Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5, 23504-23508 [2019-10069]

Download as PDF 23504 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS and procedural rules for determining the assumed Federal income tax calculation, as codified in existing 39 CFR part 3060.2 In accordance with its specific authority under 39 U.S.C. 2011(h)(2)(B)(ii) and its general authority under 39 U.S.C. 503 to promulgate regulations and establish procedures, the Commission establishes this proceeding to consider two forms of amendments. First, the Commission proposes revisions to reflect changes made to the Internal Revenue Code after the Commission’s initial 2008 rulemaking that would affect the computation of the applicable tax rate for the assumed Federal income tax calculation. Second, the Commission proposes to remove obsolete provisions that authorized one-time extensions of time for the Postal Service to calculate and transfer the assumed Federal income tax for fiscal year 2008. A. Applicable Corporate Tax Rate The assumed taxable income from competitive products for a given year ‘‘refers to the amount representing what would be the taxable income of a corporation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the year[.]’’ 39 U.S.C. 3634(a)(2). Existing § 3060.40(a) requires the Postal Service’s calculation of the assumed Federal income tax on competitive product income to comply with chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. Additionally, existing § 3060.40(a) specifies that the computation of the competitive products enterprise’s assumed tax liability use either the ‘‘regular’’ rates in section 11 or the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) rates in section 55(b)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, whichever might be applicable. Since the codification of existing § 3060.40(a), the Internal Revenue Code has undergone changes. Effective December 22, 2017, the AMT no longer applies to corporations. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act § 12001, 131 Stat. at 2092 (codified at 26 U.S.C. 55(a)). Therefore, it is no longer appropriate for the Postal Service to compute the tax liability at the AMT rate, as contemplated in existing § 3060.40(a). Rather than simply removing the cross-reference to the AMT, the Commission proposes replacing both specific cross-references to particular sections of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code with a general instruction for the Postal Service to use the applicable tax rate for corporations. This would enable proposed § 3060.40(a) to stay current with any future changes to chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code affecting the tax rate for corporations. Moreover, this proposed approach would remain consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3634(a)(2). B. Obsolete One-time Extension Provisions The Commission published the existing regulations concerning the assumed Federal income tax calculation in December 2008 and they took effect in January 2009. Order No. 151 at 1, 21. Existing §§ 3060.40(c) and 3060.43(c) include a one-time extension for the Postal Service to submit the calculation and perform the annual transfer for FY 2008, extending both deadlines to July 15, 2009. Since the existing provisions concerning past extensions are outdated and unnecessary, the Commission proposes removing this material from existing §§ 3060.40(c) and 3060.43(c). The removal of these obsolete provisions would simplify the regulations. III. Proposed Rules Proposed § 3060.40(a). Proposed § 3060.40(a) replaces ‘‘section 11 (regular) or section 55(b)(1)(B) (Alternative Minimum Tax) tax rates, as applicable’’ with ‘‘applicable corporate tax rate.’’ Proposed § 3060.40(c). Proposed § 3060.40(c) deletes the phrase ‘‘except that a one-time extension of 6 months, until July 15, 2009, shall be permitted for the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax due for fiscal year end September 30, 2008.’’ Proposed § 3060.43(c). Proposed § 3060.43(c) removes the text of existing § 3060.43(c), in its entirety, and redesignates existing § 3060.43(d), and its text, as § 3060.43(c). List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 3060 Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 39 chapter III of title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 3060—ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND TAX RULES FOR THE THEORETICAL COMPETITIVE PRODUCTS ENTERPRISE 1. The authority citation for part 3060 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503, 2011, 3633, 3634. 2 See Docket No. RM2008–5, Order Establishing Accounting Practices and Tax Rules for Competitive Products, December 18, 2008 (Order No. 151). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:00 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 2. Amend § 3060.40, by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: ■ PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 § 3060.40 Calculation of the assumed Federal income tax. (a) The assumed Federal income tax on competitive products income shall be based on the Postal Service theoretical competitive products enterprise income statement for the relevant year and must be calculated in compliance with chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code by computing the tax liability on the taxable income from the competitive products of the Postal Service theoretical competitive products enterprise at the applicable corporate tax rate. * * * * * (c) The calculation of the assumed Federal income tax due shall be submitted to the Commission no later than the January 15 following the close of the fiscal year referenced in paragraph (b) of this section. * * * * * § 3060.43 [Amended] 3. Amend § 3060.43, by removing paragraph (c) and redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (c). ■ By the Commission. Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2019–10558 Filed 5–21–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0700; FRL–9993–63– Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone NAAQS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take action under the Clean Air Act (CAA) on an Indiana’s November 27, 2017 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing regional haze. This proposed action is based on EPA’s determination that a state’s implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) program continues to meet the criteria of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) to qualify as an alternative to the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). EPA is proposing several related actions. First, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of Indiana’s SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to CSAPR for certain regional haze requirements. EPA is also proposing to convert EPA’s limited approval/limited disapproval of Indiana’s regional haze SIP to a full approval and to withdraw the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) provisions that address the limited disapproval. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the visibility prong of Indiana’s infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5), 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and to convert EPA’s disapproval of the visibility portion of Indiana’s infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an approval. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. I. Background A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA establishes as a national visibility goal ‘‘the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.’’ Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to submit regional haze SIPs that contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and further refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative program provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006). In revisions to the regional haze program made in 2005, EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART.1 See 70 FR 39104. In those revisions, EPA amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP, or states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected BARTeligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 1 CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states (and the District of Columbia), including Indiana, that contributed to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Comments must be received on or before June 21, 2019. DATES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2017–0700 at https:// www.regulations.gov or via email to Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. ADDRESSES: jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 60604, (312) 886–1767, dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:00 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 23505 for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX). As a result of EPA’s determination that CAIR was ‘‘better-than-BART,’’ a number of states in which CAIR applies, including Indiana, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their regional haze SIPs. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur (preserving the environmental benefits provided by CAIR). North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit’s remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.2 Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program. Due to the D.C. Circuit’s 2008 ruling that CAIR was ‘‘fatally flawed,’’ and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Indiana’s regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), triggering the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP unless Indiana submitted, and EPA approved a SIP revision that corrected the deficiency. EPA finalized a limited approval of Indiana’s regional haze SIP on June 11, 2012 (77 FR 34218), as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR. In the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide that participation by a state’s EGUs in a CSAPR trading 2 CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states’ ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide ‘‘budgets’’ for emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered state’s large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later years. E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1 23506 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS program for a given pollutant—either a CSAPR Federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision— qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.3 See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR, including Indiana, have utilized the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.4 Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit’s vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court’s ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budgets for four states and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for eleven states. This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR’s cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule’s Phase 2 budgets that were originally scheduled to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017. On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA published a final rule affirming the continued validity of the Agency’s 2012 determination that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR’s criteria for an 3 Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-thanBART rule from state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12–1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 2012). 4 EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151 (July 6, 2012), and Texas 82 FR 48324 (October 17, 2017). EPA has approved Minnesota’s, Wisconsin’s, and Alabama’s SIPs relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77 FR 34801 (June 12, 2012) for Minnesota, 77 FR 46952 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin, and 82 FR 47393 (October 12, 2017) for Alabama. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:00 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 alternative to the application of source specific BART. In the rulemaking, EPA explained that the limited changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage did not alter EPA’s conclusion that CSAPR remains ‘‘better-than-BART;’’ that is, that participation in CSAPR remains available as an alternative to BART for EGUs covered by the trading program. Indiana’s November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeks to correct the deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval of its regional haze SIP by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. Specifically, Indiana requests that EPA approve the State’s regional haze SIP revision that replaces reliance on CAIR with CSAPR to satisfy SO2 and NOX BART requirements. B. Infrastructure SIPs The ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 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 requirement for states to make an infrastructure SIP submission is under CAA section 110(a)(1). SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are required to be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state’s implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). ‘‘Prong 4’’ Requirements Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state’s implementation plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state’s efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). EPA issued guidance on infrastructure SIPs in a September 13, 2013 memorandum from Stephen D. Page titled ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ (2013 Guidance). The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any contribution of that state’s sources that impact the visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutantspecific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies. The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state’s infrastructure SIP may satisfy prong 4. One way is via confirmation that the state has an approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. The regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency’s jurisdiction are not interfering E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS with measures required to be included in other air agencies’ plans to protect visibility. Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies’ plans to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed upon regional haze RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states. Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Indiana’s infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 standards, and to convert EPA’s disapproval of the prong 4 portion of Indiana’s infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an approval, as discussed in section IV of this action. All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided below. 1. 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average primary and secondary PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3). See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than September 21, 2009. Indiana submitted infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on October 20, 2009, June 25, 2012, July 12, 2012, and May 22, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of those submissions. The other portions of Indiana’s PM2.5 infrastructure submissions have been previously addressed (78 FR 41311, July 10, 2013; 79 FR 18999, April 7, 2014; and 83 FR 64472, December 17, 2018). On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 mg/m3. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 10, 2016. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission. The other portions of Indiana’s December 10, 2016 PM2.5 VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:00 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 infrastructure submission have been previously addressed (83 FR 4595, February 1, 2018) or will be addressed in a separate action. 2. 2010 SO2 NAAQS On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on May 22, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission. The other portions of Indiana’s May 22, 2013 SO2 infrastructure submission have been previously addressed (80 FR 48733, August 14, 2015) or will be addressed in a separate action. 3. 2010 NO2 NAAQS On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Indiana submitted infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on January 15, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that submission. The other portions of Indiana’s January 15, 2013, NO2 infrastructure submission have been addressed in a previous EPA action (80 FR 48733, August 14, 2015). 4. 2008 Ozone NAAQS On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on December 12, 2011. On June 15, 2016, EPA disapproved the intrastate transport provisions of Indiana’s 2008 ozone infrastructure submission, including the prong 4 element. See 81 FR 53309. This proposed action addresses the disapproval for prong 4 and proposes to convert it to a full approval. The other portions of Indiana’s December 12, 2011 ozone infrastructure SIP submission PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 23507 have been addressed in a previous EPA action (80 FR 23713, April 29, 2015). II. What is EPA’s analysis of how Indiana addressed regional haze and prong 4 of the infrastructure SIP requirements? Indiana submitted infrastructure SIPs for the following NAAQS: 2012 annual PM2.5 (December 10, 2016); 2006 24hour average PM2.5 (October 20, 2009; June 25, 2012; July 12, 2012; and May 22, 2013); 2010 NO2 (January 15, 2013); 2010 SO2 (May 22, 2013); and 2008 ozone (December 12, 2011) which relied on the State having a fully approved regional haze SIP to satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA had not previously fully approved Indiana’s regional haze SIP. As discussed earlier in this action, the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State’s original regional haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR, which also triggered the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP in Indiana utilizing CSAPR. To correct the deficiencies in its regional haze SIP and obtain approval of the aforementioned infrastructure SIPs that rely on the regional haze SIP, the State submitted a SIP revision on November 27, 2017, to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. As noted above, EPA determined that CSAPR remains ‘‘better than BART,’’ given the changes to CSAPR’s scope in response to the D.C. Circuit’s remand. Because the Agency has finalized the ‘‘CSAPR remains better-than-BART’’ rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the State’s November 27, 2017 SIP revision and convert EPA’s previous action on Indiana’s regional haze SIP from a limited approval/limited disapproval to a full approval. Specifically, EPA’s finds that this portion of Indiana’s November 27, 2017 SIP revision satisfies the SO2 and NOX BART requirements for EGUs formerly subject to CAIR. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved regional haze SIP, EPA is also proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Indiana’s 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 submissions; 2010 NO2 submissions; and the 2010 SO2 submission. EPA is also proposing to convert EPA’s disapproval of the prong 4 portions of Indiana’s 2008 ozone infrastructure submission to an approval. III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve the portion of Indiana’s November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeking to change from reliance on CAIR to reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze requirements; E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1 23508 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2019 / Proposed Rules (2) convert EPA’s limited approval/ limited disapproval of Indiana’s January 14, 2011 and March 10, 2011 regional haze SIP to a full approval; (3) withdraw the FIP provisions that address the limited disapproval; (4) approve the visibility prong of Indiana’s infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 and 2006 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS; and (5) convert EPA’s disapproval of the visibility portion of Indiana’s infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an approval. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866. • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions 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); VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:00 May 21, 2019 Jkt 247001 • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 2, 2019. Cheryl L. Newton, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. 2019–10069 Filed 5–21–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 27 [WT Docket No. 19–116, FCC 19–43] Allocation and Service Rules for the 1675–1680 MHz Band Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to reallocate the 1675–1680 MHz band for shared use between incumbent federal operations and new, non-federal flexible wireless (fixed or mobile) use operations. The Commission seeks comment on the appropriate sharing mechanisms that will protect incumbent federal operations while making the spectrum available for new, non-federal use. The Commission also proposes SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 service and technical rules designed to promote efficient and intensive use by any new, non-federal services. DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before June 21, 2019; and reply comments on or before July 22, 2019. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 19–116, by any of the following methods: • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): https:// fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Generally if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Commenters are only required to file copies in GN Docket No. 13–111. • Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 418–0432 (TTY). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna Gentry, Anna.Gentry@fcc.gov, of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, (202) 418– 7769. For additional information E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23504-23508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10069]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0700; FRL-9993-63-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 
(Visibility) for the 2006 and 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 
Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take 
action under the Clean Air Act (CAA) on an Indiana's November 27, 2017 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal addressing regional haze. 
This proposed action is based on EPA's determination that a state's 
implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) program 
continues to meet the criteria of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR) to 
qualify as an alternative to the application of Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART). EPA is proposing several related actions. First, EPA 
is proposing to approve the portion of Indiana's

[[Page 23505]]

November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeking to change reliance from the 
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to CSAPR for certain regional haze 
requirements. EPA is also proposing to convert EPA's limited approval/
limited disapproval of Indiana's regional haze SIP to a full approval 
and to withdraw the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) provisions that 
address the limited disapproval. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 
the visibility prong of Indiana's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 
2012 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5), 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and to convert EPA's disapproval of the visibility portion of 
Indiana's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an 
approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 21, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0700 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental 
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA establishes as a national visibility 
goal ``the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' Section 169A(b)(2)(A) 
of the CAA requires states to submit regional haze SIPs that contain 
such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards 
the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain 
categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 
1977 procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. 
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for 
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or 
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than 
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the 
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative 
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress 
towards improving visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA 
provided states with this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and 
further refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative 
program provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent 
rulemakings. See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 
2005); 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
    In revisions to the regional haze program made in 2005, EPA 
demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable progress than 
BART.\1\ See 70 FR 39104. In those revisions, EPA amended its 
regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-
trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP, or states that 
remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected BART-eligible 
electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and maintain BART 
for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce 
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states 
(and the District of Columbia), including Indiana, that contributed 
to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was ``better-than-
BART,'' a number of states in which CAIR applies, including Indiana, 
relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative to BART for 
EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in designing their 
regional haze SIPs. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a 
long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 
for their regional haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) 
remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur (preserving the environmental 
benefits provided by CAIR). North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 
(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. 
Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs 
to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.\2\ Implementation of 
CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have 
superseded the CAIR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide 
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to 
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other 
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone 
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR 
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide 
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2, annual 
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered 
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two 
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets 
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets 
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally 
flawed,'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following 
that ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the 
extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On 
these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Indiana's 
regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), triggering the 
requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP unless Indiana submitted, and 
EPA approved a SIP revision that corrected the deficiency. EPA 
finalized a limited approval of Indiana's regional haze SIP on June 11, 
2012 (77 FR 34218), as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze 
requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR.
    In the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval action, EPA also amended 
the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR 
trading

[[Page 23506]]

program for a given pollutant--either a CSAPR Federal trading program 
implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading 
program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--qualifies 
as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.\3\ See 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states 
covered by CSAPR, including Indiana, have utilized the provision 
through either SIPs or FIPs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from 
state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air 
Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 
2012).
    \4\ EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for 
BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, 
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, 
and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151 
(July 6, 2012), and Texas 82 FR 48324 (October 17, 2017). EPA has 
approved Minnesota's, Wisconsin's, and Alabama's SIPs relying on 
CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77 FR 34801 (June 12, 
2012) for Minnesota, 77 FR 46952 (August 7, 2012) for Wisconsin, and 
82 FR 47393 (October 12, 2017) for Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. 
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating 
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of 
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United 
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to 
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the 
high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most 
respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as 
to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 
118 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
    The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions 
budgets for four states and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX 
budgets for eleven states. This litigation ultimately delayed 
implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, when 
CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the 
CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 
2 budgets that were originally scheduled to begin on January 1, 2014, 
began on January 1, 2017.
    On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA published a final rule 
affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination 
that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative 
to the application of source specific BART. In the rulemaking, EPA 
explained that the limited changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage did 
not alter EPA's conclusion that CSAPR remains ``better-than-BART;'' 
that is, that participation in CSAPR remains available as an 
alternative to BART for EGUs covered by the trading program.
    Indiana's November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeks to correct the 
deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012 limited disapproval of its 
regional haze SIP by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. 
Specifically, Indiana requests that EPA approve the State's regional 
haze SIP revision that replaces reliance on CAIR with CSAPR to satisfy 
SO2 and NOX BART requirements.

B. Infrastructure SIPs

    The ``infrastructure SIP'' 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 requirement for states to make an infrastructure SIP 
submission is under CAA section 110(a)(1). SIPs meeting the 
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are required to 
be submitted by states within three years (or less, if the 
Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement 
of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP 
submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. 
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements 
such as for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority 
that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly 
established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 
provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure 
SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet 
for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established 
or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may 
vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the 
state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's 
implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits 
the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct 
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed 
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), prohibit any source or other 
type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly 
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from 
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). 
The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), prohibit emissions activity in one state from 
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with 
measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4).
``Prong 4'' Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation plan 
to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting 
pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to 
protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 
169A and 169B). EPA issued guidance on infrastructure SIPs in a 
September 13, 2013 memorandum from Stephen D. Page titled ``Guidance on 
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air 
Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 Guidance). The 2013 
Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by 
approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any 
contribution of that state's sources that impact the visibility program 
requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA 
interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the 
infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for 
interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant 
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP may 
satisfy prong 4. One way is via confirmation that the state has an 
approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308 or 51.309. The regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 
specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning 
process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of 
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A 
fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from 
sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering

[[Page 23507]]

with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to 
protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze 
SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a 
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions 
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans 
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need 
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure 
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed upon regional haze 
RPGs for mandatory Class I areas in other states.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 
portion of Indiana's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 
PM2.5, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 
standards, and to convert EPA's disapproval of the prong 4 portion of 
Indiana's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an 
approval, as discussed in section IV of this action. All other 
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions 
have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief 
background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided 
below.
1. 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
    On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average primary and 
secondary PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\). See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). States were required 
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS to EPA no later than September 21, 2009. Indiana submitted 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on 
October 20, 2009, June 25, 2012, July 12, 2012, and May 22, 2013. This 
proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of those 
submissions. The other portions of Indiana's PM2.5 
infrastructure submissions have been previously addressed (78 FR 41311, 
July 10, 2013; 79 FR 18999, April 7, 2014; and 83 FR 64472, December 
17, 2018).
    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary 
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 [mu]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 
2013). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions 
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 
2015. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS on December 10, 2016. This proposed action only 
addresses the prong 4 element of that submission. The other portions of 
Indiana's December 10, 2016 PM2.5 infrastructure submission 
have been previously addressed (83 FR 4595, February 1, 2018) or will 
be addressed in a separate action.
2. 2010 SO2 NAAQS
    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an 
hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average 
of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. 
See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS to EPA 
no later than June 2, 2013. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP 
submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS on May 22, 2013. 
This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of that 
submission. The other portions of Indiana's May 22, 2013 SO2 
infrastructure submission have been previously addressed (80 FR 48733, 
August 14, 2015) or will be addressed in a separate action.
3. 2010 NO2 NAAQS
    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for 
NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required 
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 
NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Indiana submitted 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on 
January 15, 2013. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4 
element of that submission. The other portions of Indiana's January 15, 
2013, NO2 infrastructure submission have been addressed in a 
previous EPA action (80 FR 48733, August 14, 2015).
4. 2008 Ozone NAAQS
    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per 
million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to 
submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to EPA 
no later than March 12, 2011. Indiana submitted an infrastructure SIP 
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on December 12, 2011. On June 15, 2016, EPA 
disapproved the intrastate transport provisions of Indiana's 2008 ozone 
infrastructure submission, including the prong 4 element. See 81 FR 
53309. This proposed action addresses the disapproval for prong 4 and 
proposes to convert it to a full approval. The other portions of 
Indiana's December 12, 2011 ozone infrastructure SIP submission have 
been addressed in a previous EPA action (80 FR 23713, April 29, 2015).

II. What is EPA's analysis of how Indiana addressed regional haze and 
prong 4 of the infrastructure SIP requirements?

    Indiana submitted infrastructure SIPs for the following NAAQS: 2012 
annual PM2.5 (December 10, 2016); 2006 24-hour average 
PM2.5 (October 20, 2009; June 25, 2012; July 12, 2012; and 
May 22, 2013); 2010 NO2 (January 15, 2013); 2010 
SO2 (May 22, 2013); and 2008 ozone (December 12, 2011) which 
relied on the State having a fully approved regional haze SIP to 
satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA had not previously fully 
approved Indiana's regional haze SIP. As discussed earlier in this 
action, the Agency issued a limited disapproval of the State's original 
regional haze plan on June 7, 2012, due to its reliance on CAIR, which 
also triggered the requirement for EPA to promulgate a FIP in Indiana 
utilizing CSAPR. To correct the deficiencies in its regional haze SIP 
and obtain approval of the aforementioned infrastructure SIPs that rely 
on the regional haze SIP, the State submitted a SIP revision on 
November 27, 2017, to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR.
    As noted above, EPA determined that CSAPR remains ``better than 
BART,'' given the changes to CSAPR's scope in response to the D.C. 
Circuit's remand. Because the Agency has finalized the ``CSAPR remains 
better-than-BART'' rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the regional 
haze portion of the State's November 27, 2017 SIP revision and convert 
EPA's previous action on Indiana's regional haze SIP from a limited 
approval/limited disapproval to a full approval. Specifically, EPA's 
finds that this portion of Indiana's November 27, 2017 SIP revision 
satisfies the SO2 and NOX BART requirements for 
EGUs formerly subject to CAIR. Because a state may satisfy prong 4 
requirements through a fully approved regional haze SIP, EPA is also 
proposing to approve the prong 4 portion of Indiana's 2006 and 2012 
PM2.5 submissions; 2010 NO2 submissions; and the 
2010 SO2 submission. EPA is also proposing to convert EPA's 
disapproval of the prong 4 portions of Indiana's 2008 ozone 
infrastructure submission to an approval.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to take the following actions: (1) Approve the 
portion of Indiana's November 27, 2017 SIP submittal seeking to change 
from reliance on CAIR to reliance on CSAPR for certain regional haze 
requirements;

[[Page 23508]]

(2) convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Indiana's 
January 14, 2011 and March 10, 2011 regional haze SIP to a full 
approval; (3) withdraw the FIP provisions that address the limited 
disapproval; (4) approve the visibility prong of Indiana's 
infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 and 2006 PM2.5, 
2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS; and (5) convert 
EPA's disapproval of the visibility portion of Indiana's infrastructure 
SIP submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS to an approval.
    All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the 
infrastructure SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in 
separate rulemakings.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 2, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-10069 Filed 5-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.