[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20058-20060]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8476]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64186; File No. SR-EDGX-2011-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change
To Adopt Rule 3.22 (Proxy Voting), in Accordance With the Provisions of
Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act

April 5, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'' or ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on March 24, 2011, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the
``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons, and is approving
the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 3.22 (Proxy Voting), in
accordance with the provisions of Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the ``Dodd-Frank Act''). The
text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 and is
available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.directedge.com, at
the Exchange's principal office, and at the Public Reference Room of
the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared
summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt EDGX Rule 3.22 (Proxy Voting),
in accordance with the provisions of Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act,
to prohibit Members from voting uninstructed shares if the matter voted
on relates to (i) The election of a member of the board of directors of
an issuer (other than an uncontested election of a director of an
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(the ``Investment Company Act'')), (ii) executive compensation, or
(iii) any other significant matter, as determined by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission''), by rule.
    Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act amends Section 6(b) \3\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'') [sic] to require
the rules of each national securities exchange to prohibit any member
organization that is not the beneficial owner of a security registered
under Section 12 \4\ of the Exchange Act from granting a proxy to vote
the security in connection with certain stockholder votes, unless the
beneficial owner of the security has instructed the member organization
to vote the proxy in accordance with the voting instructions of the
beneficial owner. The stockholder votes covered by Section 957 include
any vote with respect to (i) The election of a member of the board of
directors of an issuer (other than an uncontested election of a
director of an investment company registered under the Investment
Company Act), (ii) executive compensation, or (iii) any other
significant matter, as determined by the Commission, by rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, in order to carry out the requirements of Section 957
of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Exchange proposes to adopt proposed EDGX
Rule 3.22 to prohibit any Member from giving a proxy to vote stock that
is registered in its name, unless: (i) Such Member is the beneficial
owner of such stock; (ii) pursuant to the written instructions of the
beneficial owner; or (iii) pursuant to the rules of any national
securities exchange or association of which it is a member provided
that the records of the Member clearly indicate the procedure it is
following. The Exchange is proposing to adopt these rules because other
national securities exchanges and associations do allow proxy voting
under certain limited circumstances while the current Exchange Rules
are silent on such matters. Therefore, a Member that is also a member
of another national securities exchange or association may vote the
shares held for a customer when allowed under its membership at another
national securities exchange or association, provided that the records
of the Member clearly indicate the procedure it is following.
    Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Member that is not the beneficial
owner of a security registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act is
prohibited from granting a proxy to vote the security in connection
with a shareholder vote with respect to the election of a member of the
board of directors of an issuer (except for a vote with respect to
uncontested election of a member of the board of directors of any
investment company registered under the Investment Company Act),
executive compensation, or any other significant matter, as determined
by the Commission, by rule, unless the beneficial owner of the security
has instructed the Member to vote the proxy in accordance with the
voting instructions of the beneficial owner.
    Because Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act does not provide for a
transition phase, the Exchange is

proposing to adopt the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)
of the Exchange Act to comply with Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act
and is requesting that the Commission approve the proposal on an
accelerated basis. Additionally, proposed EDGX Rule 3.22(a) is based on
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') rule 9.4 and Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') rule 2251, International Securities
Exchange, LLC (``ISE'') rule 421(a) and proposed EDGX Rule 3.22(b) is
based on Nasdaq rule 2251(d) and ISE rule 421(b).
Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act \5\ and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(10) \7\ requirements that all national
securities exchanges adopt rules prohibiting members from voting,
without receiving instructions from the beneficial owner of shares, on
the election of a member of a board of directors of an issuer (except
for a vote with respect to the uncontested election of a member of the
board of directors of any investment company registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940), executive compensation, or any other
significant matter, as determined by the Commission, by rule. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements under Section 6(b)(5) \8\ that an exchange have rules
that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange is adopting this proposed rule change to comply with the
requirements of Section 957 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and therefore
believes the proposed rule change to be consistent with the Act,
particularly with respect to the protection of investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2011-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2011-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2011-07 and should be
submitted on or before May 2, 2011.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing, the Exchange requested that the Commission approve
the proposal on an accelerated basis so that the Exchange could
immediately comply with the requirements imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act,
and because the proposed rule text is based upon ISE Rule 421, FINRA
Rule 2251, Nasdaq Rule 2251(d), and NYSE Arca Rule 9.4.\9\ After
careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release 63139 (October 20,
2010), 75 FR 65680 (October 26, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-99); 61052
(November 23, 2009), 74 FR 62857 (December 1, 2009) (SR-FINRA-2009-
066) (finding that the proposed rule change was consistent with the
Act because the Rule ``will continue to provide FINRA members with
guidance on the forwarding of proxy and other issuer-related
materials.''); 62992 (September 24, 2010), 75 FR 60844 (October 1,
2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-114); and 48735 (October 31, 2003), 68 FR
63173 (November 7, 2003) (SR-PCX-2003-50).
    \10\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that proposed Rule 3.22(a) is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) \11\ of the Act, which provides, among other
things, that the rules of the Exchange must be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and are
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed Rule 3.22(a), a Member shall be prohibited from
voting uninstructed shares unless (1) That Member is the beneficial
owner of the stock; (2) pursuant to the written instructions of the
beneficial owner; or (3) pursuant to the rules of any national
securities exchange or association of which it is also a member,
provided that the Member's records clearly indicate the procedure it is
following. This provision is based on ISE Rule 421, FINRA Rule 2251 and
NYSE Arca Rule 9.4, which were previously approved by

the Commission.\12\ The Commission notes that the proposed change will
provide clarity to Exchange Members going forward on whether broker
discretionary voting is permitted by Exchange Members under limited
circumstances when the Member is also a member of another national
securities exchange that permits broker discretionary voting. In
approving this portion of the proposal, the Commission notes that Rule
3.22(a) is consistent with the approach taken under the rules of other
national securities exchanges or national securities association, and
for Exchange Members who are not also members of another national
securities exchange prohibits broker discretionary voting on any
matter, consistent with investor protection and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that proposed Rule 3.22(b) is consistent
with Section 6(b)(10) \13\ of the Act, which requires that national
securities exchanges adopt rules prohibiting members that are not
beneficial holders of a security from voting uninstructed proxies with
respect to the election of a member of the board of directors of an
issuer (except for uncontested elections of directors for companies
registered under the Investment Company Act), executive compensation,
or any other significant matter, as determined by the Commission by
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that proposed Rule 3.22(b) is consistent
with Section 6(b)(10) of the Act because it adopts revisions that
comply with that section. As noted in the accompanying Senate Report,
Section 957, which enacted Section 6(b)(10), reflects the principle
that ``final vote tallies should reflect the wishes of the beneficial
owners of the stock and not be affected by the wishes of the broker
that holds the shares.'' \14\ The proposed rule change will make the
Exchange compliant with the new requirements of Section 6(b)(10) by
specifically prohibiting broker-dealers, who are not beneficial owners
of a security, from voting uninstructed shares in connection with a
shareholder vote on the election of a member of the board of directors
of an issuer (except for a vote with respect to the uncontested
election of a member of the board of directors of any investment
company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940), executive
compensation, or any other significant matter, as determined by the
Commission by rule, unless the member receives voting instructions from
the beneficial owner of the shares.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See S. Rep. No. 111-176, at 136 (2010).
    \15\ The Commission has not, to date, adopted rules concerning
other significant matters where uninstructed broker votes should be
prohibited, although it may do so in the future. Should the
Commission adopt such rules, we would expect the Exchange to adopt
coordinating rules promptly to comply with the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that proposed Rule 3.22(b) is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) \16\ of the Act, which provides, among
other things, that the rules of the Exchange must be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest, and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the rule assures that shareholder
votes on the election of the board of directors of an issuer (except
for a vote with respect to the uncontested election of a member of the
board of directors of any investment company registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940) and on executive compensation matters
are made by those with an economic interest in the company, rather than
by a broker that has no such economic interest, which should enhance
corporate governance and accountability to shareholders.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As the Commission stated in approving NYSE rules
prohibiting broker voting in the election of directors, having those
with an economic interest in the company vote the shares, rather
than the broker who has no such economic interest, furthers the goal
of enfranchising shareholders. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 60215 (July 1, 2009), 74 FR 33293 (July 10, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2006-
92).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above, the Commission finds that the Exchange's
proposal will further the purposes of Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(10) of
the Act because it should enhance corporate accountability to
shareholders while also serving to fulfill the Congressional intent in
adopting Section 6(b)(10) of the Act.
    The Commission also finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\18\ for approving the proposed rule change prior to the
30th day after the date of publication of notice in the Federal
Register. The Commission believes that good cause exists to grant
accelerated approval to proposed Rule 3.22(a), because this proposed
rule will conform the Exchange rule to ISE Rule 421, NYSE Arca Rule 9.4
and FINRA Rule 2251, which were published for public comment in the
Federal Register and approved by the Commission, and for which no
comments were received.\19\ Because proposed Rule 3.22(a) is
substantially similar to the ISE, NYSE Arca and FINRA rules, it raises
no new regulatory issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \19\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that good cause exists to grant
accelerated approval to proposed Rule 3.22(b), which conforms the
Exchange's rules to the requirements of Section 6(b)(10) of the Act.
Section 6(b)(10) of the Act, enacted under Section 957 of the Dodd-
Frank Act, does not provide for a transition phase, and requires rules
of national securities exchanges to prohibit broker voting on the
election of a member of the board of directors of an issuer (except for
a vote with respect to the uncontested election of a member of the
board of directors of any investment company registered under the
Investment Company Act of 1940), executive compensation, or any other
significant matter, as determined by the Commission by rule. The
Commission believes that good cause exists to grant accelerated
approval to proposed Rule 3.22(b), because it will conform the Exchange
rule to the requirements of Section 6(b)(10) of the Act. Moreover,
proposed Rule 3.22(b) is substantially similar to ISE Rule 421 and
Nasdaq Rule 2251.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule change (SR-EDGX-2011-07) be, and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8476 Filed 4-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50360-50369]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20155]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0888; EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969; EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0567;
EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0988; FRL-9900-19-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead and Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Indiana PSD; Indiana State
Board Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve elements of state implementation
plan (SIP) submissions by Indiana regarding the infrastructure
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2008 lead and 2008 8-hour ground level ozone national ambient
air quality standards (2008 Pb and ozone 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. EPA is also proposing to
approve portions of submissions from Indiana addressing EPA's
requirements for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
program. Lastly, EPA is proposing to approve a submission from Indiana
addressing the state board requirements under section 128 of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0888 (2008 Pb infrastructure SIP elements), EPA-R05-OAR-2011-
0969 (2008 ozone infrastructure SIP elements), EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0567
(PSD elements), or EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0988 (state board requirements), by
one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-
0888 (2008 Pb infrastructure SIP elements), EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0969 (2008
ozone infrastructure SIP elements), EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0567 (PSD
elements), or EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0988 (state board requirements). EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: 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., CBI 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 Andy Chang, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
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 should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
    A. What state SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?
    B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?
    C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
    A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control
Measures
    B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data
System
    C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control
Measures; PSD
    D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport
    E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate Resources
    F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System

    G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers
    H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions
    I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan
Revisions Under Part D
    J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials;
Public Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection
    K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data
    L. Section 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting Fees
    M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected
Local Entities
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What state SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses the following: A December 12, 2011,
submission from the State of Indiana intended to meet the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS; a July
12, 2012, submission that was supplemented on December 12, 2012, to
address various EPA requirements for its PSD program for incorporation
into its PSD SIP; and, a November 29, 2012, submission that was
supplemented on December 12, 2012, and May 22, 2013, to address the
state board requirements under section 128 for incorporation into the
SIP. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has
requested that EPA approve these revisions with respect to PSD, as well
as the state board requirements of section 128, as satisfying any
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb and ozone
NAAQS.

B. Why did the state make these SIP submissions?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including
the 2008 Pb and 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 Pb and ozone
already meet those requirements.
    EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007,
guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo).
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional guidance document
pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2009 Memo). The most recent infrastructure SIP
guidance document to date is entitled, ``Guidance on infrastructure SIP
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead
(Pb) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Memo) and
was issued on October 14, 2011. Indiana's SIP submissions referenced in
this rulemaking pertain to the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(1) and (2), and primarily address the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
To the extent that the PSD program is comprehensive and non-NAAQS
specific, a narrow evaluation of other NAAQS, such as the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, will be included in the
appropriate sections.

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    This rulemaking will not cover four substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to
the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM'');
(ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or
``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); (iii) existing provisions for minor source
new source review (NSR) programs that may be inconsistent with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such
programs; and, (iv) existing provisions for 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 of these four areas in separate rulemakings. A detailed
rationale can be found in EPA's July 13, 2011, final rule entitled,
``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' in the
section entitled, ``What is the scope of this final rulemaking?'' (see
76 FR 41075 at 41076-41079).
    In addition, EPA is not acting on portions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Interstate transport and section 110(a)(2)(J)--
Consultation with government officials, public notifications, PSD, and
visibility protection. EPA is also not acting on section 110(a)(2)(I)--
Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D, in its
entirety. The rationale for not acting on elements of these
requirements is discussed below.

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?

    EPA's guidance for these infrastructure SIP submissions is embodied
in the 2007 Memo. Specifically, attachment A of this memorandum
(Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the statutory elements
that states need to submit in order to satisfy the requirements for an
infrastructure SIP submission. The 2009 Memo was issued to provide
additional guidance for certain elements to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, and the 2011 Memo provides
guidance specific to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.

IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?

    As noted in the 2011 Memo, pursuant to section 110(a), states must
provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all
infrastructure SIP submissions. Indiana provided the opportunity for
public comment between October 28, 2011, and December 9, 2011.
Additionally, IDEM provided an opportunity for a public

hearing. No comments were received during the comment period, and a
public hearing was not requested. EPA is also soliciting comment on our
evaluation of IDEM's infrastructure SIP submission in this notice of
proposed rulemaking. Indiana provided a detailed synopsis of how
various components of its SIP meets each of the requirements in section
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS, as applicable. The following
review evaluates Indiana's submissions.

A. Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits and Other Control Measures

    This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits
and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for
compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA has long
interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the
standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are
due.\1\ In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating
the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only
evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for
the implementation of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., EPA's 73 FR 66964 at 67034, final rule on
``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEM's authority to adopt emissions standards and compliance
schedules is found at Indiana Code (IC) 13-14-8, IC 13-17-3-4, IC 13-
17-3-11, and IC 13-17-3-14. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to
the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
    As previously noted, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove
any existing state provisions or rules related to SSM or director's
discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A).

B. Section 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for
establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and
analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to
EPA upon request. This review of the annual monitoring plan includes
EPA's determination that the state: (i) Monitors air quality at
appropriate locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal
Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits
data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, (iii)
provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned
changes to monitoring sites or the network plan.
    IDEM continues to operate an air monitoring network; EPA approved
the state's 2013 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan on October 31,
2012, including the plan for Pb and ozone. IDEM enters air monitoring
data into AQS, and the state provides EPA with prior notification when
changes to its monitoring network or plan are being considered. EPA
proposes that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.

C. Section 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for Enforcement of Control Measures;
PSD

    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under the PSD and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA
(sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections
171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
    The evaluation of Indiana's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i)
Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD program for the 2008 Pb and ozone
NAAQS including provisions that explicitly identify oxides of nitrogen
(NOx) as a precursor to ozone in the PSD program; (iii) identification
of precursors to PM2.5 and the identification of
PM2.5 and PM10 \2\ condensables in the PSD
program; (iv) PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; and, (v)
greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ PM10 refers to particles with diameters between
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as ``coarse'' particles.
    \3\ In EPA's April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking for
infrastructure SIPS for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS,
we stated that each state's PSD program must meet applicable
requirements for evaluation of all regulated NSR pollutants in PSD
permits (see 76 FR 23757 at 23760). This view was reiterated in
EPA's August 2, 2012, proposed rulemaking for infrastructure SIPs
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 77 FR 45992 at 45998). In
other words, if a state lacks provisions needed to adequately
address Pb, NOX as a precursor to ozone, PM2.5
precursors, PM2.5 and PM10 condensables,
PM2.5 increments, or the Federal GHG permitting
thresholds, the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring a
suitable PSD permitting program must be considered not to be met
irrespective of the NAAQS that triggered the requirement to submit
an infrastructure SIP, including both the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-Element 1: Enforcement of SIP measures
    IDEM maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP
requirements. IC 13-14-1-12 provides the Commissioner with the
authority to enforce rules ``consistent with the purpose of the air
pollution control laws.'' Additionally, IC 13-14-2-7 and IC 13-17-3-3
provide the Commissioner with the authority to assess civil penalties
and obtain compliance with any applicable rule a board has adopted in
order to enforce air pollution control laws. Lastly, IC 13-14-10-2
allows for an emergency restraining order that prevents any person from
causing, or introducing contaminants, that cause or contribute to air
pollution. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the enforcement of SIP
measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008
Pb and ozone NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: PSD Program for the 2008 Pb and Ozone NAAQS
    Pursuant to the 2011 Memo, a state should demonstrate that it is
authorized to implement its PSD permit program to ensure that the
construction of major stationary sources does not cause or contribute
to a violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Indiana's EPA-approved SIP rules,
contained at 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 2-2, contain
provisions that adequately address the applicable infrastructure SIP
requirements related to the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects
of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate
Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase
2 Rule) was published on November 8, 2005 (see 70 FR 71612). Among
other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their
PSD programs to explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to
ozone (70 FR 71612 at 71679, 71699-71700). This requirement was
codified in 40 CFR 51.166, and consisted of the following: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Similar changes were codified in 40 CFR 52.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(ii): A major source that is major for volatile
organic compounds or NOX shall be considered major for
ozone;
    40 CFR 51.166 (b)(2)(ii): Any significant emissions increase (as
defined at paragraph (b)(39) of this

section) from any emissions units or net emissions increase (as defined
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section) at a major stationary source that
is significant for volatile organic compounds or NOX shall
be considered significant for ozone;
    40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i): Ozone: 40 tons per year (tpy) of volatile
organic compounds or nitrogen oxides;
    40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i): \5\ Any pollutant for which a national
ambient air quality standard has been promulgated and any constituents
or precursors for such pollutants identified by the Administrator
(e.g., volatile organic compounds and NOX) are precursors
for ozone; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Note that this section of 40 CFR 51.166 has been amended as
a result of EPA's Final Rule on the ``Implementation of the New
Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5); the regulatory text as listed was
current as of the issuance of the Phase 2 Rule. The current citation
for the VOCs and NOX as precursors for ozone are
contained in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(e) footnote 1: No de minimis air quality
level is provided for ozone. However, any net emissions increase of 100
tpy or more of volatile organic compounds or nitrogen oxides subject to
PSD would be required to perform an ambient impact analysis, including
the gathering of air quality data.
    The Phase 2 Rule required that states submit SIP revisions
incorporating the requirements of the rule, including these specific
NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions, by June 15, 2007
(see 70 FR 71612 at 71683). EPA approved revisions to Indiana's PSD SIP
reflecting these requirements on October 29, 2012 (see 77 FR 65478).
    EPA proposes that Indiana has met this set of infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb and
ozone NAAQS.
Sub-Element 3: Identification of Precursors to PM2.5 and the
Identification of PM2.5 and PM10 Condensables in
the PSD Program
    On May 16, 2008 (see 73 FR 28321), EPA issued the Final Rule on the
``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (2008 NSR Rule).
The 2008 NSR Rule finalized several new requirements for SIPS to
address sources that emit direct PM2.5 and other pollutants
that contribute to secondary PM2.5 formation. One of these
requirements is for NSR permits to address pollutants responsible for
the secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise known as
precursors. In the 2008 rule, EPA identified precursors to
PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX (unless the state demonstrates to
the Administrator's satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that
NOX emissions in an area are not a significant contributor
to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 2008 NSR
Rule also specifies that volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are not
considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD program
unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction or
EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are significant
contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
    The explicit references to SO2, NOX, and VOCs
as they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of
identifying pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, the
2008 NSR Rule also required states to revise the definition of
``significant'' as it relates to a net emissions increase or the
potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) define ``significant'' for
PM2.5 to mean the following emissions rates: 10 tpy of
direct PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of
NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX emissions in an
area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient
PM2.5 concentrations). The deadline for states to submit SIP
revisions to their PSD programs incorporating these changes was May 16,
2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA,
706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), held that EPA should have issued the 2008
NSR Rule in accordance with the CAA's requirements for
PM10 nonattainment areas (Title I, Part D, subpart 4),
and not the general requirements for nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 (Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1250).
As the subpart 4 provisions apply only to nonattainment areas, the
EPA does not consider the portions of the 2008 rule that address
requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable
areas to be affected by the court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not
anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated by
the 2008 NSR rule in order to comply with the court's decision.
Accordingly, the EPA's approval of Indiana's infrastructure SIP as
to elements (C), (D)(i)(II), or (J) with respect to the PSD
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule does not
conflict with the court's opinion. The Court's decision with respect
to the nonattainment NSR requirements promulgated by the 2008
implementation rule also does not affect EPA's action on the present
infrastructure action. EPA interprets the CAA to exclude
nonattainment area requirements, including requirements associated
with a nonattainment NSR program, from infrastructure SIP
submissions due three years after adoption or revision of a NAAQS.
Instead, these elements are typically referred to as nonattainment
SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by the dates
statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part D,
extending as far as 10 years following designations for some
elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2008 NSR Rule did not require states to immediately account for
gases that could condense to form particulate matter, known as
condensables, in PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits
in NSR permits. Instead, EPA determined that states had to account for
PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for applicability
determinations and in establishing emissions limitations for
PM2.5 and PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or
after January 1, 2011. This requirement is codified in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). Revisions to states'
PSD programs incorporating the inclusion of condensables were required
be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341).
    EPA approved revisions to Indiana's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on October 29, 2012 (see 77 FR 65478), and therefore
proposes that Indiana has met this set of infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 Pb and
ozone NAAQS.
Sub-Element 4: PM2.5 Increments in the PSD Program
    On October 20, 2010, EPA issued the final rule on the ``Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (2010 NSR
Rule). This rule established several components for making PSD
permitting determinations for PM2.5, including a system of
``increments'' which is the mechanism used to estimate significant
deterioration of ambient air quality for a pollutant. These increments
are codified in 40 CFR 51.166(c) and 40 CFR 52.21(c), and are included
in the table below.

Table 1--PM2.5 Increments Established by the 2010 NSR Rule in Micrograms
                             per Cubic Meter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Annual
                                            arithmetic      24-hour max
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I.................................               1               2
Class II................................               4               9
Class III...............................               8              18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2010 NSR Rule also established a new ``major source baseline
date'' for PM2.5 as October 20, 2010, and a new trigger date
for PM2.5 as October 20, 2011. These revisions are codified
in 40

CFR 51.166(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c), and 40 CFR
52.21(b)(14)(i)(c) and (b)(14)(ii)(c). Lastly, the 2010 NSR Rule
revised the definition of ``baseline area'' to include a level of
significance of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter, annual average, for
PM2.5. This change is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(15)(i)
and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(15)(i).
    On July 12, 2012, and supplemented on December 12, 2012, IDEM
submitted revisions intended to address the increments established by
the 2010 NSR Rule for incorporation into the SIP, as well as the
revised major source baseline date, trigger date, and baseline area
level of significance for PM2.5. IDEM also requested that
these revisions satisfy any applicable infrastructure SIP requirements
related to PSD. Specifically, revisions to 326 IAC 2-2-6(b) contain the
Federal increments for PM2.5, 326 IAC 2-2-1(ee)(3) contains
the new major source baseline date for PM2.5 of October 20,
2010, 326 IAC 2-2-1(gg)(1)(C) contains the new trigger date for
PM2.5 of October 20, 2011, and 326 IAC 2-2-1(f)(1) contains
the new baseline area level of significance for PM2.5. It
should be noted that Indiana's submitted revisions explicitly include
only the PM2.5 increments as they apply to Class II areas,
and not the PM2.5 increments as they apply to Class I or
Class III areas. However, Indiana's requested revisions specify that if
areas in the state are one day classified as Class I or III, the PSD
increments pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 would be adhered to. Because the
state's requested revisions are substantively identical to Federal
regulations, EPA therefore proposes to approve 326 IAC 2-2-6(b) into
the SIP, and also proposes that Indiana has met this set of
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to
the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS. In the event that areas in Indiana are one
day designated as Class I or Class III, EPA expects IDEM to adopt the
Federally promulgated increments pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21, and submit
them for incorporation into the SIP.
Sub-Element 5: GHG Permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule''
    On June 3, 2010, EPA issued a final rule establishing a ``common
sense'' approach to addressing GHG emissions from stationary sources
under the CAA permitting programs. The ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,'' or
``Tailoring Rule,'' set thresholds for GHG emissions that define when
permits under the NSR PSD and title V operating permit programs are
required for new and existing industrial facilities (see 75 FR 31514).
The Tailoring Rule set the GHG PSD applicability threshold at 75,000
tpy as expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent; if states have not
adopted this threshold, sources with GHG emissions above 100 tpy or 250
tpy (depending on source category) would be subject to PSD, effective
January 2, 2011. The lower thresholds could potentially result in
certain residential and commercial sources triggering GHG PSD
requirements.
    On December 23, 2010, EPA issued a subsequent series of rules that
put the necessary framework in place to ensure that industrial
facilities can get CAA permits covering their GHG emissions when
needed, and that facilities emitting GHGs at levels below those
established in the Tailoring Rule do not need to obtain CAA permits.\7\
Included in this series of rules was EPA's issuance of the ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans,'' referred to as the PSD SIP ``Narrowing Rule'' on December 30,
2010 (see 75 FR 82536). The Narrowing Rule limits, or ``narrows,''
EPA's approval of PSD programs that were previously approved into SIPs;
the programs in question are those that apply PSD to sources that emit
GHG. Specifically, the effect of the Narrowing Rule is that provisions
that are no longer approved--e.g., portions of already approved SIPs
that apply PSD to GHG emissions increases from sources emitting GHG
below the Tailoring Rule thresholds--now have the status of having been
submitted by the state but not yet acted upon by EPA. In other words,
the Narrowing Rule focuses on eliminating the PSD obligations under
Federal law for sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://www.epa.gov/NSR/actions.html#2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 28, 2011 (76 FR 59899), EPA approved revisions to
Indiana's PSD SIP that included the adoption of the Federal thresholds
for PSD permitting of GHG-emitting sources. Indiana's December 12,
2011, submission states that it intended for our September 28, 2011,
approval to satisfy applicable GHG permitting requirements related to
their 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP. Therefore, EPA
proposes that Indiana's GHG permitting program has met this set of
requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(C) and (E) for the 2008 Pb
and ozone NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that states have the resources
to administer an air quality management program. Some states that
are not covered by the Narrowing Rule may not be able to adequately
demonstrate that they have adequate personnel to issue GHG permits
to all sources that emit GHG under the Tailoring Rule thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA reiterates that minor NSR regulations and NSR reform
regulations are not in the scope of infrastructure SIP actions.
Therefore, we are not proposing to approve or disapprove existing minor
NSR regulations or NSR reform regulations for Indiana's 2008 Pb and
ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP. To address the pre-construction
regulation of the modification and construction of minor stationary
sources and minor modifications of major stationary sources, an
infrastructure SIP submission should identify the existing EPA-approved
SIP provisions and/or include new provisions that govern the minor
source pre-construction program that regulates emissions of the
relevant NAAQS pollutants. EPA approved Indiana's minor NSR program on
October 7, 1994 (see 59 FR 51108), and since that date, IDEM and EPA
have relied on the existing minor NSR program to ensure that new and
modified sources not captured by the major NSR permitting programs do
not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 2008 Pb and ozone
NAAQS.
    Furthermore, various sub-elements in this section overlap with
elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), section 110(a)(2)(E) and section
110(a)(2)(J). These links will be discussed in the appropriate areas
below.

D. Section 110(a)(2)(D)--Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state.
    With respect to the 2008 Pb NAAQS, the 2011 Memo notes that the
physical properties of Pb prevent it from experiencing the same travel
or formation phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone. Specifically,
there is a sharp decrease in Pb concentrations as the distance from a
Pb source increases. Accordingly, it may be possible for a source in a
state to emit Pb at a location and in such quantities that contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interference with maintenance by,
any other state. However, EPA anticipates that this would be a rare
situation, e.g., sources emitting large quantities of Pb are in close
proximity to state boundaries. The 2011 Memo suggests that the
applicable interstate transport

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be met through a state's
assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb sources located in
close proximity to its borders have emissions that impact a neighboring
state such that they contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in that state. One way that a state's
conclusion could be supported is by the technical support documents
used for initial area designations for Pb.
    In its infrastructure SIP submission, IDEM noted that a small
portion of Delaware County in east central Indiana was designated as
nonattainment for the 2008 Pb NAAQS (see 75 FR 71033). IDEM observed
that this area is approximately 30 miles from the Indiana-Ohio state
line. IDEM further noted that there are no other areas with sources
that emit Pb at or above 0.5 tpy. EPA does not believe that the
elevated levels of ambient Pb concentrations in Delaware County (or
emissions from any other county) would cause or contribute to a
violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS in Ohio, or create a situation in Ohio
where maintenance of the 2008 Pb NAAQS was not possible. The final
technical support document for Delaware County supports the notion that
the ambient concentrations of Pb are not expected to exceed the NAAQS
outside of the nonattainment boundaries. Therefore, EPA proposes that
Indiana has met this set of requirements related to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.
    In this notice, we are not proposing to act on the portions of
Indiana's submission intended to address the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Rather, we intend to take separate action on Indiana's satisfaction of
these requirements.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another state.
    EPA notes that Indiana's satisfaction of the applicable
infrastructure SIP PSD requirements for the 2008 lead and ozone NAAQS
has been detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA
notes that the proposed actions in that section related to PSD are
consistent with the proposed actions related to PSD for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and they are reiterated below.
    EPA has previously approved revisions to Indiana's SIP that meet
certain requirements obligated by the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR
Rule. These revisions included provisions that: Explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone, explicitly identify
SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5,
and regulate condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in
applicability determinations and establishing emissions limits. EPA has
also previously approved revisions to Indiana's SIP adopting the
Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds for GHG emitting sources for PSD
permitting. Indiana's SIP contains provisions that adequately address
the 2008 Pb NAAQS, and in this action, EPA is also proposing to approve
revisions to Indiana's SIP that incorporate the PM2.5
increments and the associated implementation regulations including the
major source baseline date, trigger date, and level of significance for
PM2.5 per the 2010 NSR Rule. States also have an obligation
to ensure that sources located in nonattainment areas do not interfere
with a neighboring state's PSD program. One way that this requirement
can be satisfied is through a suitable NNSR program that addresses any
pollutants for which there is a designated nonattainment areas within
the state. Indiana's EPA-approved NNSR regulations are contained as
part of their PSD program regulations, and can be found in 326 IAC 2-2.
Specifically, these regulations contain provisions for how the state
must treat and control sources in ozone and Pb nonattainment areas,
consistent with 40 CFR 51.165, or appendix S to 40 CFR part 51.
Therefore EPA proposes that Indiana has met all of the applicable PSD
requirements for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS related to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the
CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2009 Memo and the 2011
Memo state that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP
addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required,
or an approved SIP addressing regional haze. EPA's final approval of
Indiana's regional haze plan was published on June 11, 2012 (see 77 FR
34218). Therefore, EPA proposes that Indiana has met this set of
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the
2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate
provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of
section 126 and section 115 (relating to interstate and international
pollution abatement, respectively).
    Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify
neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute
does not specify the method by which the source should provide the
notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a
provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources. A
lack of such a requirement in state rules would be grounds for
disapproval of this element.
    Indiana has provisions in its EPA-approved PSD program requiring
new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential
negative air quality impacts, and has referenced this program as having
adequate provisions to meet the requirements of section 126(a). EPA is
proposing that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 126(a) with respect to the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS. Indiana
does not have any obligations under any other section of section 126,
nor does it have any pending obligations under section 115. EPA
therefore is proposing that Indiana has met all applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).

E. Section 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate resources

    This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and
related issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to
comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128.
Sub-Element 1: Adequate Personnel, Funding, and Legal Authority Under
State Law To Carry Out Its SIP, and Related Issues
    Indiana's biennial budget and their environmental performance
partnership agreement with EPA document funding and personnel levels
for IDEM every 2 years. As discussed in earlier sections, IC 13-14-1-12
provides the Commissioner of IDEM with the authority to enforce air
pollution control laws. Furthermore, IC 13-14-8, IC 13-17-3-11, and IC
13-17-3-14 contain the authority for IDEM to adopt air emissions
standards and compliance schedules. EPA proposes that Indiana has met
the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section
110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
    As noted above in the discussion addressing section 110(a)(2)(C),
the resources needed to permit all sources emitting more than 100 tpy
or 250 tpy

(as applicable) of GHG would require more resources than some states
appear to have. As previously discussed, however, EPA approved
revisions to Indiana's PSD program adopting the Federal Tailoring Rule
thresholds for GHG on September 28, 2011. Therefore, Indiana's SIP as
it relates to GHG-emitting sources for PSD does not involve permitting
sources smaller than the Tailoring Rule thresholds, and EPA proposes
that Indiana retains the resources necessary to implement the
requirements of its SIP.
Sub-Element 2: State Board Requirements Under Section 128 of the CAA
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions
that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the
CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this
chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the
public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their
income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under
this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed.
    On November 29, 2012, IDEM submitted rules regarding its
Environmental Rules Board at IC 13-13-8 for incorporation into the SIP,
pursuant to section 128 of the CAA. On December 12, 2012, IDEM provided
a supplemental submission clarifying that the Environmental Rules Board
established by IC 13-13-8, which has the authority to adopt
environmental regulations under IC 4-22-2 and IC 13-14-9, does not have
the authority to approve enforcement orders or permitting actions as
outlined in section 128(a)(1) of the CAA. Therefore, section 128(a)(1)
of the CAA is not applicable in Indiana.
    Under section 128(a)(2), the head of the executive agency with the
power to approve enforcement orders or permits must adequately disclose
any potential conflicts of interest. IC 13-13-8-11 ``Disclosure of
conflicts of interest'' contains provisions that adequately satisfy the
requirements of section 128(a)(2). This section requires that each
member of the board shall fully disclose any potential conflicts of
interest relating to permits or enforcement orders under the Federal
CAA, as amended by the CAA Amendments of 1990. IC 13-13-8-4 defines the
membership of the board, and the commissioner (of IDEM) or his/her
designee is explicitly included as a member of the board. Therefore,
when evaluated together in the context of section 128(a)(2), the
commissioner (of IDEM) or his/her designee must fully disclose any
potential conflicts of interest relating to permits or enforcement
orders under the CAA. EPA concludes that IDEM's submission as it
relates to the state board requirements under section 128 is consistent
with applicable CAA requirements. As a result, we are proposing to
approve these rules into the SIP. The rules consist of IC 13-13-8-1, IC
13-13-8-2(a), IC 13-18-8-2(b), IC 13-13-8-3, IC 13-13-8-4, and IC 13-
13-8-11. On May 22, 2013, IDEM requested that these rules satisfy not
only the applicable requirements of section 128 of the CAA, but that
they satisfy any applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) for
the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQs. Therefore, EPA is proposing that IDEM has
satisfied the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for this
section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.

F. Section 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary Source Monitoring System

    States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also
require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators
of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state
plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of
emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation
of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    The Indiana state rules for monitoring requirements are contained
in 326 IAC 3. Additional emissions reporting requirements are found in
326 IAC 2-6. Emission reports are available upon request by EPA or
other interested parties. EPA proposes that Indiana has satisfied the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to
the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.

G. Section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers

    This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is
analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate
contingency plans to implement such authority. The 2011 Memo states
that infrastructure SIP submissions should specify authority, rested in
an appropriate official, to restrain any source from causing or
contributing to Pb emissions which present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.
    326 IAC 11-5 establishes air pollution episode levels based on
concentrations of criteria pollutants. This rule requires that
emergency reduction plans be submitted to the Commissioner of IDEM by
major air pollution sources, and these plans must include actions that
will be taken when each episode level is declared, to reduce or
eliminate emissions of the appropriate air pollutants. Similarly, under
IC 13-17-4, Indiana also has the ability to declare an air pollution
emergency and order all persons causing or contributing to the
conditions warranting the air pollution emergency to immediately reduce
or discontinue emission of air contaminants. EPA proposes that Indiana
has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(G) related to authority to implement measures to restrain
sources from causing or contributing to emissions which present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or
the environment with respect to the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
    As indicated in the 2011 Memo, EPA believes that the central
components of a contingency plan for the 2008 Pb NAAQS would be to
reduce emissions from the source at issue and to communicate with the
public as needed. Where a state believes, based on its inventory of Pb
sources and historic monitoring data, that it does not need a more
specific contingency plan beyond having authority to restrain any
source from causing or contributing to an imminent and substantial
endangerment, then the state could provide such a detailed rationale in
place of a specific contingency plan.
    EPA has reviewed historic data at Pb monitoring sites throughout
Indiana, and believes that a specific contingency plan beyond having
authority to restrain any source from causing or contributing to an
imminent and substantial endangerment is not necessary at this time.
For example, one way to quantify the possibility of imminent and
substantial endangerment in this context would be a daily monitored
value for Pb that could by itself cause

a violation of the 2008 Pb NAAQS.\9\ EPA has reviewed data from 2010-
2012 (the most recent consecutive 36-month block of complete data) and
observes that no such daily monitored value exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See appendix R to 40 CFR part 50 for data handling
conventions and computations necessary for determining when the
NAAQS are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described in the section detailing interstate transport of Pb,
EPA does not anticipate other areas in Indiana needing specific
contingency measures due to low Pb emissions. EPA proposes that Indiana
has met the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(G) related to contingency measures for the 2008 Pb and ozone
NAAQS.

H. Section 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP Revisions

    This section requires states to have the authority to revise their
SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved
methods for attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA finding that the SIP is
substantially inadequate.
    IDEM continues to update and implement needed revisions to
Indiana's SIP as necessary to meet ambient air quality standards. As
discussed in previous sections, authority to adopt emissions standards
and compliance schedules is found at IC 13-4-8, IC 13-17-3-4, IC 13-17-
3-11, and IC 13-17-3-14. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to
the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.

I. Section 110(a)(2)(I)--Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions
Under Part D

    The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area
designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of
part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas.
    EPA has determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to
the infrastructure SIP process. Instead, EPA takes action on part D
attainment plans through separate processes.

J. Section 110(a)(2)(J)--Consultation With Government Officials; Public
Notifications; PSD; Visibility Protection

    The evaluation of Indiana's submission addressing the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(J) are described below.
Sub-Element 1: Consultation With Government Officials
    States must provide a process for consultation with local
governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS
implementation requirements. IDEM actively participates in the regional
planning efforts that include state rule developers, representatives
from the FLMs, and other affected stakeholders. Additionally, Indiana
is an active member of the Lake Michigan Air Director's Consortium,
which consists of collaboration with the States of Illinois, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J)
with respect to the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: Public Notification
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if
NAAQS are exceeded in an area and must enhance public awareness of
measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.
    IDEM monitors air quality data daily, and reports the air quality
index to the interested public and media if necessary. IDEM also
participates and submits information to EPA's AIRNOW program, and
maintains SmogWatch, which is an informational tool created by IDEM to
share air quality forecasts for each day. SmogWatch provides daily
information about ground-level ozone, particulate matter concentration
levels, health information, and monitoring data for seven regions in
Indiana. IDEM also maintains a publicly available Web site that allows
interested members of the community and other stakeholders to view
current monitoring data summaries, including those for ozone and
Pb.\10\ IDEM has also published fact sheets available to the public
that pertain the 2008 Pb NAAQS, including strategies to mitigate human
exposure.\11\ EPA proposes that Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP
requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to
the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See http://www.in.gov/idem/airquality/2489.htm.
    \11\ See, e.g., http://www.in.gov/idem/files/factsheet_air_quality_lead.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub-Element 3: PSD
    States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C)
related to PSD. IDEM's PSD program in the context of infrastructure
SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs addressing section
110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and EPA notes that the proposed
actions for those sections are consistent with the proposed actions for
this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). Our proposed actions are
reiterated below.
    EPA has previously approved revisions to Indiana's SIP that meet
certain requirements obligated by the Phase 2 Rule and the 2008 NSR
Rule. These revisions included provisions that: Explicitly identify
NOX as a precursor to ozone, explicitly identify
SO2 and NOX as precursors to PM2.5,
and regulate condensable PM2.5 and PM10 in
applicability determinations and emissions limits. EPA has also
previously approved revisions to Indiana's SIP adopting the Federal
Tailoring Rule thresholds for GHG emitting sources for PSD permitting.
Indiana's SIP contains provisions that adequately address the 2008 Pb
NAAQS, and in this action, EPA is also proposing to approve revisions
to Indiana's SIP that incorporate the PM2.5 increments and
the associated implementation regulations per the 2010 NSR Rule.
Therefore, EPA proposes that Indiana has met all of the infrastructure
SIP requirements for PSD associated with section 110(a)(2)(D)(J) for
the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.
Sub-Element 4: Visibility Protection
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and
169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not
change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation
``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective. This would be the case even in the event a secondary
PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established, because this
NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part C. In other
words, the visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J)
are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.

K. Section 110(a)(2)(K)--Air Quality Modeling/Data

    SIPs must provide for performing air quality modeling for
predicting effects on air quality of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant
and submission of such data to EPA upon request.
    IDEM continues to review the potential impact of major and some
minor new and modified sources using computer models. Indiana's rules
regarding air quality modeling are

contained in 326 IAC 2-2-4, 326 IAC 2-2-5, 326 IAC 2-2-6, and 326 IAC
2-2-7. These modeling data are available to EPA or other interested
parties upon request. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to
the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.

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

    This section requires SIPs to mandate each major stationary source
to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving,
implementing, and enforcing a permit.
    IDEM implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA
approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62969); revisions to the program
were approved on August 13, 2002 (67 FR 52615). In addition to the
title V permit program, IDEM's EPA-approved PSD program, specifically
contained in 326 IAC 2-1.1-07 contains the provisions, requirements,
and structures associated with the costs for reviewing, approving,
implementing, and enforcing various types of permits. EPA proposes that
Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.

M. Section 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/Participation by Affected Local
Entities

    States must consult with and allow participation from local
political subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    Any IDEM rulemaking procedure contained in IC 13-14-9 requires
public participation in the SIP development process. In addition, IDEM
ensures that the requirements of 40 CFR 51.102 are satisfied during the
SIP development process. EPA proposes that Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to
the 2008 Pb and ozone NAAQS.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve elements of Indiana's submissions
certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required
infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008
Pb and ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve portions of a
submission from Indiana intended to meet EPA's requirements its PSD
program, specifically 326 IAC 2-2-6(b), 326 IAC 2-2-1(f)(1), 326 IAC 2-
2-1(ee)(3), and 326 IAC 2-2-1(gg)(1)(C). In addition, EPA is proposing
to approve a submission from Indiana intended to meet the state board
requirements of section 128. Specifically, the rules consist of IC 13-
13-8-1, IC 13-13-8-2(a), IC 13-18-8-2(b), IC 13-13-8-3, IC 13-13-8-4,
and IC 13-13-8-11.
    EPA's proposed actions for Indiana's satisfaction of infrastructure
SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are
contained in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2008 ozone
                Element                  2008 Pb NAAQS        NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control               A                A
 measures.............................
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring                  A                A
 and data system......................
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures.....               A                A
(C)2: PSD Provisions for Pb and ozone.               A                A
(C)3: PM2.5 precursors and PM2.5/PM10                A                A
 condensables for PSD.................
(C)4: PM2.5 increments for PSD........               A                A
(C)5: GHG permitting thresholds in PSD               A                A
 regulations..........................
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/                   A               NA
 interfere with maintenance of NAAQS..
(D)2: PSD.............................            (**)             (**)
(D)3: Visibility Protection...........               A                A
(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement..               A                A
(D)5: International Pollution                        A                A
 Abatement............................
(E)1: Adequate resources..............               A                A
(E)2: State boards....................               A                A
(F): Stationary source monitoring                    A                A
 system...............................
(G): Emergency power..................               A                A
(H): Future SIP revisions.............               A                A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan                NA               NA
 revisions under part D...............
(J)1: Consultation with government                   A                A
 officials............................
(J)2: Public notification.............               A                A
(J)3: PSD.............................            (**)             (**)
(J)4: Visibility protection (Regional                +                +
 Haze)................................
(K): Air quality modeling and data....               A                A
(L): Permitting fees..................               A                A
(M): Consultation and participation by               A                A
 affected local entities..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the table above, the key is as follows:
A Approve.
NA No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
D Disapprove.
+ Not relevant in these actions.
** Previously discussed in element (C).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 31, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-20155 Filed 8-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P