
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41698-41703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16478]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0839; FRL-9832-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Indiana; Redesignation of the Indianapolis Area to Attainment of the 
1997 Annual Standard for Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Indiana's request to redesignate the 
Indianapolis, Indiana nonattainment area (Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson, 
Marion, and Morgan Counties) to attainment for the 1997 annual National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) for fine particulate 
matter (PM2.5) because the request meets the statutory 
requirements for redesignation under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted this 
request to EPA on October 20, 2009, and supplemented it on May 31, 
2011, January 17, 2013, and March 18, 2013. EPA's approval involves 
several related actions. EPA is making a determination that the 
Indianapolis area has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard. EPA is approving, as a revision to the Indiana State 
Implementation Plan (SIP), the state's plan for maintaining the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025 in the area. EPA is 
approving the comprehensive emissions inventories submitted by IDEM for 
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), 
primary PM2.5, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), and ammonia 
as meeting the requirements of the CAA. Finally, EPA finds adequate and 
is approving Indiana's NOX and PM2.5 Motor 
Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 2015 and 2025 for the Indianapolis 
area.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0839. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the www.regulations.gov index. 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, 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 
Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-1767 before 
visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental 
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767, 
dagostino.kathleen@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 is the background for the actions?
II. What actions is EPA taking?
III. What is EPA's response to comments?
IV. Why is EPA taking these actions?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for the actions?

    On October 20, 2009, IDEM submitted its request to redesignate the 
Indianapolis, Indiana nonattainment area (Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson, 
Marion, and Morgan Counties) to attainment for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and for EPA approval of the SIP revision 
containing an emissions inventory and a maintenance plan for the area. 
IDEM supplemented its submission on May 31, 2011, January 17, 2013, and 
March 18, 2013. On September 27, 2011, EPA published proposed (76 FR 
59599) and direct final (76 FR 59512) rules making a determination that 
the Indianapolis area is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard and that the area has met the requirements for redesignation 
under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA subsequently received 
adverse comments on the direct final rule and withdrew it on November 
27, 2011 (76 FR 70361). The proposal was not withdrawn. EPA published a 
supplemental proposal on April 8, 2013 (78 FR 20856). EPA received an 
adverse comment on the supplemental proposal.

II. What actions is EPA taking?

    EPA is making a determination that the Indianapolis area has 
attained and continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 
standard, that the area has attained this standard by its applicable 
attainment date of April 5, 2010, and that the area meets the 
requirements for redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. 
EPA proposed this determination based on monitoring data showing 
attainment of the standard for the 2006-2008, 2007-2009, and 2008-2010 
time periods. Quality-assured, certified monitoring data for 2011 show 
that the area continues to attain the standard, with a 2009-2011 design 
value of 13.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (see http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/20092011table.pdf). Monitoring data that are now available for 2012 
have been certified and are consistent with continued attainment as 
well (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/).
    Because the area continues to attain the standard and meets all 
other requirements for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), 
EPA is approving the request from Indiana to change the legal 
designation of the Indianapolis area from nonattainment to

[[Page 41699]]

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA is taking several actions related to Indiana's PM2.5 
redesignation request, as discussed below.
    EPA is approving, pursuant to CAA section 175A, Indiana's 1997 
annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Indianapolis area as a 
revision to the Indiana SIP (such approval being one of the CAA 
criteria for redesignation to attainment status). The maintenance plan 
is designed to keep the Indianapolis area in attainment of the 1997 
annual PM2.5 NAAQS through 2025.
    EPA is approving, pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(3), both the 2006 
emission inventories for primary PM2.5,\1\ NOX, 
and SO2,\2\ and the 2007/2008 emission inventories for VOC 
and ammonia. These emission inventories satisfy the requirement in 
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a comprehensive, current emission 
inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fine particulates directly emitted by sources and not formed 
in a secondary manner through chemical reactions or other processes 
in the atmosphere.
    \2\ NOX and SO2 are precursors for fine 
particulates through chemical reactions and other related processes 
in the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, for transportation conformity purposes EPA finds adequate 
and is approving Indiana's NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs 
for 2015 and 2025 for the Indianapolis area.

III. What is EPA's response to comments?

    EPA received adverse comments on the September 27, 2011, proposal 
from Robert Ukeiley, on behalf of both Midwest Environmental Defense 
Center Inc. and two citizens. Valley Watch joined these comments. EPA 
received an adverse comment on the April 8, 2013, supplemental proposal 
from Thomas Cmar of Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra Club. A summary of 
the comments received, and EPA's responses, follow.
    Comment: The commenter contends that Indiana does not have an 
adequate prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. He 
further asserts that the PSD program is part of the SIP that an area 
being redesignated needs to have to ensure that the area will stay in 
attainment. As a result, the commenter takes the position that EPA 
cannot approve the redesignation request because Indiana does not have 
an adequate PM2.5 PSD program. The commenter bases his 
conclusion that Indiana's PSD program is inadequate for 
PM2.5 on the fact that the program does not contain specific 
``significant emission rates'' \3\ for PM2.5 and its 
precursors, and that the program does not include PM2.5 
increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Significant'' emissions rates are listed in 326 IAC 2-2-
1(ww).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: On October 29, 2012, EPA approved revisions to Indiana's 
PSD SIP. Specifically, EPA approved changes to 326 Indiana 
Administrative Code (IAC) 2-2-1(ss), ``Regulated NSR pollutant,'' that 
explicitly identify SO2 and NOX as precursors to 
PM2.5 that will be evaluated in NSR permit contexts. EPA 
also approved revisions to the definition of ``Significant'' at 326 IAC 
2-2-1(ww)(1)(F) to identify the significant emissions rates for primary 
PM2.5, and SO2 and NOX as its 
precursors, consistent with the 2008 NSR Rule.
    On July 12, 2012, IDEM submitted PM2.5 increments for 
approval into the Indiana SIP. EPA is currently in the process of 
taking action on this submission. While Indiana's approved PSD SIP 
currently lacks PM2.5 increments, this does not prevent the 
program from addressing and helping to assure maintenance of the 
PM2.5 standard in accordance with CAA section 175A. A PSD 
increment is the maximum increase in concentration that is allowed to 
occur above a baseline concentration for a pollutant. Even in the 
absence of an approved PSD increment, Indiana's PSD program prohibits 
air quality from deteriorating beyond the concentration allowed by the 
applicable NAAQS. See 326 IAC 2-2-5(a)(1). Thus Indiana's PSD program 
is adequate for purposes of assuring maintenance of the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 standard as required by section 175A.
    For the reasons explained above, EPA concludes that the features of 
the PSD program in Indiana's SIP do not detract from the program's 
adequacy for purposes of maintenance of the standard and redesignation 
of the area. It is, therefore, sufficient for the purposes of 
maintaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Indianapolis 
area.
    Comment: The commenter claims that there has not been a sufficient 
showing that recent decreases in PM2.5 concentrations 
reflected in monitoring data are due to enforceable and permanent 
emission reductions.
    Response: In accordance with longstanding practice and policy,\4\ 
Indiana calculated the change in emissions between 2002, one of the 
years used to designate the area as nonattainment, and 2008, one of the 
years the Indianapolis area monitored attainment of the annual 
PM2.5 standard. See Tables 3, 4 and 5 at 76 FR 59518-59519. 
Because PM2.5 concentrations in the Indianapolis area are 
impacted by the transport of sulfates and nitrates, local controls as 
well as controls implemented in upwind areas are relevant to the 
improvement in air quality in the Indianapolis area. The change in 
emissions in upwind areas over this time period can be found in Table 6 
at 76 FR 59519. The reduction in emissions and the corresponding 
improvement in air quality over this time period can be attributed to a 
number of permanent and enforceable regulatory control measures that 
the Indianapolis area and upwind areas have implemented in recent years 
and will continue to implement in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni entitled 
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' (``Calcagni Memorandum'') at 4 and 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reductions in fine particle precursor emissions have occurred 
statewide and in upwind areas as a result of several Federal mobile 
source control measures including: Tier 2 Emission Standards for 
Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards, the Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine 
Rule, the Nonroad Diesel Rule, and Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine 
and Recreational Engine Standards. See 76 FR 59517.
    The Tier 2 Emission Standards for Vehicles and the associated 
Gasoline Sulfur Standards were estimated to result in a 69 to 95 
percent reduction in NOX emissions (depending on vehicle 
type) and a reduction in the sulfur content of gasoline to 30 parts per 
million (ppm).\5\ These Federal rules were phased in from 2004 to 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Most gasoline sold in Indiana prior to January 2006 had a 
sulfur content of about 500 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Rule reduced the highway diesel fuel 
sulfur content to 15 ppm, with the total program estimated to achieve a 
90 percent reduction in primary PM2.5 emissions and a 95 
percent reduction in NOX emissions. This rule took effect in 
2007.
    The Nonroad Diesel Rule and the associated Gasoline Sulfur 
Standards are expected to reduce NOX and PM emissions from 
large nonroad diesel engines by over 90 percent and have reduced the 
sulfur content in nonroad diesel fuel by over 99 percent. The engine 
emission standards required by this rule are being phased in between 
2008 and 2014.
    The Nonroad Large Spark-Ignition Engine and Recreational Engine 
Standards are being phased in from 2004 through 2012. Full 
implementation of these engine standards are projected to result in an 
overall 80 percent reduction in NOX emissions.

[[Page 41700]]

    For all of the engine standards described above, some of the 
expected emissions reductions occurred during the 2008-2010 attainment 
period; however, additional reductions will continue to occur 
throughout the maintenance period as the fleet of older engines turns 
over. It should be noted, though, that the reduction in fuel sulfur 
content yielded an immediate reduction in sulfate particle emissions 
from all engines using the low-sulfur fuel.
    On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a SIP call under CAA 
section 110(k)(5), commonly referred to as the NOX SIP Call. 
This rule required the District of Columbia and 22 states to reduce 
emissions of NOX in order to comply with CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--the ``good neighbor'' provision of the CAA. 
Affected states were required to comply with Phase I of the SIP Call 
beginning in 2004, and Phase II beginning in 2007. Overall, sources 
covered by the NOX SIP Call reduced NOX emissions 
62 percent between 2000 (prior to implementation of the NOX 
SIP call) and 2008. Emission reductions requirements from the 
NOX SIP Call still exist. Most states that were subject to 
the NOX SIP Call, including Indiana, are now complying with 
those requirements through participation in the Clean Air Interstate 
Rule (CAIR) ozone-season NOX trading program. However, while 
EPA has acknowledged that participation in the CAIR ozone-season 
NOX trading program is one acceptable way for states to meet 
their NOX SIP Call obligations, the NOX SIP Call 
obligations exist independent of CAIR and are independently permanent 
and enforceable.
    On May 12, 2005, EPA published CAIR, which requires significant 
reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOX from 
electric generating units to limit the interstate transport of these 
pollutants and the ozone and fine particulate matter they form in the 
atmosphere. See 76 FR 70093. The D.C. Circuit initially vacated CAIR, 
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), but ultimately 
remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental 
benefits provided by CAIR, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 
(D.C. Cir. 2008). In response to the Court's decision, EPA issued the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address interstate transport 
of NOX and SO2 in the eastern United States. See 
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    On December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order addressing 
the status of CSAPR and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous 
parties seeking a stay of CSAPR pending judicial review. In that order, 
the Court stayed CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions for review 
of that rule in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and 
consolidated cases). The Court also indicated that EPA was expected to 
continue to administering CAIR.
    On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit issued the decision in EME 
Homer City, to vacate and remand CSAPR and ordered EPA to continue 
administering CAIR ``pending . . . development of a valid 
replacement.'' EME Homer City at 38.\6\ To the extent that attainment 
is due to emission reductions associated with CAIR, as explained in 
greater detail in the subsequent comment response, EPA is determining 
that those reductions are sufficiently permanent and enforceable for 
purposes of CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) and 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and 
agreed to review the D.C. Circuit's decision in EME Homer City. The 
Supreme Court's grant of certiorari, by itself, does not alter the 
status of CAIR or CSAPR. At this time, CAIR remains in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As directed by the D.C. Circuit, CAIR remains in place and 
enforceable until EPA promulgates a valid replacement rule to 
substitute for CAIR. Indiana's SIP revision lists CAIR as a control 
measure that was adopted by the State in 2006 and required compliance 
by January 1, 2009. CAIR was thus in place and getting emission 
reductions when Indianapolis began monitoring attainment of the 1997 
annual PM2.5 standard during the 2006-2008 time period. The 
quality-assured, certified monitoring data continues to show the area 
in attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard through 2011.
    Comment: The commenter urges EPA not to rely upon future emissions 
reductions from CAIR as permanent and enforceable for purposes of 
approving the Indianapolis redesignation and maintenance plan. The 
commenter argues that reliance on CAIR would be arbitrary, capricious, 
and contrary to law, because of the D.C. Circuit's decision in North 
Carolina v. EPA, which found CAIR to be legally defective and remanded 
the rule to EPA. Thus, the commenter argues that CAIR is temporary. The 
commenter notes that EPA's decision to rely on CAIR reductions as 
sufficiently permanent and enforceable for the purposes of the 
Indianapolis redesignation is a change in EPA's position, and, contrary 
to EPA's assertion, that decision is in tension with the D.C. Circuit's 
order to replace CAIR as expeditiously as practicable in EME Homer City 
Generation, LLP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
    Furthermore, the commenter states that EPA has not provided ``a 
specific analysis of the extent to which redesignation of the 
Indianapolis area to attainment and Indiana's plan for maintaining that 
attainment status depend upon future emission reductions from CAIR.'' 
The commenter argues that without such an analysis it is impossible to 
evaluate whether CAIR's sunsetting and replacement by a different rule 
would have an impact on the attainment status of Indianapolis. The 
commenter points out that a replacement rule may require a different 
distribution of reductions than CAIR, and states that the agency's 
``implied promise'' that a future replacement rule will be comparable 
to CAIR ``does not withstand scrutiny in the absence of an area-
specific analysis.'' The commenter urges the agency to act quickly to 
promulgate a new rule to replace CAIR if it wants to rely on emission 
reductions in this context for purposes of redesignation.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that it is arbitrary, 
capricious, or contrary to law to approve the Indianapolis 
redesignation because CAIR cannot be relied upon in this context. 
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements for 
redesignation, and states in relevant part that the Administrator must 
``determine[] that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent 
and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation 
of the applicable implementation plan and applicable Federal air 
pollutant control regulations and other permanent and enforceable 
reductions.'' 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(3)(E)(iii).
    EPA recognizes that the D.C. Circuit's instruction in both North 
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008), and EME Homer 
City Generation L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), that CAIR 
must be replaced necessarily means that CAIR will at some point cease 
to be in effect. However, EPA disagrees that the Court's instruction in 
those two cases forecloses the Agency and states from relying on CAIR 
for purposes such as redesignating an area from nonattainment to 
attainment. Subsection (iii) of section 107(d)(3)(E) is a backwards 
looking requirement; it requires that the attainment air quality in the 
area is ``due to'' permanent and enforceable emissions reductions. The 
purpose of this requirement is to ensure that in redesignating areas 
from nonattainment to attainment, EPA does not rely on ephemeral, 
temporarily improved air quality that results from circumstances such 
as temporary shutdowns of plants or reduced

[[Page 41701]]

emission rates because of slowed production. See ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum 
from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, 
September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memorandum) at 4. The structure of section 
107(d)(3)(E)(iii) indicates that the CAA generally considers reductions 
resulting from SIPs and Federal regulations as permanent and 
enforceable. It references ``other'' reductions that are comparable to 
measures adopted into SIPs or Federally adopted regulations and can 
therefore also qualify as permanent and enforceable reductions, 
indicating that, in general, SIP reductions and reductions from Federal 
regulations are the types of reductions that the CAA views in the first 
instance as having the requisite permanence and enforceability for 
purposes of redesignation.
    EPA acknowledges that prior to the EME Homer City decision, it did 
not rely solely on CAIR to meet section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)'s 
requirements, but rather the combination of CAIR being in place through 
the time period of the area coming into attainment, with CSAPR 
achieving similar or greater emission reductions in the area in 2012 
and beyond. See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 
Kentucky; Redesignation of the Kentucky Portion of the Cincinnati-
Hamilton 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area to 
Attainment, 76 FR 65458, 65460 (Oct. 21, 2011); Regional Haze: 
Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP 
Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation Plans, 77 FR 33642, 33645 
(June 7, 2012). It is not unreasonable or arbitrary for the agency to 
reassess its position about whether the reductions of CAIR alone can be 
considered sufficiently permanent and enforceable for purposes of 
redesignation, in light of the D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR in EME 
Homer City and related decision that EPA should continue administering 
CAIR.
    Contrary to the commenters' assertions, EPA's decision to rely on 
CAIR for purposes of redesignating the Indianapolis area is not in 
tension with the Court's instruction in EME Homer City to act 
expeditiously on remand. EME Homer City, 696 F.3d at 38 n.35. The D.C. 
Circuit in EME Homer City held that ``a SIP logically cannot be deemed 
to lack a ``required submission'' before EPA quantifies the good 
neighbor obligation.'' Id. at 32. Under this holding states have no 
obligation to submit ``good neighbor'' SIPs until EPA has quantified 
their ``good neighbor'' obligations and EPA may not promulgate a FIP to 
address such obligations until the Agency first quantifies the state's 
obligations, and provides the state an opportunity to submit a plan 
consistent with that defined obligation. 696 F.3d at 28-37. The EME 
Homer City decision thus significantly lengthens the time it will take 
to get in place regulations to replace the remanded CAIR. Under the EME 
Homer City decision SIP provisions to replace CAIR could not go into 
effect until EPA has undertaken analysis and rulemaking to define 
states' obligations in accordance with the other statutory requirements 
identified by the EME Homer City court, provided states adequate time 
to develop implementation plans consistent with the defined 
obligations, and EPA has reviewed and approved the SIP submissions in 
notice-and-comment rulemakings. Similarly, no FIP to replace CAIR could 
go into effect unless EPA found a state failed to submit a SIP within 
the time given to develop such implementation plans or disapproved such 
a SIP submittal. It is not unreasonable for EPA to determine that in 
light of these circumstances, CAIR will be in place for a significant 
amount of time. The commenter suggests that EPA may not redesignate 
Indianapolis until it has completed all of the steps required by EME 
Homer City to promulgate a replacement rule. EPA disagrees. As noted in 
the April 8, 2013, supplemental proposal (78 FR 20856), EPA believes 
that relying on CAIR emission reductions in order to redesignate the 
Indianapolis area, which has been attaining the NAAQS for many years 
and continues to maintain the standard, is precisely the type of 
``reliance interest'' that the D.C. Circuit was concerned about in 
ordering the agency to continue administering CAIR. EME Homer City, 696 
F.3d at 38.
    EPA also disagrees that it must conduct the type of specific 
analysis requested by the commenter in order to approve Indianapolis' 
maintenance plan under section 175A. Section 175A requires states to 
submit a maintenance plan that provides for the maintenance of the 
NAAQS for the relevant air pollutant for ten years following 
redesignation. 42 U.S.C. 7505a(a). In the April 8, 2013, supplemental 
proposal, EPA provided projected emissions of direct PM2.5, 
SO2, NOX, VOCs and ammonia in the Indianapolis 
area for the relevant maintenance period. See 78 FR 20864, tbls. 1-4. 
Under its existing suite of control measures, including CAIR, 
Indianapolis is attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Over the 
maintenance period, emissions for each pollutant and precursor are 
expected to further decrease in the Indianapolis area. EPA therefore 
does not believe that an ``area-specific analysis'' as requested by the 
commenter is necessary or appropriate in order to redesignate the 
Indianapolis area.
    The anticipation that CAIR may be replaced during the maintenance 
period by another rule requiring upwind sources to reduce emissions 
does not require EPA to disapprove the redesignation request for 
Indianapolis currently before it. EPA's longstanding interpretation of 
section 107(d)(3)(E) in the Calcagni Memorandum contemplates that some 
reductions required by existing control measures may be replaced in the 
future by other measures. Specifically, it states that ``the State will 
be expected to maintain its implemented control strategy despite 
redesignation to attainment, unless such measures are shown to be 
unnecessary for maintenance or are replaced with measures that achieve 
equivalent reductions.'' Calcagni Memorandum at 10. As noted in the 
supplemental proposal, upon promulgation of the replacement rule for 
CSAPR and CAIR, EPA will review existing SIPs as appropriate, including 
maintenance plans, to identify whether discrepancies in emission 
reductions from the control measures will pose a threat to the 
maintenance of the NAAQS for that pollutant. Therefore, the commenter's 
concern that a future replacement rule might not require the same 
reductions as CAIR is not a bar to approving Indiana's redesignation 
request today. The commenter's statement that ``if EPA wants to rely on 
emissions reductions for a CAIR replacement rule to support the 
redesignation of areas such as Indianapolis and their maintenance 
plans, then EPA should move without delay to develop and promulgate a 
legally defensible rule to replace CAIR'' misstates EPA's position. EPA 
is not relying on emissions reductions from a CAIR replacement rule in 
approving the maintenance plan for Indianapolis. Rather, EPA is relying 
on CAIR, which is currently in place and will remain in place for a 
significant period of time, in approving the maintenance plan. EPA 
further notes that any rule promulgated to replace CAIR with respect to 
PM2.5 will need to ensure that the ``good neighbor'' 
provisions have been

[[Page 41702]]

satisfied with regard to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Why is EPA taking these actions?

    EPA has determined that the Indianapolis area has attained and 
continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that the 
area has attained this standard by its applicable attainment date of 
April 5, 2010. EPA has also determined that all other criteria have 
been met for the redesignation of the Indianapolis area from 
nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 
and for approval of Indiana's maintenance plan for the area. See CAA 
sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A. The detailed rationale for EPA's 
findings and actions is set forth in the proposed and direct final 
rulemakings of September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59599 and 76 FR 59512), in the 
supplemental proposed rulemaking of April 8, 2013 (78 FR 20856) and in 
this final rulemaking.

V. Final Action

    EPA is making a determination that the Indianapolis area has 
attained the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard by its attainment 
date and that the area continues to attain the standard. EPA is 
determining that the area has met the requirements for redesignation 
under section 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the CAA. EPA is thus approving 
the request from Indiana to change the legal designation of the 
Indianapolis area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also approving Indiana's 
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Indianapolis area as a 
revision to the Indiana SIP because the plan meets the requirements of 
section 175A of the CAA. EPA is approving 2006 emissions inventories 
for primary PM2.5, NOX, and SO2, and 
2007/2008 emission inventories for VOC and ammonia as satisfying the 
requirement in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA for a comprehensive, 
current emission inventory. Finally, EPA finds adequate and is 
approving 2015 and 2025 primary PM2.5 and NOX 
MVEBs for the Indianapolis area. These MVEBs will be used in future 
transportation conformity analyses for the area.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause 
for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. 
This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the 
nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from 
certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The 
immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 
U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become 
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or 
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,'' and section 
553(d)(3) which 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.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period 
prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable 
time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes 
effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory 
requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare 
before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the State 
of planning requirements for this 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. For 
these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these 
actions to become effective on the date of publication of these 
actions.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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 CAA 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 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, these actions merely do not impose additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law and the CAA. For that reason, these 
actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; 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 a determinations of attainment is an action that affects the 
status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory 
requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on 
tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air 
quality standards in tribal lands.
    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. These actions are not ``major rules'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by September 9, 2013. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of these actions for the

[[Page 41703]]

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. These actions may not be 
challenged later in proceedings to enforce their requirements. (See 
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, 
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 26, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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


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


Sec.  52.776  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (v) * * *
    (2) The Indianapolis area (Hamilton, Hendricks, Johnson, Marion and 
Morgan Counties), as submitted on October 20, 2009, and supplemented on 
May 31, 2011, January 17, 2013, and March 18, 2013. The maintenance 
plan establishes 2015 motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 
Indianapolis area of 853.76 tpy for primary PM2.5 and 
25,314.49 tpy for NOX and 2025 motor vehicle emissions 
budgets of 460.18 tpy for primary PM2.5 and 13,368.60 tpy 
for NOX.
    (w) * * *
    (2) Indiana's 2006 NOX, primary PM2.5, and 
SO2 emissions inventories and 2007/2008 VOC and ammonia 
emission inventories, as submitted on October 20, 2009 and supplemented 
on May 31, 2011 and March 18, 2013, satisfy the emission inventory 
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act for the 
Indianapolis area.
* * * * *

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

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 Indianapolis, IN 
in the table entitled ``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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Indianapolis, IN:
    Hamilton County..............    7/11/2013  Attainment.
    Hendricks County.............    7/11/2013  Attainment.
    Johnson County...............    7/11/2013  Attainment.
    Marion County................    7/11/2013  Attainment.
    Morgan County................    7/11/2013  Attainment.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-16478 Filed 7-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


