Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 65341 

in tabletop applications and powdered 

beverage mixes. 

DATES: Submit either electronic or 

written comments on the petitioner’s 

environmental assessment by November 

26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic 

comments to http://www.regulations.

gov. Submit written comments to the 

Division of Dockets Management (HFA– 

305), Food and Drug Administration, 

5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, 

MD 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Felicia M. Ellison, Center for Food 

Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS– 

265), Food and Drug Administration, 

5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, 

MD 20740–3835, 240–402–1264. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice 

published in the Federal Register of 

July 21, 2009 (74 FR 35871), FDA 

announced that a food additive petition 

(FAP 9A4778) had been filed by 

Ajinomoto, Co., Inc., c/o Ajinomoto 

Corporate Services LLC, 1120 

Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 1010, 

Washington, DC 20036 (now c/o 

Ajinomoto North America, Inc., 400 

Kelby St., Fort Lee, NJ 07024). In the 

notice of filing, FDA announced that the 

petitioner proposed that the food 

additive regulations in part 172 Food 

Additives Permitted for Direct Addition 

to Food for Human Consumption (21 

CFR part 172) be amended to provide 

for the safe use of N-[N-[3-(3-hydroxy-4- 

methoxyphenyl) propyl-a-aspartyl]-Lphenylalanine 1-methyl ester, 

monohydrate (CAS Reg. No. 714229– 

20–6) as a non-nutritive sweetener in 

tabletop applications and powdered 

beverage mixes. The petition was filed 

under section 409 of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348). 

Subsequent to publication of the filing 

notice, Ajinomoto Co., Inc., amended its 

petition to provide for the safe use of N- 

[N-[3-(3-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl) 

propyl-a-aspartyl]-L-phenylalanine 1-

methyl ester, monohydrate as a nonnutritive sweetener and flavor enhancer 

in foods generally, except meat and 

poultry. Therefore, FDA is amending the 

filing notice of July 21, 2009, to indicate 

that the petitioner has proposed that the 

food additive regulations in part 172 be 

amended to provide for the use of N-[N- 

[3-(3-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl) 

propyl-a-aspartyl]-L-phenylalanine 1- 

methyl ester, monohydrate (proposed 

additive name Advantame, CAS Reg. 

No. 714229–20–6), as a non-nutritive 

sweetener and flavor enhancer in foods 

generally, except meat and poultry. 

The potential environmental impact 

of this petition is being reviewed. To 

encourage public participation 

consistent with regulation issued under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(40 CFR 1501.4(b)), the Agency is 

placing the environmental assessment 

submitted with the petition that is the 

subject of this notice on public display 

at the Division of Dockets Management 

(see DATES and ADDRESSES) for public 

review and comment. 

Interested persons may submit either 

written comments regarding this 

document to the Division of Dockets 

Management (see ADDRESSES) or 

electronic comments to http://www.

regulations.gov. It is only necessary to 

send one set of comments. Identify 

comments with the docket number 

found in brackets in the heading of this 

document. Received comments may be 

seen in the Division of Dockets 

Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, and will be 

posted to the docket at http://www.

regulations.gov. FDA will also place on 

public display any amendments to, or 

comments on, the petitioner’s 

environmental assessment without 

further announcement in the Federal 

Register. If, based on its review, the 

Agency finds that an environmental 

impact statement is not required, and 

this petition results in a regulation, the 

notice of availability of the Agency’s 

finding of no significant impact and the 

evidence supporting that finding will be 

published with the regulation in the 

Federal Register in accordance with 21 

CFR 25.51(b). 

Dated: October 22, 2012. 

Dennis M. Keefe, 

Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 

[FR Doc. 2012–26315 Filed 10–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0537; FRL–9744–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Delaware County (Muncie), Indiana 

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 the Delaware 

County, 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. Indiana 

submitted this request to EPA for 

parallel processing with a letter dated 

June 15, 2012, and followed up with a 

final submittal after the State public 

comment period ended on July 18, 2012. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 26, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0537, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

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– 

0537. 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65342 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

Delaware County, Indiana 1997 8-hour 

ozone maintenance area. The Delaware 

County, Indiana area was redesignated 

to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard effective January 3, 2006, (70 

FR 69443) and the MOBILE6.2-based 

budgets were approved in that action. If 

EPA finalizes this proposed approval, 

the newly submitted MOVES2010abased 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 MOBILE6 budgets would no 

longer be applicable for transportation 

conformity purposes. 

If EPA approves the MOVES2010abased budgets, the Delaware County 

1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area 

must use the MOVES2010a-based 

budgets starting on the effective date of 

the final approval. See the official 

release of the MOVES2010 emissions 

model (75 FR 9411) 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 (RFP) 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, trucks and other on-road vehicles. 

These mobile source SIP budgets are the 

portions of the total 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 if they are 

not exceeded. 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 parts 51, 

Subpart T, and 93. 

In general, before budgets can be used 

in conformity determinations, EPA must 

affirmatively find the budgets adequate. 

However, budgets that are replacing 

approved budgets must be found 

adequate and approved before budgets 

can replace older budgets. 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 revised 

SIP and budgets, and must affirm that 

they are adequate at the same time. 

Once EPA approves revised budgets into 

the SIP, 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 65343 

1Upon the release of MOVES2010, EPA 

established a two-year grace period before MOVES 

is required to be used for regional conformity 

analyses (75 FR 9411). EPA subsequently 

promulgated a final rule on February 27, 2012 to 

provide an additional year before MOVES is 

required for these analyses (77 FR 11394). In this 

case the grace period ends on March 2, 2013. 

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 Delaware County, 8-hour ozone 

maintenance area for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) for the year 2015 on January 3, 

2006 (70 FR 69443). These budgets were 

based on EPA’s MOBILE6.2 emissions 

model. The ozone maintenance plan 

established 2015 budgets for the 

Delaware County, Indiana area of 3.50 

tons per day (tpd) for VOCs and 4.82 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). EPA subsequently released two 

minor model revisions: MOVES2010a in 

September 2010 and MOVES2010b in 

April 2012. Both of these minor 

revisions enhance model performance 

and do not significantly affect the 

criteria pollutant emissions results from 

MOVES2010. 

MOVES will be required for new 

regional emissions analyses for 

transportation conformity 

determinations (‘‘regional conformity 

analyses’’) outside of California that 

begin after March 2, 2013, or when EPA 

approves MOVES-based budgets, 

whichever comes first.1 The MOVES 

grace period for regional conformity 

analyses applies to both the use of 

MOVES2010 and approved minor 

revisions (e.g., MOVES2010a and 

MOVES2010b). For more information, 

see EPA’s ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use 

of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor 

Model Revisions for State 

Implementation Plan Development, 

Transportation Conformity, and Other 

Purposes’’ (April 2012), available online 

at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/ 

transconf/policy.htm#models. 

EPA has encouraged areas to examine 

how MOVES would affect future 

transportation plan and TIP conformity 

determinations so, if necessary, SIPs 

and budgets could be revised with 

MOVES or transportation plans and 

TIPs could be revised (as appropriate) 

prior to the end of the regional 

transportation conformity grace period. 

EPA has also encouraged state and local 

air agencies to consider how the release 

of MOVES would affect analyses 

supporting SIP submissions under 

development (77 FR 9411 and 77 FR 

11394). 

The Delaware-Muncie Metropolitan 

Plan Commission (DMMPC), which is 

the Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) for the Delaware County area, 

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 has concluded that updating the 

budgets with MOVES2010a will prepare 

the areas 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 June 15, 2012, Indiana submitted 

for parallel processing replacement 

budgets based on MOVES2010a for the 

Delaware County area. Indiana provided 

public review and comment which 

ended on July 18, 2012. There were no 

comments. Indiana submitted the final 

SIP revision request on August 17, 2012. 

The MOVES2010a budgets are 

proposed to replace the prior approved 

MOBILE6.2 budgets and are for the 

same year and pollutants/precursors. 

The new MOVES2010a budgets are for 

the year 2015 for both VOCs and NOX

and are detailed in a Table in section 

V(b) of this notice. Indiana has also 

provided total emissions including 

mobile emissions based on 

MOVES2010a, for the attainment year of 

2002, the interim year 2010 and the 

2015 maintenance year. The total safety 

margin available in 2015 for NOX is 

15.36 tpd and for VOC is 4.76 tpd. This 

information is detailed in the submittal 

and provided in the following table. The 

safety margin is defined as the reduction 

in emissions from the base year (in this 

case the 2002 attainment year) to the 

final year of the maintenance plan (in 

this case the 2015 year). The total 

emissions include point, area, non-road 

and on-road mobile sources. 

TABLE OF TOTAL EMISSIONS WITH MOVES2010A MOBILE EMISSIONS

Year 2002 2010 2015 Safety margin 

VOC ................................................................................................................. 26.08 21.36 21.32 4.76 

NOX .................................................................................................................. 26.17 15.73 10.81 15.36 

Indiana has added only a small 

portion of the overall safety margin 

available for NOX and VOCs to the 

budgets for 2015. The submittal 

demonstrates how all emissions decline 

from the attainment year of 2002. In 

2002, the total estimated NOX emissions 

from all sources (including mobile, 

point, area and non-road sources) is 

26.17 tpd and the total VOC emissions, 

for the 2002 attainment year, from all 

sources is 26.08 tpd. The 2015 estimated 

emissions for total NOX from all sources 

is 10.81 tpd and the total VOC 

emissions from all sources is 21.32 tpd. 

This is further discussed in section V of 

this notice and detailed in the table of 

total emissions in section V. This 

reduction in emissions demonstrates 

that the area will continue below the 

attainment level of emissions and 

maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. The mobile source emissions, 

when included with point, area, and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65344 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

non-road sources continue to 

demonstrate maintenance of the 

attainment level of emissions in the 

Delaware County area. 

No additional control measures were 

needed to maintain the 1997 ozone 

standard in the Delaware County area. 

An appropriate safety margin for NOX

and VOCs was decided by the 

interagency consultation group (the 

interagency consultation group as 

required by the state conformity 

agreement consists of representatives 

from the Federal Highway 

Administration, the Indiana Department 

of Transportation, the Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM), and EPA). The 

allocation of safety margin is included 

in Table 5.2–A of the Indiana submittal. 

The on-road MOVES2010a based 

budgets are in Table 5.2–A of the 

submittal and are listed as 7.02 tpd for 

NOX and 2.53 tpd for VOCs in the year 

2015. These budgets will continue to 

keep emissions in the Delaware County 

area below the calculated attainment 

year of emissions. 

IV. What are the criteria for approval? 

EPA requires that revisions to existing 

SIPs and budgets continue to meet 

applicable requirements (e.g., 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 SIP must 

also meet any applicable SIP 

requirements under CAA section 110. 

In addition, the transportation 

conformity rule (at 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)(iv)) requires that ‘‘the 

budgets, when considered together with 

all other emissions sources, is consistent 

with applicable requirements for 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 and approve them for 

conformity purposes. 

In addition, 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 non-motor 

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 SIP Development, 

Transportation Conformity, and Other 

Purposes’’ (April 2012), 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 

Delaware County 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 2015 year 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 Delaware County, 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. Indiana finds that growth and 

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

point) have not changed significantly 

from the original submittal for the years 

2002, 2010, and 2015. As a result, the 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

for the non-mobile sources for the years 

2002, 2010, and 2015 continue to be 

valid and do not affect the overall 

conclusions of the plan. 

Indiana’s submission 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 26.17 tpd for NOX and 

26.08 tpd for VOCs in the 2002 

attainment year. The total emissions 

from all sources in the 2015 year are 

10.81 tpd for NOX and 21.32 tpd for 

VOCs. These totals demonstrate that 

emissions in the Delaware County area 

are continuing to decline and remain 

below the attainment levels. 

Indiana has submitted MOVES2010abased budgets for the Delaware County 

area that are clearly identified in Table 

5.2–A of the submittal. The on-road 

budgets for 2015 are 7.02 tpd for NOX

and 2.53 tpd for VOCs. These are the 

budgets that are being proposed for 

approval. 

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 

Delaware County 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 meet the 

adequacy criteria in the conformity rule 

at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). 

The adequacy criteria found in 40 

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

• The submitted SIP was endorsed by 

[the Governor/Governor’s designee] and 

was subject to a state public hearing 

(§ 93.118(e)(4)(i)); 

• Before the control strategy 

implementation plan was submitted to 

EPA, consultation among Federal, state, 

and local agencies occurred, 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 

together with all other emissions 

sources, are consistent with applicable 

requirements for RFP, attainment, or 

maintenance (§ 93.118(e)(4)(iv)); 

• The budgets are consistent with and 

clearly related to the emissions 

inventory and control measures in the 

control strategy implementation plan 

(§ 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 and reasons 

for the changes (including the basis for 

any changes related to emission factors 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 65345 

2For more information, see EPA’s ‘‘Policy 

Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 and 

Subsequent Minor Revisions for State 

Implementation Plan Development, Transportation 

Conformity, and Other Purposes’’ (April 2012). 

or vehicle miles traveled) 

(§ 93.118(e)(4)(vi). 

We find that Indiana has met all of the 

adequacy criteria. The final submittal is 

dated August 17, 2012, and signed by 

the governor’s designee. All public 

hearing materials were submitted with 

the formal SIP revision request. The 

interagency consultation group, which 

is composed of the state air agency, state 

Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, EPA, and the 

MPO for the area, has 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 DMMPC 

network model provided the vehicle 

miles of travel and other necessary data 

from the travel demand network model. 

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. Indiana finds 

that growth and control strategy 

assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e. 

area, non-road, and point) from the 

original submittal for the years 2002, 

2010, 2015 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 2002, 

2010, and 2015 continue to be valid and 

do not affect the overall conclusions of 

the plan. 

Indiana’s submission 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 the 2002 

attainment year to the year 2015 (the 

last year of the maintenance plan). 

These totals demonstrate that emissions 

in the Delaware County area are 

continuing to decline and remain below 

the attainment levels. The table below, 

displays total emissions in the Delaware 

County area including point, area, nonroad, and mobile sources and 

demonstrates the declining emissions 

from the 2002 attainment year. 

TABLE OF TOTAL EMISSIONS WITH

MOVES2010A MOBILE EMISSIONS

Year 2002 2010 2015 

VOC .................. 26.08 21.36 21.32 

NOX ................... 26.17 15.73 10.81 

The following table displays the 

submitted budgets that are proposed in 

the notice to be approved. The budgets 

include an appropriate margin of safety 

while still maintaining total emissions 

below the attainment level. 

TABLE OF MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION

BUDGETS (MOVES) DELAWARE

COUNTY, INDIANA FOR YEAR 2015 

VOC (tpd) ........................................... 2.53 

NOX (tpd) ............................................ 7.02 

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 MOBILE6 instead of 

MOVES2010 (and subsequent minor 

revisions) for the pollutants included in 

these budgets will end for the Delaware 

County 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 Delaware County, Indiana existing 

approved budgets for VOCs and NOX for 

2015 for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan, that were based on 

the MOBILE6.2 emissions model, 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 Delaware County 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65346 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 208 / Friday, October 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: October 12, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–26384 Filed 10–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0799; FRL–9747–3] 

Determination of Attainment for the 

Sacramento Nonattainment Area for 

the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; 

California; Determination Regarding 

Applicability of Clean Air Act 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

determine that the Sacramento 

nonattainment area in California has 

attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). This proposed 

determination is based upon complete, 

quality-assured, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data showing that this 

area has monitored attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 

the 2009–2011 monitoring period. EPA 

is further proposing that, if EPA 

finalizes this determination of 

attainment, the requirements for this 

area to submit an attainment 

demonstration, together with reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, 

and contingency measures for failure to 

meet RFP and attainment deadlines 

shall be suspended for so long as the 

area continues to attain the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 26, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0799 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at 

www.regulations.gov, please follow the 

on-line instructions; 

2. Email to ungvarsky.john@epa.gov; 

or 

3. Mail or delivery to John Ungvarsky, 

Air Planning Office, AIR–2, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected should be clearly identified as 

such and should not be submitted 

through www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

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

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Ungvarsky, (415) 972–3963, or by email 

at ungvarsky.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. We are providing the following 

outline to aid in locating information in 

this proposal. 

Table of Contents 

I. What determination is EPA making? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

A. PM2.5 NAAQS 

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Areas 

C. How does EPA make attainment 

determinations? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the relevant air 

quality data? 

A. Monitoring Network and Data 

Considerations 

B. Evaluation of Current Attainment 

IV. How does EPA’s Clean Data Policy apply 

to this action? 

A. Application of EPA’s Clean Data Policy 

to the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS 

B. History and Basis of EPA’s Clean Data 

Policy 

V. EPA’s Proposed Action and Request for 

Public Comment 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS