to 

make a SIP submission of this type 

arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 

years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),’’ and these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

This rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction (‘‘SSM’’)at sources, that 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES