81 FR 9395 - Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Commissioner's Orders for A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 37 (February 25, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 37 (February 25, 2016)
| Page Range | 9395-9397 | |
| FR Document | 2016-03893 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 9395-9397] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-03893] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0075; EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0090; FRL-9942-72-Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Commissioner's Orders for A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to EPA on January 27, 2016, and February 5, 2016, for parallel processing. The submittal consists of orders issued by the Commissioner of IDEM that require more stringent sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) emissions limits than those currently contained in the SIP for Vectren's A. B. Brown Generating Station (``A.B. Brown'') and Indiana- Kentucky Electric Corporation's Clifty Creek Generating Station (``Clifty Creek''). IDEM submitted these limits to enable the areas near these generating stations to qualify for being designated ``attainment'' of the 2010 primary SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), a matter that will be addressed in a separate future rulemaking. EPA's approval of these revisions to the Indiana SIP would make the Commissioner's orders' SO2 emissions limits federally enforceable. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA-R05- OAR-2016-0075 for A.B. Brown or EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0090 for Clifty Creek at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR- 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6832, [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. Why did IDEM issue these Commissioner's Orders? II. What are the SO2 limits in these Commissioner's Orders? III. By what criterion is EPA reviewing this SIP revision? IV. What action is EPA taking? V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Why did IDEM issue these Commissioner's Orders? On January 27, 2016, and February 5, 2016, IDEM submitted for parallel processing draft revisions to its SIP consisting of orders issued by IDEM's Commissioner that establish more stringent SO2 emissions limits than those currently contained in the SIP for A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek. IDEM established these SO2 emissions limits to enable the areas near A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek to qualify in the future for being designated ``attainment'' of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. Under a [[Page 9396]] Federal consent decree, EPA is required to designate, under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, certain areas in the United States including the areas near A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek by July 2, 2016. The history of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and the consent decree is explained below in order to provide a more detailed explanation of the context for IDEM's request for EPA approval of these SO2 limits into the SIP. On June 3, 2010, pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA revised the primary (health-based) SO2 NAAQS by establishing a new one-hour standard codified at 40 CFR 50.17 (75 FR 35520). Pursuant to section 107(d) of the CAA, EPA must designate areas as either ``unclassifiable,'' ``attainment,'' or ``nonattainment'' for the 2010 one-hour SO2 primary NAAQS. Under Section 107(d) of the CAA, a nonattainment area is any area that does not meet the NAAQS or that contributes to a violation in a nearby area. An attainment area is any area, other than a nonattainment area, that meets the NAAQS. Unclassifiable areas are those that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS. On August 5, 2013, EPA published a final rule establishing air quality designations for 29 areas in the United States for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, based on recorded air quality monitoring data from 2009-2011 that showed violations of the NAAQS (78 FR 47191). In that rulemaking, EPA committed to address, in separate future actions, the designations for all other areas for which EPA was not yet prepared to issue designations. Following the initial August 5, 2013, designations, three lawsuits were filed against EPA in different U.S. District Courts, alleging EPA had failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under the CAA by not designating all portions of the country by the June 2013 deadline. In an effort intended to resolve the litigation in one of those cases, plaintiffs Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council and EPA filed a proposed consent decree with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 2, 2015, the court entered the consent decree and issued an enforceable order for EPA to complete the area designations according to the court-ordered schedule.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Sierra Club et al. v. EPA, No. 3:13-cv-3953-SI (N.D.Cal.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- By no later than July 2, 2016, (16 months from the court's order), EPA must designate two groups of areas: (1) Areas that have newly monitored violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and (2) areas that contain any stationary sources that had not been announced as of March 2, 2015, for retirement and that according to the EPA's Air Markets Database emitted in 2012 either (i) more than 16,000 tons of SO2 or (ii) more than 2,600 tons of SO2 with an annual average emission rate of at least 0.45 pounds (lbs) of SO2 per million British thermal units (MMBTU). In the consent decree, ``announced for retirement'' means any stationary source with a coal-fired unit that as of January 1, 2010, had a capacity of over 5 megawatts and otherwise meets the emissions criteria is excluded from the July 2, 2016, deadline if it had announced through a company public announcement, public utilities commission filing, consent decree, public legal settlement, final state or federal permit filing, or other similar means of communication, by March 2, 2015, that it will cease burning coal at that unit. A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek each meet the second criterion for the July 2, 2016, deadline. That is, neither has been ``announced for retirement'' and both emitted in 2012 either (i) more than 16,000 tons of SO2 or (ii) more than 2,600 tons of SO2 with an annual average emission rate of at least 0.45 lbs of SO2 per MMBTU. Specifically, A.B. Brown emitted 7,091 tons of SO2 in 2012 and had an emissions rate of 0.521 lbs SO2 /MMBTU in 2012. Clifty Creek emitted 52,839 tons of SO2 in 2012 and had an emissions rate of 1.767 lbs SO2 /MMBTU in 2012. In absence of new SO2 emissions limits, A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek cannot demonstrate modeled attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in accordance with EPA's Draft SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document.\2\ Therefore, IDEM conducted air dispersion modeling using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) version 15181 in accordance with appendix W of part 51 of chapter 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to determine new, more stringent SO2 emissions limits for A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek that should result in the areas near these generating stations showing modeled attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Draft SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document. December 2013. http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/SO2ModelingTAD.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IDEM has requested that EPA approve Commissioner's Order 2016-01 for A.B. Brown and Commissioner's Order 2016-02 for Clifty Creek into Indiana's SIP. EPA's approval of the new SO2 emissions limits contained in these orders into Indiana's SIP would make these SO2 emissions limits federally enforceable. Once these SO2 emissions limits have become federally enforceable, IDEM intends to use them to demonstrate AERMOD-modeled attainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the areas near A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek. To be clear, the purpose of this rulemaking is to take action on IDEM's request to approve these SO2 emissions limits into the Indiana SIP and thereby make them federally enforceable. The purpose of this rulemaking is not to take action on whether these SO2 emissions limits are adequate for EPA to designate attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the areas near A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek. EPA intends to designate the areas near the sources that meet the criteria for the first phase of the consent decree designations, including the areas near A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek, under a separate rulemaking. EPA cannot take final action to approve the orders into Indiana's SIP until the state completes its public comment process and submits the final orders to EPA as SIP revision requests. In the meantime, Indiana requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the SIP revision to expedite action on the Commissioner's orders. Under this procedure, the state submitted a copy of the proposed revisions to EPA before completing its public comment process. EPA is publishing this proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and is soliciting public comment in approximately the same timeframe during which the state is soliciting public comment. After Indiana submits the final SIP revision request, EPA will prepare a final rulemaking for the SIP revision. If changes are made to the SIP revision after EPA's proposed rulemaking, such changes must be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking. If the changes are significant, then EPA may need to repropose the rulemaking. II. What are the SO2 limits in these Commissioner's Orders? For A.B. Brown, Indiana issued Commissioner's Order 2016-01 on January 11, 2016, with a compliance date of April 19, 2016. This order established two new limits for A.B. Brown: One limit for Unit 1 when running alone and one limit for Units 1 and 2 when running simultaneously. The emissions limits are 0.855 lbs of SO2 per MMBTU for coal-fired boiler Unit 1 operating alone and 0.426 lbs of SO2 per MMBTU for Units 1 and 2 operating simultaneously. These limits supplement a limit contained in a [[Page 9397]] February 22, 1979, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit of 0.69 pounds per MMBTU for coal-fired boiler Unit 2. Note that the limit on Unit 1 emissions alone (0.855 lbs per MMBTU) is higher (less restrictive) than the limit on combined emissions from Units 1 and 2 (0.426 lbs per MMBTU). Because Unit 2 has more impact per pound of emissions than Unit 1 due to dispersion characteristics, the plant can emit more and still not cause violations of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS when only Unit 1 is operating than when both Units 1 and 2 are operating. For Clifty Creek, Indiana issued Commissioner's Order 2016-02 on February 1, 2016, with a compliance date of April 19, 2016. This order established a combined emission limit for the six coal-fired boilers (Units No. 1 through No. 6) located at Clifty Creek of 2,624.5 lbs of SO2 per hour as a 720 operating hour rolling average when any of Units No.1 through No. 6, or any combination thereof, is operating. III. By what criteria is EPA reviewing this SIP revision? EPA is evaluating this revision on the basis of whether it strengthens Indiana's SIP. Prior to Commissioner's Order 2016-01, A.B. Brown had an SO2 emissions limit in its operating permit of 6.0 lbs SO2 per MMBTU for coal-fired boiler Unit 1. Prior to Commissioner's Order 2016-02 Clifty Creek had an SO2 emissions limit in its operating permit for Units 1 through 6 not to exceed 7.52 lbs of SO2 per MMBTU on a thirty (30) day rolling weighted average. The new SO2 emissions limits established by IDEM in Commissioner's Order 2016-01 and Commissioner's Order 2016-02 for A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek, respectively, are more stringent than the previous limits and will therefore strengthen Indiana's SIP. The adequacy of these limits for providing for attainment is not a prerequisite for approval of these limits. Nevertheless, the purpose of these limits is to provide for attainment, and EPA is working with Indiana to assure a proper analysis of the adequacy of these limits for this purpose. If these limits become SIP-approved and thereby federally enforceable in a timely fashion, formal evaluation of the adequacy of these limits to provide for attainment will be conducted as part of the process of rulemaking on the 2010 SO2 NAAQS designation for these areas. IV. What action is EPA taking? EPA is proposing to approve the SO2 emissions limits in Commissioner's Order 2016-01 and Commissioner's Order 2016-02 into the Indiana SIP. EPA confirms that the SO2 emissions limits for A. B. Brown (Commissioner's Order 2016-01) and Clifty Creek (Commissioner's Order 2016-02) are more stringent than the previous SO2 emissions limits for these sources. By approving these Commissioner's orders into the Indiana SIP, these SO2 emissions limits will become federally enforceable and strengthen the Indiana SIP. V. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Commissioner's Order No. 2016-01 issued to Vectren's A. B. Brown Generating Station, effective January 11, 2016, and Commissioner's Order No. 2016-02 issued to Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation's Clifty Creek Generating Station, effective February 1, 2016. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Dated: February 11, 2016. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. 2016-03893 Filed 2-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9395
VI. Statutory and Executive Order governments or preempt tribal law as For comments submitted at
Reviews specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Regulations.gov, follow the online
Under the CAA, the Administrator is FR 67249, November 9, 2000). instructions for submitting comments.
required to approve a SIP submission Once submitted, comments cannot be
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
that complies with the provisions of the edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
Environmental protection, Air For either manner of submission, EPA
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
pollution control, Incorporation by may publish any comment received to
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
reference, Intergovernmental relations, its public docket. Do not submit
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic electronically any information you
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
compounds. consider to be Confidential Business
provided that they meet the criteria of
Dated: February 11, 2016. Information (CBI) or other information
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
Robert A. Kaplan, whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
merely approves state law as meeting
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
Federal requirements and does not Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
impose additional requirements beyond [FR Doc. 2016–03894 Filed 2–24–16; 8:45 am]
comment. The written comment is
those imposed by state law. For that BILLING CODE 6560–50–P considered the official comment and
reason, this action:
should include discussion of all points
• Is not a significant regulatory action
you wish to make. EPA will generally
subject to review by the Office of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION not consider comments or comment
Management and Budget under AGENCY contents located outside of the primary
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
40 CFR Part 52 submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
other file sharing system). For
January 21, 2011); [EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0075; EPA–R05–
• Does not impose an information additional submission methods, please
OAR–2016–0090; FRL–9942–72–Region 5] contact the person identified in the FOR
collection burden under the provisions
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Air Plan Approval; Indiana;
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); For the full EPA public comment policy,
Commissioner’s Orders for A.B. Brown
• Is certified as not having a information about CBI or multimedia
and Clifty Creek
significant economic impact on a submissions, and general guidance on
substantial number of small entities AGENCY: Environmental Protection making effective comments, please visit
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Agency (EPA). http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); ACTION: Proposed rule. commenting-epa-dockets.
• Does not contain any unfunded FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
mandate or significantly or uniquely SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
affect small governments, as described Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Attainment Planning and Maintenance
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act revisions to the Indiana State Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by Environmental Protection Agency,
• Does not have Federalism the Indiana Department of Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
implications as specified in Executive Environmental Management (IDEM) to Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6832,
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, EPA on January 27, 2016, and February Liljegren.Jennifer@epa.gov.
1999); 5, 2016, for parallel processing. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
• Is not an economically significant submittal consists of orders issued by Throughout this document whenever
regulatory action based on health or the Commissioner of IDEM that require ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
safety risks subject to Executive Order more stringent sulfur dioxide (SO2) EPA. This supplementary information
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); emissions limits than those currently section is arranged as follows:
• Is not a significant regulatory action contained in the SIP for Vectren’s A. B.
I. Why did IDEM issue these Commissioner’s
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Brown Generating Station (‘‘A.B. Orders?
28355, May 22, 2001); Brown’’) and Indiana-Kentucky Electric II. What are the SO2 limits in these
• Is not subject to requirements of Corporation’s Clifty Creek Generating Commissioner’s Orders?
Section 12(d) of the National Station (‘‘Clifty Creek’’). IDEM III. By what criterion is EPA reviewing this
Technology Transfer and Advancement submitted these limits to enable the SIP revision?
areas near these generating stations to IV. What action is EPA taking?
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
qualify for being designated V. Incorporation by Reference
application of those requirements would VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
be inconsistent with the CAA; and ‘‘attainment’’ of the 2010 primary SO2
• Does not provide EPA with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards I. Why did IDEM issue these
discretionary authority to address, as (NAAQS), a matter that will be Commissioner’s Orders?
appropriate, disproportionate human addressed in a separate future On January 27, 2016, and February 5,
health or environmental effects, using rulemaking. EPA’s approval of these 2016, IDEM submitted for parallel
practicable and legally permissible revisions to the Indiana SIP would make processing draft revisions to its SIP
methods, under Executive Order 12898 the Commissioner’s orders’ SO2 consisting of orders issued by IDEM’s
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). emissions limits federally enforceable. Commissioner that establish more
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
In addition, the SIP is not approved to DATES: Comments must be received on stringent SO2 emissions limits than
apply on any Indian reservation land or or before March 28, 2016. those currently contained in the SIP for
in any other area where EPA or an ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek. IDEM
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA–R05– established these SO2 emissions limits
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of OAR–2016–0075 for A.B. Brown or to enable the areas near A.B. Brown and
Indian country, the rule does not have EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0090 for Clifty Clifty Creek to qualify in the future for
tribal implications and will not impose Creek at http://www.regulations.gov or being designated ‘‘attainment’’ of the
substantial direct costs on tribal via email to aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. Under a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:27 Feb 24, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM 25FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_9432/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2016 / Proposed Rules 9397
February 22, 1979, Prevention of EPA confirms that the SO2 emissions in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit limits for A. B. Brown (Commissioner’s of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
of 0.69 pounds per MMBTU for coal- Order 2016–01) and Clifty Creek • Does not have Federalism
fired boiler Unit 2. Note that the limit (Commissioner’s Order 2016–02) are implications as specified in Executive
on Unit 1 emissions alone (0.855 lbs per more stringent than the previous SO2 Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
MMBTU) is higher (less restrictive) than emissions limits for these sources. By 1999);
the limit on combined emissions from approving these Commissioner’s orders • Is not an economically significant
Units 1 and 2 (0.426 lbs per MMBTU). into the Indiana SIP, these SO2 regulatory action based on health or
Because Unit 2 has more impact per emissions limits will become federally safety risks subject to Executive Order
pound of emissions than Unit 1 due to enforceable and strengthen the Indiana 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
dispersion characteristics, the plant can SIP. • Is not a significant regulatory action
emit more and still not cause violations subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS when only Unit V. Incorporation by Reference 28355, May 22, 2001);
1 is operating than when both Units 1 In this rule, EPA is proposing to • Is not subject to requirements of
and 2 are operating. include in a final EPA rule regulatory Section 12(d) of the National
For Clifty Creek, Indiana issued text that includes incorporation by Technology Transfer and Advancement
Commissioner’s Order 2016–02 on reference. In accordance with Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
February 1, 2016, with a compliance requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is application of those requirements would
date of April 19, 2016. This order proposing to incorporate by reference be inconsistent with the CAA; and
established a combined emission limit Commissioner’s Order No. 2016–01 • Does not provide EPA with the
for the six coal-fired boilers (Units No. issued to Vectren’s A. B. Brown discretionary authority to address, as
1 through No. 6) located at Clifty Creek Generating Station, effective January 11, appropriate, disproportionate human
of 2,624.5 lbs of SO2 per hour as a 720 2016, and Commissioner’s Order No. health or environmental effects, using
operating hour rolling average when any 2016–02 issued to Indiana-Kentucky practicable and legally permissible
of Units No.1 through No. 6, or any Electric Corporation’s Clifty Creek methods, under Executive Order 12898
combination thereof, is operating. Generating Station, effective February 1, (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
2016. EPA has made, and will continue In addition, the SIP is not approved
III. By what criteria is EPA reviewing
to make, these documents generally to apply on any Indian reservation land
this SIP revision?
available electronically through or in any other area where EPA or an
EPA is evaluating this revision on the Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
basis of whether it strengthens Indiana’s tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see
SIP. Prior to Commissioner’s Order Indian country, the rule does not have
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
2016–01, A.B. Brown had an SO2 tribal implications and will not impose
for more information).
emissions limit in its operating permit substantial direct costs on tribal
of 6.0 lbs SO2 per MMBTU for coal-fired VI. Statutory and Executive Order governments or preempt tribal law as
boiler Unit 1. Prior to Commissioner’s Reviews specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
Order 2016–02 Clifty Creek had an SO2 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
emissions limit in its operating permit
required to approve a SIP submission List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
for Units 1 through 6 not to exceed 7.52
that complies with the provisions of the
lbs of SO2 per MMBTU on a thirty (30) Environmental protection, Air
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
day rolling weighted average. The new pollution control, Incorporation by
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
SO2 emissions limits established by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
IDEM in Commissioner’s Order 2016–01 Reporting and recordkeeping
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
and Commissioner’s Order 2016–02 for requirements, Sulfur oxides.
provided that they meet the criteria of
A.B. Brown and Clifty Creek, Dated: February 11, 2016.
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
respectively, are more stringent than the
merely approves state law as meeting Robert A. Kaplan,
previous limits and will therefore
Federal requirements and does not Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
strengthen Indiana’s SIP.
impose additional requirements beyond [FR Doc. 2016–03893 Filed 2–24–16; 8:45 am]
The adequacy of these limits for
those imposed by state law. For that
providing for attainment is not a BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
reason, this action:
prerequisite for approval of these limits.
Nevertheless, the purpose of these limits • Is not a significant regulatory action
is to provide for attainment, and EPA is subject to review by the Office of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
working with Indiana to assure a proper Management and Budget under AGENCY
analysis of the adequacy of these limits Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 40 CFR Part 52
for this purpose. If these limits become
SIP-approved and thereby federally January 21, 2011); [EPA–R07–OAR–2015–0438; FRL 9942–75–
enforceable in a timely fashion, formal • Does not impose an information Region 7]
evaluation of the adequacy of these collection burden under the provisions
limits to provide for attainment will be of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Approval and Promulgation of Air
conducted as part of the process of U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Quality Implementation Plans; State of
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
rulemaking on the 2010 SO2 NAAQS • Is certified as not having a Missouri; Emissions Inventory and
designation for these areas. significant economic impact on a Emissions Statement for the Missouri
substantial number of small entities Portion of the St. Louis MO-IL Ozone
IV. What action is EPA taking? under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Nonattainment Area
EPA is proposing to approve the SO2 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); AGENCY: Environmental Protection
emissions limits in Commissioner’s • Does not contain any unfunded Agency (EPA).
Order 2016–01 and Commissioner’s mandate or significantly or uniquely
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Order 2016–02 into the Indiana SIP. affect small governments, as described
VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:27 Feb 24, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM 25FEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_9432/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-02 14:35:37
Document Modified: 2018-02-02 14:35:37
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2016. | |
| Contact | Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR- 18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6832, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 9395 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Sulfur Oxides |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR