20856 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Questions concerning this action should 

be addressed to Ms. Lisa Sutton, U.S. 

EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, State and Local Programs 

Group, (C539–01), Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 

541–3450, email at sutton.lisa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to the EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in CD that you mail to the 

EPA, mark the outside of the CD as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the CD the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the 

following address: Roberto Morales, 

OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(C404–02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0322. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

Make sure to submit your comments by 

the comment period deadline identified. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this notice 

will also be available on the World 

Wide Web. Following signature, a copy 

of this notice will be posted on the 

EPA’s Web site, under SSM SIP Call 

2013, at www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/ 

sipstatus. In addition to this notice, 

other relevant documents are located in 

the docket, including the proposal 

notice and comments received on the 

proposed rulemaking so far, including 

requests for extension of the comment 

period. 

II. Background 

The purpose of this notice is to extend 

the public comment period on the EPA’s 

recently proposed rulemaking titled, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response 

to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to 

Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown, and Malfunction.’’ The 

proposal was published in the Federal 

Register on February 22, 2013, with an 

original deadline of March 25, 2013, for 

receipt of comments. However, as 

provided in the proposal, because a 

public hearing on the proposal was 

requested and this hearing was held on 

March 12, 2013, the deadline for receipt 

of comments was automatically 

extended to 30 days after the date of the 

public hearing. Accordingly, the public 

comment period for the proposal has 

already been extended to April 11, 2013. 

The EPA has received numerous 

requests to extend the end date of the 

comment period for the proposed 

rulemaking beyond April 11, 2013. 

Those requesting additional time 

include industry, industry trade 

associations, and state and local air 

pollution agencies in potentially 

affected states. These requestors claim 

that because the proposal is complex 

and far-reaching, with unique statespecific issues, they need extra time 

during which to review existing SIP 

provisions in light of the proposed 

actions and to provide meaningful and 

comprehensive comments on all aspects 

of the proposal. 

The EPA has also received, to date, 

one request that it not extend the 

comment period for the proposed 

rulemaking. This request was from the 

environmental group that submitted the 

petition at issue to the EPA. This 

requestor opposes requests to extend the 

comment period by an additional 60 to 

90 days, given the seriousness of public 

health issues at stake and the already 

extended period of time it will take to 

address any necessary SIP revisions as 

a result of the proposed rulemaking, and 

because the justifications offered for 

extension of the comment period are not 

relevant to the specific issues in the 

rulemaking. 

The EPA has carefully evaluated these 

competing requests regarding the length 

of the public comment period for the 

proposed rulemaking. In response to 

these requests, the EPA by this notice is 

extending the comment period for an 

additional 30 days, that is, until May 13, 

2013. Accordingly, the EPA notes, 

commenters thus have a comment 

period of 80 days from the date the 

proposed rulemaking was published in 

the Federal Register and 89 days from 

the date the proposed rulemaking was 

posted on the EPA’s Web site. The EPA 

believes that this length of comment 

period is reasonable and appropriate, 

considering the issues addressed in the 

proposed rulemaking. 

Dated: April 2, 2013. 

Mary E. Henigin, 

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08118 Filed 4–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0839; FRL–9799–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Redesignation of the Indianapolis Area 

to Attainment of the 1997 Annual 

Standard for Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing a supplement 

to its proposed approval of the State of 

Indiana’s request to redesignate the 

Indianapolis area to attainment for the 

1997 annual National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard) 

for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This 

supplemental proposal revises and 

expands the basis for proposing 

approval of the state’s request, in light 

of developments since EPA issued its 

initial proposal on September 27, 2011. 

This supplemental proposal addresses 

four issues, including the effects of two 

decisions of the United States Court of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 20857 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

(D.C. Circuit or Court): the Court’s 

August 21, 2012 decision to vacate and 

remand to EPA the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Control Rule (CSAPR) and the 

Court’s January 4, 2013 decision to 

remand to EPA two final rules 

implementing the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 

In this supplemental proposal, EPA is 

also proposing to approve a supplement 

to the emission inventories previously 

submitted by the state. EPA is proposing 

that the inventories for ammonia and 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), in 

conjunction with the inventories for 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), direct PM2.5, and 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) that EPA 

previously proposed to approve, meet 

the comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Finally, this supplemental proposal 

solicits comment on the state’s January 

17, 2013 submission of Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) developed 

using EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Simulator (MOVES) 2010a emissions 

model to replace the MOBILE6.2 based 

MVEBs previously submitted as part of 

the PM2.5 maintenance plan for the 

Indianapolis area. EPA is seeking 

comment only on the issues raised in its 

supplemental proposal, and is not reopening for comment other issues raised 

in its prior proposal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 29, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0839, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Doug 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: Doug Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, 18th floor, 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 No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009– 

0839. 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. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I of this document, ‘‘What Should I 

Consider as I Prepare My Comments for 

EPA?’’ 

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 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 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

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 for the 

supplemental proposal? 

III. On what specific issues is EPA taking 

comments? 

A. Effect of the August 21, 2012 D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding EPA’s CSAPR 

1. Background 

2. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. Circuit 

Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

1. Background 

2. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue 

a. Applicable Requirements for Purposes of 

Evaluating the Redesignation Request 

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Indiana’s 

Redesignation Request 

c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

C. Ammonia and VOC Comprehensive 

Emissions Inventories 

D. MVEBs 

1. How are MVEBs developed and what are 

the MVEBs for the Indianapolis area? 

2. What are safety margins? 

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions 

V. 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20858 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Pursuant to Rule 13 of the U.S. Supreme Court 

Rules, a petition for certiorari must be filed within 

90 days of the date of denial of rehearing. The 

Supreme Court may extend this deadline for good 

cause by up to 60 days. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for the 

supplemental proposal? 

On October 20, 2009, the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted a 

request to EPA to redesignate the 

Indianapolis nonattainment area 

(Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson, Marion, 

and Morgan counties) to attainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and for 

EPA approval of Indiana’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

containing an emissions inventory and 

a maintenance plan for the area. IDEM 

supplemented its submission on May 

31, 2011. 

On September 27, 2011, EPA 

published notices of proposed (76 FR 

59599) and direct final (76 FR 59512) 

rulemaking determining that the 

Indianapolis area has attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard and that the area 

has met the requirements for 

redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) 

of the CAA. In those rules EPA 

proposed several related actions. First, 

EPA proposed to approve the request 

from IDEM to change the legal 

designation of the Indianapolis area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

also proposed to approve Indiana’s 

PM2.5 maintenance plan for the 

Indianapolis area as a revision to the 

Indiana SIP because the plan meets the 

requirements of section 175A of the 

CAA. In addition, EPA proposed to 

approve 2006 emissions inventories for 

primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, 

documented in Indiana’s May 31, 2011 

PM2.5 redesignation request 

supplemental submittal as satisfying the 

requirement in section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA for a comprehensive, current 

emission inventory. Finally, EPA found 

adequate and proposed to approve 2015 

and 2025 direct PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs 

for the Indianapolis area. EPA 

subsequently received adverse 

comments on the direct final rule and 

withdrew it on November 27, 2011 (76 

FR 70361). The proposal was not 

withdrawn. 

EPA today is issuing a supplement to 

its September 27, 2011 proposed 

rulemaking. This supplemental proposal 

addresses four separate issues which 

affect the proposed redesignation and 

which have arisen since the issuance of 

the proposal: two recent decisions of the 

D.C. Circuit, the State of Indiana’s 

supplemental submission of 

comprehensive ammonia and VOC 

emissions inventories, and the State of 

Indiana’s supplemental submission of 

revised MVEBs. 

In the first of the two Court decisions, 

the D.C. Circuit, on August 21, 2012, 

issued EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), 

which vacated and remanded CSAPR 

and ordered EPA to continue 

administering the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) ‘‘pending * * * 

development of a valid replacement.’’ 

EME Homer City at 38. The D.C. Circuit 

denied all petitions for rehearing on 

January 24, 2013. In the second 

decision, on January 4, 2013, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, the 

D.C. Circuit remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final 

Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation 

Rule’’ (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and 

the ‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008). 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

In a supplemental submission to EPA 

on March 18, 2013, Indiana submitted 

2007/2008 ammonia and VOC emissions 

inventories to supplement the emissions 

inventories that had previously been 

submitted. In a separate supplemental 

submission dated January 17, 2013, the 

state submitted MVEBs developed using 

EPA’s MOVES 2010a emissions model 

to replace the MOBILE6.2 based MVEBs 

previously submitted as part of the 

PM2.5 maintenance plan for the 

Indianapolis area. Therefore, EPA’s 

supplemental proposal revises and 

expands the basis for EPA’s proposed 

approval of the state’s request to 

redesignate the Indianapolis area to 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standard, 

in light of these developments since 

EPA’s initial proposal. 

III. On what specific issues is EPA 

taking comments? 

A. Effect of the August 21, 2012 D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding EPA’s 

CSAPR 

1. Background 

In its September 27, 2011 proposal to 

redesignate the Indianapolis area, EPA 

proposed to determine that the emission 

reduction requirements that contributed 

to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard in the nonattainment area 

could be considered permanent and 

enforceable. In the proposal, EPA noted 

that it had recently promulgated CSAPR 

(76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), to 

replace CAIR, which had been in place 

since 2005. See 76 FR 59517. CAIR 

requires significant reductions in 

emissions of SO2 and NOX from electric 

generating units to limit the interstate 

transport of these pollutants and the 

ozone and fine particulate matter they 

form in the atmosphere. See 76 FR 

70093. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated 

CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 

896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 

remanded that rule to EPA without 

vacatur to preserve the environmental 

benefits provided by CAIR, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). 

CSAPR included regulatory changes 

to sunset (i.e., discontinue) CAIR and 

the CAIR Federal Implementation Plans 

(FIPs) for control periods in 2012 and 

beyond. See 76 FR 48322. Although 

Indiana’s redesignation request and 

maintenance plan relied on reductions 

associated with CAIR, EPA proposed to 

approve the request based in part on the 

fact that CAIR was to remain in force 

through the end of 2011 and CSAPR 

would achieve ‘‘similar or greater 

reductions in the relevant areas in 2012 

and beyond.’’ 76 FR 59517. 

On December 30, 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order addressing the 

status of CSAPR and CAIR in response 

to motions filed by numerous parties 

seeking a stay of CSAPR pending 

judicial review. In that order, the Court 

stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the 

petitions for review of that rule in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 

11–1302 and consolidated cases). The 

Court also indicated that EPA was 

expected to continue to administer 

CAIR in the interim until judicial 

review of CSAPR was completed. 

On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit 

issued the decision in EME Homer City, 

to vacate and remand CSAPR and 

ordered EPA to continue administering 

CAIR ‘‘pending * * * development of a 

valid replacement.’’ EME Homer City at 

38. The D.C. Circuit denied all petitions 

for rehearing on January 24, 2013. The 

deadline to file petitions for certiorari to 

the U.S. Supreme Court has not passed.1

Nonetheless, EPA intends to continue to 

act in accordance with the EME Homer 

City opinion. EPA is therefore issuing 

this portion of its supplemental 

proposal to explain the legal status of 

CAIR and CSAPR, and to provide a 

limited opportunity to comment 

specifically on the impact of the EME 

Homer City decision on the proposed 

redesignation of the Indianapolis area. 

2. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue 

In light of these unique circumstances 

and for the reasons explained below, 

EPA in this portion of its supplemental 

rule is seeking comment limited to the 

impact of the Court’s decision in EME 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 20859 

Homer City on EPA’s proposal to 

approve the redesignation request and 

the related SIP revisions for the 

Indianapolis area, including Indiana’s 

plan for maintaining attainment of the 

annual PM2.5 standard in the area. As 

explained in greater detail below, to the 

extent that attainment is due to 

emission reductions associated with 

CAIR, EPA is here determining that 

those reductions are sufficiently 

permanent and enforceable for purposes 

of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 

175A. 

As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR 

remains in place and enforceable until 

EPA promulgates a valid replacement 

rule to substitute for CAIR. Indiana’s SIP 

revision lists CAIR as a control measure 

that was adopted by the State in 2006 

and required compliance by January 1, 

2009. CAIR was thus in place and 

getting emission reductions when 

Indianapolis began monitoring 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard during the 2006–2008 time 

period. The quality-assured, certified 

monitoring data continues to show the 

area in attainment of the 1997 PM2.5

standard through 2011. 

To the extent that Indiana is relying 

on CAIR in its maintenance plan to 

support continued attainment into the 

future, the recent directive from the DC 

Circuit in EME Homer City ensures that 

the reductions associated with CAIR 

will be permanent and enforceable for 

the necessary time period. EPA has been 

ordered by the Court to develop a new 

rule to address interstate transport to 

replace CSAPR and the opinion makes 

clear that after promulgating that new 

rule EPA must provide states an 

opportunity to draft and submit SIPs to 

implement that rule. Thus, CAIR will 

remain in place until EPA has 

promulgated a final rule through a 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

process, states have had an opportunity 

to draft and submit SIPs in response to 

it, EPA has reviewed the SIPs to 

determine if they can be approved, and 

EPA has taken action on the SIPs, 

including promulgating a FIP if 

appropriate. The Court’s clear 

instruction to EPA is that it must 

continue to administer CAIR until a 

valid replacement exists, and thus EPA 

believes that CAIR emission reductions 

may be relied upon until the necessary 

actions are taken by EPA and states to 

administer CAIR’s replacement. 

Furthermore, the Court’s instruction 

provides an additional backstop: by 

definition, any rule that replaces CAIR 

and meets the Court’s direction would 

require upwind states to have SIPs that 

eliminate any significant contributions 

to downwind nonattainment and 

prevent interference with maintenance 

in downwind areas. 

Moreover, in vacating CSAPR and 

requiring EPA to continue administering 

CAIR, the D.C. Circuit emphasized that 

the consequences of vacating CAIR 

‘‘might be more severe now in light of 

the reliance interests accumulated over 

the intervening four years.’’ EME Homer 

City, 696 F.3d at 38. The accumulated 

reliance interests include the interests of 

states that reasonably assumed they 

could rely on reductions associated with 

CAIR which brought certain 

nonattainment areas into attainment 

with the NAAQS. If EPA were 

prevented from relying on reductions 

associated with CAIR in redesignation 

actions, states would be forced to 

impose additional, redundant 

reductions on top of those achieved by 

CAIR. EPA believes this is precisely the 

type of irrational result the Court sought 

to avoid by ordering EPA to continue 

administering CAIR. For these reasons 

also, EPA believes it is appropriate to 

allow states to rely on CAIR, and the 

existing emissions reductions achieved 

by CAIR, as sufficiently permanent and 

enforceable for regulatory purposes such 

as redesignations. Following 

promulgation of the replacement rule 

for CSAPR, EPA will review existing 

SIPs as appropriate to identify whether 

there are any issues that need to be 

addressed. 

B. Effect of the January 4, 2013 D.C. 

Circuit Decision Regarding PM2.5

Implementation Under Subpart 4 

1. Background 

As discussed above, on January 4, 

2013, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA the ‘‘Final Clean Air 

Fine Particle Implementation Rule’’ (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007) and the 

‘‘Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers 

(PM2.5)’’ final rule (73 FR 28321, May 

16, 2008) (collectively, ‘‘1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule’’). 706 F.3d 428 

(D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court found that 

EPA erred in implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 

of Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather 

than the particulate-matter-specific 

provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of Title 

I. 

2. Supplemental Proposal on This Issue 

In this portion of EPA’s supplemental 

proposal, EPA is soliciting comment on 

the limited issue of the effect of the 

Court’s January 4, 2013 ruling on the 

proposed redesignation of Indianapolis 

to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. As explained below, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision does not 

prevent EPA from redesignating the 

Indianapolis area to attainment, because 

even in light of the Court’s decision, 

redesignation for this area is appropriate 

under the CAA and EPA’s longstanding 

interpretations of the CAA’s provisions 

regarding redesignation. EPA first 

explains its longstanding interpretation 

that requirements that are imposed, or 

that become due, after a complete 

redesignation request is submitted for 

an area that is attaining the standard, are 

not applicable for purposes of 

evaluating a redesignation request. 

Second, EPA then shows that, even if 

EPA applies the subpart 4 requirements 

to the Indianapolis redesignation 

request and disregards the provisions of 

its 1997 PM2.5 implementation rule 

recently remanded by the Court, the 

state’s request for redesignation of this 

area still qualifies for approval. EPA’s 

discussion takes into account the effect 

of the Court’s ruling on the area’s 

maintenance plan, which EPA views as 

approvable when subpart 4 

requirements are considered. 

a. Applicable Requirements for 

Purposes of Evaluating the 

Redesignation Request 

With respect to the 1997 PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 ruling rejected EPA’s 

reasons for implementing the PM2.5

NAAQS solely in accordance with the 

provisions of subpart 1, and remanded 

that matter to EPA, so that it could 

address implementation of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS under subpart 4 of Part D 

of the CAA, in addition to subpart 1. For 

the purposes of evaluating Indiana’s 

redesignation request for the 

Indianapolis area, to the extent that 

implementation under subpart 4 would 

impose additional requirements for 

areas designated nonattainment, EPA 

believes that those requirements are not 

‘‘applicable’’ for the purposes of CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E), and thus EPA is not 

required to consider subpart 4 

requirements with respect to the 

Indianapolis redesignation. Under its 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA, 

EPA has interpreted section 107(d)(3)(E) 

to mean, as a threshold matter, that the 

part D provisions which are 

‘‘applicable’’ and which must be 

approved in order for EPA to 

redesignate an area include only those 

which came due prior to a state’s 

submittal of a complete redesignation 

request. See ‘‘Procedures for Processing 

Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20860 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2Applicable requirements of the CAA that come 

due subsequent to the area’s submittal of a complete 

redesignation request remain applicable until a 

redesignation is approved, but are not required as 

a prerequisite to redesignation. Section 175A(c) of 

the CAA. 

3Sierra Club v. Whitman was discussed and 

distinguished in a recent D.C. Circuit decision that 

addressed retroactivity in a quite different context, 

where, unlike the situation here, EPA sought to give 

its regulations retroactive effect. National 

Petrochemical and Refiners Ass’n v. EPA. 630 F.3d 

145, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2010), rehearing denied 643 F.3d 

958 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert denied 132 S. Ct. 571 

(2011). 

Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 

Management Division, September 4, 

1992 (Calcagni memorandum). See also 

‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Requirements for Areas Submitting 

Requests for Redesignation to 

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after 

November 15, 1992,’’ Memorandum 

from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant 

Administrator, Air and Radiation, 

September 17, 1993 (Shapiro 

memorandum); Final Redesignation of 

Detroit-Ann Arbor, (60 FR 12459, 

12465–66, March 7, 1995); Final 

Redesignation of St. Louis, Missouri, (68 

FR 25418, 25424–27, May 12, 2003); 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537, 541 

(7th Cir. 2004) (upholding EPA’s 

redesignation rulemaking applying this 

interpretation and expressly rejecting 

Sierra Club’s view that the meaning of 

‘‘applicable’’ under the statute is 

‘‘whatever should have been in the plan 

at the time of attainment rather than 

whatever actually was in the plan and 

already implemented or due at the time 

of attainment’’).2 In this case, at the time 

that Indiana submitted its redesignation 

request, requirements under subpart 4 

were not due, and indeed, were not yet 

known to apply. 

EPA’s view that, for purposes of 

evaluating the Indianapolis 

redesignation, the subpart 4 

requirements were not due at the time 

Indiana submitted the redesignation 

request is in keeping with the EPA’s 

interpretation of subpart 2 requirements 

for subpart 1 ozone areas redesignated 

subsequent to the D.C. Circuit’s decision 

in South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. 

v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 

In South Coast, the Court found that 

EPA was not permitted to implement 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard solely 

under subpart 1, and held that EPA was 

required under the statute to implement 

the standard under the ozone-specific 

requirements of subpart 2 as well. 

Subsequent to the South Coast decision, 

in evaluating and acting upon 

redesignation requests for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard that were 

submitted to EPA for areas under 

subpart 1, EPA applied its longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA that 

‘‘applicable requirements’’, for purposes 

of evaluating a redesignation, are those 

that had been due at the time the 

redesignation request was submitted. 

See, e.g., Proposed Redesignation of 

Manitowoc County and Door County 

Nonattainment Areas (75 FR 22047, 

22050, April 27, 2010). In those actions, 

EPA therefore did not consider subpart 

2 requirements to be ‘‘applicable’’ for 

the purposes of evaluating whether the 

area should be redesignated under 

section 107(d)(3)(E). 

EPA’s interpretation derives from the 

provisions of CAA Section 107(d)(3). 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) states that, for an 

area to be redesignated, a state must 

meet ‘‘all requirements ‘applicable’ to 

the area under section 110 and part D’’. 

Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the 

EPA must have fully approved the 

‘‘applicable’’ SIP for the area seeking 

redesignation. These two sections read 

together support EPA’s interpretation of 

‘‘applicable’’ as only those requirements 

that came due prior to submission of a 

complete redesignation request. First, 

holding states to an ongoing obligation 

to adopt new CAA requirements that 

arose after the state submitted its 

redesignation request, in order to be 

redesignated, would make it 

problematic or impossible for EPA to act 

on redesignation requests in accordance 

with the 18-month deadline Congress 

set for EPA action in section 

107(d)(3)(D). If ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ were interpreted to be a 

continuing flow of requirements with no 

reasonable limitation, states, after 

submitting a redesignation request, 

would be forced continuously to make 

additional SIP submissions that in turn 

would require EPA to undertake further 

notice-and-comment rulemaking actions 

to act on those submissions. This would 

create a regime of unceasing rulemaking 

that would delay action on the 

redesignation request beyond the 18- 

month timeframe provided by the Act 

for this purpose. 

Second, a fundamental premise for 

redesignating a nonattainment area to 

attainment is that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS due to emission 

reductions from existing controls. Thus, 

an area for which a redesignation 

request has been submitted would have 

already attained the NAAQS as a result 

of satisfying statutory requirements that 

came due prior to the submission of the 

request. Absent a showing that 

unadopted and unimplemented 

requirements are necessary for future 

maintenance, it is reasonable to view 

the requirements applicable for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request as including only those SIP 

requirements that have already come 

due. These are the requirements that led 

to attainment of the NAAQS. To require, 

for redesignation approval, that a state 

also satisfy additional SIP requirements 

coming due after the state submits its 

complete redesignation request, and 

while EPA is reviewing it, would 

compel the state to do more than is 

necessary to attain the NAAQS, without 

a showing that the additional 

requirements are necessary for 

maintenance. 

In the context of the Indianapolis 

redesignation, the timing and nature of 

the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision in 

NRDC v. EPA compound the 

consequences of imposing requirements 

that come due after the redesignation 

request is submitted. While Indiana 

submitted its redesignation request in 

2009 and EPA proposed to approve it in 

2011, the Court did not issue its 

decision remanding EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule concerning the 

applicability of the provisions of 

subpart 4 until January 2013. 

To require Indiana’s fully-completed 

and long-pending redesignation request 

to comply now with requirements of 

subpart 4 that the Court has just 

announced would be to give retroactive 

effect to such requirements when the 

State had no notice that it was required 

to meet them. The D.C. Circuit 

recognized the inequity of this type of 

retroactive impact in Sierra Club v. 

Whitman, 285 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2002),3

where it upheld the District Court’s 

ruling refusing to make retroactive 

EPA’s determination that the St. Louis 

area did not meet its attainment 

deadline. In that case, petitioners urged 

the Court to make EPA’s nonattainment 

determination effective as of the date 

that the statute required, rather than the 

later date on which EPA actually made 

the determination. The Court rejected 

this view, stating that applying it 

‘‘would likely impose large costs on 

States, which would face fines and suits 

for not implementing air pollution 

prevention plans * * * even though 

they were not on notice at the time.’’ Id. 

at 68. Similarly, it would be 

unreasonable to penalize Indiana by 

rejecting its redesignation request for an 

area that is already attaining the 1997 

PM2.5 standard and that met all 

applicable requirements known to be in 

effect at the time of the request. For EPA 

now to reject the redesignation request 

solely because the state did not 

expressly address subpart 4 

requirements of which it had no notice, 

would inflict the same unfairness 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 20861 

4PM10 refers to particulates nominally 10 

micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

5Section 188(a) also provides that EPA publish a 

notice announcing the classification of each area 

under subpart 4. 6The potential effect of section 189(e) on section 

189(a)(1)(A) for purposes of evaluating this 

redesignation is discussed below. 

7 I.e., attainment demonstration, RFP, RACM, 

milestone requirements, contingency measures. 

8As EPA has explained above, we do not believe 

that the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision should be 

interpreted so as to impose these requirements on 

the states retroactively. Sierra Club v. Whitman, 

supra. 

condemned by the Court in Sierra Club 

v. Whitman. 

b. Subpart 4 Requirements and Indiana’s 

Redesignation Request 

Even if EPA were to take the view that 

the Court’s January 4, 2013 decision 

requires that, in the context of pending 

redesignations, subpart 4 requirements 

were due and in effect at the time the 

State submitted its redesignation 

request, EPA proposes to determine that 

the Indianapolis area still qualifies for 

redesignation to attainment. As 

explained below, EPA believes that the 

redesignation request for the 

Indianapolis area, though not expressed 

in terms of subpart 4 requirements, 

substantively meets the requirements of 

that subpart for purposes of 

redesignating the area to attainment. 

With respect to evaluating the 

relevant substantive requirements of 

subpart 4 for purposes of redesignating 

the Indianapolis area, EPA notes that 

subpart 4 incorporates components of 

subpart 1 of part D, which contains 

general air quality planning 

requirements for areas designated as 

nonattainment. See Section 172(c). 

Subpart 4 itself contains specific 

planning and scheduling requirements 

for PM10 4 nonattainment areas, and 

under the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision in NRDC v. EPA, these same 

statutory requirements also apply for 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. EPA has 

longstanding general guidance that 

interprets the 1990 amendments to the 

CAA, making recommendations to states 

for meeting the statutory requirements 

for SIPs for nonattainment areas. See, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans; General 

Preamble for the Implementation of 

Title I of the Clear Air Act Amendments 

of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 

(the ‘‘General Preamble’’). In the General 

Preamble, EPA discussed the 

relationship of subpart 1 and subpart 4 

SIP requirements, and pointed out that 

subpart 1 requirements were to an 

extent ‘‘subsumed by, or integrally 

related to, the more specific PM–10 

requirements.’’ 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 

1992). EPA’s previously published 

proposal for this redesignation action 

addressed how the Indianapolis area 

meets the requirements for 

redesignation under subpart 1. These 

subpart 1 requirements include, among 

other things, provisions for attainment 

demonstrations, reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), reasonable 

further progress (RFP), emissions 

inventories, and contingency measures. 

For the purposes of this redesignation, 

in order to identify any additional 

requirements which would apply under 

subpart 4, we are considering the 

Indianapolis area to be a ‘‘moderate’’ 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. Under 

section 188 of the CAA, all areas 

designated nonattainment areas under 

subpart 4 would initially be classified 

by operation of law as ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment areas, and would remain 

moderate nonattainment areas unless 

and until EPA reclassifies the area as a 

‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area.5

Accordingly, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the evaluation of 

the potential impact of subpart 4 

requirements to those that would be 

applicable to moderate nonattainment 

areas. Sections 189(a) and (c) of subpart 

4 apply to moderate nonattainment 

areas and include the following: (1) An 

approved permit program for 

construction of new and modified major 

stationary sources (section 189(a)(1)(A)); 

(2) an attainment demonstration (section 

189(a)(1)(B)); (3) provisions for RACM 

(section 189(a)(1)(C)); and (4) 

quantitative milestones demonstrating 

RFP toward attainment by the 

applicable attainment date (section 

189(c)). 

The permit requirements of subpart 4, 

as contained in section 189(a)(1)(A), 

refer to and apply the subpart 1 permit 

provisions requirements of sections 172 

and 173 to PM10, without adding to 

them. Consequently, EPA believes that 

section 189(a)(1)(A) does not itself 

impose for redesignation purposes any 

additional requirements for moderate 

areas beyond those contained in subpart 

1.6 In any event, in the context of 

redesignation, EPA has long relied on 

the interpretation that a fully approved 

nonattainment new source review 

program is not considered an applicable 

requirement for redesignation, provided 

the area can maintain the standard with 

a prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) program after redesignation. A 

detailed rationale for this view is 

described in a memorandum from Mary 

Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, 

entitled, ‘‘Part D New Source Review 

Requirements for Areas Requesting 

Redesignation to Attainment.’’ See also 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (60 

FR 12467–12468, March 7, 1995); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (61 FR 

20458, 20469–20470, May 7, 1996); 

Louisville, Kentucky (66 FR 53665, 

October 23, 2001); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (61 FR 31834–31837, June 21, 

1996). 

With respect to the specific 

attainment planning requirements under 

subpart 4,7 when EPA evaluates a 

redesignation request under either 

subpart 1 and/or 4, any area that is 

attaining the PM2.5 standard is viewed 

as having satisfied the attainment 

planning requirements for these 

subparts. For redesignations, EPA has 

for many years interpreted attainmentlinked requirements as not applicable 

for areas attaining the standard. In the 

General Preamble, EPA stated that: 

The requirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the 

area has already attained. Showing that the 

State will make RFP towards attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that point. 

‘‘General Preamble for the Interpretation 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990’’; (57 FR 13498, 

13564, April 16, 1992). 

The General Preamble also explained 

that 

[t]he section 172(c)(9) requirements are 

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by 

the applicable date. These requirements no 

longer apply when an area has attained the 

standard and is eligible for redesignation. 

Furthermore, section 175A for maintenance 

plans * * * provides specific requirements 

for contingency measures that effectively 

supersede the requirements of section 

172(c)(9) for these areas. 

Id. 

EPA similarly stated in its 1992 

Calcagni memorandum that, ‘‘The 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress and other measures needed for 

attainment will not apply for 

redesignations because they only have 

meaning for areas not attaining the 

standard.’’ 

It is evident that even if we were to 

consider the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision in NRDC v. EPA to mean that 

attainment-related requirements specific 

to subpart 4 should be imposed 

retroactively 8 and thus are now past 

due, those requirements do not apply to 

an area that is attaining the 1997 PM2.5

standard, for the purpose of evaluating 

a pending request to redesignate the 

area to attainment. EPA has consistently 

enunciated this interpretation of 

applicable requirements under section 

107(d)(3)(E) since the General Preamble 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20862 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9Under either subpart 1 or subpart 4, for 

purposes of demonstrating attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, a state is required to 

evaluate all economically and technologically 

feasible control measures for direct PM emissions 

and precursor emissions, and adopt those measures 

that are deemed reasonably available. 

was published more than twenty years 

ago. Courts have recognized the scope of 

EPA’s authority to interpret ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ in the redesignation 

context. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 

F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, even outside the context of 

redesignations, EPA has viewed the 

obligations to submit attainment-related 

SIP planning requirements of subpart 4 

as inapplicable for areas that EPA 

determines are attaining the standard. 

EPA’s prior ‘‘Clean Data Policy’’ 

rulemakings for the PM10 NAAQS, also 

governed by the requirements of subpart 

4, explain EPA’s reasoning. They 

describe the effects of a determination of 

attainment on the attainment-related SIP 

planning requirements of subpart 4. See 

‘‘Determination of Attainment for Coso 

Junction Nonattainment Area,’’ (75 FR 

27944, May 19, 2010). See also Coso 

Junction proposed PM10 redesignation, 

(75 FR 36023, 36027, June 24, 2010); 

Proposed and Final Determinations of 

Attainment for San Joaquin 

Nonattainment Area (71 FR 40952, 

40954–55, July 19, 2006; and 71 FR 

63641, 63643–47 October 30, 2006). In 

short, EPA in this context has also long 

concluded that to require states to meet 

superfluous SIP planning requirements 

is not necessary and not required by the 

CAA, so long as those areas continue to 

attain the relevant NAAQS. 

In its September 27, 2011 proposal for 

this action, EPA proposed to determine 

that the Indianapolis area has attained 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard and therefore 

meets the attainment–related plan 

requirements of subpart 1. Under its 

longstanding interpretation, EPA is 

proposing to determine here that the 

area also meets the attainment-related 

plan requirements of subpart 4. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to conclude 

that the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration under 

189(a)(1)(B), a RACM determination 

under section 172(c) and section 

189(a)(1)(c), and a RFP demonstration 

under 189(c)(1) are satisfied for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request. 

c. Subpart 4 and Control of PM2.5

Precursors 

The D.C. Circuit in NRDC v. EPA 

remanded to EPA the two rules at issue 

in the case with instructions to EPA to 

re-promulgate them consistent with the 

requirements of subpart 4. The Court’s 

opinion raises the issue of the 

appropriate approach to addressing 

PM2.5 precursors in this and future EPA 

actions. While past implementation of 

subpart 4 for PM10 has allowed for 

control of PM10 precursors such as NOX

from major stationary, mobile, and area 

sources in order to attain the standard 

as expeditiously as practicable, CAA 

section 189(e) specifically provides that 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of direct PM10 shall 

also apply to PM10 precursors from 

those sources, except where EPA 

determines that major stationary sources 

of such precursors ‘‘do not contribute 

significantly to PM10 levels which 

exceed the standard in the area.’’ 

EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 implementation 

rule, remanded by the D.C. Circuit, 

contained rebuttable presumptions 

concerning certain PM2.5 precursors 

applicable to attainment plans and 

control measures related to those plans. 

Specifically, in 40 CFR 51.1002, EPA 

provided, among other things, that a 

state was ‘‘not required to address VOC 

[and ammonia] as * * * PM2.5

attainment plan precursor[s] and to 

evaluate sources of VOC [and ammonia] 

emissions in the State for control 

measures.’’ EPA intended these to be 

rebuttable presumptions. EPA 

established these presumptions at the 

time because of uncertainties regarding 

the emission inventories for these 

pollutants and the effectiveness of 

specific control measures in various 

regions of the country in reducing PM2.5

concentrations. EPA also left open the 

possibility for such regulation of VOC 

and ammonia in specific areas where 

that was necessary. 

The Court in its January 4, 2013 

decision made reference to both section 

189(e) and 40 CFR 51. 1002, and stated 

that, ‘‘In light of our disposition, we 

need not address the petitioners’ 

challenge to the presumptions in [40 

CFR 51.1002] that volatile organic 

compounds and ammonia are not PM2.5

precursors, as subpart 4 expressly 

governs precursor presumptions.’’ 

NRDC v. EPA, at 27, n.10. 

Elsewhere in the Court’s opinion, 

however, the Court observed: 

Ammonia is a precursor to fine particulate 

matter, making it a precursor to both PM2.5

and PM10. For a PM10 nonattainment area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

presumptively regulated. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7513a(e) [section 189(e)]. 

Id. at 21, n.7. 

For a number of reasons, EPA believes 

that the Court’s decision on this aspect 

of subpart 4 does not preclude EPA’s 

approval of Indiana’s redesignation 

request for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

First, while the Court, citing section 

189(e), stated that ‘‘for a PM10 area 

governed by subpart 4, a precursor is 

‘presumptively regulated,’’’ the Court 

expressly declined to decide the specific 

challenge to EPA’s 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions 

regarding ammonia and VOC as 

precursors. The Court had no occasion 

to reach whether and how it was 

substantively necessary to regulate any 

specific precursor in a particular PM2.5

nonattainment area, and did not address 

what might be necessary for purposes of 

acting upon a redesignation request. 

However, even if EPA takes the view 

that the requirements of subpart 4 were 

deemed applicable at the time the state 

submitted the redesignation request, 

and disregards the implementation 

rule’s rebuttable presumptions regarding 

ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 precursors, 

the regulatory consequence would be to 

consider the need for regulation of all 

precursors from any sources in the area 

to demonstrate attainment and to apply 

the section 189(e) provisions to major 

stationary sources of precursors. In the 

case of Indianapolis, EPA believes that 

doing so would not affect the 

approvability of the proposed 

redesignation of the area for the 1997 

PM2.5 standard. Indianapolis has 

attained the standard without any 

specific additional controls of VOC and 

ammonia emissions from any sources in 

the area. 

Precursors in subpart 4 are 

specifically regulated under the 

provisions of section 189(e), which 

requires, with important exceptions, 

control requirements for major 

stationary sources of PM10 precursors.9

Under subpart 1 and EPA’s prior 

implementation rule, all major 

stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors 

were subject to regulation, with the 

exception of ammonia and VOC. Thus 

we must address here whether 

additional controls of ammonia and 

VOC from major stationary sources are 

required under section 189(e) of subpart 

4 in order to redesignate the 

Indianapolis area for the 1997 PM2.5

standard. As explained below, we do 

not believe that any additional controls 

of ammonia and VOC are required in the 

context of this redesignation. 

In the General Preamble, EPA 

discusses its approach to implementing 

section 189(e). See 57 FR 13538–13542. 

With regard to precursor regulation 

under section 189(e), the General 

Preamble explicitly stated that control 

of VOCs under other Act requirements 

may suffice to relieve a state from the 

need to adopt precursor controls under 

section 189(e). 57 FR 13542. EPA in this 

supplemental proposal proposes to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 20863 

10The Indianapolis area has reduced VOC 

emissions through the implementation of various 

control programs including VOC Reasonably 

Available Control Technology regulations and 

various on-road and non-road motor vehicle control 

programs. 

11See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans for California—San Joaquin 

Valley PM-10 Nonattainment Area; Serious Area 

Plan for Nonattainment of the 24-Hour and Annual 

PM-10 Standards,’’ 69 FR 30006 (May 26, 2004) 

(approving a PM10 attainment plan that impose 

controls on direct PM10 and NOX emissions and did 

not impose controls on SO2, VOC, or ammonia 

emissions). 

12See, e.g., Assoc. of Irritated Residents v. EPA 

et al., 423 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005). 

determine that the Indiana SIP has met 

the provisions of section 189(e) with 

respect to ammonia and VOCs as 

precursors. This proposed supplemental 

determination is based on our findings 

that (1) the Indianapolis area contains 

no major stationary sources of ammonia, 

and (2) existing major stationary sources 

of VOC are adequately controlled under 

other provisions of the CAA regulating 

the ozone NAAQS.10 In the alternative, 

EPA proposes to determine that, under 

the express exception provisions of 

section 189(e), and in the context of the 

redesignation of the Indianapolis area, 

which is attaining the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard, at present ammonia and 

VOC precursors from major stationary 

sources do not contribute significantly 

to levels exceeding the 1997 PM2.5

standard in the Indianapolis area. See 

57 FR 13539–13542. 

EPA notes that its 1997 PM2.5

implementation rule provisions in 40 

CFR 51.1002 were not directed at 

evaluation of PM2.5 precursors in the 

context of redesignation, but at SIP 

plans and control measures required to 

bring a nonattainment area into 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

By contrast, redesignation to attainment 

primarily requires the area to have 

already attained due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and to 

demonstrate that controls in place can 

continue to maintain the standard. 

Thus, even if we regard the Court’s 

January 4, 2013 decision as calling for 

‘‘presumptive regulation’’ of ammonia 

and VOC for PM2.5 under the attainment 

planning provisions of subpart 4, those 

provisions in and of themselves do not 

require additional controls of these 

precursors for an area that already 

qualifies for redesignation. Nor does 

EPA believe that requiring Indiana to 

address precursors differently than they 

have already would result in a 

substantively different outcome. 

Although, as EPA has emphasized, its 

consideration here of precursor 

requirements under subpart 4 is in the 

context of a redesignation to attainment, 

EPA’s existing interpretation of subpart 

4 requirements with respect to 

precursors in attainment plans for PM10

contemplates that states may develop 

attainment plans that regulate only 

those precursors that are necessary for 

purposes of attainment in the area in 

question, i.e., states may determine that 

only certain precursors need be 

regulated for attainment and control 

purposes.11 Courts have upheld this 

approach to the requirements of subpart 

4 for PM10.12 EPA believes that 

application of this approach to PM2.5

precursors under subpart 4 is 

reasonable. Because the Indianapolis 

area has already attained the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS with its current approach to 

regulation of PM2.5 precursors, EPA 

believes that it is reasonable to conclude 

in the context of this redesignation that 

there is no need to revisit the attainment 

control strategy with respect to the 

treatment of precursors. Even if the 

Court’s decision is construed to impose 

an obligation, in evaluating this 

redesignation request, to consider 

additional precursors under subpart 4, it 

would not affect EPA’s approval here of 

Indiana’s request for redesignation of 

the Indianapolis area. In the context of 

a redesignation, the area has shown that 

it has attained the standard. Moreover, 

the state has shown and EPA has 

proposed to determine that attainment 

in this area is due to permanent and 

enforceable emissions reductions on all 

precursors necessary to provide for 

continued attainment. It follows 

logically that no further control of 

additional precursors is necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA does not view the 

January 4, 2013 decision of the Court as 

precluding redesignation of the 

Indianapolis area to attainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS at this time. 

In sum, even if Indiana were required 

to address precursors for the 

Indianapolis area under subpart 4 rather 

than under subpart 1, as interpreted in 

EPA’s remanded PM2.5 implementation 

rule, EPA would still conclude that the 

area had met all applicable 

requirements for purposes of 

redesignation in accordance with 

section 107(d)(3(E)(ii) and (v). 

d. Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of 

Precursors 

With regard to the redesignation of 

Indianapolis, in evaluating the effect of 

the Court’s remand of EPA’s 

implementation rule, which included 

presumptions against consideration of 

VOC and ammonia as PM2.5 precursors, 

EPA in this supplemental proposal is 

also considering the impact of the 

decision on the maintenance plan 

required under sections 175A and 

107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To begin with, EPA 

notes that the area has attained the 1997 

PM2.5 standard and that the state has 

shown that attainment of that standard 

is due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions. 

In its prior proposal notice for this 

action, EPA proposed to determine that 

the State’s maintenance plan shows 

continued maintenance of the standard 

by tracking the levels of the precursors 

whose control brought about attainment 

of the 1997 PM2.5 standard in the 

Indianapolis area. EPA therefore 

believes that the only additional 

consideration related to the 

maintenance plan requirements that 

results from the Court’s January 4, 2013 

decision is that of assessing the 

potential role of VOC and ammonia in 

demonstrating continued maintenance 

in this area. As explained below, based 

upon documentation provided by the 

State and supporting information, EPA 

believes that the maintenance plan for 

the Indianapolis area need not include 

any additional emission reductions of 

VOC or ammonia in order to provide for 

continued maintenance of the standard. 

First, as noted above in EPA’s 

discussion of section 189(e), VOC 

emission levels in this area have 

historically been well-controlled under 

SIP requirements related to ozone and 

other pollutants. Second, total ammonia 

emissions throughout the Indianapolis 

area are very low, estimated to be less 

than 4,000 tons per year. See Table 4 

below. This amount of ammonia 

emissions appears especially small in 

comparison to the total amounts of SO2,

NOX, and even direct PM2.5 emissions 

from sources in the area. Third, as 

described below, available information 

shows that no precursor, including VOC 

and ammonia, is expected to increase 

over the maintenance period so as to 

interfere with or undermine the State’s 

maintenance demonstration. 

Indiana’s maintenance plan shows 

that emissions of direct PM2.5, SO2, and 

NOX are projected to decrease by 1,048 

tons per year (tpy), 11,301 tpy, and 

39,894 tpy, respectively, over the 

maintenance period. See Tables 1–3 

below. In addition, emissions 

inventories used in the regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) for the 2012 PM2.5

NAAQS show that VOC and ammonia 

emissions are projected to decrease by 

14,551 tpy and 99 tpy, respectively 

between 2007 and 2020. See Table 4 

below. While the RIA emissions 

inventories are only projected out to 

2020, there is no reason to believe that 

this downward trend would not 

continue through 2025. Given that the 

Indianapolis area is already attaining 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS even with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20864 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

13Electric generating units. 

14Emissions projections for the on-road sector 

were generated using the MOVES model. Indiana 

submitted the MOVES based NOX and direct PM2.5

emissions projections and MVEBs for the on-road 

sector on January 17, 2013, to replace the 

MOBILE6.2 based on-road emissions projections 

and MVEBs submitted as part of the maintenance 

plan. 

15On-road sector emissions were projected using 

the MOBILE6.2 emissions model. 

current level of emissions from sources 

in the area, the downward trend of 

emissions inventories would be 

consistent with continued attainment. 

Indeed, projected emissions reductions 

for the precursors that the State is 

addressing for purposes of the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS indicate that the area 

should continue to attain the NAAQS 

following the precursor control strategy 

that the state has already elected to 

pursue. Even if VOC and ammonia 

emissions were to increase 

unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025, 

the overall emissions reductions 

projected in direct PM2.5, SO2, and NOX

would be sufficient to offset any 

increases. For these reasons, EPA 

believes that local emissions of all of the 

potential PM2.5 precursors will not 

increase to the extent that they will 

cause monitored PM2.5 levels to violate 

the 1997 PM2.5 standard during the 

maintenance period. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, 2020, AND 2025 DIRECT PM2.5 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) 

FOR THE INDIANAPOLIS AREA

Sector 

Direct PM2.5

2008 2015 2020 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point ......................................................................................................... 843 823 806 790 ¥53 

EGU 13 ...................................................................................................... 1,966 2,568 2,568 2,568 601 

Area ......................................................................................................... 85 82 79 76 ¥9 

Nonroad ................................................................................................... 805 538 384 282 ¥524 

On-road 14 ................................................................................................ 1,464 742 571 400 ¥1,064 

Total .................................................................................................. 5,164 4,753 4,408 4,116 ¥1,048 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, 2020, AND 2025 SO2 EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

INDIANAPOLIS AREA

Sector 

SO2

2008 2015 2020 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point ......................................................................................................... 2,416 1,632 1,605 1,579 ¥837 

EGU ......................................................................................................... 38,027 28,315 28,314 28,314 ¥9,713 

Area ......................................................................................................... 1,830 1,778 1,732 1,687 ¥143 

Nonroad ................................................................................................... 576 166 89 57 ¥519 

On-road 15 ................................................................................................ 654 498 532 565 88 

Total .................................................................................................. 43,503 32,389 32,272 32,202 ¥11,301 

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF 2008, 2015, 2020, AND 2025 NOX EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

INDIANAPOLIS AREA

Sector 

NOX

2008 2015 2020 2025 Net change 

2008–2025 

Point ......................................................................................................... 6,259 6,268 6,183 6,099 ¥161 

EGU ......................................................................................................... 7,184 6,865 6,864 6,863 ¥321 

Area ......................................................................................................... 4,886 4,809 4,727 4,646 ¥240 

Nonroad ................................................................................................... 10,954 7,147 4,961 3,545 ¥7,409 

On-road 14 ................................................................................................ 43,389 22,013 16,819 11,625 ¥31,76 

Total .................................................................................................. 72,672 47,101 39,554 32,778 ¥39,894 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 20865 

16These emissions estimates were taken from the 

emissions inventories developed for the RIA for the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF 2007 AND 2020 VOC AND AMMONIA EMISSION TOTALS BY SOURCE SECTOR (TPY) FOR THE

INDIANAPOLIS AREA 16

Sector 

VOC Ammonia 

2007 2020 Net change 

2007–2020 2007 2020 Net change 2007–2020 

Point ................................................................................. 1,699 1,716 17 58 68 10 

Area .................................................................................. 27,618 27,516 ¥102 3,056 3,198 142 

Nonroad ........................................................................... 7,114 4,121 ¥2,993 11 14 3 

On-road ............................................................................ 17,972 6,499 ¥11,473 636 382 ¥254 

Fires ................................................................................. 113 113 0 8 8 0 

Total .......................................................................... 54,516 39,965 ¥14,551 3,769 3,670 ¥99 

In addition, available air quality 

modeling analyses show continued 

maintenance of the standard during the 

maintenance period. The current air 

quality design value for the area is 13.1 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

(based on 2009–11 air quality data), 

which is well below the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 mg/m3. Moreover, 

the modeling analysis conducted for the 

RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

indicates that the design value for this 

area is expected to continue to decline 

through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the 

2020 modeled design value for the 

Indianapolis area is 10.4 mg/m3. Given 

that precursor emissions are projected to 

decrease through 2025, it is reasonable 

to conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels 

in this area will also continue to 

decrease through 2025. 

Thus, EPA believes that there is 

ample justification to conclude that the 

Indianapolis area should be 

redesignated, even taking into 

consideration the emissions of other 

precursors potentially relevant to PM2.5. 

After consideration of the D.C. Circuit’s 

January 4, 2013 decision, and for the 

reasons set forth in this supplemental 

notice, EPA continues to propose 

approval of the State of Indiana’s 

maintenance plan and its request to 

redesignate the Indianapolis area to 

attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 annual 

standard. 

C. Ammonia and VOC Comprehensive 

Emissions Inventories 

EPA in this supplemental proposal 

also addresses the State of Indiana’s 

supplemental submission that provides 

additional information concerning 

ammonia and VOC emissions in the 

Indianapolis area in order to meet the 

emissions inventory requirement of 

CAA section 172(c)(3). Section 172(c)(3) 

of the CAA requires states to submit a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

emissions inventory for a nonattainment 

area. For purposes of the PM2.5 NAAQS, 

this emissions inventory should address 

not only direct emissions of PM2.5, but 

also emissions of all precursors with the 

potential to participate in PM2.5

formation, i.e., SO2, NOX, VOC and 

ammonia. 

In the September 27, 2011 proposed 

rule, EPA proposed to approve the 

emissions inventory information for 

direct PM2.5, NOX, and SO2 submitted 

by IDEM as meeting the emissions 

inventory requirement for the 

Indianapolis area. On March 18, 2013, 

IDEM supplemented its submittal with 

2007/2008 emissions inventories for 

ammonia and VOC. The additional 

emissions inventory information 

provided by the State addresses 

emissions of VOC and ammonia from 

the general source categories of point 

sources, area sources, on-road mobile 

sources, and nonroad mobile sources. 

The state-submitted emissions 

inventories were based upon 

information generated by the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO) in conjunction with its 

member states and are presented in 

Table 5 below. 

LADCO ran the EMS model using data 

provided by the State of Indiana to 

generate point source emissions 

estimates. The point source data 

supplied by the state was obtained from 

Indiana’s source facility emissions 

reporting. 

For area sources, LADCO ran the EMS 

model using the 2008 National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) data 

provided by Indiana. LADCO followed 

Eastern Regional Technical Advisory 

Committee (ERTAC) recommendations 

on area sources when preparing the 

data. Agricultural ammonia emissions 

were not taken from NEI; instead 

emissions were based on Carnegie 

Mellon University’s Ammonia Emission 

Inventory for the Continental United 

States (CMU). Specifically, the CMU 

2002 annual emissions were grown to 

reflect 2007 conditions. A process-based 

ammonia emissions model developed 

for LADCO was then used to develop 

temporal factors to reflect the impact of 

average meteorology on livestock 

emissions. 

Non-road mobile source emissions 

were generated using the NMIM2008 

emissions model. LADCO also 

accounted for three other non-road 

categories not covered by the NMIM 

model: commercial marine vessels, 

aircraft, and railroads. Marine emissions 

were based on reports prepared by 

Environ entitled ‘‘LADCO Nonroad 

Emissions Inventory Project for 

Locomotive, Commercial Marine, and 

Recreational Marine Emission Sources, 

Final Report, December 2004’’ and 

‘‘LADCO 2005 Commercial Marine 

Emissions, Draft, March 2, 2007.’’ 

Aircraft emissions were provided by 

Indiana and calculated using AP–42 

emission factors and landing and takeoff data provided by the Federal 

Aviation Administration. Rail emissions 

were based on the 2008 inventory 

developed by ERTAC. 

On-road mobile source emissions 

were generated using EPA’s 

MOVES2010a emissions model. 

EPA notes that the emissions 

inventory developed by LADCO is 

documented in ‘‘Regional Air Quality 

Analyses for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional 

Haze: Base C Emissions Inventory’’ 

(September 12, 2011). 

TABLE 5—INDIANAPOLIS AREA AMMONIA AND VOC EMISSIONS (TPY) FOR

2007/2008 BY SOURCE SECTOR

Sector Ammonia VOC 

Point ...................... 41.73 1,284.14 

Area ...................... 3,139.54 27,646.25 

Non-road ............... 10.51 8,277.20 

On-road ................. 685.41 21,866.66 

Total ............... 3,877.19 59,074.25 

EPA has concluded that the 2007/ 

2008 ammonia and VOC emissions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20866 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

17The 2004 rulemaking addressed most of the 

transportation conformity requirements that apply 

in PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas. The 

2005 conformity rule included provisions 

addressing treatment of PM2.5 precursors in MVEBs. 

See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2). While none of these 

provisions were challenged in the NRDC case, EPA 

also notes that the Court declined to address 

challenges to EPA’s presumptions regarding PM2.5

precursors in the PM2.5 implementation rule. NRDC 

v. EPA, at 27, n. 10. 

inventories provided by the State are 

complete and as accurate as possible 

given the input data available for the 

relevant source categories. EPA also 

believes that these inventories provide 

information about VOC and ammonia as 

PM2.5 precursors in the context of 

evaluating redesignation of the 

Indianapolis area under subpart 4. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the ammonia and VOC emissions 

inventories submitted by the State, in 

conjunction with the NOX, direct PM2.5, 

and SO2 emissions inventories that EPA 

previously proposed to approve, as fully 

meeting the comprehensive inventory 

requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA for the Indianapolis area for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. Since 

EPA’s prior proposal addressed other 

precursor emissions inventories, EPA in 

this supplemental proposal is seeking 

comment only with respect to the 

additional inventories for VOC and 

ammonia that Indiana has submitted. 

D. MVEBs 

1. How are MVEBs developed and what 

are the MVEBs for the Indianapolis 

area? 

On January 17, 2013, Indiana 

submitted to EPA a request to revise its 

maintenance plan for the Indianapolis 

area by replacing the previously 

submitted MOBILE6.2 based MVEBs 

with budgets developed using EPA’s 

MOVES 2010a emissions model. 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit, at various times, control strategy 

SIP revisions and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment areas and for areas 

seeking redesignation to attainment for 

a given NAAQS. These emission control 

strategy SIP revisions (e.g., RFP and 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions) 

and maintenance plans create MVEBs 

based on on-road mobile source 

emissions for the relevant criteria 

pollutants and/or their precursors, 

where appropriate, to address pollution 

from on-road transportation sources. 

The MVEBs are the portions of the total 

allowable emissions that are allocated to 

on-road vehicle use that, together with 

emissions from all other sources in the 

area, will provide for attainment, RFP, 

or maintenance, as applicable. The 

budget serves as a ceiling on emissions 

from an area’s planned transportation 

system. Under 40 CFR part 93, a MVEB 

for an area seeking a redesignation to 

attainment is established for the last 

year of the maintenance plan. See the 

September 27, 2011 notice of direct final 

approval for a more complete discussion 

of MVEBs. (76 FR 59512). 

EPA’s substantive criteria for 

determining the adequacy of MVEBs are 

set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

Additionally, to approve a motor 

vehicle emissions budget, EPA must 

complete a thorough review of the SIP, 

in this case the PM2.5 maintenance plan, 

and conclude that with the projected 

level of motor vehicle and all other 

emissions, the SIP will achieve its 

overall purpose, in this case providing 

for maintenance of the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard. 

EPA’s process for determining 

adequacy of a MVEB consists of three 

basic steps: (1) Providing public 

notification of a SIP submission; (2) 

providing the public the opportunity to 

comment on the MVEB during a public 

comment period; and, (3) EPA taking 

action on the MVEB. The process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP MVEBs is codified at 40 CFR 93.118. 

The maintenance plan revision 

submitted by Indiana for the 

Indianapolis area contains primary 

PM2.5 and NOX MVEBs for the area for 

the years 2015 and 2025. 

IDEM has determined the 2015 

MVEBs for the Indianapolis area to be 

853.76 tpy for primary PM2.5 and 

25,314.49 tpy for NOX. IDEM has 

determined the 2025 MVEBs for the 

Indianapolis area to be 460.18 tpy for 

primary PM2.5 and 13,368.60 tpy for 

NOX. These MVEBs exceed the on-road 

mobile source primary PM2.5 and NOX

emissions projected by IDEM for 2015 

and 2025, as summarized in Table 6 

below. IDEM decided to include ‘‘safety 

margins’’ as provided for in 40 CFR 

93.124(a) (described further below) of 

111.36 tpy and 60.02 tpy for primary 

PM2.5 and 3,301.89 tpy and 1,743.73 tpy 

for NOX in the 2015 and 2025 MVEBs, 

respectively, to provide for on-road 

mobile source growth. Indiana did not 

provide emission budgets for SO2, VOC, 

and ammonia because it concluded, 

consistent with the presumptions 

regarding these precursors in the 

conformity rule at 40 CFR 

93.102(b)(2)(v), which predated and was 

not disturbed by the litigation on the 

PM2.5 implementation rule, that 

emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem. 

EPA issued conformity regulations to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

July 2004 and May 2005 (69 FR 40004, 

July 1, 2004 and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 

2005, respectively). Those actions were 

not part of the final rule recently 

remanded to EPA by the Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia in 

NRDC v. EPA, No. 08–1250 (Jan. 4, 

2013), in which the Court remanded to 

EPA the implementation rule for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS because it concluded that 

EPA must implement that NAAQS 

pursuant to the PM-specific 

implementation provisions of subpart 4 

of Part D of Title I of the CAA, rather 

than solely under the general provisions 

of subpart 1. That decision does not 

affect EPA’s proposed approval of the 

Indianapolis MVEBs. 

First, as noted above, EPA’s 

conformity rule implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS was a separate action 

from the overall PM2.5 implementation 

rule addressed by the Court and was not 

considered or disturbed by the decision. 

Therefore, the conformity regulations 

were not at issue in NRDC v. EPA.17 In 

addition, as discussed in section III.B., 

the Indianapolis area is attaining the 

1997 annual standard for PM2.5 with a 

2009–2011 design value of 13.1 mg/m3, 

which is well below the annual PM2.5

NAAQS of 15 mg/m3. The modeling 

analysis conducted for the RIA for the 

2012 p.m. NAAQS indicates that the 

design value for this area is expected to 

continue to decline through 2020. 

Further, the State’s maintenance plan 

shows continued maintenance through 

2025 by demonstrating that NOX, SO2, 

and direct PM2.5 emissions continue to 

decrease through the maintenance 

period. For VOC and ammonia, RIA 

inventories for 2007 and 2020 show that 

both on-road and total emissions for 

these pollutants are expected to 

decrease, supporting the state’s 

conclusion, consistent with the 

presumptions regarding these 

precursors in the conformity rule, that 

emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem and the MVEBs for 

these precursors are unnecessary. With 

regard to SO2, the 2005 final conformity 

rule (70 FR 24280) based its 

presumption concerning on-road SO2

motor vehicle emissions budgets on 

emissions inventories that show that 

SO2 emissions from on-road sources 

constitute a ‘‘de minimis’’ portion of 

total SO2 emissions. As shown 

elsewhere in this supplemental 

proposal, on-road emissions in 2025 are 

less than 2% of total SO2 emissions in 

the area. While on-road SO2 emissions 

reach a low point in 2015 and gradually 

begin to increase, these increases are 

small in the context of the entire SO2

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 20867 

inventory and, even with those 

increases, the on-road emissions are 

lower in 2025 than in the base year. 

Moreover, the revised MVEBs simply 

update the budget calculations using 

MOVES, as explained above. 

TABLE 6—ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS ESTIMATES (TPY) AND BUDGETS

NOX PM2.5

Emissions 

estimate Budget Safety margin 

Emissions 

estimate Budget Safety margin 

2008 ................................................................................. 43,388.93 .................... .................... 1,463.72 .................... ....................

2015 ................................................................................. 22,012.60 25,314.49 3,301.89 742.40 853.76 111.36 

2025 ................................................................................. 11624.87 13,368.60 1,743.73 400.16 460.18 60.02 

2. What are safety margins? 

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference 

between the attainment level of 

emissions (from all sources) and the 

projected level of emissions (from all 

sources) in the maintenance plan. As 

shown in Table 3, NOX emissions in the 

Indianapolis area are projected to have 

safety margins of 25,571 tpy and 39,894 

tpy in 2015 and 2025, respectively (the 

difference between the attainment year, 

2008, emissions and the projected 2015 

and 2025 emissions for all sources in 

the Indianapolis area). Table 1 shows 

direct PM2.5 emissions in the 

Indianapolis area are projected to have 

a safety margin of 412 tpy and 1,048 tpy 

in 2015 and 2025, respectively. Even if 

emissions reached the full level of the 

safety margin, the area would still 

demonstrate maintenance since 

emission levels would equal those in 

the attainment year. 

The transportation conformity rule 

allows areas to allocate all or a portion 

of a ‘‘safety margin’’ to the area’s motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (40 CFR 

92.124(a)). The MVEBs requested by 

IDEM contain NOX and direct PM2.5

safety margins for mobile sources in 

2015 and 2025 smaller than the 

allowable safety margins reflected in the 

total emissions inventory for the 

Indianapolis area. Thus, the State is not 

requesting allocation to the MVEBs of 

the entire available safety margins 

reflected in the demonstration of 

maintenance. Therefore, even though 

the State has submitted MVEBs that 

exceed the projected on-road mobile 

source emissions for 2015 and 2025 

contained in the demonstration of 

maintenance, the differences between 

the MVEBs and the projected on-road 

mobile source emissions are well within 

the safety margins of the PM2.5

maintenance demonstration. Further, 

once allocated to mobile sources, these 

safety margins will not be available for 

use by other sources. 

EPA has reviewed the submitted 

budgets for 2015 and 2025, including 

the added safety margins using the 

conformity rule’s adequacy criteria 

found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and the 

conformity rule’s requirements for 

safety margins found at 40 CFR 

93.124(a). EPA has determined that the 

area can maintain attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

relevant maintenance period with onroad mobile source emissions at the 

levels of the MVEBs since total 

emissions will still remain under 

attainment year emission levels. EPA is 

therefore proposing to approve the 

MOVES based MVEBs submitted by 

Indiana for use in determining 

transportation conformity in the 

Indianapolis area. 

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions 

After fully considering the DC 

Circuit’s decisions in EME Homer City 

on EPA’s CSAPR rule, and NRDC v. EPA 

on EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 Implementation 

rule, EPA in this supplemental notice is 

proposing to proceed with approval of 

the request to redesignate the 

Indianapolis area to attainment for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and of the 

associated maintenance plan. In this 

supplemental notice, EPA is also 

proposing to approve the 2007/2008 

ammonia and VOC emissions 

inventories as meeting, in conjunction 

with the NOX, direct PM2.5 and SO2

inventories that EPA previously 

proposed to approve, the 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the 

CAA. Finally, EPA is proposing to 

approve Indiana’s MOVES-based NOX

and direct PM2.5 MVEBs for 2015 and 

2025 for the Indianapolis area for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

EPA is seeking comment only on the 

issues raised in its supplemental 

proposals, and is not re-opening 

comment on other issues addressed in 

its prior proposal. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, 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, these proposed 

actions do not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law and the CAA. For that reason, 

these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• are 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.); 

• do 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); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20868 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 67 / Monday, April 8, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because a 

determination of attainment is an action 

that affects the status of a geographical 

area and does not impose any new 

regulatory requirements on tribes, 

impact any existing sources of air 

pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the 

maintenance of ozone national ambient 

air quality standards in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: March 28, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–08122 Filed 4–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0007; FRL–9798–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of California; PM10; 

Redesignation of the South Coast Air 

Basin to Attainment; Approval of PM10

Redesignation Request and 

Maintenance Plan for the South Coast 

Air Basin 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, 

as a revision to the California state 

implementation plan, the State’s request 

to redesignate the Los Angeles-South 

Coast Air Basin nonattainment area to 

attainment, which is currently 

designated serious nonattainment for 

the 1987 national ambient air quality 

standards for particulate matter of ten 

microns or less. EPA is also proposing 

to approve the PM10 maintenance plan 

and the associated motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for use in 

transportation conformity 

determinations necessary for the South 

Coast area. Finally, EPA is proposing to 

approve the attainment year emissions 

inventory. EPA is proposing these 

actions because the SIP revision meets 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and EPA guidance for such plans and 

motor vehicle emissions budgets. 

DATES: Any comments must be received 

on or before May 8, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0007, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions. 

2. Email: tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or Deliver: Wienke Tax (Air2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. http:// 

www.regulations.gov is an anonymous 

access system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. 

If you send email directly to EPA, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the public comment. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket and 

documents in the docket for this action 

are generally available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., voluminous records, 

copyrighted material), and some may 

not be publicly available in either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wienke Tax, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning Office, 

Region IX, (415) 947–4192, 

tax.wienke@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

II. Background 

A. The PM10 NAAQS 

B. PM10 Planning Requirements 

C. PM10 Attainment Plans for the South 

Coast Area 

III. Procedural Requirements for Adoption 

and Submittal of SIP Revisions 

IV. Substantive Requirements for 

Redesignation 

V. Evaluation of the State’s Redesignation 

Request for the South Coast PM10

Nonattainment Area 

A. Determination That the Area Has 

Attained the PM10 NAAQS 

B. The Area Has a Fully-Approved SIP 

Meeting Requirements Applicable for 

Purposes of Redesignation under Section 

110 and Part D 

1. Basic SIP Requirements under CAA 

Section 110 

2. SIP Requirements under Part D 

C. EPA has Determined that the 

Improvement in Air Quality is Due to 

Permanent and Enforceable Reductions 

in Emissions 

D. The Area Must Have a Fully-Approved 

Maintenance Plan under CAA Section 

175A 

1. Attainment Inventory 

2. Maintenance Demonstration 

3. Verification of Continued Attainment 

4. Contingency Provisions 

5. Commitment to Submit Subsequent 

Maintenance Plan Revision 

E. Transportation Conformity and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

VI. Proposed Actions and Request for Public 

Comment 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Today’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to take several 

related actions. Under Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘the Act’’) section 107(d)(3)(D), 

EPA is proposing to approve the State’s 

request to redesignate the South Coast 

PM10 nonattainment area to attainment 

for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. We are 

doing so based on our conclusion that 

the area has met the five criteria for 

redesignation under CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E): (1) That the area has 

attained the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in 

the 2008–2010 time period and that the 

area continues to attain the PM10

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS