
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59527-59533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24371]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 ([mu]g/m\3\), 
based on a three-year average of annual mean PM2.5 
concentrations. In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour 
standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a three-year 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 [mu]g/m\3\ but 
revised the 24-hour standard to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, 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.

[[Page 59528]]

    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

[[Page 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 
[mu]g/m\3\ 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 [mu]g/m\3\, * * * 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,

[[Page 59530]]

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 [mu]g/m\3\, 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 (R\2\ coefficients [ap] 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

[[Page 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      SO2 Budgets                     Annual NOX Budgets
                  State                  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          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

[[Page 59532]]

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]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.776 is amended by adding paragraphs (v) and (w) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  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]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
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:


Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                              Indiana PM2.5
                             [Annual NAAQS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Designation\a\
         Designated area          --------------------------------------
                                        Date\1\              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.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.


[[Page 59533]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-24371 Filed 9-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


