[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10644-10652]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04014]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0991; EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0435; FRL-9923-43-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 NO2
and SO2 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of state implementation plan (SIP) submissions from
Indiana regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0991 (2010 NO2 infrastructure SIP elements) and
Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0435 (2010 SO2 infrastructure
SIP elements) 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-2012-
0991 and EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0435. 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 Sarah Arra, Environmental
Scientist, 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 should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate these SIP submissions?
IV. What is the result of EPA's review of these SIP submissions?
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 submissions from the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management (IDEM). The state submitted its
infrastructure SIP for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS on January 15,
2013, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS on May 22, 2013.

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 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. These submissions
must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their
existing SIPs for the NAAQS already meet those requirements.
    EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007,
guidance document entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo)
and has issued additional guidance documents, the most recent on
September 13, 2013, ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)''
(2013 Memo). The SIP submissions referenced in this rulemaking pertain
to the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2), and
address the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. To the extent
that the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program is non-
NAAQS specific, a narrow evaluation of other NAAQS will be included in
the appropriate sections.

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from IDEM that address the
infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. The requirement for
states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section
110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to

acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i) Existing
provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction 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''); and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may
be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final New Source
Review (NSR) Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as
amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA
has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas in
separate rulemakings. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale
as they relate to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's
May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this
rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).

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. EPA issued additional guidance
documents, the most recent being the 2013 Memo which further clarifies
aspects of infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS specific.

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

    As noted in the 2013 Memo, pursuant to section 110(a), states must
provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all
infrastructure SIP submissions. IDEM provided the opportunity for
public comment for its 2010 NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP
that ended on January 14, 2013. The state did not receive any comments
during the comment period. IDEM provided the opportunity for public
comment for its 2010 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP that ended
on May 17, 2013. The state did not receive any comments during the
comment period. EPA is also soliciting comment on our evaluation of the
state's infrastructure SIP submission in this notice of proposed
rulemaking. IDEM provided detailed synopses of how various components
of its SIP meet each of the requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the
2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS, as applicable. The
following review evaluates the state'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. 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 final rule on ``National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Lead.'' 73 FR 66964 at 67034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. To maintain the 2010 NO2 NAAQS,
Indiana implements nitrogen oxide controls and emission limits in 326
Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 10-1, 326 IAC 10-3, 326 IAC 10-5, and
326 IAC 10-6. To maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, Indiana
implements SO2 controls and emission limits in 326 IAC 7-
1.1, 326 IAC 7-3, 326 IAC 7-4, and 326 IAC 7-4.1 EPA proposes that
Indiana has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2010 NO2 and SO2
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 2014 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan on October 30,
2013, including the plan for NO2 and SO2. IDEM
enters air monitoring data into Air Quality System (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 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.

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

    States are required to include a program providing for enforcement
of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or
modified stationary sources to meet NSR requirements under PSD and NNSR
programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160-169B) addresses PSD, while
part D of the CAA (sections 171-193) addresses NNSR requirements.
    The evaluation of each state's submission addressing the
infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) covers: (i)
Enforcement of SIP measures; (ii) PSD provisions that explicitly
identify oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor to ozone in
the PSD program; (iii) identification of precursors to fine particulate
matter (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) 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 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 the 2010 NO2 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 2010
NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 2: PSD Provisions that Explicitly Identify NOX
as a Precursor to Ozone in the PSD Program
    EPA's ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects
of the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate
Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline'' (Phase
2 Rule) was published on November 29, 2005 (see 70 FR 71612). Among
other requirements, the Phase 2 Rule obligated states to revise their
PSD programs to explicitly identify NOX as a precursor to
ozone (70 FR 71612 at 71679, 71699-71700). This requirement was
codified in 40 CFR 51.166.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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, November 29, 2005).
    EPA approved revisions to Indiana's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on July 2, 2014 (see 79 FR 37646, July 2, 2014), and
therefore proposes that Indiana has met this set of infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2010
NO2 and SO2 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 SO2 and
NOX (unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that NOX emissions in an
area are not a significant contributor to that area's ambient
PM2.5 concentrations). The 2008 NSR Rule also specifies that
VOCs are not considered to be precursors to PM2.5 in the PSD
program unless the state demonstrates to the Administrator's
satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that emissions of VOCs in an area are
significant contributors to that area's ambient PM2.5
concentrations.
    The explicit references to SO2, NOX, and VOCs
as they pertain to secondary PM2.5 formation are codified at
40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of
identifying pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5, the
2008 NSR Rule also required states to revise the definition of
``significant'' as it relates to a net emissions increase or the
potential of a source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 40 CFR
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, May 16, 2008).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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, EPA
does not consider the portions of the 2008 rule that address
requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable
areas to be affected by the court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not
anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated by
the 2008 NSR rule in order to comply with the court's decision.
Accordingly, EPA's approval of 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
to be submitted to EPA by May 16, 2011 (see 73 FR 28321 at 28341, May
16, 2008).
    EPA approved revisions to Indiana's PSD SIP reflecting these
requirements on July 2, 2014 (see 79 FR 37646), and therefore proposes
that Indiana has met this set of infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2010 NO2 and
SO2 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
                                               mean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 classified as Class I or III in the future, it
would require that the PSD increments pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 be
adhered to.
    On August 11, 2014 (79 FR 46709), EPA finalized approval of the
applicable infrastructure SIP PSD revisions; therefore, we are
proposing that Indiana has met this set of infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2010
NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.
Sub-Element 5: GHG Permitting and the ``Tailoring Rule''
    With respect to Elements C and J, EPA interprets the CAA to require
each state to make an infrastructure SIP submission for a new or
revised NAAQS that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD
permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated
NSR pollutants. The requirements of Element D(i)(II) may also be
satisfied by demonstrating that the air agency has a complete PSD
permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants.
Indiana has shown that it currently has a PSD program in place that
covers all regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs).
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision
addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not
treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a
source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court
also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits,
otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs,
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT).
    In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's
decision pending further judicial action to effectuate the decision,
the EPA is not continuing to apply EPA regulations that would require
that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found
impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not applying the requirement that a
state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD
permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or
has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii)
for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant
net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v)).
    EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules in light of the
Supreme Court opinion. In addition, EPA anticipates that many states
will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the
Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of subsequent EPA
actions with respect to the EPA regulations and state PSD program
approvals are expected to be informed by additional legal process
before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised
their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and
is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program
correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
    At present, EPA is proposing that Indiana's SIP is sufficient to
satisfy Elements C, D(i)(II), and J with respect to GHGs because the
PSD permitting program previously approved by EPA into the SIP
continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required based on
emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of BACT. Although the approved
Indiana PSD permitting program may currently contain provisions that
are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision, this
does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy
Elements C, (D)(i)(II), and J. The SIP contains the necessary PSD
requirements at this time, and the application of those requirements is
not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions
regarding the permitting of sources of GHGs that EPA does not consider
necessary at this time in light of the Supreme Court decision.
    For the purposes of the 2010 NO2 and SO2
NAAQS infrastructure SIPs, EPA reiterates that NSR reform regulations
are not within the scope of these actions. Therefore, we are not taking
action on existing NSR reform regulations for Indiana. EPA approved
Indiana's minor NSR program on October 7, 1994 (see 59 FR 51108); \6\
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 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA proposed approval of revisions updating Indiana's minor
NSR construction permit rules on January 5, 2015 (see 80 FR 201).
However, EPA believes that the rules that were in place at the time
of Indiana's submittal were adequate for the purposes of
infrastructure for the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain 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.
    On February 17, 2012, EPA promulgated designations for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS, stating for the entire country that, ``The EPA is
designating areas as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' to mean that
available information does not indicate that the air quality in these
areas exceeds the 2010 NO2 NAAQS'' (see 77 FR 9532). For
comparison purposes, EPA examined the design values \7\ from
NO2 monitors in Indiana and surrounding states. The highest
design value based on data collected between 2011 and 2013 was 64 ppb
at a monitor in Chicago, IL, compared to the standard which is 100 ppb
for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Additionally, Indiana has SIP
approved rules that limit NOX emissions, including rules in
response to the Clean Air Interstate Rule at 326 IAC 24-1, controls for
Clark and Floyd Counties at 326 IAC 10-1, specific source categories at
326 IAC 10-3, limits on Internal Combustion Engines at 326 IAC 10-5 and
limits for Indiana Gas and Electric Company at 326 IAC 10-6. EPA
believes that, in conjunction with the continued implementation of the
state's SIP-approved PSD and NNSR regulations found in 26 IAC 2-2,
these low monitored values of NO2 will continue in and
around Indiana. In other words, the NO2 emissions from
Indiana are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of the
2010 NO2 NAAQS in another state, and these emissions are not
likely to interfere with the maintenance of the 2010 NO2
NAAQS in another state. Therefore, EPA proposes that Indiana has met
this set of requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA is not taking action on this
infrastructure element in regards to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and
will do so in a future rule making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The level of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for is 100 parts
per billion (ppb) and the form is the 3-year average of the annual
98th percentile of the daily 1-hour maximum. For the most recent
design values, see http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2010 NO2 NAAQS
has been detailed in the section addressing section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA
further 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 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. EPA
is proposing that Indiana's SIP contains provisions that adequately
address the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.
    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 an
NNSR program consistent with the CAA that addresses any pollutants for
which there is a designated nonattainment area within the state.
    Indiana's EPA-approved NNSR regulations are contained as part of
its PSD program regulations, and can be found in 326 IAC 2-3 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 2010 NO2 and SO2 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 2013 Memo states that
these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing
reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, or an
approved SIP addressing regional haze.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove
Indiana's satisfaction of the visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2010 NO2 or
SO2 NAAQs. Instead, EPA will evaluate Indiana's compliance
with these requirements in a separate rulemaking.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Indiana does have an approved regional haze plan for non-
EGUs. Indiana's plan for EGUs relied on the Clean Air Interstate
Rule that has been recently superseded by the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule to which Indiana EGU sources are also subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 in 326 IAC
2-2-15(b)(3) 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
2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. Indiana does not have any
obligations under any other subsection of section 126, nor does it have
any pending obligations under section 115. EPA, therefore, is proposing
that 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 its environmental performance
partnership agreement with EPA document funding and personnel levels
for IDEM every two 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 2010 NO2
and SO2 NAAQS.
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. EPA approved these rules on December
6, 2013 (78 FR 77599). Therefore, EPA is proposing that IDEM has
satisfied the applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for this
section of 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2010 NO2 and SO2
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 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.

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

    This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is
analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate
contingency plans to implement such authority. The 2013 Memo states
that infrastructure SIP submissions should specify authority, rested in
an appropriate official, to restrain any source from causing or
contributing to emissions which present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.
    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 2010 NO2 and
SO2 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 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.

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

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

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

    The evaluation of the submissions from Indiana with respect to 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 2010 NO2 and SO2 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 NO2
and SO2.\9\ EPA proposes that Indiana has met the
infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J)
with respect to the 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See http://www.in.gov/idem/airquality/2489.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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).
    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 2010 NO2 and SO2 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. In other words, the visibility protection requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(J) are not germane to infrastructure SIPs for the
2010 NO2 and SO2 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 2010 NO2 and SO2
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 2010 NO2 and SO2
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 2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve most elements of submissions from IDEM
certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required
infrastructure elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2010
NO2 and SO2 NAAQS. EPA's proposed actions for the
state's satisfaction of infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of
section 110(a)(2) are contained in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Element                     2010 NO2         2010 SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control               A                A
 measures.............................
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring                  A                A
 and data system......................
(C): Program for enforcement of                      A                A
 control measures.....................
(D)1: Interstate Transport-                          A               NA
 Significant contribution.............
(D)2: Interstate Transport- interfere                A               NA
 with maintenance.....................
(D)3: PSD.............................               A                A

(D)4: Visibility......................              NA               NA
(D)5: Interstate and International                   A                A
 Pollution Abatement..................
(E): Adequate resources...............               A                A
(E): 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                 +                +
 revisions under part D...............
(J)1: Consultation with government                   A                A
 officials............................
(J)2: Public notification.............               A                A
(J)3: PSD.............................               A                A
(J)4: Visibility protection...........               +                +
(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 above table, the key is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.........................................  Approve.
NA........................................  No Action/Separate
                                             Rulemaking.
+.........................................  Not germane to
                                             infrastructure SIPs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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) 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 12, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-04014 Filed 2-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


provisions of this part apply to the owner or operator of any
stationary source which contains an affected facility, the construction
or modification of which is commenced after the date of publication in
this part of any standard (or, if earlier, the date of publication of
any proposed standard) applicable to that facility.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  60.20a by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to
read as follows:

Sec.  60.20a  Applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply upon publication of a
final emission guideline under Sec.  60.22a(a) if the guideline is
published in the Federal Register after July 8, 2019.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  60.21a by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (e) and (f); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (k) and (l).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  60.21a  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (e) Emission guideline means a guideline set forth in this part,
with the exception of guidelines set forth pursuant to section 129 of
the Clean Air Act, or in a final guideline document published under
Sec.  60.22a(a), which reflects the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the best system of emission
reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such
reduction and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and
energy requirements) the Administrator has determined has been
adequately demonstrated for designated facilities.
    (f) Standard of performance means a standard for emissions of air
pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable
through the application of the best system of emission reduction which
(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any
nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements)
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated,
including a legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable
rate, quantity, or concentration of emissions into the atmosphere, or
prescribing a design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or combination thereof.
* * * * *
    (k) Meaningful engagement means the timely engagement with
pertinent stakeholders and/or their representatives in the plan
development or plan revision process. Such engagement should not be
disproportionate in favor of certain stakeholders and should be
informed by available best practices.
    (l) Pertinent stakeholders include, but are not limited to,
industry, small businesses, and communities most affected by and/or
vulnerable to the impacts of the plan or plan revision.

0
5. Amend Sec.  60.22a by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.22a  Publication of emission guidelines.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Information on the degree of emission limitation which is
achievable with each system, together with information on the costs,
nonair quality health and environmental effects, and energy
requirements of applying each system to designated facilities.
* * * * *
    (c) The emission guidelines and compliance times referred to in
paragraph (b)(5) of this section will be proposed for comment upon
publication of the draft guideline document, and after consideration of
comments will be promulgated in this part with such modifications as
may be appropriate.

0
6. Amend Sec.  60.23a by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(3);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  60.23a  Adoption and submittal of State plans; public hearings.

    (a)(1) Unless otherwise specified in the applicable subpart in this
part, within eighteen months after publication in the Federal Register
of a final emission guideline under Sec.  60.22a(a), each State shall
adopt and submit to the Administrator a plan for the control of the
designated pollutant to which the emission guideline applies. The
submission of such plan shall be made in electronic format according to
paragraph (a)(3) of this section or as specified in an applicable
emission guideline.
* * * * *
    (3) States must submit to the Administrator any plan or plan
revision using the State Planning Electronic Collaboration System
(SPeCS), which can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/) or through an analogous electronic
reporting tool provided by the EPA for the submission of any plan
required by this subpart. Do not use SPeCS to submit confidential
business information (CBI). Anything submitted using SPeCS cannot later
be claimed to be CBI. The State must confer with the Regional Office
for the procedures to submit CBI information. All CBI must be clearly
marked as CBI.
    (b) If no designated facility is located within a State, the State
shall submit a letter of certification to that effect to the
Administrator within the time specified in paragraph (a) of this
section. Such certification shall exempt the State from the
requirements of this subpart for that designated pollutant. The State
must submit the letter using the SPeCS, or through an analogous
electronic reporting tool provided by the EPA for the submission of any
plan required by this subpart.
* * * * *
    (i) The State must submit, with the plan or revision, documentation
of meaningful engagement including a list of identified pertinent
stakeholders and/or their representatives, a summary of the engagement
conducted, a summary of stakeholder input received, and a description
of how stakeholder input was considered in the development of the plan
or plan revisions.

0
7. Amend Sec.  60.24a by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (c), (d), (e), and (f);
and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (g), (h), and (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  60.24a  Standards of performance and compliance schedules.

* * * * *
    (b) Standards of performance shall be in the form of an allowable
rate, quantity, or concentration of emissions, except when it is not
feasible to prescribe or enforce such a standard of performance. The
EPA shall identify such cases in the emission guidelines issued under
Sec.  60.22a. Where standards of performance prescribing design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards, or combination
thereof are established, the plan shall, to the degree possible, set
forth the emission reductions achievable by implementation of such
standards, and may permit compliance by the use of equipment determined
by the State to be equivalent to that prescribed.
* * * * *
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, standards
of performance shall be no less stringent than the corresponding
emission guideline(s) specified in this part, and final compliance
shall be required as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
the compliance times specified in an applicable subpart of this part.
    (d) Any compliance schedule extending more than twenty months from
the date required for submittal of the plan must include legally
enforceable increments of progress to achieve compliance for each
designated facility or category of facilities. Unless otherwise
specified in the applicable emission guideline, increments of progress
must include, where practicable, each increment of progress specified
in Sec.  60.21a(h) and must include such additional increments of
progress as may be necessary to permit close and effective supervision
of progress toward final compliance.
    (e)(1) The State may apply a standard of performance to a
particular designated facility that is less stringent than or has a
compliance schedule longer than otherwise required by an applicable
emission guideline taking into consideration that facility's remaining
useful life and other factors, provided that the State demonstrates
with respect to each such facility (or class of such facilities) that
the facility cannot reasonably achieve the degree of emission
limitation determined by the EPA based on:
    (i) Unreasonable cost of control resulting from plant age,
location, or basic process design;
    (ii) Physical impossibility or technical infeasibility of
installing necessary control equipment; or
    (iii) Other circumstances specific to the facility.
    (2) For the purpose of this paragraph (e), the State must
demonstrate that there are fundamental differences between the
information specific to a facility (or class of such facilities) and
the information EPA considered in determining the degree of emission
limitation achievable through application of the best system of
emission reduction or the compliance schedule that make achieving such
degree of emission limitation or meeting such compliance schedule
unreasonable for that facility.
    (f) If the State makes the required demonstration in paragraph (e)
of this section, the plan may apply a standard of performance that is
less stringent than required by an applicable emission guideline.
    (1) The standard of performance applied under this paragraph (f)
must be no less stringent (or have a compliance schedule no longer)
than is necessary to address the fundamental differences identified
under paragraph (e) of this section. To the extent necessary to
determine a standard of performance satisfying that criteria, the State
must evaluate the systems of emission reduction identified in the
applicable emission guideline using the factors and evaluation metrics
EPA considered in assessing those systems, including technical
feasibility, the amount of emission reductions, the cost of achieving
such reductions, any nonair quality health and environmental impacts,
and energy requirements. The States may also consider, as justified,
other factors specific to the facility that were the basis of the
demonstration under paragraph (e) as well as other systems of emission
reduction in addition to those EPA considered in the applicable
emission guideline.
    (2) A standard of performance under this paragraph (f) must be in
the form as required by the applicable emission guideline.
    (g) Where a State applies a standard of performance pursuant to
paragraph (f) of this section on the basis of an operating condition(s)
within the designated facility's control, such as remaining useful life
or restricted capacity, the plan must also include such operating
condition(s) as an enforceable requirement. The plan must also include
requirements to provide for the implementation and enforcement of the
operating condition(s), such as requirements for monitoring, reporting,
and recordkeeping.
    (h) A less stringent standard of performance must meet all other
applicable requirements, including in this subpart and in any
applicable emission guideline.

    (i) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to preclude any
State or political subdivision thereof from adopting or enforcing, as
part of the plan:
    (1) Standards of performance more stringent than emission
guidelines specified in this part; or
    (2) Compliance schedules requiring final compliance at earlier
times than those specified in applicable emission guidelines.
    (ii) [Reserved]

0
8. Amend Sec.  60.25a by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.25a  Emission inventories, source surveillance, reports.

    (a) Each plan shall include an inventory of all designated
facilities, including emission data for the designated pollutants and
any additional information related to emissions as specified in the
applicable emission guideline. Such data shall be summarized in the
plan, and emission rates of designated pollutants from designated
facilities shall be correlated with applicable standards of
performance. As used in this subpart, correlated means presented in
such a manner as to show the relationship between measured or estimated
amounts of emissions and the amounts of such emissions allowable under
applicable standards of performance.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  60.27a by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(1) and (2);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c), (d), (f) introductory text, and (g)(1);
0
d. Removing the word ``and'' from the end of paragraph (g)(2)(viii);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (g)(2)(ix) as paragraph (g)(2)(x); and
0
f. Adding new paragraph (g)(2)(ix) and paragraphs (h), (i) and (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  60.27a  Actions by the Administrator.

    (a) The Administrator may, whenever he determines necessary, amend
the period for submission of any plan or plan revision or portion
thereof.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Full and partial approval and disapproval. In the case of any
plan or plan revision on which the Administrator is required to act
under this paragraph (b), the Administrator shall approve such plan or
plan revision as a whole if it meets all of the applicable requirements
of this subpart. If a portion of the plan or plan revision meets all
the applicable requirements of this subpart, the Administrator may
approve the plan or plan revision in part and disapprove in part. The
plan or plan revision shall not be treated as meeting the requirements
of this chapter until the Administrator approves the entire plan or
revision as complying with the applicable requirements of this subpart.
    (2) Conditional approval. The Administrator may approve a plan or
plan revision based on a commitment of the State to adopt and submit to
the Administrator specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but
not later than twelve months after the date of conditional approval of
the plan or plan revision. Any such conditional approval shall be
treated as a disapproval if the State fails to comply with such
commitment.
    (c) The Administrator will promulgate, through notice-and-comment
rulemaking, a Federal plan, or portion thereof, at any time within
twelve months after:
    (1) The State fails to submit a plan or plan revision within the
time prescribed or the State has failed to satisfy the minimum criteria
under paragraph (g) of this section as of the time prescribed in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section; or
    (2) The Administrator disapproves the required State plan or plan
revision or any portion thereof, as unsatisfactory because the
applicable requirements of this subpart or an applicable emission
guideline under this part have not been met.
    (d) The Administrator will promulgate a final Federal plan, or
portion thereof, as described in paragraph (c) of this section unless
the State corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the
plan or plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such
Federal plan.
* * * * *
    (f) Prior to promulgation of a Federal plan under paragraph (d) of
this section, the Administrator will conduct meaningful engagement with
pertinent stakeholders and/or their representatives and provide the
opportunity for at least one public hearing in either:
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) General. Within 60 days of the Administrator's receipt of a
State submission, the Administrator shall determine whether the minimum
criteria for completeness have been met for a plan submission or
revision. Any plan or plan revision that a State submits to the EPA,
and that has not been determined by the EPA within 60 days after the
Administrator's receipt of a State submission to have failed to meet
the minimum criteria, shall on that date be deemed by operation of law
to meet such minimum criteria. Where the Administrator determines that
a plan submission does not meet the minimum criteria of this paragraph
(g), the State will be treated as not having made the submission and
the requirements of this section regarding promulgation of a Federal
plan shall apply.
    (2) * * *
    (ix) Documentation of meaningful engagement, including a list of
pertinent stakeholders or their representatives, a summary of the
engagement conducted, and a summary of stakeholder input received, and
a description of how stakeholder input was considered in the
development of the plan or plan revisions; and
* * * * *
    (h) The requirements of this paragraph (h) apply to parallel
processing. A State may submit a plan requesting parallel processing
prior to adoption and to completion of public outreach and engagement
by the State in order to expedite review and to provide an opportunity
for the State to consider EPA comments prior to submission of a final
plan for final review and action. Under these circumstances and at the
discretion of the EPA, the following exceptions to the completeness
criteria under paragraph (g)(2) of this section apply to plans
submitted explicitly for parallel processing:
    (1) The letter required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section must
request that EPA propose approval of the proposed plan by parallel
processing;
    (2) In lieu of paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section, the State must
submit a schedule for final adoption or issuance of the plan;
    (3) In lieu of paragraph (g)(2)(iv) of this section, the plan must
include a copy of the proposed/draft regulation or document, including
indication of the proposed changes to be made to the existing approved
plan, where applicable;
    (4) In lieu of paragraph (g)(2)(ix) of this section, the plan must
include documentation of the engagement conducted prior to the parallel
processing submittal and of any planned additional meaningful
engagement to be conducted prior to adoption of the final plan; and
    (5) The requirements of paragraphs (g)(2)(v) through (viii) of this
section do not apply to plans submitted for parallel processing. The
exceptions granted in the preceding sentence apply only to EPA's
determination of proposed action and all requirements of paragraph
(g)(2) of this section must be met prior to publication of EPA's final
determination of plan approvability.

    (i) The requirements of this paragraph (i) apply to calls for plan
revisions. Whenever the Administrator finds that the applicable plan is
substantially inadequate to meet the requirements of the applicable
emission guidelines in this part, to provide for the implementation of
the applicable requirements, or to otherwise comply with any applicable
requirement of this subpart or the Clean Air Act, the Administrator
shall require the State to revise the plan as necessary to correct such
inadequacies. The Administrator must notify the State of the
inadequacies and such plan revisions shall be submitted to the
Administrator within twelve months or as determined by the
Administrator. Such findings and notice must be public.
    (1) Any finding under this paragraph (i) shall, to the extent the
Administrator deems appropriate, subject the State to the requirements
of this part to which the State was subject when it developed and
submitted the plan for which such finding was made, except that the
Administrator may adjust any dates applicable under such requirements
as appropriate.
    (2) If the Administrator makes this finding on the basis that a
State is failing to implement an approved plan, or part of an approved
plan, the State may submit a demonstration to the Administrator it is
adequately implementing the requirements of the approved State plan in
lieu of submitting a plan revision. Such demonstration must be
submitted by the deadline established under this paragraph (i).
    (j) The requirements of this paragraph (j) apply to error
corrections. Whenever the Administrator determines that the
Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any
plan or plan revision (or portion thereof) was in error, the
Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or
promulgation revise such action as appropriate without requiring any
further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis
thereof shall be provided to the State and public.

0
10. Amend Sec.  60.28a by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.28a  Plan revisions by the State.

    (a) Any significant revision to a State plan shall be adopted by
such State after reasonable notice, public hearing, and meaningful
engagement. For plan revisions required in response to a revised
emission guideline, such plan revisions shall be submitted to the
Administrator within fifteen months, or as determined by the
Administrator, after publication in the Federal Register of a final
revised emission guideline under Sec.  60.22a. All plan revisions must
be submitted in accordance with the procedures and requirements
applicable to development and submission of the original plan.
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  60.29a by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.29a  Plan revisions by the Administrator.

    After notice and opportunity for public hearing in each affected
State, and meaningful engagement for any significant revision, the
Administrator may revise any provision of an applicable Federal plan
if:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-25269 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61937-61938]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0086]

Pipeline Safety: Guidance for Strengthening Pipeline Safety
Through Rigorous Program Evaluation and Meaningful Metrics

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA published Advisory Bulletin ADB-2012-10 in the Federal
Register on December 5, 2012, to remind operators of gas transmission
and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities of their responsibilities
under current regulations to perform evaluations of their Integrity
Management (IM) programs using meaningful performance metrics. PHMSA is
issuing this Advisory Bulletin to expand that reminder by informing
owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines that PHMSA
has developed guidance on the elements and characteristics of a mature
program evaluation process that uses meaningful metrics.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris McLaren by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All materials in this docket may
be accessed electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. Information
about PHMSA may be found at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    PHMSA has long recognized and communicated the critical importance
of operator self-evaluation as part of an effective safety program.
PHMSA has promoted and required the development and implementation of
processes to perform program evaluations, including the regular
monitoring and reporting of meaningful metrics to assess operator
performance.
    PHMSA further communicated this expectation in Advisory Bulletin
ADB-2012-10, which was published in the Federal Register on December 5,
2012. That Advisory Bulletin explicitly reminded operators of gas
transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities of their
responsibilities under current regulations to perform evaluations of
their IM programs using meaningful performance metrics.
    PHMSA has also recognized and emphasized the importance of operator
senior management responsibilities to fully understand and acknowledge
the implications of these program evaluations and to take the necessary
steps to address deficiencies and make necessary program improvements.
As these responsibilities are so important, PHMSA requires senior
executives of operators to certify the IM program performance
information they annually submit to PHMSA.
    As required by the IM rules, operators must have a process to
measure the effectiveness of their programs; a process that determines
whether the program is effective in assessing and evaluating pipeline
integrity and in improving the integrity of pipeline systems. Program
evaluations can help organizations make better management decisions and
support continual process improvement. These evaluations should include
an assessment gauging how an operator's performance satisfies its
identified safety performance goals.
    Program and other evaluations may be conducted at different levels,
including the company or corporate level, at a system level to gauge
one pipeline system's performance against that of other systems within
the organization or for selected assets with similar characteristics.
Effective program evaluations should include all aspects of an
operator's organization, not just the integrity group.
    Incident/accident investigations and abnormal operations and root
cause analysis frequently reveal that management systems and
organizational program deficiencies or failures are important
contributors to pipeline accidents. For this reason, it is important
that program evaluations also identify potential organizational or
programmatic deficiencies and failures that could have the potential to
lead to pipeline incidents/accidents.
    Operators should take effective corrective measures addressing IM
program evaluation outcomes to improve programmatic activity as well as
pipeline system performance and integrity. IM program evaluation
processes should be formally controlled by operators and be an integral
part of the operator's quality control and quality assurance program.
The formal process should include management's commitment to monitor
and evaluate performance metrics.
    Specific sections in the Federal IM regulations that directly
require the need for operator program evaluation and the use of
meaningful performance metrics include the following:
     For hazardous liquid pipelines, Sec. Sec.  195.452(f)(7)
and 195.452(k) require methods to measure program effectiveness.
Appendix C to 49 CFR 195 provides specific guidance on establishing
performance measures, including the need to select measures based on
the understanding and analysis of integrity threats to each pipeline
segment. API Standard 1160, ``Managing Integrity for Hazardous Liquid
Pipelines,'' also provides additional guidance on the program
evaluation process and the use of performance measures in improving
performance.
     For gas transmission pipelines, Sec. Sec.  192.911(i) and
192.945 define the requirements for establishing performance metrics
and evaluating IM program performance. The gas requirements invoke ASME
B31.8S-2004, Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines. Section 9 of
this standard provides guidance on the selection of performance
measures.
     For gas distribution systems, Sec.  192.1007(e) requires
development and monitoring of performance measures to evaluate the
effectiveness of IM programs. An operator must consider the results of
its performance monitoring in periodically reevaluating threats and
risks. Guidance from ANSI/GPTC Z380, ``Guide for Gas Transmission and
Distribution Piping Systems, 2012 Edition'' and Section 9 of ASME
B31.8S-2004, ``Managing System Integrity of Gas Pipelines'' can also be
used for the selection of performance measures that can be applied to
gas distribution systems.
    When performing routine pipeline system inspections, PHMSA noted
weaknesses in the development and implementation of program
evaluations, including weaknesses in using meaningful metrics to
identify opportunities for program improvements and corrective actions.
    Additionally, NTSB Recommendation P-11-19, which was generated
following the San Bruno, CA, failure investigation, recommended PHMSA
develop and implement standards for IM and other performance-based
safety programs that require operators of all types of pipeline systems
to assess the effectiveness of their programs using clear and
meaningful metrics and identify and then correct deficiencies.
    In response to PHMSA's self-identified concerns and the NTSB
recommendation, PHMSA developed a guidance document titled ``Guidance
for Strengthening Pipeline Safety Through Rigorous Program Evaluation
and Meaningful Metrics,'' which is available at http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Pipeline/Regulations/IMPEG.pdf.

    Major topic areas addressed in the guidance document include:
     Establishing Safety Performance Goals.
     Identifying Required Metrics.
     Selecting Additional Meaningful Metrics.
     Metric Monitoring and Data Collection.
     Program Evaluation Using Metrics.
    The guidance document includes tables listing regulation-required
metrics and other programmatic and threat-specific metrics that
operators could include in their documented IM program evaluations.
     Table 1 lists the IM-related metrics documented in
pipeline operators' annual reports.
     Table 2 lists the threat-specific metrics required by
Sec.  192.945 for gas transmission and required by Sec.  192.1007(g)
for gas distribution systems.
     Table 3 provides guidance for operators and inspectors to
identify meaningful metrics to help understand and measure the
effectiveness of the individual program elements and processes used in
an IM program.
     Table 4 provides guidance for operators and inspectors to
identify meaningful threat-specific metrics that may be required to
effectively measure the performance of gas transmission, hazardous
liquid transmission and gas distribution pipeline IM programs.

II. Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2014-05)

    To: Owners and Operators of Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid
Pipelines.
    Subject: Guidance for Strengthening Pipeline Safety Through
Rigorous Program Evaluation and Meaningful Metrics.
    Advisory: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) is issuing this Advisory Bulletin to inform
owners and operators of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines that
PHMSA has developed guidance on the elements and characteristics of a
mature IM program evaluation process using meaningful metrics. This
guidance document titled ``Guidance for Strengthening Pipeline Safety
Through Rigorous Program Evaluation and Meaningful Metrics,'' is
available on PHMSA's public Web site at http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Pipeline/Regulations/IMPEG.pdf, and
should be used when operators develop and perform IM program
evaluations. This guidance document provides additional specificity to
several of the topics detailed in a previously issued Advisory
Bulletin, ADB-2012-10, ``Using Meaningful Metrics in Conducting
Integrity Management Program Evaluations.''
    Operators under the current regulations are required to perform
program evaluations and use meaningful metrics. PHMSA's ``Guidance for
Strengthening Pipeline Safety Through Rigorous Program Evaluation and
Meaningful Metrics'' builds on existing standards and regulations to
provide a more detailed and comprehensive description of the steps
involved in program evaluations as well as the selection of meaningful
performance metrics to support these evaluations. The guidance expands
and clarifies PHMSA's expectations for operator processes when
measuring IM program effectiveness.
    PHMSA inspectors will use the program evaluation guidance within
``Guidance for Strengthening Pipeline Safety Through Rigorous Program
Evaluation and Meaningful Metrics'' as criteria when evaluating the
effectiveness of operator IM program evaluations to assure operators
are developing sound program evaluation processes and are developing
and applying a robust and meaningful set of performance metrics in
their program evaluations.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 and 49 CFR 1.97.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 09, 2014.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2014-24439 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26996-26997]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):

NYISO Management Committee Meeting

June 12, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2018-06-12.

NYISO Electric System Planning Working Group and Transmission Planning
Advisory Meeting

June 14, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2018-06-14.

NYISO Business Issues Committee Meeting

June 20, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic&directory=2018-06-20.

NYISO Operating Committee Meeting

June 21, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=oc&directory=2018-06-21.

NYISO Electric System Planning Working Group and Transmission Planning
Advisory Meeting

June 22, 2018, 11:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2018-06-22.

NYISO Special Management Committee Meeting

June 26, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2018-06-26.

NYISO Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting

June 28, 2018, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2018-06-28.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102.
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059.
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER17-2327.
    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market

Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

    Dated: June 5, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12467 Filed 6-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P