Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59527 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–24373 Filed 9–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0396; FRL–9469–5] 

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: Final 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. This request also 

included emissions information and 

related material to address related State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) 

requirements. On May 23, 2011, EPA 

proposed to approve the SIP submittals 

and to act as requested to redesignate 

the Evansville PM2.5 nonattainment area 

to attainment. The submittals included 

emissions inventories, a maintenance 

plan for the Evansville area for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard and 

accompanying motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. EPA received one set of 

adverse comments and one set of 

supportive comments. After review and 

consideration of these comments and of 

the emission reduction mandates of the 

final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

promulgated recently, EPA is taking 

final action to approve the requested SIP 

revisions and to redesignate the 

Evansville PM2.5 nonattainment area to 

attainment for the annual 1997 PM2.5

standard. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 27, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2008–0396. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://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 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), 

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 actions did EPA propose? 

II. What is the background for these actions? 

III. What comments did EPA receive and 

what are EPA’s responses? 

IV. How does the CSAPR compare to the 

proposed Transport Rule as it affects 

Evansville area air quality? 

V. What is EPA’s final analysis of Indiana’s 

request? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What actions did EPA propose? 

Indiana submitted a request for 

redesignation of the Evansville area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) on April 3, 2008, 

supplemented by additional subsequent 

submittals on various dates including 

submittal of a replacement maintenance 

plan on April 8, 2011. On May 23, 2011, 

at 76 FR 29695, EPA published a notice 

of proposed rulemaking addressing 

these submittals. In the May 23 action, 

EPA first referred to EPA’s prior final 

determination that the Evansville area 

had attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS (published November 27, 2009, 

at 74 FR 62243), and proposed to 

determine that the area continues to 

attain that standard. Second, EPA 

proposed 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 promulgate 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. Third, EPA proposed to 

approve the 2005 emission inventory in 

Indiana’s maintenance plan as satisfying 

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

a comprehensive and accurate 

emissions inventory. Fourth, EPA 

proposed 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. Finally, EPA proposed to 

approve the 2015 and 2022 Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 

the Evansville area into the Indiana SIP. 

These proposals were generally 

contingent on EPA finalizing a 

Transport Rule which, for purposes of 

this action, was substantially equivalent 

to the Transport Rule that EPA proposed 

on August 2, 2010. 

II. 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 (mg/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 mg/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 mg/m3 but 

revised the 24-hour standard to 

35 mg/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 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

In response to legal challenges of the 

annual standard promulgated in 2006, 

the DC 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. 

The notice of proposed rulemaking 

identifies multiple submittals that 

Indiana provided in support of its 

request for redesignation of the 

Evansville area. Given the significance 

of sulfates and nitrates in the Evansville 

area, several of these submittals focused 

on the sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) emissions from power 

plants and the regulations governing 

these emissions. 

EPA proposed the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (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, as a result of 

rulings by the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit, 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.) In that 

rulemaking action, EPA proposed to 

require substantial reductions of SO2

and NOX emissions from electric 

generating units (egus) across most of 

the Eastern United States. Indeed, EPA’s 

rulemaking notice proposing the 

Evansville redesignation expressed the 

view that the Transport Rule as 

proposed would require reductions of 

these emissions to levels well below the 

levels that led to attainment in the 

Evansville area. On this basis, EPA 

proposed to conclude that EPA’s 

promulgation of a final Transport Rule 

would make permanent and enforceable 

the power plant emission reductions to 

which Evansville’s air quality 

improvement were attributable, 

provided the final Transport Rule was 

substantially equivalent to the proposed 

rule for purposes of maintaining the 

PM2.5 air quality standard in the 

Evansville area. 

Final rulemaking for the Transport 

Rule, also known as the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), was published 

on August 8, 2011, at 76 FR 48208. The 

discussion below addresses the question 

of whether CSAPR may be considered to 

be substantially equivalent to the 

proposed Transport Rule for purposes of 

maintaining the standard in the 

Evansville area. 

III. What comments did EPA receive 

and what are EPA’s responses? 

EPA received two sets of comments 

on its proposal to redesignate Evansville 

to attainment for PM2.5. John Blair, on 

behalf of Valley Watch (‘‘Valley 

Watch’’), opposed the redesignation, 

and Joanne Alexandrovich, on behalf of 

the Vanderburgh County Health 

Department (‘‘Vanderburgh County’’), 

supported the redesignation. The 

following discussion summarizes the 

comments and provides EPA’s 

responses. 

Comment: Valley Watch states: 

‘‘Monitors in the region have shown 

levels of PM2.5 to be ‘moderate’ on many 

more days than they have been in the 

range considered ‘good’ by EPA in 

2011.’’ 

Response: The air quality index that 

is cited by the commenter is designed to 

characterize 24-hour average 

concentrations in terms such as ‘‘good’’ 

or ‘‘moderate’’ levels. This index is not 

designed to report the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 values that are at issue in this 

redesignation, and is in fact a weak 

indicator of annual average 

concentrations. Furthermore, the air 

quality index that is the focus of the 

comment often relies on reporting from 

continuous instruments that, although 

capable of providing air quality 

information on a timely basis, may 

provide less reliable air quality 

information. For these reasons, and 

given the imprecise, non-quantitative 

nature of the information cited by the 

commenter, we conclude that it is not 

pertinent to the determination 

addressed in this rulemaking—whether 

the Evansville area is meeting the 1997 

annual average PM2.5.

As we have previously shown, based 

on comprehensive and quality-assured 

air monitoring data presented in the 

proposed and final determinations of 

attainment and in the proposed 

redesignation notice, the Evansville area 

has been meeting the 1997 annual 

average PM2.5 standard since 2004 to 

2006, and continues to meet that 

standard. The most recent air quality 

data available for 2011 is consistent 

with continued attainment. The 

information regarding the 24-hour 

values referred to by the commenter 

does not bear upon nor detract from 

EPA’s determinations regarding the 

area’s longstanding attainment of the 

1997 annual standard. 

Comment: Valley Watch claims that 

the recent air quality improvement ‘‘is 

more likely due to the fact that overall 

energy production in the region has 

been about 25% lower than previous 

years due to the deep recession * * * 

rather than permanent and enforceable 

emission limits.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s opinion regarding the 

cause of the Evansville area’s attainment 

of the standard. The commenter is 

evidently referring to a recession that 

the National Bureau of Economic 

Research found to extend from 

December 2007 to June 2009. However, 

EPA determined that the Evansville area 

attained the standard before this period, 

as established by air quality data for 

2004 to 2006 and for 2005 to 2007. As 

shown in Table 1 of the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (see 76 FR 29698, 

May 23, 2011), data for 2010 indicate 

that the area continues to attain the 

standard by a substantial margin, 

notwithstanding some economic 

recovery. Thus, as set forth in the 

proposal and in today’s action, EPA 

continues to believe that the air quality 

improvement is largely attributable to 

substantial reductions in power plant 

emissions. CAIR mandated substantial 

reductions in power plant emissions. 

These requirements address emissions 

through 2011 and EPA has now 

promulgated CSAPR, which requires 

similar or greater reductions in the 

relevant areas in 2012 and beyond. 

Because the emission reduction 

requirements of CAIR are enforceable 

through the 2011 control period, and 

because CSAPR has now been 

promulgated to address the 

requirements previously addressed by 

CAIR and gets similar or greater 

reductions in the relevant areas in 2012 

and beyond, EPA has determined that 

the emission reductions that led to 

attainment in the Evansville area can 

now be considered permanent and 

enforceable and that the requirement of 

Clean Air Act section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) 

has now been met. 

Comment: Valley Watch contends that 

some of the numerous power plants in 

the region near Evansville have indeed 

installed scrubbers for the control of 

SO2, ‘‘but those reductions are not 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59529 

required by permanent and enforceable 

emission limits. The reductions are 

mainly undertaken to satisfy cap and 

trade programs like Clean Air Interstate 

Rule.’’ Valley Watch asserts, as a result, 

that the sources may choose to purchase 

credits and emit more. 

Furthermore, Valley Watch notes that 

‘‘CAIR was overturned by the DC Court 

of Appeals’’, and so contends that the 

reductions that it cause cannot be 

considered permanent or enforceable. It 

also asserts that the ‘‘D.C. Circuit 

already held that CAIR does not require 

enforceable reductions in any particular 

state.’’ 

Response: While EPA views CAIR as 

likely one of the motivations for the 

power plant emission reductions that it 

considers the primary cause for the air 

quality improvement in the Evansville 

area, EPA is not relying solely on CAIR 

as the basis for redesignating the 

Evansville area to attainment. As 

explained in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, CAIR was ultimately 

remanded to EPA without vacatur. EPA 

has now responded to that remand with 

the promulgation of CSAPR. CAIR limits 

emissions through the end of the 2011 

control periods, and the new Transport 

Rule limits emissions in 2012 and 

beyond. With these regulations, EPA is 

requiring a level of power plant 

emission control that exceeds the level 

of reductions that resulted in attainment 

in the Evansville area. 

Several factors contribute to EPA’s 

expectation that CSAPR will provide 

even better air quality in the Evansville 

area than has occurred to date. First, 

given the mandates under CSAPR, any 

utility that has already spent the 

hundreds of millions of dollars to install 

scrubbers will clearly find continued 

effective operation of these scrubbers to 

be far more cost-effective than 

disregarding this investment and either 

spending more hundreds of millions of 

dollars installing replacement scrubbers 

elsewhere or purchasing credits at a 

price equivalent to spending those 

hundreds of millions of dollars. In short, 

any utility in a state covered by CSAPR 

provisions related to PM2.5 that has 

installed scrubbers is almost certain 

under CSAPR to retain the scrubbers 

and operate them effectively. Second, 

any action by a utility that increases its 

emissions, requiring the purchase of 

allowances, thereby necessitates a 

corresponding emission reduction by 

the utility that sells the allowances. 

Given the regional nature of particulate 

matter, this corresponding emission 

reduction will have an air quality 

benefit that will compensate at least in 

part for the impact of any emission 

increase from Evansville area utilities. 

Third, in response to the opinion of the 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit, CSAPR trading 

programs include assurance provisions 

to ensure that the necessary emission 

reductions occur within each covered 

state. 

Comment: Valley Watch argues that, 

while the Transport Rule ‘‘is supposed 

to be finalized in a matter of weeks,’’ 

EPA has encountered delays in several 

of its rulemakings, and EPA may not 

rely on a rule that has not yet been 

promulgated. 

Response: EPA stated in its notice of 

proposed rulemaking that it would not 

publish final rulemaking until the 

Transport Rule was made final. CSAPR 

has now been promulgated. EPA notes 

that, along with promulgation of 

CSAPR, EPA issued a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking to 

include six additional states in the 

summer season NOX trading program. 

(See 76 FR 40662, published July 11, 

2011.) EPA is not relying, in this 

redesignation, on reductions that would 

be achieved if that supplemental 

proposal is finalized as proposed. 

Comment: Valley Watch states that 

‘‘EPA has offered no analysis, under 

Clean Air Act 110(l), of what impact this 

redesignation would have on 

compliance with the 1997 and 2008 

ozone NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2010 1-hour SO2 and NOX

NAAQS.’’ 

Response: This redesignation does not 

relax any existing control requirements, 

nor does it affect any existing control 

requirements. On this basis, EPA 

concludes that this redesignation will 

not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any of these air quality 

standards. 

Valley Watch attached comments 

dated March 27, 2008, that it submitted 

to Indiana during the State’s comment 

period on a State proposal to request 

redesignation. Since these comments 

were summarized in Indiana’s 

submittal, EPA has already considered 

them as part of that review process. 

Nevertheless, since the commenter has 

resubmitted these comments, EPA will 

provide responses to those comments as 

well. 

Comment: Valley Watch commented 

that the air quality standard of 15 mg/m3

is not protective of community health. 

Response: Comments regarding the 

appropriateness or adequacy of the 1997 

PM2.5 air quality standard are not 

germane to this rulemaking. At issue 

here is whether the Evansville area 

meets the criteria in section 107(d)(3)(E) 

for being redesignated as attaining the 

1997 annual average PM2.5 air quality 

standard that was established in a prior 

rulemaking that cannot be challenged 

here. 

Comment: Valley Watch reviews 

emission controls by power plants in 

the Evansville area. It claims that one 

plant (Gibson Station) is controlling 

only about 50 percent of the SO2

emissions from three of its five units, 

and that another plant (Rockport 

Station) has no plans to control either 

NOX or SO2 emissions until at least 

2018. 

Response: Data available on the Clean 

Air Markets public data repository show 

that emissions for all five units at 

Gibson Station declined by well more 

than 50 percent from 2002 to 2010, 

adding up to a reduction by over 80 

percent. The dates when the commenter 

expects control of Rockport Station are 

similar to the dates by which a federal 

consent decree requires control, though 

other requirements may result in earlier 

installation of these controls. However, 

the commenter does not explain the 

relevance of these comments. 

The relevant issues for this 

rulemaking are whether current 

emission control levels suffice for the 

area to attain the standard, whether the 

air quality improvement leading to 

attainment is attributable to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions, 

and whether the area is assured of 

continuing to attain the standard. 

Redesignation is not contingent on 

achieving all possible emission controls. 

The emission controls that have 

occurred to date have sufficed for the 

Evansville area to attain the standard, 

EPA finds that the air quality 

improvement may be attributed to a 

permanent and enforceable set of 

emission reductions, and Indiana has 

demonstrated that sufficient control 

requirements are in place to assure that 

the Evansville area will maintain the 

standard. 

Comment: Valley Watch states that 

Indiana should not use data from 2004 

to 2006 and should instead wait to 

collect another year of data to see if air 

quality in Evansville is ‘‘clean and 

healthy.’’ The commenter claims that 13 

percent of the data is missing in 2006 

and 16 percent is missing in 2007, 

‘‘mostly during periods when high 

levels of fine particles are historically 

formed.’’ Valley Watch states that, ‘‘if 

our design value was approaching the 

level recommended by [the Clean Air 

Science Advisory Committee] of 14 mg/ 

m3, * * * data missing on days of high 

levels would not be such an issue.’’ 

Response: EPA has examined and 

evaluated quality-assured data for more 

than four years beyond 2006 and 

concludes that the area continues to 

attain the standard. As a general matter, 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

under 40 CFR part 50 Appendix N, data 

sets that include at least 75 percent of 

the scheduled data are deemed 

complete and may be considered to 

provide an adequate representation of 

PM2.5 concentrations. This topic was 

addressed specifically for the Evansville 

area in EPA’s determination of 

attainment and in the proposed 

redesignation. Furthermore, Valley 

Watch provided no analysis in support 

of its allegation that the data are 

unrepresentative. Data meeting the 

quality assurance requirements in EPA’s 

regulations show that the area has been 

continuously in attainment with the 

1997 annual average PM2.5 standard 

since 2006. The design value for the 

area is now well below 14 mg/m3, so that 

Valley Watch’s comment suggests that it 

must now concede that differences 

between actual data capture rates in the 

area and 100 percent data capture may 

be considered insignificant. 

Comment: Valley Watch includes 

critical comments questioning the 

integrity of certain State and local 

officials. 

Response: The comments do not raise 

issues relevant to redesignation, and are 

not germane to this rulemaking. 

Comment: Vanderburgh County 

comments that it believes the State of 

Indiana has submitted a redesignation 

package that ‘‘meets all statutory, 

regulatory, and guidance requirements’’ 

for Evansville to be redesignated to 

attainment. 

Response: EPA agrees. 

Comment: Vanderburgh County 

contends that ‘‘redesignation should not 

be contingent on final promulgation of 

the [Transport Rule].’’ The commenter 

adds that the area was meeting the air 

quality standard by 2006, and disagrees 

with EPA’s statement ‘‘that air quality 

monitoring between 2004 and 2006 

‘would reflect the benefits from EPA’s 

development, proposal, and 

promulgation of CAIR.’ ’’ The 

commenter provides emissions data for 

power plants within 100 kilometers of 

Evansville and elsewhere in Indiana and 

Kentucky, to support a claim that 

attainment cannot be attributed to CAIR. 

The emissions data, derived from the 

EPA Clean Air Markets Web site from 

1995 to 2010, suggest that regional 

power plant emissions of SO2 were 

relatively constant from 2001 to 2006 

and only declined significantly 

thereafter. The commenter believes that 

the emissions data indicate that NOX

emissions steadily and significantly 

declined from 1998 to 2004 and then 

held relatively steady until declining 

again starting in 2009. 

The commenter agrees that power 

plant emissions dominate air quality in 

the Evansville area. Indeed, the 

commenter finds that ‘‘PM2.5 annual 

design values are highly correlated with 

the SO2 and NOX emissions from coal 

fired EGUs located within 100 km of 

Evansville (R2 coefficients ≈ 0.80).’’ 

However, the commenter expresses 

doubt in the view that CAIR caused 

significant emission reductions by 2006, 

when the Evansville area came into 

attainment. The commenter expresses 

the view that the area’s air quality 

improvement is attributable to power 

plant emission reductions resulting 

from the Acid Rain Program. 

Response: EPA has now promulgated 

CSAPR, which limits emissions in the 

relevant area and will replace CAIR. As 

explained above, CAIR limits emissions 

through the end of the 2011 control 

periods, and CSAPR will limit emission 

in 2012 and beyond. 

The commenter does well to consider 

power plant emissions data for a region 

that extends beyond the boundaries of 

the Evansville nonattainment area. 

Indeed, EPA’s notice of proposed 

redesignation addressed emissions for 

13 states including Indiana, and EPA 

continues to believe that it is 

appropriate to examine pertinent 

emissions trends in this broad area. The 

trends across this 13-state region are 

similar to those identified by the 

commenter in the less broad region. 

In conjunction with its Transport Rule 

rulemaking, EPA conducted an 

extensive examination of pertinent 

emissions data and, because the 

Transport Rule was to replace CAIR, 

EPA evaluated air quality under a 

baseline that did not include CAIR. 

EPA’s final Transport Rule analysis, 

which took into account comments 

received on the proposal, projected that 

the Evansville area would attain the 

annual PM2.5 standard in 2012 even in 

the absence of reductions due solely to 

CAIR and not required by other Federal 

or state regulations or consent decrees). 

EPA did not conduct a direct 

assessment of whether the Evansville 

area would have attained in 2004 to 

2006 in absence of CAIR, and any 

extrapolation from EPA’s 2012 analysis 

is complicated by consideration of other 

emission controls mandated by 2012 

(e.g., by the settlement of enforcement 

cases and the imposition of state 

mandates) that are independent of CAIR 

and CSAPR that mostly occurred after 

Evansville attained the standard. 

Furthermore, the motivations for power 

plant emission reductions are difficult 

to discern. In any case, the 

promulgation of CSAPR makes it no 

longer necessary to determine what 

originally motivated the power plant 

emission reductions that yielded 

attainment. The CAIR emission 

reduction requirements limit emissions 

through 2011 and EPA has now 

promulgated CSAPR which requires 

similar or greater reductions in the 

relevant areas in 2012 and beyond. In 

particular, CSAPR requires reduction of 

these emissions to levels well below the 

levels that led to attainment of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 standard in the Evansville 

area. 

EPA and the commenter agree that the 

air quality improvement is attributable 

to emission reductions that are 

enforceable and now permanently 

required. The requirements of the Acid 

Rain Program are permanent and 

enforceable and the requirements of 

CSAPR, which replaces CAIR and 

requires equivalent or greater reductions 

in the relevant areas, are also permanent 

and enforceable. Thus, the emission 

reductions that led to attainment in the 

Evansville area can be said to be 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions. As noted above, CSAPR, 

while not requiring identical reductions 

to CAIR, mandated sufficient reductions 

in the relevant areas to guarantee that 

any reductions originally associated 

with CAIR that may have been 

necessary for the Evansville area to 

demonstrate attainment are now 

permanently required. 

IV. How does CSAPR compare to the 

proposed Transport Rule as it affects 

Evansville area air quality? 

EPA’s proposal to redesignate the 

Evansville area to attainment was 

contingent in some respects on the final 

Transport Rule being substantially 

equivalent to the proposed Transport 

Rule with respect to air quality in the 

Evansville area. For example, EPA 

stated that it proposed to conclude that 

the air quality could be attributed to 

permanent and enforceable measures 

once EPA promulgated the final 

Transport Rule, provided EPA issued 

‘‘final promulgation of a Transport Rule 

that is substantially equivalent to the 

proposed rule for purposes of 

maintaining the standard in the 

Evansville area’’. EPA included a 

similar proviso in the review of 

Indiana’s maintenance plan. Therefore, 

the following discussion compares the 

final against the proposed Transport 

Rule. 

Table 1 shows the proposed and final 

annual NOX and annual SO2 budgets for 

the 13 states that EPA had proposed to 

find significantly contribute to or 

interfere with maintenance of the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Evansville 

area. EPA ultimately did not conclude 

that these states significantly contribute 

to, or interfere with, maintenance of 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59531 

these NAAQS in the Evansville area, 

because it determined that even in the 

absence of CAIR, the Evansville area 

would attain the standard in 2012. 

Nonetheless, EPA continues to believe 

that these 13 states are the most relevant 

with respect to Evansville area air 

quality. 

TABLE 1—SO2 AND NOX EMISSION BUDGETS FOR 2012 IN PROPOSED AND FINAL TRANSPORT RULE

[tons] 

State 

SO2 Budgets Annual NOX Budgets 

Proposed TR 

2012 Final TR 2012 Proposed TR 2012 Final TR 2012 

Indiana ............................................................................................. 400,378 285,424 115,687 109,726 

Alabama ........................................................................................... 161,871 216,033 69,169 72,691

Georgia ............................................................................................ 233,260 158,527 73,801 62,010 

Illinois ............................................................................................... 208,957 234,889 56,040 47,872 

Iowa ................................................................................................. 94,052 107,085 46,068 38,335 

Kentucky .......................................................................................... 219,549 232,662 74,117 85,086

Michigan ........................................................................................... 251,337 229,303 64,932 60,193 

Missouri ............................................................................................ 203,689 207,466 57,681 52,374 

Ohio ................................................................................................. 464,964 310,230 97,313 92,703 

Pennsylvania .................................................................................... 388,612 278,651 113,903 119,986

Tennessee ....................................................................................... 100,007 148,150 28,362 35,703 

West Virginia .................................................................................... 205,422 146,174 51,990 59,472 

Wisconsin ......................................................................................... 96,439 79,480 44,846 31,628 

Total .......................................................................................... 3,028,537 2,634,074 893,909 867,779 

This comparison supports EPA’s 

conclusion that the final Transport Rule 

requires power plant emission 

reductions that are, for purposes of 

maintaining the PM2.5 standard in 

Evansville, at least substantially 

equivalent to those proposed. 

V. What is EPA’s final analysis of 

Indiana’s request? 

EPA continues to believe that the 

Evansville area meets the criteria of 

Clean Air Act section 107(d)(3)(E) for 

redesignation to attainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 air quality standard. First, 

EPA has determined that the air quality 

in the area meets the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard. Second, with the approval 

today of a comprehensive emission 

inventory (in satisfaction of the 

requirement in section 172(c)(3)), EPA 

has fully approved the applicable 

implementation plan. Third, with the 

final promulgation of CSAPR, in 

conjunction with the Federal motor 

vehicle control program and other 

emission reductions, EPA believes that 

the air quality improvement in the 

Evansville area may be attributed to 

measures that are permanent and 

enforceable. Fourth, EPA believes that 

Indiana has provided a maintenance 

plan for the PM2.5 standard through 

2022 that meets the requirements of 

section 175A. Fifth, EPA believes that 

Indiana has met all pertinent planning 

requirements for the Evansville area 

under section 110 and Part D. 

Therefore, EPA is taking several 

actions. EPA is approving Indiana’s 

PM2.5 emission inventory for the 

Evansville area as meeting the 

requirements of section 172(c)(3). 

Pursuant to section 175A, EPA is 

approving the State’s maintenance plan 

as providing for maintenance through 

2022. EPA is redesignating the 

Evansville area to attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 air quality standard. 

Finally, EPA is establishing 

transportation conformity budgets for 

the area, specifically budgets for NOX of 

2,628.35 tons per year in 2015 and 

1869.84 tons per year in 2022 and 

budgets for direct emissions of PM2.5 of 

57.05 tons per year in 2015 and 53.83 

tons per year in 2022. 

VI. 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 Clean Air 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
59532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by November 28, 

2011. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter. 

Dated: September 12, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart P—Indiana 

■ 2. Section 52.776 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (v) and (w) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.776 Control strategy: Particulate 

matter. 

* * * * * 

(v) Approval—The 1997 annual PM2.5

maintenance plans for the following 

areas have been approved: 

(1) The Evansville area (Dubois, 

Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties, 

and portions of Gibson, Pike, and 

Spencer Counties), as submitted on 

April 8, 2011. The maintenance plan 

establishes 2015 motor vehicle emission 

budgets for the Evansville area of 

2628.35 tons per year for NOX and 57.05 

tons per year for PM2.5, and 2022 motor 

vehicle emission budgets of 1869.84 

tons per year for NOX and 53.83 tons per 

year for PM2.5. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(w) Approval—The 1997 annual PM2.5

comprehensive emissions inventories 

for the following areas have been 

approved: 

(1) Indiana’s 2005 NOX, directly 

emitted PM2.5, and SO2 emissions 

inventory satisfies the emission 

inventory requirements of section 

172(c)(3) for the Evansville area. 

(2) [Reserved] 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

■ 4. Section 81.315 is amended by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Evansville, IN’’ in 

the table for Indiana PM2.5 (Annual 

NAAQS) to read as follows: 

§ 81.315 Indiana. 

* * * * * 

INDIANA PM2.5

[Annual NAAQS] 

Designated area 

Designationa

Date1 Type 

*******

Evansville, IN ........................................................................................................................................................... 10/27/2011 Attainment. 

Dubois County.

Gibson County (part).

Montgomery Township.

Pike County (part).

Washington Township.

Spencer County (part).

Ohio Township.

Vanderburgh County.

Warrick County.

* * * * * * * 

a Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified. 

1This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted. 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59533 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–24371 Filed 9–26–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0417; FRL–9469–4] 

RIN 2060–AP99 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas 

Systems: Revisions to Best Available 

Monitoring Method Provisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing amendments 

to certain provisions related to the use 

of best available monitoring methods for 

the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems 

source category of the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule. Specifically, EPA is 

extending the time period during which 

owners and operators of facilities would 

be permitted to use best available 

monitoring methods in 2011, without 

submitting a request to the 

Administrator for approval. EPA is also 

expanding the list of types of emissions 

sources for which owners and operators 

are not required to submit a request to 

the Administrator to use best available 

monitoring methods during 2011 and 

extending the deadline by which 

owners and operators of facilities can 

request use of best available monitoring 

methods for beyond 2011. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0417. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, e.g., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and is publicly available in 

hard copy only. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA’s Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA 

West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the Air Docket 

is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 

6207J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9263; fax number: 

(202) 343–2342; e-mail address: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. For 

technical information and 

implementation materials, please go to 

the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ 

climatechange/emissions/subpart/ 

w.html. To submit a question, select 

Rule Help Center, followed by ‘‘Contact 

Us.’’ 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0417, following 

the Administrator’s signature, an 

electronic copy of this final rule will 

also be available through the WWW on 

EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrulemaking.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

Entities. The Administrator determined 

that this action is subject to the 

provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) 

section 307(d). See CAA section 

307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 

307(d) apply to ‘‘such other actions as 

the Administrator may determine’’). 

This final rule affects owners or 

operators of petroleum and natural gas 

systems. Regulated categories and 

entities may include those listed in 

Table 1 of this preamble: 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY

Source category NAICS Examples of affected facilities 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems 486210 Pipeline transportation of natural gas. 

221210 Natural gas distribution facilities. 

211 Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas. 

211112 Natural gas liquid extraction facilities. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

facilities likely to be affected by this 

action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the 

types of facilities of which EPA is aware 

could be potentially affected by the 

reporting requirements. Other types of 

facilities not listed in the table could 

also be affected. To determine whether 

you are affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart W or the relevant 

criteria in the sections related to 

petroleum and natural gas systems. If 

you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular facility, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

What is the effective date? The final 

rule is effective on September 30, 2011. 

Section 553(d) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 

5, generally provides that rules may not 

take effect earlier than 30 days after they 

are published in the Federal Register. 

EPA is issuing this final rule under 

section CAA 307(d)(1), which states: 

‘‘The provisions of section 553 through 

557 * * * of Title 5 shall not, except as 

expressly provided in this section, 

apply to actions to which this 

subsection applies.’’ Thus, section 

553(d) of the APA does not apply to this 

rule. EPA is nevertheless acting 

consistently with the purposes 

underlying APA section 553(d) in 

making this rule effective on September 

30, 2011. Section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) 

allows an effective date less than 30 

days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ As 

explained below, EPA finds that there is 

good cause for this rule to become 

effective on or before September 30, 

2011, even though this will result in an 

effective date fewer than 30 days from 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register. 

The purpose of the 30-day waiting 

period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is 

to give affected parties a reasonable time 

to adjust their behavior and prepare 

before the final rule takes effect. That 

purpose, to provide affected parties a 

reasonable time to adjust to the rule 


wreier-aviles on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with RULES