Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 40827 

• 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). 

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). 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by section 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Prevention of 

significant deterioration, Incorporation 

by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate Matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 15, 2016. 

Mark Hague, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 

CFR part 52 as set forth below: 

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 Q—Iowa 

■ 2. Section 52.820 is amended by 

adding entries (43) and (44) in 

numerical order to table (e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.820 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IOWA NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal 

date 

EPA approval 

date Explanation 

*******

(43) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Requirements 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 3/21/08 6/23/16 [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), prong 3, (E), (F), 

(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable. 

(44) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Requirements 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 7/23/13 6/23/16 [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), prong 3, (E), (F), 

(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable. 

[FR Doc. 2016–14897 Filed 6–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0824; FRL–9948–22– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Infrastructure 

SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of the state implementation 

plan (SIP) submission from Ohio 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) 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. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 25, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0824 at http://

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 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Ko, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40828 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1See, e.g., EPA’s final rule on ‘‘National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Lead.’’ 73 FR 66964 at 

67034. 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7947, 

ko.joseph@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? 

II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

this SIP submission? 

III. What is the result of EPA’s review of this 

SIP submission? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of this SIP 

submission? 

A. What state SIP submission does this 

rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses a 

submission from the Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(OEPA), describing its infrastructure SIP 

for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, dated 

December 4, 2015. 

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 2012 PM2.5

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 highlighted this statutory 

requirement in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo) and has issued additional 

guidance documents, the most recent on 

September 13, 2013, ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ (2013 

Memo). The SIP submission referenced 

in this rulemaking pertains to the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), and addresses the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. To the extent that 

the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program is nonNAAQS specific, a narrow evaluation of 

other NAAQS will be included in the 

appropriate sections. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from OEPA that addresses 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

2012 PM2.5 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 four 

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 at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (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 

(‘‘director’s discretion’’); (iii) existing 

provisions for PSD programs that may 

be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final New 

Source Review (NSR) Improvement 

Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 

2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 

13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’); and (iv) 

transport provisions under section 

110(a)(2)(D). Instead, EPA has the 

authority to, and plans to, address each 

one of these substantive areas in 

separate rulemakings. A detailed history 

and interpretation of infrastructure SIP 

requirements can be found in EPA’s 

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). 

II. What guidance is EPA using to 

evaluate this SIP submission? 

EPA’s guidance for this infrastructure 

SIP submission is embodied in the 2007 

Memo. Specifically, attachment A of the 

2007 Memo (Required Section 110 SIP 

Elements) identifies the statutory 

elements that states need to submit in 

order to satisfy the requirements for an 

infrastructure SIP submission. EPA 

issued additional guidance documents, 

the most recent being the 2013 Memo, 

which further clarifies aspects of 

infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS 

specific. 

III. What is the result of EPA’s review 

of this SIP submission? 

As noted in the 2013 Memo, pursuant 

to section 110(a), states must provide 

reasonable notice and opportunity for 

public hearing for all infrastructure SIP 

submissions. OEPA provided the 

opportunity for public comment for its 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

submission during a public hearing held 

on November 23, 2015. The state did not 

receive any comments during the 

comment period. EPA is soliciting 

comment on our evaluation of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission in this 

notice of proposed rulemaking. OEPA 

provided detailed synopses of how its 

SIP submission meets each of the 

requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as applicable. The 

following review evaluates the state’s 

submission. 

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission 

Limits and Other Control Measures 

This section requires SIPs to include 

enforceable emission limits and other 

control measures, means or techniques, 

schedules for compliance, and other 

related matters. EPA has long 

interpreted emission limits and control 

measures for attaining the standards as 

being due when nonattainment 

planning requirements are due.1 In the 

context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 40829 

2 In EPA’s April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking 

for infrastructure SIPS for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, we stated that each state’s PSD program 

must meet applicable requirements for evaluation of 

all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD permits (see 76 

FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in 

EPA’s August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking for 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 

77 FR 45992 at 45998). In other words, if a state 

lacks provisions needed to adequately address NOX

as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5 precursors, 

condensable particulate matter, PM2.5 increments, 

or the Federal GHG permitting thresholds, the 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a 

suitable PSD permitting program must be 

considered not to be met irrespective of the NAAQS 

that triggered the requirement to submit an 

infrastructure SIP, including the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

not evaluating whether the existing SIP 

provisions satisfy nonattainment 

planning requirements. Instead, EPA is 

only evaluating whether the state’s SIP 

has basic structural provisions for the 

implementation of the NAAQS. 

Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3704.03 

provides the Director of Ohio EPA with 

the authority to develop rules and 

regulations necessary to meet state and 

Federal ambient air quality standards. 

Ohio regulates directly emitted 

particulate matter through the rules in 

SIP-approved Ohio Administrative Code 

(OAC) Chapter 3745–17. Ohio also has 

SIP-approved rules regulating emissions 

of specific precursors to PM2.5. For 

example, OAC 3745–14 provides for the 

direct regulation of nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) emissions, and OAC 3745–18 

provides for the direct regulation of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. EPA 

proposes that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

As previously noted, EPA is not, in 

this action, proposing to approve or 

disapprove any existing state provisions 

or rules related to SSM or director’s 

discretion in the context of section 

110(a)(2)(A). 

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient Air 

Quality Monitoring/Data System 

This section requires SIPs to include 

provisions to provide for establishing 

and operating ambient air quality 

monitors, collecting and analyzing 

ambient air quality data, and making 

these data available to EPA upon 

request. EPA determines that Ohio: (i) 

Monitors air quality at appropriate 

locations throughout the state using 

EPA-approved Federal Reference 

Methods or Federal Equivalent Method 

monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA’s Air 

Quality System (AQS) in a timely 

manner; and, (iii) provides EPA 

Regional Offices with prior notification 

of any planned changes to monitoring 

sites or the network plan. 

OEPA continues to operate an air 

monitoring network. EPA approved 

Ohio’s 2015–2016 Annual Air 

Monitoring Network Plan, including the 

plan for PM2.5. OEPA enters air 

monitoring data into AQS, and the state 

provides EPA with prior notification 

when changes to its monitoring sites or 

network plan are being considered. EPA 

proposes to find that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

Enforcement of Control Measures; PSD 

States are required to include a 

program providing for enforcement of 

all SIP measures and the regulation of 

construction of new or modified 

stationary sources to meet NSR 

requirements under PSD and NNSR 

programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 

160–169B) addresses PSD, while part D 

of the CAA (sections 171–193) addresses 

NNSR requirements. 

The evaluation of each state’s 

submission addressing the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i) 

Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD 

provisions that explicitly identify NOX

as a precursor to ozone in the PSD 

program; (iii) identification of 

precursors to PM2.5 and accounting for 

condensables in the PSD program; (iv) 

PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; 

and, (v) greenhouse gas (GHG) 

permitting and the ‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 2

Sub-Element (i): Enforcement of SIP 

Measures 

Ohio EPA maintains an enforcement 

program to ensure compliance with SIP 

requirements. ORC 3704.03(R) provides 

the Director with the authority to 

enforce rules ‘‘consistent with the 

purpose of the air pollution control 

laws.’’ SIP-approved ORC 3704.03 

provides the Director with the authority 

to continue to implement Ohio’s minor 

NSR and major source PSD program. 

EPA proposes that Ohio has met the SIP 

enforcement requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element (ii): PSD Provisions That 

Explicitly Identify NOX as a Precursor to 

Ozone in the PSD Program 

EPA’s ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

was published on November 29, 2005 

(see 70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify NOX as 

a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612 at 

71679, 71699–71700). 

The Phase 2 Rule required that states 

submit SIP revisions incorporating the 

requirements of the rule, including the 

specification of NOX as a precursor to 

ozone provisions, by June 15, 2007 (70 

FR 71612 at 71683). 

EPA approved revisions to Ohio’s 

PSD SIP reflecting these requirements 

on October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64119), and 

therefore, Ohio has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element (iii): Identification of 

Precursors to PM2.5 and Accounting for 

Condensables in the PSD Program 

On May 16, 2008 (see 73 FR 28321), 

EPA issued the Final Rule on the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ (2008 NSR Rule). The 2008 

NSR Rule finalized several new 

requirements for SIPs to address sources 

that emit direct PM2.5 and other 

pollutants that contribute to secondary 

PM2.5 formation. One of these 

requirements is for NSR permits to 

address pollutants responsible for the 

secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise 

known as precursors. In the 2008 NSR 

Rule, EPA identified precursors to PM2.5

for the PSD program to be SO2 and NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule 

also specifies that VOCs are not 

considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in 

the PSD program unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

emissions of VOCs in an area are 

significant contributors to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 

The explicit references to SO2, NOX, 

and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 

PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying 

pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5,

the 2008 NSR Rule also required states 

to revise the definition of ‘‘significant’’ 

as it relates to a net emissions increase 

or the potential of a source to emit 

pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40830 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 

2008 NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA’s 

requirements for PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, 

Part D, subpart 4), and not the general requirements 

for nonattainment areas under subpart 1 (Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08–1250). 

As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to 

nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 rule that address requirements 

for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the court’s opinion. Moreover, EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated by the 2008 NSR rule in 

order to comply with the court’s decision. 

Accordingly, EPA’s approval of Ohio’s 

infrastructure SIP as to elements (C), (D)(i)(II), or (J) 

with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated 

by the 2008 implementation rule does not conflict 

with the court’s opinion. The Court’s decision with 

respect to the nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also 

does not affect EPA’s action on the present 

infrastructure action. EPA interprets the CAA to 

exclude nonattainment area requirements, 

including requirements associated with a 

nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure 

SIP submissions due three years after adoption or 

revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are 

typically referred to as nonattainment SIP or 

attainment plan elements, which would be due by 

the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 

through 5 under part D, extending as far as 10 years 

following designations for some elements. 

51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i) define ‘‘significant’’ for 

PM2.5 to mean the following emissions 

rates: 10 tpy of direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of 

SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX (unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

NOX emissions in an area are not a 

significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 

deadline for states to submit SIP 

revisions to their PSD programs 

incorporating these changes was May 

16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).3

The 2008 NSR Rule did not require 

states to immediately account for gases 

that could condense to form particulate 

matter, known as condensables, in PM2.5

and PM10 emission limits in NSR 

permits. Instead, EPA determined that 

states had to account for condensables 

in applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limitations for 

PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits 

beginning on or after January 1, 2011. 

This requirement is codified in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states’ 

PSD programs incorporating the 

inclusion of condensables were required 

to be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 

(see 73 FR 28321 at 28341). 

EPA approved revisions to Ohio’s 

PSD SIP reflecting these requirements 

on October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64119), and 

therefore Ohio has met this set of 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element (iv): PM2.5 Increments in 

the PSD Program 

On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the 

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). This rule 

established several components for 

making PSD permitting determinations 

for PM2.5, including a system of 

‘‘increments’’ which is the mechanism 

used to estimate significant 

deterioration of ambient air quality for 

a pollutant. These increments are 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 

CFR 52.21(c), and are included in Table 

1 below. 

TABLE 1—PM2.5 INCREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE 2010 NSR RULE IN

MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER

Annual 

arithmetic 

mean 

24-Hour 

max 

Class I ............... 1 2 

Class II .............. 4 9 

Class III ............. 8 18 

The 2010 NSR Rule also established a 

new ‘‘major source baseline date’’ for 

PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new 

trigger date for PM2.5 as October 20, 

2011. These revisions are codified in 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and 

(b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule 

revised the definition of ‘‘baseline area’’ 

to include a level of significance of 0.3 

micrograms per cubic meter, annual 

average, for PM2.5. This change is 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i) and 

40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i). 

On October 28, 2014 (79 FR 64119), 

EPA finalized approval of the applicable 

PSD revisions for Ohio, therefore Ohio 

has met this set of infrastructure SIP 

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

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element (v): GHG Permitting and 

the ‘‘Tailoring Rule’’ 

With respect to Elements C and J, EPA 

interprets the CAA to require each state 

to make an infrastructure SIP 

submission for a new or revised NAAQS 

that demonstrates that the air agency 

has a complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of Element D(i)(II) may 

also be satisfied by demonstrating the 

air agency has a complete PSD 

permitting program correctly addressing 

all regulated NSR pollutants. Ohio has 

shown that it currently has a PSD 

program in place that covers all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

GHGs. 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of PSD 

permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air 

pollutant for purposes of determining 

whether a source is a major source 

required to obtain a PSD permit. The 

Court also found that EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). 

In order to act consistently with its 

understanding of the Court’s decision 

pending further judicial action to 

effectuate the decision, EPA is no longer 

applying EPA regulations that would 

require that SIPs include permitting 

requirements that the Supreme Court 

found impermissible. Specifically, EPA 

is not applying the requirement that a 

state’s SIP-approved PSD program 

require that sources obtain PSD permits 

when GHGs are the only pollutant: (I) 

That the source emits or has the 

potential to emit above the major source 

thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a 

significant emissions increase from a 

modification (see 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v)). 

EPA will review the Federal PSD 

rules in light of the Supreme Court 

opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates 

that many states will revise their 

existing SIP-approved PSD programs in 

light of the Supreme Court’s decision. 

The timing and content of subsequent 

EPA actions with respect to EPA 

regulations and state PSD program 

approvals are expected to be informed 

by additional legal process before the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit. At this 

juncture, EPA is not expecting states to 

have revised their PSD programs for 

purposes of infrastructure SIP 

submissions and is only evaluating such 

submissions to assure that the state’s 

program correctly addresses GHGs 

consistent with the Supreme Court’s 

decision. 

At present, Ohio’s SIP is sufficient to 

satisfy elements C, D(i)(II), and J with 

respect to GHGs because the PSD 

permitting program previously 

approved by EPA into the SIP continues 

to require that PSD permits (otherwise 

required based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs) contain 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 40831 

4Ohio does have an approved regional haze plan 

for non-EGUs. Ohio’s plan for EGUs relied on the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule that has been recently 

superseded by the Cross State Air Pollution Rule to 

which Ohio EGU sources are also subject. 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. Although the 

approved Ohio PSD permitting program 

may currently contain provisions that 

are no longer necessary in light of the 

Supreme Court decision, this does not 

render the infrastructure SIP submission 

inadequate to satisfy elements C, 

(D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the 

necessary PSD requirements at this 

time, and the application of those 

requirements is not impeded by the 

presence of other previously-approved 

provisions regarding the permitting of 

sources of GHGs that EPA does not 

consider necessary at this time in light 

of the Supreme Court decision. 

For the purposes of the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA 

reiterates that NSR reform regulations 

are not within the scope of these 

actions. Therefore, we are not taking 

action on existing NSR reform 

regulations for Ohio. EPA approved 

Ohio’s minor NSR program on January 

22, 2003 (68 FR 2909), and since that 

date, OEPA and EPA have relied on the 

existing minor NSR program to ensure 

that new and modified sources not 

captured by the major NSR permitting 

programs do not interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Certain sub-elements in this section 

overlap with elements of section 

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

These links will be discussed in the 

appropriate areas below. 

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)—Interstate 

Transport 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs 

to include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfering with maintenance, of the 

NAAQS in another state. EPA is not 

taking action on this infrastructure 

element in regards to the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS and will do so in a future 

rulemaking. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires 

SIPs to include provisions prohibiting 

any source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality or 

to protect visibility in another state. 

EPA notes that Ohio’s satisfaction of 

the applicable PSD requirements for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS has been detailed in 

the section addressing section 

110(a)(2)(C). EPA notes that the actions 

in that section related to PSD are 

consistent with the actions related to 

PSD for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

they are reiterated below. 

EPA has previously approved 

revisions to Ohio’s SIP that meet certain 

requirements obligated by the Phase 2 

Rule and the 2008 NSR Rule. These 

revisions included provisions that: (1) 

Explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to 

ozone, (2) explicitly identify SO2 and 

NOX as precursors to PM2.5, and (3) 

regulate condensable particulate matter 

in applicability determinations and in 

establishing emissions limits. EPA has 

also previously approved revisions to 

Ohio’s SIP that incorporate the PM2.5

increments and the associated 

implementation regulations including 

the major source baseline date, trigger 

date, and PM2.5 significance level per 

the 2010 NSR Rule. Ohio’s SIP contains 

provisions that adequately address the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are 

subject to visibility and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). The 2013 Memo states that 

these requirements can be satisfied by 

an approved SIP addressing reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment, if 

required, or an approved SIP addressing 

regional haze. In this rulemaking, EPA 

is not proposing to approve or 

disapprove Ohio’s satisfaction of the 

visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2010 

NO2 or SO2 NAAQs. Instead, EPA will 

evaluate Ohio’s compliance with these 

requirements in a separate rulemaking.4

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each 

SIP to contain adequate provisions 

requiring compliance with the 

applicable requirements of section 126 

and section 115 (relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement, 

respectively). 

Section 126(a) requires new or 

modified sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential impacts from the 

source. The statute does not specify the 

method by which the source should 

provide the notification. States with 

SIP-approved PSD programs must have 

a provision requiring such notification 

by new or modified sources. A lack of 

such a requirement in state rules would 

be grounds for disapproval of this 

element. 

Ohio has provisions in its SIPapproved OAC Chapter 3745–31, which 

is consistent with 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(2)(iv), requiring new or 

modified sources to notify neighboring 

states of potential negative air quality 

impacts, and has referenced this 

program as having adequate provisions 

to meet the requirements of section 

126(a). EPA is proposing that Ohio has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of section 126(a) with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Ohio does not have 

any obligations under any other 

subsection of section 126, nor does it 

have any pending obligations under 

section 115. EPA, therefore, is proposing 

that Ohio has met all applicable 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate 

Resources 

This section requires each state to 

provide for adequate personnel, 

funding, and legal authority under state 

law to carry out its SIP, and related 

issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also 

requires each state to comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

under section 128. 

Sub-Element (i) and (iii): Adequate 

Personnel, Funding, and Legal 

Authority Under State Law To Carry 

Out Its SIP, and Related Issues 

At the time of its submission, OEPA 

included its most recent biennial budget 

with its submittal, which details the 

funding sources and program priorities 

addressing the required SIP programs. 

OEPA has routinely demonstrated that it 

retains adequate personnel to 

administer its air quality management 

program, and Ohio’s environmental 

performance partnership agreement 

with EPA documents certain funding 

and personnel levels at OEPA. As 

discussed in previous sections, ORC 

3704.03 provides the legal authority 

under state law to carry out the SIP. 

EPA proposes that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of these 

portions of section 110(a)(2)(E) with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element (ii): State Board 

Requirements Under Section 128 of the 

CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each 

SIP to contain provisions that comply 

with the state board requirements of 

section 128 of the CAA. That provision 

contains two explicit requirements: (1) 

That any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under 

this chapter shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits and 

enforcement orders under this chapter, 

and (2) that any potential conflicts of 

interest by members of such board or 

body or the head of an executive agency 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40832 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5See http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dapc/sip/sip.aspx. 

with similar powers be adequately 

disclosed. 

OEPA does not have a board that has 

the authority to approve enforcement 

orders or permitting actions as outlined 

in section 128(a)(1) of the CAA; instead, 

this authority rests with the Director of 

OEPA. Therefore, section 128(a)(1) of 

the CAA is not applicable in Ohio. 

Under section 128(a)(2), the head of 

the executive agency with the power to 

approve enforcement orders or permits 

must adequately disclose any potential 

conflicts of interest. In its June 7, 2013, 

submission, OEPA notes that EPA has 

previously approved provisions into 

Ohio’s SIP addressing these 

requirements (see 46 FR 57490). 

Notably, ORC 102: Public Officers— 

Ethics contains provisions that require 

the Director of OEPA (and his/her 

delegate) to file an annual statement 

with the ethics committee including 

potential conflicts of interest; 

furthermore, this annual filing is subject 

to public inspection. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Ohio has met the 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for this section of 

110(a)(2)(E) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary 

Source Monitoring System 

States must establish a system to 

monitor emissions from stationary 

sources and submit periodic emissions 

reports. Each plan shall also require the 

installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources. The state plan shall 

also require periodic reports on the 

nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such 

sources, and correlation of such reports 

by each state agency with any emission 

limitations or standards established 

pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

OEPA district offices and local air 

agencies are currently required to 

witness 50% of all source testing and 

review 100% of all tests. EPA-approved 

rules in OAC 3745–15 contain 

provisions for the submission of 

emissions reports, and OAC 3745–77 

and OAC 3745–31 provide requirements 

for recordkeeping by sources. EPA 

recognizes that Ohio has routinely 

submitted quality assured analyses and 

data for publication, and therefore 

proposes that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency 

Powers 

This section requires that a plan 

provide for authority that is analogous 

to what is provided in section 303 of the 

CAA, and adequate contingency plans 

to implement such authority. The 2013 

Memo states that infrastructure SIP 

submissions should specify authority, 

vested in an appropriate official, to 

restrain any source from causing or 

contributing to emissions which present 

an imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health or 

welfare, or the environment. 

The regulations at OAC 3745–25 

contain provisions which allow the 

Director of OEPA to determine the 

conditions that comprise air pollution 

alerts, warnings, and emergencies. 

Moreover, the rules contained in OAC 

3745–25 provide the requirement to 

implement emergency action plans in 

the event of an air quality alert or 

higher. EPA proposes that Ohio has met 

the applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP 

Revisions 

This section requires states to have 

the authority to revise their SIPs in 

response to changes in the NAAQS, 

availability of improved methods for 

attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA 

finding that the SIP is substantially 

inadequate. 

As previously mentioned, ORC 

3704.03 provides the Director of OEPA 

with the authority to develop rules and 

regulations necessary to meet ambient 

air quality standards in all areas in the 

state as expeditiously as practicable, but 

not later than any deadlines applicable 

under the CAA. ORC 3704.03 also 

provides the Director of OEPA with the 

authority to develop programs for the 

prevention, and abatement of air 

pollution. EPA proposes that Ohio has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment 

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under 

Part D 

The CAA requires that each plan or 

plan revision for an area designated as 

a nonattainment area meet the 

applicable requirements of part D of the 

CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment 

areas. 

EPA has determined that section 

110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA 

takes action on part D attainment plans 

through separate processes. 

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)—Consultation 

With Government Officials; Public 

Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection 

The evaluation of the submission 

from Ohio with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are 

described below. 

Sub-Element (i): Consultation With 

Government Officials 

States must provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

carrying out NAAQS implementation 

requirements. 

OEPA actively participates in the 

regional planning efforts that include 

both the state rule developers as well as 

representatives from the FLMs and other 

affected stakeholders. The FLMs are also 

included in OEPA’s interested party 

lists which provide announcements of 

draft and proposed rule packages. OAC 

3745–31–06 is a SIP-approved rule 

which requires notification and the 

availability of public participation 

related to NSR actions; notification is 

provided to the general public, 

executives of the city or county where 

the source is located, other state or local 

air pollution control agencies, regional 

land use planning agencies, and FLMs. 

OAC 3704.03(K) is a SIP-approved rule 

that which requires giving reasonable 

public notice and conducting public 

hearings on any plans for the 

prevention, control, and abatement of 

air pollution that the Director of OEPA 

is required to submit to EPA. 

Additionally, Ohio is an active member 

of the Lake Michigan Air Director’s 

Consortium (LADCO). Therefore, EPA 

proposes that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element (ii): Public Notification 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires 

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and must enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. 

OEPA maintains portions of its Web 

site specifically for issues related to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.5 The information 

contained in these pages includes 

background on the health effects of each 

of these pollutants, the areas of most 

concern, and the strategies that the state 

has been taking to address the elevated 

levels, if any, of the pollutants. OEPA 

also actively populates EPA’s AIRNOW 

program, and prepares annual data 

reports from its complete monitoring 

network. EPA proposes that Ohio has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 40833 

of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) 

with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element (iii): PSD 

States must meet applicable 

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

related to PSD. Ohio’s PSD program in 

the context of infrastructure SIPs has 

already been discussed in the 

paragraphs addressing section 

110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 

EPA notes that the actions for those 

sections are consistent with the actions 

for this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Therefore, Ohio has met all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements for PSD 

associated with section 110(a)(2)(J) for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Sub-Element (iv): Visibility Protection 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

states are subject to visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C of the CAA (which 

includes sections 169A and 169B). In 

the event of the establishment of a new 

NAAQS, however, the visibility and 

regional haze program requirements 

under part C do not change. Thus, we 

find that there is no new visibility 

obligation ‘‘triggered’’ under section 

110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. In other words, the 

visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to 

infrastructure SIP for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)—Air Quality 

Modeling/Data 

SIPs must provide for performing air 

quality modeling for predicting effects 

on air quality of emissions from any 

NAAQS pollutant and submission of 

such data to EPA upon request. 

OEPA reviews the potential impact of 

major and some minor new sources, 

consistent with appendix W of 40 CFR 

parts 51 and 52 ‘‘Guidelines on Air 

Quality Models,’’ as well as OEPA 

Engineering Guide 69. These modeling 

data are available to EPA upon request. 

The regulatory requirements related to 

PSD modeling can be found in SIPapproved rule OAC 3745–31–18. Ohio’s 

authority to require modeling conducted 

by other entities, e.g., applicants, and 

the state’s authority to perform 

modeling for attainment demonstrations 

can be found in SIP-approved ORC 

3704.03(F). EPA proposes that Ohio has 

met the infrastructure SIP requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting Fees 

This section requires SIPs to mandate 

each major stationary source to pay 

permitting fees to cover the cost of 

reviewing, approving, implementing, 

and enforcing a permit. 

OEPA implements and operates the 

title V permit program, which EPA 

approved on August 15, 1995 (60 FR 

42045); revisions to the program were 

approved on November 20, 2003 (68 FR 

65401). Additional rules that contain 

the provisions, requirements, and 

structures associated with the costs for 

reviewing, approving, implementing, 

and enforcing various types of permits 

can be found in ORC 3745.11. EPA 

proposes that Ohio has met the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

States must consult with and allow 

participation from local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. OEPA 

follows approved procedures for 

allowing public participation, consistent 

with OAC 3745–47, which is part of the 

approved SIP. Consultation with local 

governments is authorized through ORC 

3704.03(B). OEPA provides a public 

participation process for all 

stakeholders that includes a minimum 

of a 30-day comment period and a 

public hearing for all SIP related 

actions. EPA proposes that Ohio has met 

the infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve most 

elements of the submission from OEPA 

certifying that its current SIP is 

sufficient to meet the required 

infrastructure elements under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA’s proposed actions for the 

state’s satisfaction of infrastructure SIP 

requirements, by element of section 

110(a)(2) are contained in the table 

below. 

Element 2012 

PM2.5

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

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring 

and data system ........................... A 

(C): Program for enforcement of 

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

(D)1: Interstate Transport—Significant contribution ............................ NA 

(D)2: Interstate Transport–interfere 

with maintenance .......................... NA 

(D)3: PSD ......................................... A 

(D)4: Visibility .................................... NA 

(D)5: Interstate and International 

Pollution Abatement ...................... A 

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

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

Element 2012 

PM2.5

(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 .................. + 

(J)1: Consultation with government 

officials .......................................... A 

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

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

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

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

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

(M): Consultation and participation 

by affected local entities ............... A 

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

A ....... Approve. 

NA .... No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

+ ....... Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
40834 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 121 / Thursday, June 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

• 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, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: June 14, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–14894 Filed 6–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0698; FRL–9948–00– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Redesignation of the Indiana Portion of 

the Louisville Area to Attainment of the 

1997 Annual Standard for Fine 

Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is issuing a supplement to 

its July 11, 2013, proposed approval of 

Indiana’s request to redesignate the 

Indiana portion of the Louisville, 

Indiana-Kentucky, area to attainment for 

the 1997 annual national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS or standard) 

for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). After 

EPA’s proposed redesignation in 2013, 

an audit of the Kentucky monitoring 

program identified problems which 

invalidated monitoring data for 2012 

and the beginning of 2013. Because of 

this invalid data, the area could not 

meet the requirement that the entire 

area must demonstrate attainment of the 

standard using the most current three 

years of data. This supplemental 

proposal provides new quality-assured, 

quality-controlled data for the most 

recent three years of data showing that 

the entire area attains the 1997 PM2.5

standard. In the supplemental proposal 

EPA is proposing that the entire 

Louisville area is attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS based on the most recent 

three years of data. EPA also discusses 

the maintenance plan out-year emission 

projections, and the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) remanded 

budgets impact on the Louisville area— 

because the status of these issues has 

changed from the initial proposal to 

now. EPA is seeking comment only on 

the issues raised in this supplemental 

proposal, and is not re-opening for 

comment other issues raised in the July 

11, 2013, proposed approval. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 25, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0698 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

blakley.pamela@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 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Persoon, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8290, 

persoon.carolyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for the 

supplemental proposal? 

II. On what specific issues is EPA taking 

comment? 

A. Louisville Area Design Values for 2013– 

2015; Entire Area Monitoring Attainment 

B. Demonstration of Maintenance 

C. CAIR and CSAPR 

III. Summary of Proposed Actions 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for the 

supplemental proposal? 

On June 16, 2011, the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted a 

request for EPA to approve the 

redesignation of the Indiana portion of 

the Louisville (KY-IN) (Madison 

Township, Indiana, Jefferson County, 

Kentucky and Clark and Floyd Counties, 

Indiana) nonattainment area to 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 annual 

standard. Indiana’s June 16, 2011, 

redesignation submittal contained 

complete, quality-assured and certified 

air monitoring data for the years 2008– 

2010. 

On July 11, 2013, EPA proposed to 

determine that the Indiana portion of 

the Louisville area had met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) (78 FR 41735). This proposal was 

based upon our review of ambient air 

monitoring data from 2009–2011, and 

preliminary data from 2012. It contained 

several related actions. 

First, EPA proposed to approve the 

request from IDEM to change the legal 

designation of the Indiana portion of the 

Louisville area from nonattainment to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA also proposed to approve 

Indiana’s PM2.5 maintenance plan for 

the Indiana portion of the Louisville 

area as a revision to the Indiana state 

implementation plan (SIP) because the 

plan met the requirements of section 

175A of the CAA. In addition, EPA 

proposed to approve emissions 

inventories for primary PM2.5, and all its 

precursors as satisfying the requirement 

in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a 

comprehensive, current emission 

inventory. Finally, EPA proposed a 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS