[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21758-21759]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14154-001]

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing With The Commission,
Intent To Waive Scoping, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests,
Ready for Environmental Analysis, Soliciting Comments, Terms and
Conditions, Recommendations, and Prescriptions, and Establishing an
Expedited Schedule for Processing; William Arkoosh

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 14154-001.
    c. Date filed: November 15, 2011.
    d. Applicant: William Arkoosh.
    e. Name of Project: Little Wood River Ranch II Project.
    f. Location: On the Little Wood River, six miles west of the Town
of Shoshone, Lincoln County, Idaho. The project would occupy
approximately 0.5 acre of federal lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 USC 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: William Arkoosh, 2005 Highway 26, Gooding,
Idaho 83330. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, requests
for cooperating agency status, comments, terms and conditions,
recommendations, and prescriptions: Due to the small size and
particular location of this project, the close coordination with state
and federal agencies during the preparation of the application, and the
public and agency review of the project under the previous license
issued for this site, the 60-day timeframe in 18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing
comments, terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions is
shortened. Instead, comments, terms and conditions, recommendations,
and prescriptions will be due 30 days from the issuance date of this
notice. Further, the date for filing motions to intervene and protests
will be due 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply
comments are due 45 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the

instructions on the Commission's Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. Project Description: The Little Wood River Ranch II Project
consists of: (1) A 220-foot-long, 12-foot-wide rock rubble diversion
dam, impounding a 9.1-acre reservoir on the Little Wood River; (2) a
3,900-foot-long feeder canal; (3) a concrete intake structure having
two parallel 5-foot-diameter, 120-foot-long steel penstocks; (4) a 60-
foot-long, 20-foot-wide, 25-foot-high concrete and steel power house
containing two hydraulic Francis turbines with a total installed
capacity of 1,230 kilowatts; (5) a 1,600-foot-long tailrace canal; (6)
a 2.2-mile-long, 12.5-kilovolt transmission line; (7) an access road;
and (8) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation is
estimated to be 5,600 megawatt-hours.
    m. Due to the applicant's close coordination with federal and state
agencies during the preparation of the application, completed studies,
agency comments, and discussion of issues under the previous license
process for this site, we intend to waive scoping, shorten the notice
filing period, and expedite the license process. Based on a review of
the application, resource agency consultation letters, and comments
filed to date, Commission staff intends to prepare a single
environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff determined that the
issues that need to be addressed in its EA have been adequately
identified during the pre-filing period, which included a public
meeting and site visit, and no new issues are likely to be identified
through additional scoping. The EA will consider assessing the
potential effects of project construction and operation on geology and
soils, aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and endangered species, and
cultural and historic resources.
    n. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
    Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMMENTS,''
``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must
be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following procedural schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be
made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of the availability of the EA.......................    July 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 4, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8644 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 82 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23713-23721]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09883]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969; FRL-9926-81-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve elements of a state implementation plan (SIP)
submission by Indiana regarding the infrastructure requirements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008
ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air quality management program are adequate
to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. The proposed
rulemaking associated with this final action was published on August
19, 2013, and EPA received two comment letters during the comment
period, which ended on September 18, 2013. The concerns raised in these
letters, as well as EPA's responses, will be addressed in this final
action.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly-available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Sarah Arra at<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of this SIP submission?

A. What does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses a December 12, 2011, submission from the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) intended to meet
the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.

B. Why did the state make this SIP submission?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 2008 ozone 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 ozone already
meet those requirements.
    EPA has highlighted this statutory requirement in multiple guidance
documents, including the most recent guidance document entitled
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' issued on September 13, 2013.

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon Indiana's SIP submission that addresses the
infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The requirement for states to make SIP
submissions of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (``SSM'')at sources, that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(collectively referred to as ``director's discretion''); and, (iii)
existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's
``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as
amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA
has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas in
separate rulemaking. A detailed rationale, history, and interpretation
related to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in our May 13,
2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the
2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this
rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).
    In addition, EPA is not acting on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
interstate transport significant contribution and interference with
maintenance, a portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility, and 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to visibility. EPA is also
not acting on section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D, in its entirety. The rationale for not acting
on elements of these requirements was included in EPA's August 19,
2013, proposed rulemaking or discussed below in today's response to
comments.

II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?

    The public comment period for EPA's proposed actions with respect
to Indiana's satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS closed on September 18, 2013. EPA received two
comment letters, which were from the Sierra Club and the state of
Connecticut. A synopsis of the comments contained in these letters and
EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Sierra Club states that, on its face, the CAA
``requires I-SIPs to be adequate to prevent violations of the NAAQS.''
In support, the commenter quotes the language in section 110(a)(1) that
requires states to adopt a plan for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS and the language in section 110(a)(2)(A) which
requires SIPs to include enforceable emissions limitations as may be
necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA and which commenters
claimed include the maintenance plan requirement. Sierra Club notes the
CAA definition of ``emission limit'' and reads these provisions
together to require ``enforceable emission limitations on source
emissions sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.''
    Response 1: EPA disagrees that section 110 must be interpreted in
the manner suggested by Sierra Club. Section 110 is only one provision
that is part of the complex structure governing implementation of the
NAAQS program under the CAA, as

amended in 1990, and it must be interpreted in the context of not only
that structure, but also of the historical evolution of that structure.
In light of the revisions to section 110 since 1970 and the later-
promulgated and more specific planning requirements of the CAA, EPA
interprets the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) that the plan
provide for ``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' to mean
that the infrastructure SIP must contain enforceable emission limits
that will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the
state demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and
enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement
program.
    With regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA has
interpreted this to mean that, for purposes of section 110, the state
may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue
or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. As EPA
stated in ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' dated September
13, 2013 (Infrastructure SIP Guidance), ``[t]he conceptual purpose of
an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP
contains the necessary structural requirements for the new or revised
NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains the
necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to update
the SIP, or both. Overall, the infrastructure SIP submission process
provides an opportunity . . . to review the basic structural
requirements of the air agency's air quality management program in
light of each new or revised NAAQS.'' Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p.
2.
    Comment 2: Sierra Club cites two excerpts from the legislative
history of the CAA Amendments of 1970 asserting that they support an
interpretation that SIP revisions under CAA section 110 must include
emissions limitations sufficient to show maintenance of the NAAQS in
all areas of Indiana. Sierra Club also contends that the legislative
history of the CAA supports the interpretation that infrastructure SIPs
under section 110(a)(2) must include enforceable emission limitations,
citing the Senate Committee Report and the subsequent Senate Conference
Report accompanying the 1970 CAA.
    Response 2: The CAA, as enacted in 1970, including its legislative
history, cannot be interpreted in isolation from the later amendments
that refined that structure and deleted relevant language from section
110 concerning demonstrating attainment. In any event, the two excerpts
of legislative history the commenter cites merely provide that states
should include enforceable emission limits in their SIPs; they do not
mention or otherwise address whether states are required to include
maintenance plans for all areas of the state as part of the
infrastructure SIP.
    Comment 3: Sierra Club cites to 40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that
each plan must ``demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations
contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and
maintenance of the [NAAQS].'' The commenter asserts that this
regulation requires all SIPs to include emissions limits necessary to
ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter states that ``[a]lthough
these regulations were developed before the Clean Air Act separated
Infrastructure SIPs from nonattainment SIPs--a process that began with
the 1977 amendments and was completed by the 1990 amendments--the
regulations apply to I-SIPs.'' The commenter relies on a statement in
the preamble to the 1986 action restructuring and consolidating
provisions in part 51, in which EPA stated that ``[i]t is beyond the
scope of th[is] rulemaking to address the provisions of Part D of the
Act. . . .'' 51 FR 40656 (November 7, 1986).
    Response 3: The commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support
its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits
``adequate to prohibit NAAQS violations'' and adequate or sufficient to
ensure the maintenance of the NAAQS is not supported. As an initial
matter, EPA notes and the commenter recognizes this regulatory
provision was initially promulgated and ``restructured and
consolidated'' prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990, in which Congress
removed all references to ``attainment'' in section 110(a)(2)(A). In
addition, it is clear on its face that 40 CFR 51.112 applies to plans
specifically designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA interprets these
provisions to apply when states are developing ``control strategy''
SIPs such as the detailed attainment and maintenance plans required
under other provisions of the CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in
1990, such as section 175A and 182.
    The commenter suggests that these provisions must apply to section
110 SIPs because in the preamble to EPA's action ``restructuring and
consolidating'' provisions in part 51, EPA stated that the new
attainment demonstration provisions in the 1977 Amendments to the CAA
were ``beyond the scope'' of the rulemaking. It is important to note,
however, that EPA's action in 1986 was not to establish new substantive
planning requirements, but rather to consolidate and restructure
provisions that had previously been promulgated. EPA noted that it had
already issued guidance addressing the new ``Part D'' attainment
planning obligations. Also, as to maintenance regulations, EPA
expressly stated that it was not making any revisions other than to re-
number those provisions. Id. at 40657.
    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements
interpreting the provisions of new ``part D'' of the CAA, it is clear
that the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended
to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated
that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (``Control strategy:
SOX and PM (portion)''), 51.14 (``Control strategy: CO, HC,
Ox and NO2 (portion)''), 51.80 (``Demonstration of
attainment: Pb (portion)''), and 51.82 (``Air quality data
(portion)''). Id. at 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112
contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy
SIPs, and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan.
    Comment 4: Sierra Club references two prior EPA rulemaking actions
where EPA disapproved or proposed to disapprove SIPs, and claimed they
were actions in which EPA relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR
51.112 to reject infrastructure SIPs. The commenter first points to a
2006 partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to
Missouri's existing plan addressing the sulfur dioxide (SO2)
NAAQS. In that action, EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) as a basis for
disapproving a revision to the state plan on the basis that the state
failed to demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to ensure maintenance of
the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an emission limit and cited
to 40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that a plan demonstrates the rules in a
SIP are adequate to attain the NAAQS. Second, commenter cites a 2013
proposed disapproval of a revision to the SO2 SIP for
Indiana, where the revision removed an emission limit that applied to a
specific emissions source at a facility in the state. EPA relied on 40
CFR 51.112(a) in proposing to reject the revision, stating that the
state had not demonstrated that the emission limit was ``redundant,
unnecessary, or that its removal would not result in or allow an
increase in actual SO2 emissions.'' EPA further stated in
that proposed disapproval that the state had not demonstrated that
removal of the limit would not ``affect the validity of the

emission rates used in the existing attainment demonstration.''
    Response 4: EPA does not agree that the two prior actions
referenced by the commenter establish how EPA reviews infrastructure
SIPs. It is clear from both the final Missouri rule and the now final
Indiana rule that EPA was not reviewing initial infrastructure SIP
submissions under section 110 of the CAA, but rather reviewing
revisions that would make an already approved SIP designed to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS less stringent.
    EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to
restrictions on emissions of sulfur compounds for the Missouri SIP
addressed a control strategy SIP and not an infrastructure SIP (71 FR
12623).
    The Indiana action provides even less support for the commenter's
position (78 FR 78720). The review in that rule was of a completely
different requirement than the 110(a)(2)(A) SIP. Rather, in that case,
the state had an approved SO2 attainment plan and was
seeking to remove from the SIP, provisions relied on as part of the
modeled attainment demonstration. EPA determined that the state had
failed to demonstrate under section 110(l) of the CAA that the SIP
revision would not result in increased SO2 emissions and
thus not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS. Nothing in that
rulemaking addresses the necessary content of the initial
infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Rather, it is simply
applying the clear statutory requirement that a state must demonstrate
why a revision to an approved attainment plan will not interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS.
    Comment 5: Sierra Club discusses several cases applying to the CAA
which it claims support its contention that courts have been clear that
section 110(a)(2)(A) requires enforceable emissions limits in
infrastructure SIPs to prevent violations of the NAAQS and demonstrate
maintenance throughout the area. Sierra Club first cites to language in
Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), addressing the requirement for
``emission limitations'' and stating that emission limitations ``are
specific rules to which operators of pollution sources are subject, and
which if enforced should result in ambient air which meet the national
standards.'' Sierra Club also cites to Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl.
Resources v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for the proposition
that the CAA directs EPA to withhold approval of a SIP where it does
not ensure maintenance of the NAAQS and Mision Industrial, Inc. v. EPA,
547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of
the CAA of 1970. The commenter contends that the 1990 Amendments do not
alter how courts have interpreted the requirements of section 110,
quoting Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470
(2004) which in turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also
stated that ``SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified''
to ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter also quotes several
additional opinions in this vein. Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666
F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (``The Clean Air Act directs states to
develop implementation plans--SIPs--that `assure' attainment and
maintenance of [NAAQS] through enforceable emissions limitations'');
Hall v. EPA 273 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001) (``Each State must
submit a [SIP] that specif[ies] the manner in which [NAAQS] will be
achieved and maintained within each air quality control region in the
state''). The commenter also cites Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality v.
Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000) for the proposition that EPA may
not approve a SIP revision that does not demonstrate how the rules
would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response 5: None of the cases the commenter cites supports the
commenter's contention that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that
infrastructure SIPs include detailed plans providing for attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do they shed
light on how section 110(a)(2)(A) may reasonably be interpreted. With
the exception of Train, 421 U.S. 60, none of the cases the commenter
cites concerned the interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (or
section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 Act). Rather, in the context of a
challenge to an EPA action, revisions to a SIP that were required and
approved as meeting other provisions of the CAA or in the context of an
enforcement action, the court references section 110(a)(2)(A) (or
section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the background section of
its decision.
    In Train, a case that was decided almost 40 years ago, the court
was addressing a state revision to an attainment plan submission made
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the sole statutory provision at
that time regulating such submissions. The issue in that case concerned
whether changes to requirements that would occur before attainment was
required were variances that should be addressed pursuant to the
provision governing SIP revisions or were ``postponements'' that must
be addressed under section 110(f) of the CAA of 1970, which contained
prescriptive criteria. The court concluded that EPA reasonably
interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict a state's choice of the mix
of control measures needed to attain the NAAQS and that revisions to
SIPs that would not impact attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment
date were not subject to the limits of section 110(f). Thus, the issue
was not whether a section 110 SIP needs to provide for attainment or
whether emissions limits are needed as part of the SIP; rather the
issue was which statutory provision governed when the state wanted to
revise the emission limits in its SIP if such revision would not impact
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. To the extent the holding in
the case has any bearing on how section 110(a)(2)(A) might be
interpreted, it is important to realize that in 1975, when the opinion
was issued, section 110(a)(2)(B) (the predecessor to section
110(a)(2)(A)) expressly referenced the requirement to attain the NAAQS,
a reference that was removed in 1990.
    The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources was also
decided based on the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was
whether EPA properly rejected a revision to an approved plan where the
inventories relied on by the state for the updated submission had gaps.
The court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of
EPA's disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that
provision. Yet, even if the court had interpreted that provision, EPA
notes that it was modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this decision has
little bearing on the issue here.
    At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 F.2d 123, was the definition of
``emissions limitation'' not whether section 110 requires the state to
demonstrate how all areas of the state will attain and maintain the
NAAQS as part of their infrastructure SIPs. The language from the
opinion the commenter quotes does not interpret but rather merely
describes section 110(a)(2)(A). The commenters do not raise any
concerns about whether the measures relied on by the state in the
infrastructure SIP are ``emissions limitations'' and the decision in
this case has no bearing here.
    In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, the court was
reviewing a Federal implementation plan that EPA promulgated after a
long history of the state failing to submit an adequate state
implementation plan. The court cited generally to sections 107 and
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs should assure

attainment and maintenance of NAAQS through emission limitations but
this language was not part of the court's holding in the case.
    The commenter suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation,
540 U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that the 1990 CAA Amendments
do not alter how courts interpret section 110. This claim is
inaccurate. Rather, the court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as
noted previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that provision
and the court makes no mention of the changed language. Furthermore,
the commenter also quotes the court's statement that ``SIPs must
include certain measures Congress specified'' but that statement
specifically referenced the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C), which
requires an enforcement program and a program for the regulation of the
modification and construction of new sources. Notably, at issue in that
case was the state's ``new source'' permitting program, not its
infrastructure SIP.
    Two of the cases the commenter cites, Mich. Dept. of Envtl.
Quality, 230 F.3d 181, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret CAA section
110(l), the provision governing ``revisions'' to plans, and not the
initial plan submission requirement under section 110(a)(2) for a new
or revised NAAQS, such as the infrastructure SIP at issue in this
instance. In those cases, the courts cited to section 110(a)(2)(A)
solely for the purpose of providing a brief background of the CAA.
    Comment 6: Sierra Club contends that EPA cannot approve the section
110(a)(2)(A) portion of Indiana's 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP
revision because an infrastructure SIP should include enforceable
emission limits to prevent NAAQS violations in areas not designated
nonattainment. Specifically, Sierra Club cited air monitoring reports
for Clark, Floyd, and LaPorte Counties indicating violations of the
NAAQS based on 2010-2012 and 2011-2013 design values and air quality
monitoring reports for Greene County indicating violations based on
data from 2010-2012. The commenter alleges that these violations
demonstrate that the infrastructure SIP fails to ensure that air
pollution levels meet or are below the level of the NAAQS and thus the
infrastructure SIP must be disapproved. Sierra Club noted that the
violation of the NAAQS based on data from 2010-2012 had been known for
over four months, and that Indiana failed to strengthen its
infrastructure SIP and address the violations by enacting enforceable
limits.
    Furthermore, the commenter suggests that the state adopt specific
controls that they contend are cost-effective for reducing NOx, a
precursor to ozone.
    Response 6: We disagree with the commenter that infrastructure SIPs
must include detailed attainment and maintenance plans for all areas of
the state and must be disapproved if air quality data that became
available late in the process or after the SIP was due and submitted
changes the status of areas within the state. We believe that section
110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs
that reflect the first step in their planning for attaining and
maintaining a new or revised NAAQS and that they contain enforceable
control measures and a demonstration that the state has the available
tools and authority to develop and implement plans to attain and
maintain the NAAQS.
    The suggestion that the infrastructure SIP must include measures
addressing violations of the standard that did not occur until shortly
before or even after the SIP was due and submitted cannot be supported.
The CAA provides states with three years to develop infrastructure SIPs
and states cannot reasonably be expected to address the annual change
in an area's design value for each year over that period. Moreover, the
CAA recognizes and has provisions to address changes in air quality
over time, such as an area slipping from attainment to nonattainment or
changing from nonattainment to attainment. These include provisions
providing for redesignation in section 107(d) and provisions in section
110(k)(5) allowing EPA to call on the state to revise its SIP, as
appropriate.
    We do not believe that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires detailed
planning SIPs demonstrating either attainment or maintenance for
specific geographic areas of the state. The infrastructure SIP is
triggered by promulgation of the NAAQS, not designation. Moreover,
infrastructure SIPs are due three years following promulgation of the
NAAQS and designations are not due until two years (or in some cases
three years) following promulgation of the NAAQS. Thus, during a
significant portion of the period that the state has available for
developing the infrastructure SIP, it does not know what the
designation will be for individual areas of the state.\1\ In light of
the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding
infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure
that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a
NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and
maintenance plans for each individual area of the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While it is true that there may be some monitors within a
state with values so high as to make a nonattainment designation of
the county with that monitor almost a certainty, the geographic
boundaries of the nonattainment area associated with that monitor
would not be known until EPA issues final designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our interpretation that infrastructure SIPs are more general
planning SIPs is consistent with the statute as understood in light of
its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it
did not include provisions requiring states and the EPA to label areas
as attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include
all areas of the state in ``air quality control regions'' (AQCRs) and
section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for
these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be
able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general
planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into
compliance with the NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time,
section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that the section 110 plan provide for
``attainment'' of the NAAQS and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified that the
plan must include ``emission limitations, schedules, and timetables for
compliance with such limitations, and such other measures as may be
necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS].''
    In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure was not
sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At that time,
Congress for the first time added provisions requiring states and EPA
to identify whether areas of the state were violating the NAAQS (i.e.,
were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e., were attainment)
and established specific planning requirements in section 172 for areas
not meeting the NAAQS.
    In 1990, many areas still had air quality not meeting the NAAQS and
Congress again amended the CAA and added yet another layer of more
prescriptive planning requirements for each of the NAAQS, with the
primary provisions for ozone in section 182. At that same time,
Congress modified section 110 to remove references to the section 110
SIP providing for attainment, including removing pre-existing section
110(a)(2)(A) in its entirety and renumbering subparagraph (B) as
section 110(a)(2)(A).
    Additionally, Congress replaced the clause ``as may be necessary to
insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS]'' with ``as may be
necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable

requirements of this chapter.'' Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved
in the more than 40 years since it was originally enacted. While at one
time section 110 did provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions
for states and specified that such plans must provide for attainment of
the NAAQS, under the structure of the current CAA, section 110 is only
the initial stepping-stone in the planning process for a specific
NAAQS. And, more detailed, later-enacted provisions govern the
substantive planning process, including planning for attainment of the
NAAQS.
    For all of the above reasons, we disagree with the commenter that
EPA must disapprove an infrastructure SIP revision if there are
monitored violations of the standard in the state and the section
110(a)(2)(A) revision does not have detailed plans for demonstrating
how the state will bring that area into attainment. Rather, EPA
believes that the proper inquiry at this juncture is whether the state
has met the basic structural SIP requirements appropriate when EPA is
acting upon the submittal.
    Moreover, Indiana's SIP contains existing emission reduction
measures that control emissions of VOCs and NOX found in 326
IAC 8 and 326 IAC 10, respectively. Indiana's SIP revision reflects
several provisions that have the ability to reduce ground level ozone
and its precursors. The Indiana SIP relies on measures and programs
used to implement previous ozone NAAQS. Because there is no substantive
difference between the previous ozone NAAQS and the more recent ozone
NAAQS, other than the level of the standard, the provisions relied on
by Indiana will provide benefits for the new NAAQS; in other words, the
measures reduce overall ground-level ozone and its precursors and are
not limited to reducing ozone levels to meet one specific NAAQS.
Further, in approving Indiana's infrastructure SIP revision, EPA is
affirming that Indiana has sufficient authority to take the types of
actions required by the CAA in order to bring such areas back into
attainment.
    Comment 7: Sierra Club asserted that Indiana's infrastructure SIP
fails to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) and section
110(a)(2)(E) because IC 13-14-8-8 contains provisions that would allow
the board to grant variances to rules when the rules would impose
``undue hardships or burden.'' The commenter noted that EPA had cited
IC 13-14-8 as one of IDEM's mechanisms for satisfying the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(A) and section 110(a)(2)(E), but contended that
the variance provisions in IC 13-14-8-8 are too broad and vague to
ensure that emission limits and controls are properly enforced, or to
ensure that adequate legal authority is provided to carry out Indiana's
SIP. Therefore, EPA cannot approve IC 13-14-8 to meet any requirements
of section 110.
    Response 7: EPA disagrees the commenter's claim that Indiana's
infrastructure SIP fails to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) and section 110(a)(2)(E). As an initial matter, IC 13-14-
8-8 is not a regulation that has been approved into the SIP. Thus, any
variance granted by the state pursuant to this provision would not
modify the requirements of the SIP. Furthermore, for a variance from
the state to be approved into the SIP, a demonstration must be made
under CAA section 110(l) showing that the revision does not interfere
with any requirements of the act including attainment or maintenance of
a NAAQS. We disagree that the existence of this provision as solely a
matter of state law means that the state does not have adequate
authority to carry out the implementation plan.
    Comment 8: Sierra Club asserted that EPA must disapprove Indiana's
infrastructure SIP because it does not address the visibility
provisions under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The commenter noted that
EPA's basis for proposing approval for the visibility protection
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) was contingent upon EPA's
claim that Indiana has an approved regional haze SIP. The commenter
contended that Indiana's regional haze SIP was only partially approved
and no action has been taken on issues addressing the Best Available
Retrofit Technology requirements for EGUs. Therefore, the commenter
believes that EPA must disapprove the visibility protection
requirements found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for Indiana's
infrastructure SIP.
    Response 8: The commenter is correct that EPA issued a limited
disapproval of Indiana's regional haze SIP. Our limited disapproval was
based on Indiana's reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to
satisfy certain requirements for controlling emissions of
SO2 and NOX from EGUs. EPA also issued a limited
approval of the remaining portion of the regional haze plan. However,
in response to this comment, EPA is not taking final action today on
the portion of Indiana's infrastructure SIP addressing the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility.
    Comment 9: Sierra Club asserted that EPA must disapprove Indiana's
infrastructure SIP because it does not address the visibility
protection provisions, as described above, for section 110(a)(2)(J).
The commenter contended that EPA did not provide a rationale for why
the visibility provisions in section 110(a)(2)(J) are not applicable to
the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Response 9: The visibility requirements in part C of the CAA that
are referenced in section 110(a)(2)(J) are not affected by the
establishment or revision of a NAAQS. As a result, there are no
``applicable'' visibility protection obligations associated with the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Because there are no applicable
requirements, states are not required to address section 110(a)(2)(J)
in their infrastructure SIP.
    Comment 10: Sierra Club stated that EPA cannot approve Indiana's
infrastructure SIP, specifically the infrastructure element under
section 110(a)(2)(A), for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because the state has
not incorporated this NAAQS into the SIP. Instead, the commenter noted
that the SIP at the time of proposed rulemaking, specifically at 326
Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 1-3-4(b)(4)(B), contained the older
8-hour ozone NAAQS promulgated in 1997.
    Response 10: In a rulemaking published on December 18, 2014 (79 FR
75527), EPA approved revisions to Indiana's SIP incorporating the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 11: Sierra Club asserted that EPA must clarify two repealed
regulations that were cited in the proposed rulemaking. Specifically,
the commenter observed that EPA cited 326 IAC 11-5 as helping Indiana
satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) ``Emergency Powers''
and IC 13-4-8 which was cited to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(H), ``Future
SIP Revisions.''
    Response 11: EPA did not intend to engender any confusion with
these citations. The commenter is correct in noting that 326 IAC 11-5
has been repealed. That rule was of little relevance to section
110(a)(2)(G) and was incorrectly cited; the correct citation that was
provided by IDEM is SIP-approved IAC 1-5, ``Alert Levels.'' In a
similar manner, IDEM provided IC 13-14-8 as helping to meet the
requirements under section 110(a)(2)(H), but EPA incorrectly cited IC
13-4-8.
    Comment 12: Sierra Club asserted that EPA must disapprove portions
of Indiana's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS addressing
certain PM2.5 requirements under section 110(a)(2)(C). In
particular, the commenter objected to the fact that Indiana has not
codified the

increments for areas designated as class I or class III for
PM2.5. The commenter noted that while Indiana does not have
class I or class III areas, the increments for class I and class III
areas are still a requirement to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(C). The
commenter contends it is insufficient for EPA to ``hope'' that the
state will adopt the increments if areas in the state are later
redesignated to class I or class III, and therefore EPA must disapprove
this section of Indiana's infrastructure SIP.
    Response 12: EPA disagrees with the commenter's view that Indiana's
infrastructure SIP related to section 110(a)(2)(C) must be disapproved
because the state has not codified the PM2.5 increments for
class I and class III areas as provided at 40 CFR 52.166(c) and 40 CFR
52.21(c). As explained in the August 19, 2013, proposed approval,
Indiana does not currently have any areas designated class I or class
III for PM2.5. Accordingly, EPA does not consider the
PM2.5 increments for class I and class III areas to be
necessary for the implementation of PSD permitting in Indiana at this
time. In the event that areas in Indiana are one day classified as
class I or class III, EPA expects IDEM to adopt these increments and
submit them for incorporation into the SIP (see 78 FR 50360 at 50364).
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 51.166(g)(1) and 52.21(g)(1) specify that
if a state seeks to have an area reclassified to either class I or
class III, it must submit such a request as a revision to its SIP for
approval by the EPA Administrator. Thus, no areas in Indiana can be
reclassified to class I or class III without EPA approval, and the
process of evaluating such a request for approval requires a notice-
and-comment rulemaking process. The EPA and other interested parties
can evaluate the adequacy of Indiana's PSD regulations as they apply to
the proposed reclassified area at that time and, if necessary, initiate
a process to cure any identified deficiency. However, at this time, EPA
does not believe there to be an applicability gap for the
PM2.5 increments as they apply in the state of Indiana.
    Comment 13: The State of Connecticut asserts that its ability to
attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS is substantially compromised by the
transport of pollution from upwind states. Specifically, modeling
conducted by both the Ozone Transport Commission and EPA as part of the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) shows emissions from Indiana
contributing to the nonattainment problem in Connecticut. The State of
Connecticut states that it has done its share to reduce in-state
emissions, and EPA should ensure that each upwind state addresses
contribution to another downwind state's nonattainment. With regard to
the ``good neighbor provision'' in Section 1109(a)(1) of the CAA,
Connecticut characterizes Indiana's 2008 ozone submission as relying on
state regulations which implement the Clean Air Interstate Rule and
CSAPR, and that such programs were intended by EPA to address the 1997
ozone NAAQS and not the more stringent 2008 standard. Connecticut
asserts EPA should therefore disapprove the Indiana submission.
Connecticut also states that, under section 110(a)(2), Indiana was
required to submit a complete SIP that demonstrated compliance with the
good neighbor provision of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Connecticut
further suggests that the CAA does not give EPA discretion to take no
action on the submitted good neighbor provisions on the grounds of
taking a separate action. Instead, it asserts that the only action
available to EPA is to determine the approvability of the good neighbor
provision of Indiana's 2008 ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission,
or promulgate a FIP under section 110(c)(1) within two years.
    Response 13: As explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR), this action does not address, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the good
neighbor provision in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which prohibits
emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. Thus, to the extent the
comment relates to the substance or approvability of the good neighbor
provision in Indiana's 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP submission, the
comment is not relevant to the present rulemaking. As stated herein and
in the NPR, EPA will take later, separate action to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    EPA disagrees with the commenter's argument that EPA cannot approve
a SIP without the good neighbor provision. Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA
authorizes EPA to approve a plan in full, disapprove it in full, or
approve it in part and disapprove it in part, depending on the extent
to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to
approve the states' SIP revisions in separable parts was included in
the 1990 Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve
individual measures in a plan submission without either approving or
disapproving the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 22, 1990
U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling of
Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).
    The Agency interprets its authority under section 110(k)(3) as
affording it the discretion to approve or conditionally approve
individual elements of Indiana's infrastructure submission for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, separate and apart from any action with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that NAAQS.
EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP requirements, such as the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from the other
infrastructure elements, and interprets section 110(k)(3) as allowing
EPA to act on individual severable measures in a plan submission. In
short, EPA has discretion under section 110(k) to act upon the various
individual elements of the state's infrastructure SIP submission,
separately or together, as appropriate. The commenter raises no
compelling legal or environmental rationale for an alternate
interpretation.
    EPA notes, however, that it is working with state partners to
assess next steps to address air pollution that crosses state
boundaries and will later take a separate action to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA's approval of the
Indiana infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the
portions described in the NPR is, therefore, appropriate.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    For the reasons discussed in our August 19, 2013, proposed
rulemaking and in the above responses to public comments, EPA is taking
final action to approve Indiana's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS as proposed with the exception of not taking final action on
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility. In EPA's August
19, 2013, proposed rulemaking for these infrastructure SIPs, EPA also
proposed to approve Indiana's satisfaction of the state board
requirements contained in section 128 of the CAA, as well as certain
PSD requirements obligated by EPA's October 20, 2010, final rule on the
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant
Impact Levels (SILs), Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)''
(2010 NSR Rule), and the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead
NAAQS. The final approvals for each of the above requirements were
published in the Federal Register on December 24, 2013 (see 78 FR
77599, state board

requirements), July 2, 2014 (see 79 FR 37646, 2010 NSR Rule
requirements), August 11, 2013 (see 78 FR 46709, 2010 NSR Rule
requirements, continued), and October 16, 2014 (see 79 FR 62035, 2008
Lead Infrastructure requirements). In today's rulemaking, we are taking
final action on only the infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Our final actions by element of section 110(a)(2) and
NAAQS, are contained in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2008 Ozone
                        Element                               NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control measures........               A
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system....               A
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures......................               A
(C)2: PSD..............................................               A
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with                     NA
 maintenance of NAAQS..................................
(D)2: PSD..............................................               A
(D)3: Visibility Protection............................              NA
(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement...................               A
(D)5: International Pollution Abatement................               A
(E)1: Adequate resources...............................               A
(E)2: State boards.....................................               A
(F): Stationary source monitoring system...............               A
(G): Emergency power...................................               A
(H): Future SIP revisions..............................               A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under                 NA
 part D................................................
(J)1: Consultation with government officials...........               A
(J)2: Public notification..............................               A
(J)3: PSD..............................................               A
(J)4: Visibility protection (Regional Haze)............              NA
(K): Air quality modeling and data.....................               A
(L): Permitting fees...................................               A
(M): Consultation and participation by affected local                 A
 entities..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the table above, the key is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A......................................  Approve.
NA.....................................  No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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);
     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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 29, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 16, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. In Sec.  52.770, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry in alphabetical order for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Indiana Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Title                    Indiana date         EPA Approval                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure            12/12/2011   4/29/2015, [insert        This action addresses the
 Requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.                   Federal Register          following CAA elements:
                                                          citation].                110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
                                                                                (D)(i)(II) except
                                                                                visibility, (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J) except
                                                                                visibility, (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-09883 Filed 4-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 70830]
[DOCID:fr13de07-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR08-7-000]

Bay Gas Storage Company, Ltd.; Notice of Petition for Rate
Approval

December 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2007, Bay Gas Storage Company,
Ltd., (Bay Gas Storage) filed pursuant to section 311 of the Natural
Gas Policy Act of 1978, and section 284.123 of the Commission's
regulations, a petition for market based rates for continued firm and
interruptible storage services, and for new interruptible hub services,
including wheeling services, for Bay Gas Storage's operations at its
underground salt dome cavern natural gas storage facilities, and
related transportation facilities, in Washington and Mobile Counties,
Alabama, and a proposed definition of such interruptible transportation
wheeling service. Bay Gas Storage states that it does not have market
power in any relevant product or geographic market for storage services
and has submitted a market power study with its petition, which
supports the conclusion that Bay Gas Storage lacks market power.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time December 17, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24099 Filed 12-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                                 ATTACHMENT L

Standard Consultation Questions from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
              Respondents to the Information Collection Request:
         "Application for New and Amended Pesticide Registration"

Company Name: BPIA
Name of person contacted: Amy Plato Roberts
Date: January 21, 2020

 Consultation Questions

 Publicly Available Data

 Is the information that the Agency seeks available from any public source or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?

 If yes, where can you find the data?

 Frequency of Collection

 Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same outcome?

 Clarity of Instructions

 The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can utilize them.

 Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and how to submit the data?

 If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?

 Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?

 Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult to submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to complete?

 Regarding the any pesticide registration forms, do you use them? Are they clear, logical, and easy to complete?

 Electronic Reporting and Record keeping

            The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so. One such reason was that, before September 2015, the Agency was unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet.

 What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records and data submissions? Current electronic reporting alternatives include the use of "web forms"/XML based submissions via the Agency's internet site, magnetic media-based submissions (e.g., diskette, CD-ROM, etc.), and through EPA's new Pesticide Submissions Portal (PSP).

 Are you keeping your records electronically? If yes, in what format?

 Have you used the new Pesticide Submissions Portal?

 If yes, how long did it take you to create a login and a password through the Central Data Exchange (CDX) reporting site? How long did it take you to submit each form on PSP?

 Since the Agency started offering an electronic reporting option for CBI-related data through EPA's CDX reporting site, would you be more inclined to submit CBI via PSP or on diskette than on paper?

 What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information?

 Burden and Costs

 Are the labor rates accurate?

 The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct?

 Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate?

 Have you incurred additional paperwork burden as a result of third-party disclosure requirements involving disclosing product specific information to potential users and the general public through the pesticide label?

 Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?

If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.