Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20577 

on a permit application according to 

time period requirements under ss. 

285.61 and 285.62, Stats. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Wisconsin’s May 12, 2001, submittal, 

relating to provisions impacting the FCP 

Community Class I Area. Specifically, 

Wisconsin’s submittal defines the 

geographic center of the FCP 

Community Class I Area, establishes 

requirements for sources which may 

potentially impact the FCP Community 

Class I Area, provides the FCP 

Community the opportunity to review 

certain BACT and MACT 

determinations, and establishes a 

dispute resolution process for issues 

that may arise between the FCP 

Community and the State. The 

provisions proposed for approval into 

Wisconsin’s SIP include: NR 

400.02(66m), NR 405.19, and NR 

406.08(4). 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that the SIP submittal is 

approvable because EPA takes the 

position that it generally will not 

interfere with the agreements reached 

between Tribes and States through the 

CAA’s section 164(e) dispute resolution 

process, which provides that the results 

of such agreements will become part of 

the appropriate applicable plan. EPA’s 

2008 rulemaking anticipated that 

revisions to the Wisconsin SIP would be 

needed to fully implement the 1999 

MOA between the State and the FCP 

Community. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. In May 2011, EPA issued its 

policy on consultation and coordination 

with Indian tribes. EPA explained that 

its policy is to consult on a governmentto-government basis with Federally 

recognized tribal governments when 

EPA actions and decisions may affect 

tribal interests. Accordingly, EPA 

engaged in consultation with the FCP 

Community regarding the Wisconsin 

proposed SIP revisions. 

The Wisconsin proposed SIP 

revisions which define the FCP 

Community’s Class I Area, and which 

define those sources that are required to 

conduct Class I and Class II increment 

analysis, and which provide for the FCP 

Community’s participation in certain 

BACT or MACT determinations will all 

enable the FCP Community and 

Wisconsin to work together to 

cooperatively implement the FCP 

Community’s Class I Area, which is an 

integral part of the FCP Community’s 

goal of exercising control over 

reservation resources to better protect 

the members of the FCP Community. 

In the process of reviewing the 

proposed Wisconsin SIP revisions, EPA 

consulted with FCP Community tribal 

officials to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into the 

Agency’s review. EPA consulted with 

representatives of the FCP Community 

prior to proposing to approve the 

Wisconsin SIP revision. During this 

consultation, EPA explained the 

provisions included in the proposed 

Wisconsin SIP revision and answered 

questions. EPA intends to keep the FCP 

Community informed of the progress of 

this proposed SIP approval. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: March 26, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8207 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0214; FRL–9655–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Central Indiana (Indianapolis) Ozone 

Maintenance Plan Revision to 

Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

Indiana’s request to revise its Central 

Indiana 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 

air quality State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) by replacing the previously 

approved motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (budgets) with budgets 

developed using EPA’s Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010a 

emissions model. The Central Indiana 

1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area 

consists of Marion, Boone, Hendricks, 

Morgan, Johnson, Shelby, Hancock, 

Madison, and Hamilton Counties in 

Indiana. Indiana submitted this request 

to EPA for parallel processing on March 

2, 2012. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0214, by one of the 

following methods: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20578 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0214. 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 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

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 Patricia 

Morris, Environmental Scientist at (312) 

353–8656 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia Morris, Environmental 

Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8656, 

patricia.morris@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 action is EPA proposing to take? 

III. What is the background for this action? 

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation 

Conformity 

b. Prior Approval of Budgets 

c. The MOVES Emissions Model and 

Regional Transportation Conformity 

Grace Period 

d. Submission of New Budgets Based on 

MOVES2010a 

IV. What are the criteria for approval? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

submittal? 

a. The Revised Inventories 

b. Approvability of the MOVES2010aBased Budgets 

c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based 

Budgets 

VI. What action is EPA taking? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period. 

II. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve new 

MOVES2010a-based budgets for the 

Central Indiana 1997 ozone 

maintenance area. The Central Indiana 

area was redesignated to attainment of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard on 

October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59210), and the 

MOBILE6.2-based budgets were 

approved in that notice. When EPA 

finalizes this proposed approval, the 

newly submitted MOVES2010a budgets 

will replace the existing, MOBILE6.2- 

based budgets in the state’s 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan and must then 

be used in future transportation 

conformity analyses for the area. At that 

time, the previously approved budgets 

would no longer be applicable for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

When EPA approves the 

MOVES2010a-based budgets, the 

Central Indiana 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance area must use the 

MOVES2010a-based budgets starting on 

the effective date of that final approval. 

See 75 FR 9411–9414 for background 

and section III.c below for details. 

III. What is the background for this 

action? 

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation 

Conformity 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), states 

are required to submit, at various times, 

control strategy SIP revisions and 

maintenance plans for nonattainment 

and maintenance areas for a given 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). These emission control 

strategy SIP revisions (e.g., reasonable 

further progress and attainment 

demonstration SIP revisions) and 

maintenance plans include budgets of 

on-road mobile source emissions for 

criteria pollutants and/or their 

precursors to address pollution from 

cars and trucks. SIP budgets are the 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20579 

1For more information, see 77 FR 11394. 

portions of the total allowable emissions 

that are allocated to on-road vehicle use 

that, together with emissions from other 

sources in the area, will provide for 

attainment or maintenance. The budget 

serves as a ceiling on emissions from an 

area’s planned transportation system. 

For more information about budgets, see 

the preamble to the November 24, 1993, 

transportation conformity rule (58 FR 

62188). 

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, 

transportation plans, Transportation 

Improvement Programs (TIPs), and 

transportation projects must ‘‘conform’’ 

to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP 

before they can be adopted or approved. 

Conformity to the SIP means that 

transportation activities will not cause 

new air quality violations, worsen 

existing air quality violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS or 

delay an interim milestone. The 

transportation conformity regulations 

can be found at 40 CFR Part 93. 

Before budgets can be used in 

conformity determinations, EPA must 

affirmatively find the budgets adequate. 

However, adequate budgets do not 

supersede approved budgets for the 

same CAA purpose. If the submitted SIP 

budgets are meant to replace budgets for 

the same purpose, as is the case with 

Indiana’s MOVES2010a 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance plan budgets, EPA 

must approve the budgets, and can 

affirm that they are adequate at the same 

time. Once EPA approves the submitted 

budgets, they must be used by state and 

Federal agencies in determining 

whether transportation activities 

conform to the SIP as required by 

section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA’s 

substantive criteria for determining the 

adequacy of budgets are set out in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

b. Prior Approval of Budgets 

EPA had previously approved budgets 

for the Central Indiana 8-hour ozone 

maintenance area for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) for the years 2006 and 2020 on 

October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59210). These 

budgets were based on EPA’s 

MOBILE6.2 emissions model. The ozone 

maintenance plan established 2006 

budgets for the Central Indiana area of 

54.32 tons per summer day (tpd) for 

VOCs and 106.19 tpd for NOX and 2020 

budgets for the Central Indiana Area of 

29.52 tpd for VOCs and 35.69 tpd for 

NOX. These budgets demonstrated a 

reduction in emissions from the 

monitored attainment year and included 

a margin of safety. 

c. The MOVES Emissions Model and 

Regional Transportation Conformity 

Grace Period 

The MOVES model is EPA’s state-ofthe-art tool for estimating highway 

emissions. The model is based on 

analyses of millions of emission test 

results and considerable advances in the 

agency’s understanding of vehicle 

emissions. MOVES incorporates the 

latest emissions data, more 

sophisticated calculation algorithms, 

increased user flexibility, new software 

design, and significant new capabilities 

relative to those reflected in 

MOBILE6.2. 

EPA announced the release of 

MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR 

9411). This notice approved the use of 

MOVES2010 in official SIP submissions 

to EPA and for regional emissions 

analyses for transportation conformity 

purposes outside of California. In 

addition, the notice started a two-year 

grace period before MOVES2010 is 

required to be used in new regional 

emissions analyses for transportation 

conformity determinations outside of 

California. EPA has since extended that 

grace period until March 2, 2013 (77 FR 

11394). 

On September 8, 2010, EPA released 

MOVES2010a, which included minor 

revisions that enhance model 

performance and do not significantly 

affect the criteria pollutant emissions 

results from MOVES2010. Therefore, 

MOVES2010a is not considered a ‘‘new 

model’’ under 40 CFR 93.111. As a 

result, the MOVES2010 grace period for 

regional conformity analyses applies to 

the use of MOVES2010a as well.1

EPA encouraged Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations (MPOs), 

Departments of Transportation, and 

state air agencies to examine how 

MOVES would affect future 

transportation plan and TIP conformity 

determinations so, if necessary, SIPs 

and budgets could be revised with 

MOVES2010 or transportation plans and 

TIPs could be revised (as appropriate) 

prior to the end of the regional 

transportation conformity grace period. 

EPA also encouraged state and local air 

agencies to consider how the release of 

MOVES would affect analyses 

supporting SIP submissions under 

development. 

The Indianapolis Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (IMPO) has used 

MOVES2010a emission rates with the 

transportation network information to 

estimate emissions in the years of the 

transportation plan and also for the SIP. 

Indiana is revising the budgets at this 

time using the latest planning 

assumptions including population and 

employment updates. In addition, 

newer vehicle registration data has been 

used to update the age distribution of 

the vehicle fleet. Since MOVES2010 (or 

a minor model revision) will be required 

for conformity analyses after the grace 

period ends, Indiana finds that updating 

the budgets with MOVES2010a will 

prepare the IMPO for the transition to 

using MOVES for conformity analyses 

and determinations. The interagency 

consultation group has had extensive 

consultation on the requirements and 

need for new budgets. 

d. Submission of New Budgets Based on 

MOVES2010a 

On March 2, 2012, Indiana submitted 

for parallel processing replacement 

budgets based on MOVES2010a for the 

Central Indiana area. Indiana is 

currently providing public review and 

comment at the state level. The state 

public comment period ends on March 

30, 2012. EPA is proposing to approve 

the MOVES2010a budgets after 

completion of the public process and 

formal submittal of the SIP revision 

request. 

The MOVES2010a budgets are 

proposed to replace the prior approved 

MOBILE6.2 budgets and are for the 

same years and pollutants/precursors. 

The new MOVES2010a budgets are for 

the years 2006 and 2020 for both VOCs 

and NOX. Indiana has also submitted 

MOVES2010a emissions for the 

attainment year of 2005 as a comparison 

to the 2006 and 2020 budget years and 

for purposes of calculating a safety 

margin. Table 4.1–A in the submittal 

demonstrates how mobile source 

emissions decline from the attainment 

year of 2005. In 2005, the total estimated 

NOX emissions from all sources 

(including mobile, point, area and nonroad sources) is 329.78 tpd and the total 

VOC emissions, for the 2005 attainment 

year, from all sources is 207.94 tpd. The 

2020 estimated emissions for total NOX

from all sources is 136.59 tpd and the 

total VOC emissions from all sources is 

163.69 tpd. The mobile source 

emissions, when included with point, 

area and non-road sources continue to 

demonstrate maintenance of the 

attainment level of emissions in the 

Central Indiana area. 

No additional control measures were 

needed to maintain the 1997 ozone 

standard emissions in the Central 

Indiana area. The available safety 

margin for NOX and VOCs was 

recalculated at the bottom of table 4.1– 

A and an allocation of 10% for NOX and 

12% for VOCs were decided upon 

during the interagency consultation 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20580 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

process. The on-road MOVES2010a 

based budgets are in Table 5.2–A of the 

submittal and are listed as 210.93 tpd 

for NOX and 64.32 tpd for VOCs in the 

year 2006 and 69.00 tpd for NOX and 

25.47 tpd for VOCs in the year 2020. 

These budgets will continue to keep 

emissions in the Central Indiana area 

below the calculated attainment year of 

emissions. 

IV. What are the criteria for approval? 

The CAA has always required that 

revisions to existing SIPs and budgets 

continue to meet applicable 

requirements (i.e., reasonable further 

progress (RFP), attainment, or 

maintenance). States that revise their 

existing SIPs to include MOVES budgets 

must therefore show that the SIP 

continues to meet applicable 

requirements with the new level of 

motor vehicle emissions contained in 

the budgets. 

The transportation conformity rule (at 

40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)) requires that 

‘‘the motor vehicle emissions budget(s), 

when considered together with all other 

emissions sources, is consistent with 

applicable requirements for reasonable 

further progress (RFP), attainment, or 

maintenance (whichever is relevant to 

the given implementation plan 

submission).’’ This and the other 

adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before 

EPA can find submitted budgets 

adequate or approve them for 

conformity purposes. 

In addition, EPA has stated that areas 

can revise their budgets and inventories 

using MOVES without revising their 

entire SIP if (1) the SIP continues to 

meet applicable requirements when the 

previous motor vehicle emissions 

inventories are replaced with MOVES 

base year and milestone, attainment, or 

maintenance year inventories, and (2) 

the state can document that growth and 

control strategy assumptions for nonmotor vehicle sources continue to be 

valid and any minor updates do not 

change the overall conclusions of the 

SIP. For example, the first criterion 

could be satisfied by demonstrating that 

the emissions reductions between the 

baseline/attainment year and 

maintenance year are the same or 

greater using MOVES than they were 

previously. The Indiana submittal meets 

this requirement as described below in 

section V. 

For more information, see EPA’s latest 

‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of 

MOVES2010 for State Implementation 

Plan Development, Transportation 

Conformity, and Other Purposes’’ 

available online at: www.epa.gov/otaq/ 

stateresources/transconf/ 

policy.htm#models. 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s 

submittal? 

a. The Revised Inventories 

The Indiana SIP revision request for 

Central Indiana 1997 ozone 

maintenance seeks to revise only the onroad mobile source inventories and not 

the non-road inventories, area source 

inventories or point source inventories 

for the 2006 and 2020 years for which 

the SIP revises the budgets. IDEM has 

certified that the control strategies 

remain the same as in the original SIP, 

and that no other control strategies are 

necessary. This is confirmed by the 

monitoring data for Central Indiana, 

which continues to monitor attainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The 

area is also monitoring attainment for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. Thus, 

the current control strategies are 

continuing to keep the area in 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

EPA has reviewed the emission 

estimates for point, area and non-road 

sources and concluded that no major 

changes to the projections need to be 

made. The submittal states that ‘‘growth 

and control strategy assumptions for 

non-mobile sources (i.e., area, nonroad, 

and point) from the original submittal 

for the years 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 

were developed before the down turn in 

the economy over the last several years. 

Because of this, the factors included in 

the original submittal may project more 

growth than actual into the future. As a 

result, the growth and control strategy 

assumptions for the non-mobile sources 

for the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 

continue to be valid and do not affect 

the overall conclusions of the plan.’’ 

Indiana confirms that the SIP 

continues to demonstrate its purpose of 

maintaining the 1997 ozone standard 

because the emissions are continuing to 

decrease from the attainment year to the 

final year of the maintenance plan. The 

total emissions in the revised SIP 

(which includes MOVES2010a 

emissions from mobile sources) are 

329.78 tpd for NOX and 207.94 tpd for 

VOCs in the 2005 attainment year. The 

total emissions from all sources in the 

2020 year are 136.59 tpd for NOX and 

163.69 tpd for VOCs. These totals 

demonstrate that emissions in the 

Central Indiana area are continuing to 

decline and remain below the 

attainment levels. 

Indiana has submitted MOVES2010abased budgets for the Central Indiana 

area that are clearly identified in Table 

5.2–A of the submittal. The budgets for 

2006 are 210.93 tpd for NOX and 64.32 

tpd for VOCs. The budgets for 2020 are 

69.00 tpd for NOX and 25.47 tpd for 

VOCs. 

b. Approvability of the MOVES2010aBased Budgets 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted 

by the state for use in determining 

transportation conformity in the Central 

Indiana 1997 ozone maintenance area. 

EPA is making this proposal based on 

our evaluation of these budgets using 

the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) and our in-depth evaluation 

of the State’s submittal and SIP 

requirements. EPA has determined, 

based on its evaluation, that the area’s 

maintenance plan would continue to 

serve its intended purpose with the 

submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets 

and that the budgets themselves will 

meet the adequacy criteria in the 

conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 

after the state public hearing is 

completed and the SIP is formally 

submitted. 

EPA is parallel processing this SIP 

revision request which means that EPA 

is proposing approval at the same time 

that the state is completing the public 

process at the state level. This SIP 

revision request will not be complete 

and will not meet all the adequacy 

criteria until the state public process is 

complete and the SIP revision is 

submitted in final with a letter from the 

Governor or Governor’s designee. EPA is 

proposing to approve the SIP revision 

request after completion of the state 

public process and final submittal. If 

any comments are received, EPA will 

consider those comments received both 

at the state and Federal level. 

EPA is moving forward with 

proposing approval with this parallel 

process because transportation projects 

cannot be amended to the Central 

Indiana Transportation Plan and 

transportation improvement program 

until this budget replacement is 

completed. The Central Indiana area has 

three MPOs in the maintenance area 

(Indianapolis, Anderson and a portion 

of the Columbus, Indiana MPO). These 

three MPOs are required by the 

conformity rule to conduct conformity 

determinations together because they 

are all part of the same maintenance 

area with one set of ozone budgets for 

that area (there are not separate budgets 

for each MPO). The budgets need to be 

updated, not only to accommodate the 

use of MOVES2010a, but also because of 

the updated planning assumptions for 

mobile sources. 

The adequacy criteria found in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4) are as follows: 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 20581 

2For more information, see Question 11 of EPA’s 

‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for 

State Implementation Plan Development, 

Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes’’ 

and 75 FR 9411. 

• The submitted SIP was endorsed by 

[the Governor/Gov’s designee] and was 

subject to a state public hearing 

(§ 93.118(e)(4)(i)); 

• The submitted SIP underwent 

consultation among Federal, state, and 

local agencies and the state fully 

documented the submittal 

(§ 93.118(e)(4)(ii)); 

• The budgets are clearly identified 

and precisely quantified 

(§ 93.118(e)(4)(iii)); 

• The budgets, when considered with 

other emission sources, are consistent 

with applicable requirements for 

[reasonable further progress/attainment/ 

maintenance] (§ 93.118(e)(4)(iv)); 

• The budgets are consistent with and 

clearly related to the emissions 

inventory and control measures in the 

SIP (§ 93.118(e)(4)(v)); and 

• The revisions explain and 

document changes to the previous 

budgets, impacts on point and area 

source emissions and changes to 

established safety margins 

(§ 93.118(e)(4)(vi)). 

Our review finds that Indiana has met 

all of the adequacy criteria, except the 

public process and final submittal by 

the Governor or Governor’s designee. 

The interagency consultation group, 

which is composed of the state air 

agency, state Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, EPA and the MPOs for 

the area, have discussed and reviewed 

the budgets developed with 

MOVES2010a and the safety margin 

allocation. The budgets are clearly 

identified and precisely quantified in 

the submittal in table 5.2–A. The 

budgets when considered with other 

emissions sources (point, area, nonroad) are consistent with continued 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

standard. The budgets are clearly related 

to the emissions inventory and control 

measures in the SIP. The changes from 

the previous budgets are clearly 

explained with the change in the model 

from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a and 

the revised and updated planning 

assumptions. The inputs to the model 

are detailed in the Appendix to the 

submittal. EPA has reviewed the inputs 

to the MOVES2010a modeling and 

participated in the consultation process. 

The Federal Highway Administration— 

Indiana Division and the Indiana 

Department of Transportation have 

taken a lead role in working with the 

MPO and contractor to provide accurate, 

timely information and inputs to the 

MOVES2010a model runs. The IMPO 

network model and Anderson MPO 

network model provided the vehicle 

miles of travel and other necessary data 

from the travel demand networks. 

The CAA requires that revisions to 

existing SIPs and budgets continue to 

meet applicable requirements (in this 

case, maintenance). Therefore, states 

that revise existing SIPs with MOVES 

must show that the SIP continues to 

meet applicable requirements with the 

new level of motor vehicle emissions 

calculated by the new model. 

To that end, Indiana’s submitted 

MOVES2010a budgets meet EPA’s two 

criteria for revising budgets without 

revising the entire SIP: 

(1) The SIP continues to meet 

applicable requirements when the 

previous motor vehicle emissions 

inventories are replaced with 

MOVES2010a base year and milestone, 

attainment, or maintenance year 

inventories, and 

(2) The state can document that 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

for non-motor vehicle sources continue 

to be valid and any minor updates do 

not change the overall conclusions of 

the SIP. 

The State has documented that 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

continue to be valid and do not change 

the overall conclusions of the 

maintenance plan. The emission 

estimates for point, area and non-road 

sources have not changed. The 

submittal states that ‘‘growth and 

control strategy assumptions for nonmobile sources (i.e. area, non-road, and 

point) from the original submittal for the 

years 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 were 

developed before the down turn in the 

economy over the last several years. 

Because of this, the factors included in 

the original submittal may project more 

growth than actual into the future. As a 

result, the growth and control strategy 

assumptions for the non-mobile sources 

for the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 

continue to be valid and do not affect 

the overall conclusions of the plan.’’ 

Indiana confirms that the SIP 

continues to demonstrate its purpose of 

maintaining the 1997 ozone standard 

because the emissions are continuing to 

decrease from the attainment year to the 

final year of the maintenance plan. The 

total emissions in the revised SIP 

(which includes MOVES2010a 

emissions for mobile sources) decrease 

from 329.78 tpd for NOX and 207.94 tpd 

for VOCs in the 2005 attainment year to 

136.59 tpy NOX and 163.69 tpd VOC in 

2020. These totals demonstrate that 

emissions in the Central Indiana area 

are continuing to decline and remain 

below the attainment levels. The 

following tables show total emissions in 

the Central Indiana area including 

point, area, non-road, and mobile 

sources and demonstrates the declining 

emissions from the 2005 attainment 

year. 

TABLE OF TOTAL EMISSIONS WITH MOVES2010a MOBILE EMISSIONS

2005 2010 2015 2020 

VOC ................................................................................................. 207.94 189.75 177.43 163.69

NOX .................................................................................................. 329.78 223.43 168.61 136.59 

Based on our review of the SIP and 

the new budgets provided, EPA has 

determined that the SIP will continue to 

meet its requirements if the revised 

motor vehicle emissions inventories are 

replaced with MOVES2010a 

inventories. 

c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based 

Budgets 

Pursuant to the State’s request, EPA is 

proposing that, if we finalize the 

approval of the revised budgets, the 

state’s existing MOBILE6.2-based 

budgets will no longer be applicable for 

transportation conformity purposes 

upon the effective date of that final 

approval. 

In addition, once EPA approves the 

MOVES2010a-based budgets, the 

regional transportation conformity grace 

period for using MOVES2010 (and 

subsequent minor revisions) for the 

pollutants included in these budgets 

will end for the Central Indiana ozone 

maintenance area on the effective date 

of that final approval.2

VI. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing in this action that 

the Central Indiana existing approved 

budgets for VOCs and NOX for 2006 and 

2020 for the 1997 8-hour ozone 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20582 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 66 / Thursday, April 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

maintenance plan be replaced with new 

budgets based on the MOVES2010a 

emissions model. Once this proposal is 

finalized, future transportation 

conformity determinations would use 

the new, MOVES2010a-based budgets 

and would no longer use the existing 

MOBILE6.2-based budgets. EPA is also 

proposing to find that the Central 

Indiana area’s maintenance plan would 

continue to meet its requirements as set 

forth under the CAA when these new 

budgets are included. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: March 26, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8208 Filed 4–4–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0166; FRL–9655–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Florida: 

New Source Review Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration: Nitrogen 

Oxides as a Precursor to Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

changes to the Florida State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) 

through the Division of Air Resource 

Management to EPA in two separate SIP 

revisions on October 19, 2007, and July 

1, 2011. These SIP revisions modify 

Florida’s New Source Review (NSR) 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program to address requirements 

promulgated in the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) Implementation Rule NSR 

Update Phase II (hereafter referred to as 

the ‘‘Ozone Implementation NSR 

Update’’ or ‘‘Phase II Rule’’) recognizing 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) as an ozone 

precursor, among other requirements. In 

addition, both SIP revisions make 

corrective and clarifying changes to 

Florida’s regulations. EPA is proposing 

approval of both SIP revisions because 

the Agency has preliminarily 

determined that the changes are in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA regulations regarding 

NSR permitting. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0166, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0166, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0166.’’ 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS