Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29695 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act 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 proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet federal requirements; this 

proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 16, 2011. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12606 Filed 5–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0396; FRL–9307–1] 

Approval, and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Redesignation of the Evansville Area 

to Attainment of the Fine Particulate 

Matter Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 3, 2008, the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted a 

request for EPA to approve the 

redesignation of the Evansville, Indiana 

nonattainment area to attainment of the 

1997 annual fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) standard. The air quality 

improvement in this area and 

maintenance of the standard in this area 

is attributable in substantial part to 

power plant emission reductions in the 

Eastern United States prompted by the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit) has remanded CAIR, but EPA 

has proposed a replacement rule known 

as the Transport Rule. The Evansville 

area has attained the standard with only 

a fraction of the reductions that the 

proposed Transport Rule proposed to 

require. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 

approve the redesignation request for 

the Evansville area, along with related 

SIP revisions, if and when EPA takes 

final action to promulgate the Transport 

Rule, provided that the final Transport 

Rule requires emission reductions that 

are at least substantially equivalent to 

those of the proposed Transport Rule for 

purposes of maintaining the standard in 

the Evansville area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 22, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2008–0396, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, 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–2008– 

0396. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. We recommend that 

you telephone John Summerhays, 

Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886– 

6067 before visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067, 

summerhays.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What actions is EPA proposing to take? 

III. What is the background for this action? 

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to 

attainment? 

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

request? 

1. Attainment 

2. Fully Approved SIP Meeting All 

Pertinent Requirements 

a. General Requirements 

b. Section 110(a) Requirements 

c. Emission Inventories 

d. Other Nonattainment Area Requirements 

3. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Reductions 

4. Maintenance Plan 

5. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

6. Summary of Proposed Actions 

VI. What are the effects of EPA’s proposed 

actions? 

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—The EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What actions is EPA proposing to 

take? 

On November 27, 2009, at 74 FR 

62243, EPA made a final determination 

that the Evansville area has attained the 

1997 annual PM2.5 national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). EPA here is 

proposing to determine that the area 

continues to attain that standard. EPA is 

also proposing to take several additional 

actions related to Indiana’s request to 

redesignate the area to attainment for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

First, EPA is proposing to approve 

Indiana’s 1997 annual PM2.5

maintenance plan for the Evansville 

area as a revision to the Indiana SIP, 

subject to the proviso that EPA 

promulgates a final Transport Rule 

requiring power plant emission 

reductions substantially equivalent for 

purposes of maintaining the PM2.5

standard in Evansville to those 

proposed in EPA’s Transport Rule 

proposal. Since maintenance of the 

standard in Evansville is based in large 

part on maintaining substantial control 

of power plant emissions, promulgation 

of such a Transport Rule is necessary to 

help make recent reductions in power 

plant emissions (or equivalent 

reductions at other power plants) 

permanent and enforceable. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2005 emission inventory in 

Indiana’s maintenance plan as satisfying 

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

a comprehensive emission inventory. 

Third, EPA is proposing to find that, 

subject to final approval of the 

emissions inventory and the proviso set 

forth above with respect to EPA’s 

proposed Transport Rule, Indiana meets 

the requirements for redesignation of 

the Evansville area to attainment of the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS under section 

107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. 

Because CAIR was remanded, the 

reductions associated with that rule 

cannot be considered permanent and 

enforceable. For this reason, the 

submissions from Indiana do not 

currently demonstrate satisfaction of the 

requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), 

that the area’s air quality improvement 

be due to permanent and enforceable 

measures. However, EPA proposes that 

this requirement will be met if and 

when EPA finalizes a Transport Rule 

which, for purposes of this action, is 

substantially equivalent to the Transport 

Rule that EPA proposed on August 2, 

2010. Therefore, subject to this proviso, 

EPA is proposing to approve the request 

from the State of Indiana to change the 

designation of the Evansville area, 

consisting of Dubois, Vanderburgh, and 

Warrick Counties along with 

Montgomery Township in Gibson 

County, Ohio Township in Spencer 

County, and Washington Township in 

Pike County, from nonattainment to 

attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

the 2015 and 2022 motor vehicle 

emission budgets (MVEBs) for the 

Evansville area into the Indiana SIP. 

EPA proposes to take final action on this 

and the other proposed actions 

delineated in this section if and when 

EPA takes final action promulgating a 

Transport Rule substantially equivalent 

for purposes of air quality in the 

Evansville area to the Transport Rule 

proposed on August 2, 2010. 

III. What is the background for these 

actions? 

The first air quality standards for 

PM2.5 were promulgated on July 18, 

1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated 

an annual standard at a level of 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), 

based on a three-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. In the same 

rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour 

standard of 65 μg/m3, based on a threeyear average of the 98th percentile of 24- 

hour concentrations. On October 17, 

2006, at 71 FR 61144, EPA retained the 

annual average standard at 15 μg/m3 but 

revised the 24-hour standard to 35 μg/ 

m3, based again on the three-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. 

On January 5, 2005, at 70 FR 944, as 

supplemented on April 14, 2005, at 70 

FR 19844, EPA designated the 

Evansville area as nonattainment for the 

1997 PM2.5 air quality standards. In that 

action, EPA defined the Evansville 

nonattainment area to include the 

entirety of Dubois, Vanderburgh, and 

Warrick Counties and portions of three 

other counties, specifically including 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29697 

Montgomery Township in Gibson 

County, Ohio Township in Spencer 

County, and Washington Township in 

Pike County. On November 13, 2009, at 

74 FR 58688, EPA promulgated 

designations for the 24-hour standard 

set in 2006, designating the Evansville 

area as attaining this standard. In that 

action, EPA also clarified the 

designations for the NAAQS 

promulgated in 1997, stating that the 

Evansville area remained designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard, but was designated 

attainment for the 1997 24-hour 

standard. Thus today’s action does not 

address attainment of either the 1997 or 

the 2006 24-hour standards. 

In response to legal challenges of the 

annual standard promulgated in 2006, 

the D.C. Circuit remanded this standard 

to EPA for further consideration. See 

American Farm Bureau Federation and 

National Pork Producers Council, et al. 

v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). 

However, given that the 1997 and 2006 

annual standards are essentially 

identical, attainment of the 1997 annual 

standard would also indicate attainment 

of the remanded 2006 annual standard. 

Since the Evansville area is designated 

nonattainment only for the annual 

standard promulgated in 1997, today’s 

action addresses redesignation to 

attainment only for this standard. 

Indiana has provided multiple 

submittals in support of its request for 

redesignation of the Evansville area. On 

April 3, 2008, Indiana submitted its 

original request that EPA redesignate 

the Evansville area to attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 standard. This 

request was based on 2004 to 2006 

monitoring data indicating that no 

monitor violated the annual standard. A 

public hearing was held on March 27, 

2008, and the comment period closed 

on March 31, 2008. Indiana completed 

the redesignation request by submitting 

documentation of the public hearing 

conducted by the State for the PM2.5

redesignation request and additional 

regional air quality analysis on October 

20, 2008. On March 6, 2009, Indiana 

provided updated monitoring data for 

the 2006 to 2008 period. On April 7, 

2009, Indiana submitted supplemental 

information on regional emissions. On 

December 7, 2009, Indiana submitted 

modeling intended to show that the 

Evansville area would attain and 

maintain the standard even in the 

absence of the emission reductions 

prompted by CAIR. On January 28, 

2011, Indiana submitted updated 

emissions data (including updated 

MVEBs) to show that maintenance 

extended further into the future, to 

2022. On April 8, 2011, Indiana 

resubmitted the information submitted 

on January 28, 2011, in conjunction 

with evidence that the State provided a 

public comment period and held a 

public hearing on the information and 

received no public comments. 

Fine particle pollution can be emitted 

directly or formed secondarily through 

chemical reactions in the atmosphere. 

Sulfates are a type of secondary particle 

formed from sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions from power plants and 

industrial facilities. Nitrates, another 

common type of secondary particle, are 

formed from emissions of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) from power plants, 

automobiles, and other combustion 

sources. 

Given the significance of sulfates and 

nitrates in the Evansville area, the area’s 

air quality is strongly affected by 

regulations of SO2 and NOX emissions 

from power plants. EPA proposed CAIR 

on January 30, 2004, at 69 FR 4566, 

promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005, at 

70 FR 25162, and promulgated 

associated federal implementation plans 

(FIPs) on April 28, 2006, at 71 FR 25328, 

in order to reduce SO2 and NOX

emissions and improve air quality in 

many areas across the eastern part of the 

United States. However, on July 11, 

2008, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 

issued a decision to vacate and remand 

both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs 

in their entirety (North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). EPA 

petitioned for rehearing, and the court 

issued an order remanding CAIR and 

the CAIR FIPs to EPA without vacatur 

(North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 

(D.C. Cir. 2008)). The Court, thereby, left 

CAIR in place in order to ‘‘temporarily 

preserve the environmental values 

covered by CAIR’’ until EPA replaces it 

with a rule consistent with the court’s 

opinion. Id. at 1178. The court directed 

EPA to ‘‘remedy CAIR’s flaws’’ 

consistent with its July 11, 2008, 

opinion, but declined to impose a 

schedule on EPA for completing that 

action. Id. As a result of these court 

rulings, the power plant emission 

reductions that have resulted from the 

development, promulgation, and 

implementation of CAIR, and the 

associated air quality improvement that 

has occurred in the Evansville area and 

elsewhere, cannot be considered 

permanent. 

On August 2, 2010, EPA published its 

proposal of the Transport Rule to 

address interstate transport of emissions 

with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, to replace 

CAIR. (See 75 FR 45210.) This rule, as 

proposed, would require substantial 

reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions 

from electric generating units (EGUs) 

across most of the Eastern United States. 

In particular, it would require 

reductions of these emissions to levels 

well below the levels that led to 

attainment in the Evansville area. The 

proposed Transport Rule proposed to 

establish permanent and enforceable 

limits on EGU emissions across most of 

the Eastern United States. Since the 

Transport Rule as proposed would 

require EGU emissions to be well below 

the levels that have led to attainment in 

the Evansville area. If EPA finalizes a 

Transport Rule that similarly requires 

EGU emissions to be below the levels 

that led to attainment in the Evansville 

area, that rule would provide support 

for a determination that the air quality 

improvement may be considered 

permanent and enforceable. 

IV. What are the criteria for 

redesignation to attainment? 

The Clean Air Act sets forth the 

requirements for redesignating a 

nonattainment area to attainment. 

Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

Clean Air Act allows for redesignation 

provided that: (1) The Administrator 

determines that the area has attained the 

applicable NAAQS based on current air 

quality data; (2) the Administrator has 

fully approved an applicable state 

implementation plan for the area under 

section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act; (3) 

the Administrator determines that the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions resulting from 

implementation of the applicable SIP, 

Federal air pollution control 

regulations, and other permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions; (4) the 

Administrator has fully approved a 

maintenance plan for the area meeting 

the requirements of section 175A of the 

Clean Air Act; and (5) the state 

containing the area has met all 

requirements applicable to the area for 

purposes of redesignation under section 

110 and part D of the Clean Air Act. 

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

request? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

redesignation of the Evansville area to 

attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS and is proposing to approve the 

maintenance plan for the area and other 

related SIP revisions, subject to the 

provisos discussed in this notice. The 

bases for these proposed actions follow. 

1. Attainment 

As noted above, in a final rulemaking 

dated November 27, 2009, at 74 FR 

62243, EPA determined that the 

Evansville area is attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Further 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

discussion of pertinent air quality issues 

underlying this determination was 

provided in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, published on September 24, 

2009, at 74 FR 49690. This 

determination was based primarily on 

air quality data from 2006 to 2008. 

EPA has reviewed more recent data, 

including certified, quality-assured data 

for 2009 and data for all of 2010. These 

data show that the Evansville area 

continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Table 1 provides an 

historical summary of air quality data 

for the area. This summary is based on 

quality assured data that have been 

entered into the EPA Air Quality 

System, though the data for 2010 have 

not yet been certified. 

TABLE 1—PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES FOR EVANSVILLE AREA SITES

County Site name Site No. 2004– 

2006 

2006– 

2008 

2007– 

2009 

2008– 

2010 

Dubois (ended 2008) ............................... Jasper Sport ............................................ 180370004 *13.6 *13.4 *13.4 ..............

Dubois (ended 2008) ............................... Jasper Golf .............................................. 180370005 *13.7 13.7 *13.7 ..............

Dubois ...................................................... 6th Street ................................................. 180372001 15.0 13.6 *13.3 12.1 

Gibson (began 2009) ............................... Oakland City ............................................ 180510012 .............. .............. .............. 12.2 

Spencer .................................................... Dale ......................................................... 181470009 13.9 13.0 12.6 13.0 

Vanderburgh (ended 2009) ..................... Civic Center ............................................. 181630006 14.5 13.4 *12.8 ..............

Vanderburgh ............................................ West Mill Road ........................................ 181630012 14.6 13.7 *13.0 ..............

Vanderburgh ............................................ U. of Evansville ....................................... 181630016 14.8 13.6 13.1 12.8 

Vanderburgh ............................................ Post Office ............................................... 181630020 .............. .............. .............. *12.9 

Vanderburgh ............................................ Buena Vista ............................................. 181630021 .............. .............. .............. *13.0 

* Less than 75 percent complete data in at least one quarter. 

Several of these sites had less than 75 

percent complete data for one or more 

of the applicable recent quarters. From 

2008 to 2009, four monitoring sites 

ended operation, and three new sites 

began operating. In its prior 

determination of attainment, EPA 

determined that prior to ending 

operation, these monitoring sites 

recorded data indicating attainment of 

the annual PM2.5 standard. 

From 2008 to 2009, three additional 

sites began operating: Site 18–051–0012 

in Gibson County starting in 2008, and 

sites 18–163–0020 and 18–163–0021 in 

Vanderburgh County starting in 2009. 

As a result of their short operating 

history, these monitors have incomplete 

data for purposes of comparison to the 

NAAQS, but the data that are available, 

summarized in Table 1 above, indicate 

concentrations well below the NAAQS, 

consistent with other data showing 

continued attainment in the area. 

Although the monitoring network was 

in flux during this latter period, the area 

has been and continues to be monitored 

at numerous locations addressing the 

range of locations in the area with 

potential to violate the standard. EPA 

has approved these various revisions to 

Indiana’s monitoring network, including 

approval most recently on October 29, 

2010, reflecting its belief that the 

revised network remains adequate to 

assess air quality in the Evansville area. 

For this and related reasons, EPA 

proposes to approve the use of these 

incomplete data, pursuant to Subpart 

4.1(c) of 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, 

as supplemental evidence for evaluating 

whether the Evansville area is attaining 

the standard. 

Indiana’s request to redesignate the 

Evansville area was predicated on 

monitoring data from 2004 to 2006 

showing that the area meets the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Subsequently, EPA 

determined that the area is meeting the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based primarily on 

2006 to 2008 data. According to more 

recent data, average concentrations for 

all sites, including these sites with 

incomplete data as well as the sites with 

complete data, remain well below the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Indeed, EPA believes 

that the Evansville area has been 

attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS for five 

consecutive three-year periods. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to determine 

that the Evansville area continues to 

meet the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

2. Fully Approved SIP Meeting All 

Pertinent Requirements 

a. General Requirements 

Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and 

107(d)(3)(E)(v) set forth related 

requirements for the State to have a 

fully approved SIP meeting all pertinent 

requirements, and the following 

discussion addresses Indiana’s 

satisfaction of both of these portions of 

section 107(d)(3)(E). Since the passage 

of the Clean Air Act in 1970, Indiana 

has adopted and submitted, and EPA 

has fully approved, provisions 

addressing the various required SIP 

elements addressing particulate matter 

in the Evansville area and elsewhere in 

Indiana. Indiana submitted the ‘‘State of 

Indiana Air Pollution Control 

Implementation Plan,’’ its SIP, on 

January 31, 1972. EPA approved 

Indiana’s SIP on May 31, 1972, at 37 FR 

10863. These rules addressed total 

suspended particulate (TSP), reflecting 

the particulate size range regulated 

under the 1971 standards. EPA 

designated Evansville as nonattainment 

for TSP on March 3, 1978, at 43 FR 

8962. Indiana submitted general TSP 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology emission limits and 

regulations for process sources on 

October 6, 1980. On January 29, 1981, 

Indiana submitted its source specific 

limits for Vanderburgh County with 

amendments on October 28, 1981. These 

elements were approved into the 

Indiana SIP on July 16, 1982. On July 1, 

1987, EPA replaced the TSP standard 

with a standard for finer-sized 

particulate matter, specifically for 

particles up to a nominal aerodynamic 

diameter of ten micrometers, a set of 

particles known as PM10. EPA 

promulgated designations under the 

PM10 NAAQS on March 15, 1991, at 56 

FR 11101. The Evansville area was 

designated as attaining the PM10

standards. Consequently, Indiana had 

no obligation to submit PM10 attainment 

plans for the Evansville area. 

b. Section 110(a) Requirements 

EPA believes that the section 110 

elements not connected with 

nonattainment plan submissions and 

not linked to the area’s nonattainment 

status are not applicable requirements 

for purposes of review of the State’s 

redesignation request. 

On December 7, 2007, September 19, 

2008, and October 20, 2009, Indiana 

made submittals addressing 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ elements required 

under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2). 

EPA has published proposed 

rulemaking on these submittals 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29699 

1MOVES2010a is EPA’s most recent model for 

estimating on-road mobile source emissions. It was 

officially released for use in SIPs and regional 

transportation conformity determinations on March 

2, 2010, at 75 FR 9411. 

(published on April 28, 2011, at 76 FR 

23757), but has not completed final 

rulemaking on these submittals. 

However, the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) are statewide requirements 

that are not linked to the PM2.5

nonattainment status of or requirements 

for the Evansville area. EPA believes 

that section 110 elements not linked to 

an area’s nonattainment status are not 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. See the Reading, 

Pennsylvania proposed and final 

rulemakings (October 10, 1996, at 61 FR 

53174–53176, and May 7, 1997, at 62 FR 

24826), the Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, 

Ohio final rulemaking (May 7, 1996, at 

61 FR 20458), and the Tampa, Florida 

final rulemaking (December 7, 1995, at 

60 FR 62748). Therefore, 

notwithstanding the fact that EPA has 

not yet completed rulemaking on 

Indiana’s submittals for the 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ elements of section 

110(a)(2), EPA believes that these 

elements are not applicable 

requirements for purposes of review of 

the State’s redesignation request. 

c. Emission Inventories 

Under section 172(c)(3), Indiana is 

required to submit a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. As part of Indiana’s 

redesignation request for the Evansville 

area, the State submitted a maintenance 

plan that included emissions 

inventories for the area for SO2 and NOX

(which are precursors for secondarily 

formed PM2.5) and for directly emitted 

PM2.5 for 2005, 2015, 2020, and 2022. 

The inventories for 2005 address the 

requirement under section 172(c)(3) for 

a base year emission inventory, and the 

other inventories help address the 

requirement for a demonstration that the 

area can expect to maintain the standard 

for at least 10 years after approval of a 

redesignation. 

For each of the applicable pollutants 

and years, Indiana prepared emission 

estimates by county and by five source 

types, namely onroad mobile sources, 

nonroad mobile sources, area sources, 

EGUs, and other point sources. Onroad 

and nonroad mobile source emissions 

were estimated by the Evansville 

Metropolitan Planning Organization and 

by the Indiana Department of 

Transportation. The onroad emission 

estimates were derived using EPA’s 

MOBILE6.2 emission model. When 

Indiana submitted updated emissions 

data on April 8, 2011, which showed 

that the area continued to maintain the 

annual PM2.5 standard to 2022, it 

continued to use MOBILE6.2 rather than 

MOVES2010a to estimate the onroad 

emissions.1 EPA is proposing to approve 

Indiana’s continued use of MOBILE6.2 

in this maintenance plan. Air quality 

data indicates that the area has attained 

the annual PM2.5 standard and large 

emissions reductions are expected in 

the coming years, which will allow the 

area to continue to meet the annual 

PM2.5 standard. If MOVES2010a had 

been used to estimate onroad emissions 

for the new last year of this maintenance 

plan, it would not change this 

conclusion. In addition, the recent 

submittal only extended the 

maintenance period by two years and it 

was not necessary for the submittal to 

revisit earlier years of the maintenance 

period. This extension was necessary 

because EPA could not act on the 

submittal at an earlier date due to issues 

related to the remand of the CAIR rule 

and the Clean Air Act’s requirement that 

maintenance plans address a period that 

covers 10 years after EPA approves the 

submitted maintenance plan. Also, 

consistent with Question 5 in EPA’s 

‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES 

2010 for State Implementation Plan 

Development, Transportation 

Conformity, and Other Purposes’’ 

(http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/

moves/420b09046.pdf) we believe that 

since the bulk of the work on the 

maintenance plan was performed in 

2008, which well before MOVES2010 

was released, the continued use of 

MOBILE6.2 in this maintenance plan is 

warranted. Even the supplemental work 

performed by Indiana to support the 

April 2011 revision was done relatively 

soon after MOVES was officially 

released for use in SIPs on March 2, 

2010, at 75 FR 9411. It is also worth 

noting that the area has been attaining 

the standard for several years, and 

future anticipated emissions reductions 

will ensure that the area will continue 

to maintain the standard through the 

maintenance period. Based on all of 

these factors we believe that Indiana’s 

continued use of MOBILE6.2 is justified 

because it avoids an adverse impact on 

state resources as is also described in 

Question 5 of the MOVES SIP and 

Conformity guidance document. 

Most of the nonroad emission 

estimates were derived using EPA’s 

NONROAD model. Nonroad activity 

levels reflect information compiled by 

the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCO), described at 

http://www.ladco.org/reports/technical_

support_document/references/round_5_

emissions_summary-february_2008.pdf. 

In addition, the inventory includes 

emission estimates for marine and 

railroad sources under contract to 

LADCO. Area source emissions were 

developed using local activity level 

estimates and EPA emission factors as 

reflected in the 2005 National Emissions 

Inventory. 

Base year emissions for EGUs for SO2

and NOX were obtained from 

continuously monitored emission data 

that the facilities reported to EPA’s 

Clean Air Markets Division. Projections 

of these emissions were based on 

simulations using the Integrated 

Planning Model (IPM) premised on 

implementation of CAIR and the 

associated allowance allocations and 

trading programs. Indiana’s April 2011 

submittal states that these emission 

projections rely on an expectation that 

the Transport Rule that EPA proposed 

on August 2, 2010, will require EGUs to 

achieve a similar set of reductions as 

has been required by CAIR. EGU 

emissions of PM2.5 were estimated using 

the same information on activity levels 

(i.e., baseline heat inputs reported to 

EPA and projected heat inputs forecast 

by IPM) in conjunction with EPA 

emission factors and current emission 

control levels. For other point sources, 

baseline emissions were obtained from 

routine source reports to the State, and 

projections were based on growth 

factors developed by LADCO based on 

appropriate economic indicators. 

Table 2 summarizes the 2005 base 

year emissions estimates, subdivided by 

source type, that Indiana provided in its 

maintenance plan as submitted on 

January 28, 2011. The area has a modest 

number of people—the 2009 population 

estimate for the Evansville Metropolitan 

Statistical Area according to the U.S. 

Census Bureau is 351,911. The PM2.5

nonattainment area includes several 

large power plants that serve a broad 

area within the industrial Midwest and 

beyond. Therefore, point sources (in 

particular power plants) emit a very 

high fraction of the area’s emissions. 

Indeed, point sources are estimated to 

emit over 99 percent of the area’s SO2

emissions, about 86 percent of the area’s 

NOX emissions, and about 71 percent of 

the area’s PM2.5 emissions, and most of 

the point source emissions are from 

power plants. EPA proposes to find that 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

the inventory satisfies the requirements 

of section 172(c)(3). 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 2005 EMISSIONS ESTIMATES FOR THE EVANSVILLE AREA BY SOURCE TYPE

[Tons per year] 

SO2 NOX PM2.5

EGUs ............................................................................................................................................................. 360,822 85,320 8,240 

Point ............................................................................................................................................................... 3,685 774 1,427 

On-road .......................................................................................................................................................... 237 6,528 118 

Non-road ........................................................................................................................................................ 537 5,676 337 

Area ............................................................................................................................................................... 674 1,624 37 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 365,954 99,922 10,160 

Table 3 shows the 2005 base year 

emission estimates and the 2015 and 

2022 emission projections for the 

Evansville area that Indiana provided in 

its April 8, 2011, submission. 

TABLE 3—EVANSVILLE AREA EMISSION PROJECTIONS

[Ions per year] 

 SO2 NOX PM2.5

2005 ............................................................................................................................... 365,954 .............. 99,922 ................ 10,160. 

2015 ............................................................................................................................... 117,830 .............. 59,897 ................ 13,892. 

2022 ............................................................................................................................... 94,627 ................ 51,885 ................ 12,604. 

Change 2005–2022 ....................................................................................................... ¥271,327 ...........

74% decrease ....

¥48,037 .............

48% decrease ....

+2,444. 

24% increase. 

c. Other Nonattainment Area 

Requirements 

EPA is proposing to determine that, if 

EPA issues final approval of the 

emission inventories discussed above, 

the Indiana SIP will meet the SIP 

requirements for the Evansville area 

applicable for purposes of redesignation 

under Part D of the Clean Air Act. 

Subpart 1 of Part D, sections 172 to 176 

of the Clean Air Act, set forth the basic 

nonattainment plan requirements 

applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Under section 172, states with 

nonattainment areas must submit plans 

providing for timely attainment and 

meeting a variety of other requirements. 

However, pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.1004(c), EPA’s November 27, 2009, 

determination that the Evansville area is 

attaining the PM2.5 standard suspended 

Indiana’s obligation to submit most of 

the attainment planning requirements 

that would otherwise apply. 

Specifically, the determination of 

attainment suspended Indiana’s 

obligation to submit an attainment 

demonstration, and requirements to 

provide for reasonable further progress, 

reasonable available control measures, 

and contingency measures under 

section 172(c)(9). 

The General Preamble for 

Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, 

April 16, 1992) also discusses the 

evaluation of these requirements in the 

context of EPA’s consideration of a 

redesignation request. The General 

Preamble sets forth EPA’s view of 

applicable requirements for purposes of 

evaluating redesignation requests when 

an area is attaining the standard. 

General Preamble for Implementation of 

Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment, and section 

172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment 

demonstration and RACM are no longer 

considered to be applicable for purposes 

of redesignation as long as the area 

continues to attain the standard until 

redesignation. See also 40 CFR 

51.1004(c). The RFP requirement under 

section 172(c)(2) and contingency 

measures requirement under section 

172(c)(9) are similarly not relevant for 

purposes of redesignation. 

Section 172(c)(3) requires submission 

and approval of a comprehensive, 

accurate and current inventory of actual 

emissions. As part of Indiana’s 

redesignation request for the Evansville 

area, the State submitted a 2005 

emissions inventory. As discussed 

above, EPA is proposing to approve this 

inventory as meeting the section 

172(c)(3) emissions inventory 

requirement. 

Section 172(c)(4) requires the 

identification and quantification of 

allowable emissions for major new and 

modified stationary sources in an area, 

and section 172(c)(5) requires source 

permits for the construction and 

operation of new and modified major 

stationary sources anywhere in the 

nonattainment area. EPA has 

determined that, since prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) 

requirements will apply after 

redesignation, areas being redesignated 

need not comply with the requirement 

that a nonattainment new source review 

(NSR) program be approved prior to 

redesignation, provided that the area 

demonstrates maintenance of the 

NAAQS without part D NSR. A more 

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.’’ Indiana 

has demonstrated that emissions will 

remain sufficiently low even without 

part D NSR in effect for the Evansville 

area to be able to maintain the standard; 

therefore, the State need not have a fully 

approved part D NSR program prior to 

approval of the redesignation request. 

The State’s PSD program will become 

effective in the Evansville area upon 

redesignation to attainment. See 

rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan 

(March 7, 1995, at 60 FR 12467–12468); 

Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (May 7, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29701 

1996, at 61 FR 20458, 20469–20470); 

Louisville, Kentucky (October 23, 2001, 

at 66 FR 53665); and Grand Rapids, 

Michigan (June 21, 1996, at 61 FR 

31834–31837). 

Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to 

contain control measures necessary to 

provide for attainment of the standard. 

Because attainment has been reached, 

no additional measures are needed to 

provide for attainment. 

Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to 

meet the applicable provisions of 

section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we 

believe the Indiana SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) 

applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

Section 176(c) of the CAA requires 

states to establish criteria and 

procedures to ensure that Federallysupported or funded activities, 

including highway projects, conform to 

the air quality planning goals in the 

applicable SIPs. 

EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

interpret the conformity SIP 

requirements as not applying for 

purposes of evaluating the redesignation 

request under section 107(d) for two 

reasons. First, the requirement to submit 

SIP revisions to comply with the 

conformity provisions of the CLEAN 

AIR ACT continues to apply to areas 

after redesignation to attainment, since 

such areas would be subject to a section 

175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA’s 

Federal conformity rules require the 

performance of conformity analyses in 

the absence of Federally-approved state 

rules. Therefore, because areas are 

subject to the conformity requirements 

regardless of whether they are 

redesignated to attainment and, because 

they must implement conformity under 

Federal rules if state rules are not yet 

approved, EPA believes it is reasonable 

to view these requirements as not 

applying for purposes of evaluating a 

redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 

265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), upholding 

this interpretation. See also 60 FR 

62748, 62749–62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) 

(Tampa, Florida). 

EPA approved Indiana’s general and 

transportation conformity SIPs on 

January 14, 1998, at 63 FR 2146, and 

August 17, 2010, at 75 FR 50730, 

respectively. Indiana has submitted 

onroad motor vehicle budgets for the 

Evansville area for 2015 and 2022. The 

area must use the MVEBs from the 

maintenance plan in any conformity 

determination that is effective on or 

after the effective date of the 

maintenance plan approval. 

No SIP provisions relevant to the 

Evansville area are currently 

disapproved, conditionally approved, or 

partially approved. If EPA approves the 

Evansville area emission inventory as 

proposed, EPA believes that Indiana 

will have a fully approved SIP for all 

requirements applicable for purposes of 

redesignation. 

3. Permanent and Enforceable Emission 

Reductions 

Indiana’s original redesignation 

submission cited a number of regulatory 

programs that it believed resulted in the 

air quality improvement in the 

Evansville area between the period that 

was the basis of the area’s 1997 PM2.5

nonattainment designation (2002 to 

2004), and the period that the Evansville 

area began attaining the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard (2004 to 2006). These 

programs included the EPA NOX Budget 

Trading Program, the acid rain program, 

mobile source rules such as Heavy-duty 

Highway Vehicle standards and Nonroad Diesel Engine standards, and CAIR. 

Indiana subsequently supplemented 

its request with submittals intended to 

demonstrate that the Evansville area 

could be expected to continue to attain 

the standard even if the emission 

reductions associated with the 

promulgation of CAIR did not continue. 

In particular, on December 7, 2009, 

Indiana submitted the results of 

modeling purporting to show PM2.5

concentrations that Indiana estimated 

would occur in the Evansville area in 

the absence of CAIR. For most power 

plants, this modeling was based on 

projections derived from actual 

emission rates for 2007. For the power 

plants within the Evansville 

nonattainment area, this modeling used 

the highest emission rates from 2000 to 

2007. Indiana’s modeling showed that 

these emission rates yielded Evansville 

area concentrations below the PM2.5

NAAQS. 

EPA has reviewed Indiana’s 

submission and believes that Indiana’s 

modeling does not properly reflect 

power plant emissions that would occur 

in the absence of CAIR. Although the 

compliance deadlines in CAIR were 

2009 for the first phase of NOX

reductions and 2010 for the first phase 

of SO2 reductions, CAIR provided 

significant incentives for earlier 

emission reductions. Indeed, especially 

for SO2, a comparison of 2007 emissions 

for states in the CAIR region against 

2003 emissions shows a significant 

decline in emissions. For example, 

according to continuous emission 

monitoring data submitted by EGUs to 

EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division, EGU 

emissions of SO2 in Indiana declined 

from 804,800 tons per year in 2003 to 

714,500 tons per year in 2007, a decline 

of 93,000 tons per year. Similarly, 

according to the same set of data, EGU 

emissions of NOX in Indiana declined 

from 261,000 tons per year to 196,600 

tons per year, a decline of 64,400 tons 

per year. Similar declines occur in other 

states influencing Evansville area air 

quality. These declines can reasonably 

be attributed to the incentives of CAIR, 

such that even the 2004 to 2006 air 

quality data underlying Indiana’s 

request would reflect benefits from 

EPA’s development, proposal, and 

promulgation of CAIR. 

Given that the DC Circuit has now 

remanded CAIR to EPA, it will not 

remain in force indefinitely. As a 

consequence, the emission reductions 

associated with CAIR cannot be 

considered to be permanent. 

EPA’s proposed Transport Rule 

would, in a manner consistent with the 

D.C. Circuit opinion on CAIR, among 

other things identify emission 

reductions in the Eastern United States 

necessary to address significant 

interference with attainment and 

maintenance pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act 

with respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The comment 

period on this proposed rule closed on 

October 1, 2010. EPA is reviewing all 

comments received. EPA may not 

prejudge the requirements of the final 

Transport Rule, and so cannot complete 

final rulemaking on Indiana’s 

redesignation request in a manner that 

relies on Transport Rule requirements 

unless and until EPA has promulgated 

a final Transport Rule. 

In the proposed Transport Rule, EPA 

proposed to quantify the reductions 

needed in specific states to address each 

covered state’s significant contribution 

to nonattainment and interference with 

maintenance of specific NAAQS. In that 

action, EPA also proposed to establish 

FIPs to ensure that the significant 

contribution to nonattainment and 

interference with maintenance 

identified by EPA is prohibited. 

The Evansville area is notable for 

having several sizable electric 

generating facilities, and most of these 

facilities are operating with new or 

upgraded SO2 and NOX controls for 

their coal-fired units. Vectron’s A.B. 

Brown facility operates a dual alkali 

system for SO2 control and select 

catalytic reduction (SCR) of NOX. 

Alcoa’s Warrick Power Plant uses wet 

lime scrubbing to control SO2 emissions 

and combustion controls, and uses SCR 

for one unit and low NOX burners (LNB) 

and over-fire air (OFA) for all units to 

limit its NOX emissions. Vectron’s F.B. 

Culley generating station uses wet 

limestone scrubbing for SO2 control and 

SCR with LNB for NOX control at its two 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29702 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

units. Hoosier Energy uses LNB to 

reduce NOX emissions from both Frank 

E. Ratts Generating Station units. Duke 

Energy’s Gibson plant uses wet 

limestone scrubbing with SCR, LNB, 

and OFA on all five units. Indianapolis 

Power and Light operates wet limestone 

scrubbers along with SCR, LNB, and 

OFA on the four units of its Petersburg 

power plant. Indiana-Michigan Power 

uses LNB on the two coal-fired units at 

the Rockport plant. 

These emission controls, along with 

similar controls at many other plants in 

the Eastern United States, are providing 

substantial air quality benefits. As 

explained above, some of the reductions 

were associated with the now-remanded 

CAIR. The proposed Transport Rule, if 

finalized, would similarly require 

reductions in NOX and SO2 from EGUs. 

The reductions associated with the 

Transport Rule, if and when it is 

finalized, may be considered permanent 

and enforceable. 

The modeling for the proposed 

Transport Rule identified 13 states, 

including Indiana, that have emissions 

that significantly affect Evansville area 

air quality. Table 4 shows state-wide 

emission estimates for SO2 and NOX for 

2005, 2012, and 2014 for these states. 

The values for 2005 reflect base year 

emissions estimates. Given the timing of 

attainment in the Evansville area, these 

values reflect an approximation of 

statewide emission levels at which the 

Evansville area attained the PM2.5

standard. The values for 2012 reflect 

estimates for a scenario in which neither 

CAIR nor a replacement Transport Rule 

is in effect, reflecting a baseline that 

EPA used in developing its proposed 

rule. The values for 2014 reflect 

estimates for a scenario in which the 

proposed Transport Rule is finalized as 

proposed. These estimates are taken 

from Tables 6–1 (NOX) and 6–2 (SO2) of 

the emissions technical support 

document for the proposed Transport 

Rule, available at http://www.epa.gov/

airquality/transport/pdfs/TR_Proposal

_Emissions_TSD.pdf. These estimates 

exclude emissions from fires, which are 

a small fraction of the inventory (well 

under 0.1 percent) that is projected to 

remain constant and does not materially 

affect the comparison here. 

TABLE 4—SO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS FOR STATES IDENTIFIED IN THE PROPOSED TRANSPORT RULE AS SIGNIFICANTLY

CONTRIBUTING TO NONATTAINMENT OR INTERFERING WITH MAINTENANCE IN THE EVANSVILLE AREA

[Tons per year] 

State 

SO2 emissions NOX emissions 

2005 

2012 (w/o 

Transport 

Rule) 

2014 (w/ 

Transport 

Rule) 

2005 

2012 (w/o 

Transport 

Rule) 

2014 (w/ 

Transport 

Rule) 

Indiana ................................................................. 1,047,371 986,601 396,403 614,861 505,039 386,251 

Alabama ............................................................... 592,389 461,314 296,138 443,748 360,357 280,763 

Georgia ................................................................ 748,020 674,183 214,726 577,858 405,825 337,889 

Illinois ................................................................... 516,950 866,376 304,834 773,276 542,886 480,743 

Iowa ...................................................................... 221,877 250,930 182,875 312,015 251,632 221,442 

Kentucky .............................................................. 572,424 780,885 182,630 435,837 345,073 247,270 

Michigan ............................................................... 490,190 415,042 300,560 638,546 478,625 410,319 

Missouri ................................................................ 421,979 570,575 315,283 505,195 353,407 317,092 

Ohio ...................................................................... 1,276,270 1,076,470 361,138 816,239 552,864 453,167 

Pennsylvania ........................................................ 1,173,296 1,119,680 303,071 704,936 566,301 454,248 

Tennessee ........................................................... 388,191 708,905 218,065 471,705 338,154 270,171 

West Virginia ........................................................ 535,586 645,431 184,341 294,016 206,630 144,970 

Wisconsin ............................................................. 263,615 181,760 159,927 358,787 257,290 228,637 

Total .............................................................. 8,250,163 8,740,164 3,419,991 6,949,024 5,166,095 4,232,962 

In Table 4, 2005 emissions represent 

an approximation of emissions at which 

Evansville attains the standard. Table 4 

shows that, in comparison, the proposed 

Transport Rule would establish 

enforceable emission restrictions that 

would be expected to result in 

emissions in the most pertinent states 

(as listed in Table 4) that for SO2 are 

4,830,172 tons per year (59 percent) 

lower and that for NOX are 2,716,062 

tons per year (39 percent) lower. That is, 

the proposed Transport Rule would 

provide for permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions in the Eastern 

United States that are significantly 

greater than the reductions needed to 

assure maintenance in the Evansville 

area. 

Similar results are obtained by 

comparing emission estimates in 2012 

without the proposed Transport Rule to 

emission estimates in 2014 with the 

proposed Transport Rule. In the 

proposed Transport Rule, EPA 

estimated that total emissions across 

these states would reflect 5,320,173 tons 

per year lower SO2 emissions and 

933,133 tons per year lower NOX

emissions in the 2014 controlled case 

than in the 2012 base case, i.e., 

emissions that are 61 percent and 18 

percent lower, respectively. According 

to EPA modeling for the proposed 

Transport Rule, comparing 

concentrations projected in 2014 with 

the proposed Transport Rule in place 

against concentrations projected in 2012 

in the absence of a Transport Rule, the 

Transport Rule achieves approximately 

a 4 μg/m3 air quality improvement in 

the Evansville area, yielding 

concentrations well below the annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and below the 

concentrations that have been achieved 

by power plant emission reductions to 

date. 

The modeling for the proposed 

Transport Rule also projects an 

Evansville area concentration of about 

11 μg/m3 in 2014 based on 

implementation of the proposed 

Transport Rule, whereas for purposes of 

this proposed redesignation it is only 

necessary for the Transport Rule to help 

provide for the Evansville area to 

maintain a concentration at or below 15 

μg/m3. 

This proposal is premised on the 

expectation that the final Transport Rule 

will be similarly effective as the 

proposed Transport Rule would be in 

providing for maintenance of the 1997 

PM2.5 standard in the Evansville area. 

Given the substantial margin by which 

EPA expects the Evansville area to 

maintain the standard, numerous details 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29703 

of the final Transport Rule could differ 

from corresponding features of the 

proposed Transport Rule without 

causing changes in the impact on 

Evansville air quality that are significant 

for purposes of this proposal to 

redesignate the Evansville area. This 

proposal to redesignate the Evansville 

area is predicated on the final Transport 

Rule being substantially equivalent for 

purposes of air quality in the Evansville 

area to the Transport Rule proposed on 

August 2, 2010. In EPA’s view, this 

premise will be met if the emission 

levels expected under the final 

Transport Rule in states most pertinent 

to Evansville, and the associated 

expected air quality benefits in 

Evansville, are sufficiently similar to the 

emission levels and associated 

Evansville air quality benefits expected 

under the proposed rule so as to provide 

a comparable degree of confidence that 

the Evansville area will maintain the 

standard. 

In summary, a limited set of 

reductions of EGU emissions of SO2 and 

NOX contributed significantly to the air 

quality improvement in the Evansville 

area. Given the remanded status of 

CAIR, this air quality improvement 

cannot be considered permanent. 

However, the proposed Transport Rule 

proposed to mandate even greater 

reductions than have already occurred 

and, more importantly, proposed to 

mandate more reductions than are 

needed to maintain the standard in the 

Evansville area. Therefore, with the 

final promulgation of a Transport Rule 

that is substantially equivalent to the 

proposed rule for purposes of 

maintaining the standard in the 

Evansville area, in combination with the 

other measures cited by Indiana, EPA 

believes that the emission reductions 

that led the Evansville area to attain the 

PM2.5 air quality standard could be 

considered as permanent and 

enforceable for purposes of section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii). 

4. Maintenance Plan 

Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A 

require that the State demonstrate that 

the area to be redesignated will continue 

to meet the PM2.5 NAAQS for at least a 

ten-year maintenance period after 

redesignation in 2011. Indiana’s 

maintenance plan includes emission 

inventories discussed in section V.2.c 

above. 

The sizeable reductions in SO2 and 

NOX emissions by 2015 and 2022 shown 

in Table 3 above are due in significant 

part to restrictions mandated by EPA to 

reduce power plant emissions of SO2

and NOX in the Eastern United States in 

order to reduce pollutant transport in 

this region. In this inventory, Indiana 

used emission projections premised on 

the implementation of CAIR 

requirements as an approximation of the 

emissions levels the State projects to 

occur following the promulgation of the 

Transport Rule. As explained above, the 

DC Circuit found CAIR unlawful and 

remanded it to EPA. Because CAIR is 

not in place permanently, and because 

EPA has not completed final 

promulgation of the Transport Rule, 

EPA cannot currently grant final 

approval to a maintenance plan that 

relies in significant part on either of 

these rules. 

On the other hand, as noted above, 

EPA’s recently proposed Transport Rule 

would, if finalized, achieve substantial 

regional reductions of SO2 and NOX

emissions. While EPA has not made 

emission estimates for 2022 that are 

premised on the implementation of the 

proposed Transport Rule, Table 4 above 

shows emission estimates that EPA has 

made for 2014 that assume the 

implementation of the proposed 

Transport Rule. These emission 

estimates show a substantial decline in 

SO2 and NOX emissions comparable to 

that shown in Indiana’s maintenance 

plan. Given the substantial degree of 

control of the various EGUs in the 

Evansville area both currently and 

projected into the future, EPA finds 

Indiana’s projection of such emission 

declines through 2022 to be appropriate 

forecasts of future emissions, provided 

EPA promulgates a final Transport Rule 

whose requirements are substantially 

equivalent to those in the proposed rule 

with respect to continued maintenance 

of the PM2.5 annual standard in the 

Evansville area. 

In conjunction with the projections 

for dramatic declines in Evansville area 

emissions of SO2 and NOX emissions, 

Indiana’s maintenance plan shows an 

increase in PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, 

further evaluation is needed to judge 

whether the increase in PM2.5 emissions, 

in combination with the decreases in 

SO2 and NOX emissions, is likely to 

provide for maintenance of the 

standard. 

Each of these pollutants is 

characterized by a different relationship 

between emissions and air quality. 

Therefore, simply summing up the 

emissions of these various pollutants 

does not provide a meaningful indicator 

of the combined air quality impact of 

these emission changes. Instead, a more 

appropriate indicator is the percentage 

change in emissions for each emitted 

pollutant, weighted according to the air 

quality impact for each. 

For this purpose, EPA examined 

speciation data available from its Air 

Explorer Web site for 2007 and 2008 for 

the Evansville area. These data suggest 

that PM2.5 in the Evansville area consists 

of approximately 54 percent sulfate, 7 

percent nitrate, 32 percent organic 

particulate, 4 percent miscellaneous 

inorganic particulate (sometime labeled 

‘‘crustal particles’’), and 4 percent other 

types of particulate matter. 

EPA used a conservative approach 

that assumes that the full ambient 

concentration of organic particulate 

matter plus miscellaneous inorganic 

particulate matter will vary in 

accordance with changes in total 

nonattainment area emissions of 

directly emitted PM2.5. This analysis 

thus assumes that the entirety of this 

component of ambient PM2.5 will 

increase by the 24 percent that Indiana’s 

maintenance plan projects that directly 

emitted PM2.5 emissions will increase. 

In this analysis, the baseline 

concentration is conservatively assumed 

to be 15.0 μg/m3, of which directly 

emitted PM2.5 is estimated to include 32 

plus 4 or 36 percent, or 5.4 μg/m3. 

Indiana estimates that emissions of 

directly emitted PM2.5 will increase by 

24 percent from 2005. EPA’s assessment 

assumes that this increase will cause a 

corresponding increase in ambient 

concentrations of PM2.5, which would 

suggest an increase in the concentration 

of this component by 1.3 μg/m3. 

However, EPA believes that this 

potential increase will be fully 

compensated by a greater decrease in 

sulfate and nitrate concentrations. The 

precise decrease in sulfate and nitrate 

concentrations is a complicated result of 

emission reductions not just in the 

Evansville area but also in many other 

parts of the Eastern United States. 

Nevertheless, modeling conducted by 

EPA for the proposed Transport Rule 

estimated that future Evansville area 

concentrations with the Transport Rule 

as proposed in place would be about 4 

μg/m3 below the standard, and the 

emission reductions that have already 

occurred have already brought 

Evansville area concentrations to about 

13.0 μg/m3 (as shown in Table 4 above). 

Therefore, the 1.3 μg/m3 increase in the 

components associated with directly 

emitted PM2.5 would not be expected to 

yield concentrations above the standard. 

That is, EPA expects that the trends in 

direct emissions of PM2.5 in the 

Evansville area will not prevent the area 

from maintaining the standard. 

Maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

air quality standard in the Evansville 

area is a function of regional as well as 

local emissions trends. The regional 

impacts are dominated by the impacts of 

SO2 and NOX emissions. The previous 

section (discussing permanent and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29704 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

enforceable emission reductions) 

showed that the proposed Transport 

Rule could be expected to provide for 

substantial SO2 and NOX emission 

reductions through 2014, reductions 

that would be maintained throughout 

and well beyond the period (through 

2022) addressed in Indiana’s 

maintenance plan. While EPA in its 

Transport Rule rulemaking developed 

emission projections extending to 2020 

only for a scenario without regional 

emission limitations and not for a 

scenario with a Transport Rule in place, 

the ongoing downward emission trend 

evident in EPA’s 2020 emission 

projections in absence of regional 

emission limitations lends support to 

Indiana’s projection that the scenario 

with regional emission limitations in 

place will continue to have low 

emissions in 2022. With a Transport 

Rule as proposed, the caps on emissions 

of SO2 and NOX from the power sector 

will ensure against growth in SO2 and 

NOX emissions from these sources, and 

in combination with motor vehicle rules 

and other rules will assure a continuing 

decline in SO2 and NOX emissions. 

Therefore, EPA believes that available 

emissions data indicate that, with a 

Transport Rule substantially equivalent 

to the one proposed, for purposes of 

maintaining the standard in the 

Evansville area, the Evansville area can 

be expected to maintain the standard 

through 2022. 

Under section 175A of the Clean Air 

Act, maintenance plans must 

demonstrate attainment through at least 

10 years beyond the date of EPA 

approval of a state’s redesignation 

request. Indiana’s maintenance plan, 

demonstrating maintenance through 

2022, satisfies this requirement. 

EPA also has modeling evidence 

indicating that the Evansville area will 

continue to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS 

well into the future, provided that EPA 

promulgates a Transport Rule 

substantially equivalent for purposes of 

demonstrating maintenance in the 

Evansville area to its recently proposed 

rule. The first modeling evidence is the 

modeling analysis, referenced above, 

that Indiana has submitted. As 

discussed above, EPA disputes Indiana’s 

contention that its modeling 

demonstrates attainment in the 

Evansville area in the absence of CAIR, 

insofar as the analysis was predicated 

on 2007 emission levels that already 

include a set of emission reductions 

attributable to CAIR. However, EPA 

believes that Indiana’s modeling 

analysis, showing attainment with 

implementation of a subset of the 

emission reductions expected from 

CAIR, supports the conclusion that 

implementation of the full set of 

reductions that were expected from 

CAIR (or a relatively similar set of 

reductions from a Transport Rule) will 

also assure that the standard is 

maintained. 

EPA has also conducted its own 

modeling, provided in support of the 

Transport Rule proposed rulemaking. 

This modeling projects that the 

Evansville area will achieve a PM2.5

concentration of 11.1 μg/m3 by 2014 if 

the Transport Rule as proposed is made 

final. Although EPA did not perform 

modeling for years later than 2014, the 

Transport Rule as proposed would 

provide for utility emissions in 2022 to 

be similar and in fact slightly lower than 

emissions in 2014, and more generally 

EPA expects total emissions to be 

similar or slightly lower in 2022 than in 

2014, so that air quality in 2022 is likely 

to be similar or slightly better than air 

quality in 2014 as well. Therefore, these 

two modeling analyses support the 

conclusion that should EPA finalize a 

transport rule that provides for 

relatively similar air quality in the 

Evansville area, the Evansville area will 

maintain the PM2.5 standard throughout 

the maintenance plan period. 

Indiana’s maintenance plan includes 

additional elements. These include a 

commitment to continue to operate an 

EPA-approved monitoring network, as 

necessary to demonstrate ongoing 

compliance with the NAAQS. Indiana 

currently operates six PM2.5 monitors in 

the Evansville area. Indiana remains 

obligated to continue to quality assure 

monitoring data in accordance with 40 

CFR part 58 and enter all data into the 

Air Quality System in accordance with 

Federal guidelines. Indiana will use 

these data, supplemented with 

additional information if necessary, to 

assure that the area continues to attain 

the standard. Indiana will also continue 

to develop and submit periodic 

emission inventories as required by the 

Federal Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule (codified at 40 CFR part 

51 subpart A) to track future levels of 

emissions. 

Indiana’s maintenance plan also 

includes a contingency plan as required 

by section 175A(d). The contingency 

plan provisions are designed to correct 

promptly or to prevent a violation of the 

NAAQS that might occur after 

redesignation. Section 175A of the 

Clean Air Act requires that a 

maintenance plan include such 

contingency measures as EPA deems 

necessary to assure that the state will 

promptly correct a violation of the 

NAAQS that occurs after redesignation, 

including all measures that were in the 

plan prior to redesignation. Under 

Indiana’s plan, if a violation occurs, 

Indiana will implement an ‘‘Action 

Level Response’’ to evaluate what 

measures are warranted to address the 

violation, in particular considering 

implementing one or more measures 

from a list of candidate measures given 

in the plan. Indiana’s candidate 

contingency measures include diesel 

retrofit projects, idling restrictions, a 

wood stove change out program, 

additional transportation control 

measures, and additional NOX and SO2

emission controls. Under Indiana’s plan, 

control measures are to be adopted and 

implemented within 18 months from 

the end of the season in which air 

quality triggering the Action Level 

Response occurred. Indiana further 

commits to conduct ongoing review of 

its monitored data, and if monitored 

concentrations or emissions are trending 

upward, Indiana commits to take 

appropriate steps to avoid a violation if 

possible. EPA believes that Indiana’s 

contingency plan satisfies the pertinent 

requirements of section 175A(d). 

As required by section 175A(b) of the 

Clean Air Act, Indiana commits to 

submit to the EPA an updated PM2.5

maintenance plan eight years after 

redesignation of the Evansville area to 

assure maintenance for an additional 

ten-year period beyond the initial 

maintenance plan. As required by 

section 175A of the Clean Air Act, 

Indiana has also committed to retain the 

PM2.5 control measures contained in the 

SIP prior to redesignation. 

For all of the reasons outlined above, 

EPA is proposing to approve Indiana’s 

maintenance plan for the Evansville 

area following the establishment of 

requirements substantially equivalent to 

the requirements of EPA’s proposed 

Transport Rule for purposes of 

maintaining the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard in the Evansville area. 

5. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

Under section 176(c) of the Clean Air 

Act, transportation plans and 

transportation improvement programs 

(TIPs) must be evaluated for conformity 

with State Implementation Plans. 

Consequently, Indiana’s redesignation 

request provides MVEBs, conformance 

with which will assure that motor 

vehicle emissions are at or below levels 

that can be expected to provide for 

attainment and maintenance of the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Indiana’s submittal of 

April 2008 included emission budgets 

for NOX and PM2.5 for 2010 and 2020. 

EPA initiated an adequacy review of the 

budgets that Indiana included in its 

April 2008 submittal. As such, a notice 

of the submission of these budgets was 

posted on its adequacy web page (http: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 29705 

//www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/currsips.htm). The public 

comment period closed on July 2, 2008. 

There were no public comments. 

However, Indiana then submitted a 

replacement set of budgets in its 

submittals of January and April 2011. 

These updated budgets address the 

years 2015 and 2022. (See section V.2.c 

of this proposal for a discussion related 

to the development of the onroad 

inventory for 2022.) Since these budgets 

replace the budgets submitted in April 

2008, EPA will no longer conduct 

rulemaking on the April 2008 budgets. 

Table 5 shows the updated budgets as 

well as the 2005, 2015, and 2022 

emission projections on which these 

budgets are based. Indiana did not 

provide emission budgets for SO2, 

VOCs, and ammonia because it 

concluded, consistent with EPA’s 

presumptions regarding these 

precursors, that emissions of these 

precursors from motor vehicles are not 

significant contributors to the area’s 

PM2.5 air quality problem. 

TABLE 5—MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION PROJECTIONS

[Tons per year] 

NOX PM2.5

Emissions 

estimate Budget Emissions estimate Budget 

2005 ................................................................................................................................. 6,528.04 .................... 117.67 ....................

2015 ................................................................................................................................. 2,503.19 2628.35 54.33 57.05 

2022 ................................................................................................................................. 1,699.86 1869.84 48.93 53.83 

Table 5 shows substantial decreases 

in on-road NOX and PM2.5 emissions 

from 2005 to 2015 and additional 

reductions between 2015 and 2022. The 

emission reductions are expected 

because newer vehicles, subject to more 

stringent emission standards, are 

continually replacing older, dirtier 

vehicles. Indiana provided emission 

budgets that for 2015 include a safety 

margin of 5 percent above projected 

levels and that for 2022 include a safety 

margin of 10 percent above projected 

levels. 

In the Evansville area, the motor 

vehicle budgets and motor vehicle 

emission projections for both NOX and 

PM2.5 are lower than base year levels, 

but the overall emissions of PM2.5

summed across all source types is 

projected to increase. This requires 

further examination of the question of 

whether an increase in PM2.5 emissions 

by the amounts requested by Indiana as 

safety margins would still provide for 

maintenance of the PM2.5 standard. 

The discussion of the maintenance 

plan above describes EPA’s rationale for 

believing that the impact of the 

projected increase in PM2.5 emissions 

will be more than compensated by the 

projected decreases in emissions of SO2

and NOX. EPA examined whether the 

same conclusion would apply if the 

Evansville area used the entire safety 

margin, i.e., if mobile source PM2.5

emissions were higher than projected 

levels by an amount equal to the safety 

margin. Using the first approach above, 

EPA found that if mobile source PM2.5

are five tons per year higher than 

baseline projections, the expected 

impact of the overall PM2.5 emissions 

increase still rounds to 1.3 μg/m3, which 

EPA again believes is more than 

compensated by the decrease in sulfate 

and nitrate concentrations resulting 

from reductions in SO2 and NOX

emissions. Similar results are obtained 

from the second approach for assessing 

the impact of PM2.5 emission trends 

discussed above. Therefore, EPA 

believes that the requested budgets, 

including the requested safety margins, 

provide for a quantity of mobile source 

emissions that would be expected to 

maintain the PM2.5 standard. 

EPA has posted Indiana’s more 

recently submitted recommended 

budgets (for 2015 and 2022) on its 

adequacy findings web page, to provide 

parallel opportunities for review of 

these budgets. These budgets have been 

submitted by IDEM with the intent that 

these budgets replace the budgets 

submitted in 2008 that were subject to 

previous adequacy review. See (http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/currsips.htm). 

EPA is not able to complete its 

adequacy review for the Evansville 

MVEBs for 2015 and 2022 at this time 

because EPA has not yet taken final 

action on the proposed Transport Rule. 

In the absence of a final Transport Rule, 

we cannot determine if other emissions 

sources and the budgets, when 

considered together, are consistent with 

applicable requirements for 

maintenance as required by 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(iv). Therefore, EPA cannot 

at this time find the MVEBs adequate. 

However, EPA is proposing to approve 

the Evansville MVEBs into the Indiana 

SIP because, based on our review of the 

submitted maintenance plan, we have 

determined that the maintenance plan 

and motor vehicle emissions budgets 

will be approvable if the Transport Rule 

as finalized is substantially equivalent 

to the proposed rule in terms of its 

impact on the maintenance of the 

standard in the Evansville area. This is 

consistent with EPA’s intentions for 

acting on the rest of the maintenance 

plan as described above in this 

proposal. 

The budgets that Indiana submitted 

were calculated using the MOBILE6.2 

motor vehicle emissions model. EPA is 

proposing to approve the inventory and 

the conformity budgets calculated using 

this model because this model was the 

most current model available at the time 

Indiana was performing its analysis. 

Separate from today’s proposal, EPA has 

issued an updated motor vehicle 

emissions model known as the Motor 

Vehicle Emission Simulator or MOVES. 

In its announcement of this model, EPA 

established a two-year grace period for 

continued use of MOBILE6.2 in 

transportation conformity 

determinations for transportation plans 

and TIPs (extending to March 2, 2012), 

after which states and metropolitan 

planning organizations (other than 

California) must use MOVES for 

transportation plan and TIP conformity 

determinations. (See 75 FR 9411, March 

2, 2010.) 

Additional information on the use of 

MOVES in SIPs and conformity 

determinations can be found in the 

December 2009 Policy Guidance on the 

Use of MOVES2010 for State 

Implementation Plan Development, 

Transportation Conformity, and Other 

Purposes. This guidance document is 

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

models/moves/420b09046.pdf. During 

the conformity grace period, the State 

and MPO(s) should use the interagency 

consultation process to examine how 

MOVES2010 will impact their future 

transportation plan and TIP conformity 

determinations, including regional 

emissions analyses. For example, an 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
29706 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 99 / Monday, May 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

increase in emission estimates due to 

the use of MOVES2010 may affect an 

area’s ability to demonstrate conformity 

for its transportation plan and/or TIP. 

Therefore, state and local planners 

should carefully consider whether the 

SIP and motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s) should be revised with 

MOVES2010 or if transportation plans 

and TIPs should be revised before the 

end of the conformity grace period, 

since doing so may be necessary to 

ensure conformity determinations in the 

future. 

We would expect that states and 

metropolitan planning organizations 

would work closely with EPA and the 

local Federal Highway Administration 

and Federal Transit Administration 

offices to determine an appropriate 

course of action to address this type of 

situation if it is expected to occur. If 

Indiana chooses to revise the Evansville 

maintenance plan, it should consult 

Question 7 of the December 2009 Policy 

Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for 

State Implementation Plan 

Development, Transportation 

Conformity, and Other Purposes for 

information on requirements related to 

such revisions. 

6. Summary of Proposed Actions 

In its rulemaking of November 27, 

2009, EPA determined that the 

Evansville area is attaining the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s review of 

more recent data indicates that the area 

continues to attain this standard. Thus 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

area continues to attain the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard. EPA is proposing to 

approve Indiana’s maintenance plan, 

provided EPA promulgates a final 

Transport Rule substantially equivalent 

to the Transport Rule as proposed with 

respect to maintenance of the standard 

in the Evansville area. EPA proposes to 

approve the emissions inventory 

included in Indiana’s maintenance plan 

as satisfying the requirement in section 

172(c)(3) for a comprehensive emission 

inventory. With respect to two criteria 

for redesignation–-permanent 

enforceable emissions reductions and a 

fully approvable maintenance plan— 

EPA believes that Indiana is currently 

relying on CAIR for a significant portion 

of the air quality improvement leading 

to attainment and a significant portion 

of the reductions needed to maintain the 

standard. EPA believes, however, that 

these two prerequisites for redesignation 

will be satisfied if and when the 

Transport Rule that EPA proposed on 

August 2, 2010 is finalized in a form 

that is substantially equivalent to the 

rule as proposed, for purposes of 

maintenance of the annual PM2.5

standard in Evansville. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that the Evansville area will 

qualify for redesignation to attainment 

at such time as the Transport Rule in 

such a form is finalized and takes effect. 

Finally, EPA is proposing to approve 

motor vehicle emission budgets for the 

Evansville area. 

VI. What are the effects of EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

If finalized, approval of the 

redesignation request would change the 

legal designation of the Evansville area 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 

found at 40 CFR part 81, from 

nonattainment to attainment. EPA is 

also proposing to approve several 

revisions to the Indiana SIP for the 

Evansville area, including the 

maintenance plans, the emission 

inventory submitted with the 

maintenance plan, and the 2015 and 

2022 MVEBs. EPA is proposing to take 

these actions if and when EPA 

promulgates the Transport Rule limiting 

SO2 and NOX emissions in the Eastern 

United States to an extent substantially 

equivalent in pertinent respects to the 

Transport Rule proposed August 2, 2010 

for purposes of maintaining air quality 

in Evansville. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 

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 Clean Air 

Act 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 Act 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 Clean Air Act. 

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, 

these actions: 

• Are 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); 

• 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 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

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 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, Particulate matter. 

Dated: May 6, 2011. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12609 Filed 5–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS