[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29695-29706]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12609]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0396; FRL-9307-1]

Approval, and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Redesignation of the Evansville Area to Attainment of the Fine
Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 3, 2008, the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a request for EPA to approve the
redesignation of the Evansville, Indiana nonattainment area to
attainment of the 1997 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) standard. The air quality improvement in this area
and maintenance of the standard in this area is attributable in
substantial part to power plant emission reductions in the Eastern
United States prompted by the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). The
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) has remanded CAIR, but EPA has proposed a replacement
rule known as the Transport Rule. The Evansville area has attained the
standard with only a fraction of the reductions that the proposed
Transport Rule proposed to require. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
approve the redesignation request for the Evansville area, along with
related SIP revisions, if and when EPA takes final action to promulgate
the Transport Rule, provided that the final Transport Rule requires
emission reductions that are at least substantially equivalent to those
of the proposed Transport Rule for purposes of maintaining the standard
in the Evansville area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0396, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2008-0396. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays,
Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What actions is EPA proposing to take?
III. What is the background for this action?
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the State's request?
    1. Attainment
    2. Fully Approved SIP Meeting All Pertinent Requirements
    a. General Requirements
    b. Section 110(a) Requirements
    c. Emission Inventories
    d. Other Nonattainment Area Requirements
    3. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions
    4. Maintenance Plan
    5. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
    6. Summary of Proposed Actions
VI. What are the effects of EPA's proposed actions?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What actions is EPA proposing to take?

    On November 27, 2009, at 74 FR 62243, EPA made a final
determination that the Evansville area has attained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA
here is proposing to determine that the area continues to attain that
standard. EPA is also proposing to take several additional actions
related to Indiana's request to redesignate the area to attainment for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    First, EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's 1997 annual
PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Evansville area as a revision
to the Indiana SIP, subject to the proviso that EPA promulgates a final
Transport Rule requiring power plant emission reductions substantially
equivalent for purposes of maintaining the PM2.5 standard in
Evansville to those proposed in EPA's Transport Rule proposal. Since
maintenance of the standard in Evansville is based in large part on
maintaining substantial control of power plant emissions, promulgation
of such a Transport Rule is necessary to help make recent reductions in
power plant emissions (or equivalent reductions at other power plants)
permanent and enforceable.
    Second, EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 emission inventory in
Indiana's maintenance plan as satisfying the requirement of section
172(c)(3) for a comprehensive emission inventory.
    Third, EPA is proposing to find that, subject to final approval of
the emissions inventory and the proviso set forth above with respect to
EPA's proposed Transport Rule, Indiana meets the requirements for
redesignation of the Evansville area to attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act.
Because CAIR was remanded, the reductions associated with that rule
cannot be considered permanent and enforceable. For this reason, the
submissions from Indiana do not currently demonstrate satisfaction of
the requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii), that the area's air
quality improvement be due to permanent and enforceable measures.
However, EPA proposes that this requirement will be met if and when EPA
finalizes a Transport Rule which, for purposes of this action, is
substantially equivalent to the Transport Rule that EPA proposed on
August 2, 2010. Therefore, subject to this proviso, EPA is proposing to
approve the request from the State of Indiana to change the designation
of the Evansville area, consisting of Dubois, Vanderburgh, and Warrick
Counties along with Montgomery Township in Gibson County, Ohio Township
in Spencer County, and Washington Township in Pike County, from
nonattainment to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the 2015 and 2022 motor
vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for the Evansville area into the
Indiana SIP. EPA proposes to take final action on this and the other
proposed actions delineated in this section if and when EPA takes final
action promulgating a Transport Rule substantially equivalent for
purposes of air quality in the Evansville area to the Transport Rule
proposed on August 2, 2010.

III. What is the background for these actions?

    The first air quality standards for PM2.5 were
promulgated on July 18, 1997, at 62 FR 38652. EPA promulgated an annual
standard at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([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.
    In response to legal challenges of the annual standard promulgated
in 2006, the D.C. Circuit remanded this standard to EPA for further
consideration. See American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork
Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
However, given that the 1997 and 2006 annual standards are essentially
identical, attainment of the 1997 annual standard would also indicate
attainment of the remanded 2006 annual standard. Since the Evansville
area is designated nonattainment only for the annual standard
promulgated in 1997, today's action addresses redesignation to
attainment only for this standard.
    Indiana has provided multiple submittals in support of its request
for redesignation of the Evansville area. On April 3, 2008, Indiana
submitted its original request that EPA redesignate the Evansville area
to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. This
request was based on 2004 to 2006 monitoring data indicating that no
monitor violated the annual standard. A public hearing was held on
March 27, 2008, and the comment period closed on March 31, 2008.
Indiana completed the redesignation request by submitting documentation
of the public hearing conducted by the State for the PM2.5
redesignation request and additional regional air quality analysis on
October 20, 2008. On March 6, 2009, Indiana provided updated monitoring
data for the 2006 to 2008 period. On April 7, 2009, Indiana submitted
supplemental information on regional emissions. On December 7, 2009,
Indiana submitted modeling intended to show that the Evansville area
would attain and maintain the standard even in the absence of the
emission reductions prompted by CAIR. On January 28, 2011, Indiana
submitted updated emissions data (including updated MVEBs) to show that
maintenance extended further into the future, to 2022. On April 8,
2011, Indiana resubmitted the information submitted on January 28,
2011, in conjunction with evidence that the State provided a public
comment period and held a public hearing on the information and
received no public comments.
    Fine particle pollution can be emitted directly or formed
secondarily through chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Sulfates are
a type of secondary particle formed from sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions from power plants and industrial facilities.
Nitrates, another common type of secondary particle, are formed from
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from power plants,
automobiles, and other combustion sources.
    Given the significance of sulfates and nitrates in the Evansville
area, the area's air quality is strongly affected by regulations of
SO2 and NOX emissions from power plants. EPA
proposed CAIR on January 30, 2004, at 69 FR 4566, promulgated CAIR on
May 12, 2005, at 70 FR 25162, and promulgated associated federal
implementation plans (FIPs) on April 28, 2006, at 71 FR 25328, in order
to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions and improve air
quality in many areas across the eastern part of the United States.
However, on July 11, 2008, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in
their entirety (North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (D.C. Cir. 2008)).
EPA petitioned for rehearing, and the court issued an order remanding
CAIR and the CAIR FIPs to EPA without vacatur (North Carolina v. EPA,
550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). The Court, thereby, left CAIR in place
in order to ``temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by
CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the court's
opinion. Id. at 1178. The court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws''
consistent with its July 11, 2008, opinion, but declined to impose a
schedule on EPA for completing that action. Id. As a result of these
court rulings, the power plant emission reductions that have resulted
from the development, promulgation, and implementation of CAIR, and the
associated air quality improvement that has occurred in the Evansville
area and elsewhere, cannot be considered permanent.
    On August 2, 2010, EPA published its proposal of the Transport Rule
to address interstate transport of emissions with respect to the 1997
ozone and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, to replace CAIR.
(See 75 FR 45210.) This rule, as proposed, would require substantial
reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions from electric
generating units (EGUs) across most of the Eastern United States. In
particular, it would require reductions of these emissions to levels
well below the levels that led to attainment in the Evansville area.
The proposed Transport Rule proposed to establish permanent and
enforceable limits on EGU emissions across most of the Eastern United
States. Since the Transport Rule as proposed would require EGU
emissions to be well below the levels that have led to attainment in
the Evansville area. If EPA finalizes a Transport Rule that similarly
requires EGU emissions to be below the levels that led to attainment in
the Evansville area, that rule would provide support for a
determination that the air quality improvement may be considered
permanent and enforceable.

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?

    The Clean Air Act sets forth the requirements for redesignating a
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the Clean Air Act allows for redesignation provided that: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS based on current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has
fully approved an applicable state implementation plan for the area
under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act; (3) the Administrator
determines that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions resulting from implementation of the
applicable SIP, Federal air pollution control regulations, and other
permanent and enforceable emission reductions; (4) the Administrator
has fully approved a maintenance plan for the area meeting the
requirements of section 175A of the Clean Air Act; and (5) the state
containing the area has met all requirements applicable to the area for
purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the Clean Air
Act.

V. What is EPA's analysis of the State's request?

    EPA is proposing to approve the redesignation of the Evansville
area to attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and is
proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the area and other
related SIP revisions, subject to the provisos discussed in this
notice. The bases for these proposed actions follow.

1. Attainment

    As noted above, in a final rulemaking dated November 27, 2009, at
74 FR 62243, EPA determined that the Evansville area is attaining the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Further

discussion of pertinent air quality issues underlying this
determination was provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking,
published on September 24, 2009, at 74 FR 49690. This determination was
based primarily on air quality data from 2006 to 2008.
    EPA has reviewed more recent data, including certified, quality-
assured data for 2009 and data for all of 2010. These data show that
the Evansville area continues to attain the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Table 1 provides an historical summary of air
quality data for the area. This summary is based on quality assured
data that have been entered into the EPA Air Quality System, though the
data for 2010 have not yet been certified.

                             Table 1--PM2.5 Design Values for Evansville Area Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              County                    Site name         Site No.    2004-2006  2006-2008  2007-2009  2008-2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dubois (ended 2008)..............  Jasper Sport.......     180370004      *13.6      *13.4      *13.4  .........
Dubois (ended 2008)..............  Jasper Golf........     180370005      *13.7       13.7      *13.7  .........
Dubois...........................  6th Street.........     180372001       15.0       13.6      *13.3       12.1
Gibson (began 2009)..............  Oakland City.......     180510012  .........  .........  .........       12.2
Spencer..........................  Dale...............     181470009       13.9       13.0       12.6       13.0
Vanderburgh (ended 2009).........  Civic Center.......     181630006       14.5       13.4      *12.8  .........
Vanderburgh......................  West Mill Road.....     181630012       14.6       13.7      *13.0  .........
Vanderburgh......................  U. of Evansville...     181630016       14.8       13.6       13.1       12.8
Vanderburgh......................  Post Office........     181630020  .........  .........  .........      *12.9
Vanderburgh......................  Buena Vista........     181630021  .........  .........  .........      *13.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Less than 75 percent complete data in at least one quarter.

    Several of these sites had less than 75 percent complete data for
one or more of the applicable recent quarters. From 2008 to 2009, four
monitoring sites ended operation, and three new sites began operating.
In its prior determination of attainment, EPA determined that prior to
ending operation, these monitoring sites recorded data indicating
attainment of the annual PM2.5 standard.
    From 2008 to 2009, three additional sites began operating: Site 18-
051-0012 in Gibson County starting in 2008, and sites 18-163-0020 and
18-163-0021 in Vanderburgh County starting in 2009. As a result of
their short operating history, these monitors have incomplete data for
purposes of comparison to the NAAQS, but the data that are available,
summarized in Table 1 above, indicate concentrations well below the
NAAQS, consistent with other data showing continued attainment in the
area.
    Although the monitoring network was in flux during this latter
period, the area has been and continues to be monitored at numerous
locations addressing the range of locations in the area with potential
to violate the standard. EPA has approved these various revisions to
Indiana's monitoring network, including approval most recently on
October 29, 2010, reflecting its belief that the revised network
remains adequate to assess air quality in the Evansville area.
    For this and related reasons, EPA proposes to approve the use of
these incomplete data, pursuant to Subpart 4.1(c) of 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix N, as supplemental evidence for evaluating whether the
Evansville area is attaining the standard.
    Indiana's request to redesignate the Evansville area was predicated
on monitoring data from 2004 to 2006 showing that the area meets the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. Subsequently, EPA determined that the area
is meeting the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, based primarily on 2006 to
2008 data. According to more recent data, average concentrations for
all sites, including these sites with incomplete data as well as the
sites with complete data, remain well below the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Indeed, EPA believes that the Evansville area has been attaining the
PM2.5 NAAQS for five consecutive three-year periods.
Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that the Evansville area continues
to meet the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

2. Fully Approved SIP Meeting All Pertinent Requirements

a. General Requirements
    Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and 107(d)(3)(E)(v) set forth related
requirements for the State to have a fully approved SIP meeting all
pertinent requirements, and the following discussion addresses
Indiana's satisfaction of both of these portions of section
107(d)(3)(E). Since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, Indiana
has adopted and submitted, and EPA has fully approved, provisions
addressing the various required SIP elements addressing particulate
matter in the Evansville area and elsewhere in Indiana. Indiana
submitted the ``State of Indiana Air Pollution Control Implementation
Plan,'' its SIP, on January 31, 1972. EPA approved Indiana's SIP on May
31, 1972, at 37 FR 10863. These rules addressed total suspended
particulate (TSP), reflecting the particulate size range regulated
under the 1971 standards. EPA designated Evansville as nonattainment
for TSP on March 3, 1978, at 43 FR 8962. Indiana submitted general TSP
Reasonably Available Control Technology emission limits and regulations
for process sources on October 6, 1980. On January 29, 1981, Indiana
submitted its source specific limits for Vanderburgh County with
amendments on October 28, 1981. These elements were approved into the
Indiana SIP on July 16, 1982. On July 1, 1987, EPA replaced the TSP
standard with a standard for finer-sized particulate matter,
specifically for particles up to a nominal aerodynamic diameter of ten
micrometers, a set of particles known as PM10. EPA
promulgated designations under the PM10 NAAQS on March 15,
1991, at 56 FR 11101. The Evansville area was designated as attaining
the PM10 standards. Consequently, Indiana had no obligation
to submit PM10 attainment plans for the Evansville area.
b. Section 110(a) Requirements
    EPA believes that the section 110 elements not connected with
nonattainment plan submissions and not linked to the area's
nonattainment status are not applicable requirements for purposes of
review of the State's redesignation request.
    On December 7, 2007, September 19, 2008, and October 20, 2009,
Indiana made submittals addressing ``infrastructure SIP'' elements
required under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2). EPA has published
proposed rulemaking on these submittals

(published on April 28, 2011, at 76 FR 23757), but has not completed
final rulemaking on these submittals. However, the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) are statewide requirements that are not linked to the
PM2.5 nonattainment status of or requirements for the
Evansville area. EPA believes that section 110 elements not linked to
an area's nonattainment status are not applicable for purposes of
redesignation. See the Reading, Pennsylvania proposed and final
rulemakings (October 10, 1996, at 61 FR 53174-53176, and May 7, 1997,
at 62 FR 24826), the Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio final rulemaking
(May 7, 1996, at 61 FR 20458), and the Tampa, Florida final rulemaking
(December 7, 1995, at 60 FR 62748). Therefore, notwithstanding the fact
that EPA has not yet completed rulemaking on Indiana's submittals for
the ``infrastructure SIP'' elements of section 110(a)(2), EPA believes
that these elements are not applicable requirements for purposes of
review of the State's redesignation request.
c. Emission Inventories
    Under section 172(c)(3), Indiana is required to submit a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. As
part of Indiana's redesignation request for the Evansville area, the
State submitted a maintenance plan that included emissions inventories
for the area for SO2 and NOX (which are
precursors for secondarily formed PM2.5) and for directly
emitted PM2.5 for 2005, 2015, 2020, and 2022. The
inventories for 2005 address the requirement under section 172(c)(3)
for a base year emission inventory, and the other inventories help
address the requirement for a demonstration that the area can expect to
maintain the standard for at least 10 years after approval of a
redesignation.
    For each of the applicable pollutants and years, Indiana prepared
emission estimates by county and by five source types, namely onroad
mobile sources, nonroad mobile sources, area sources, EGUs, and other
point sources. Onroad and nonroad mobile source emissions were
estimated by the Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization and by
the Indiana Department of Transportation. The onroad emission estimates
were derived using EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission model. When Indiana
submitted updated emissions data on April 8, 2011, which showed that
the area continued to maintain the annual PM2.5 standard to
2022, it continued to use MOBILE6.2 rather than MOVES2010a to estimate
the onroad emissions.\1\ EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's
continued use of MOBILE6.2 in this maintenance plan. Air quality data
indicates that the area has attained the annual PM2.5 standard and
large emissions reductions are expected in the coming years, which will
allow the area to continue to meet the annual PM2.5 standard. If
MOVES2010a had been used to estimate onroad emissions for the new last
year of this maintenance plan, it would not change this conclusion. In
addition, the recent submittal only extended the maintenance period by
two years and it was not necessary for the submittal to revisit earlier
years of the maintenance period. This extension was necessary because
EPA could not act on the submittal at an earlier date due to issues
related to the remand of the CAIR rule and the Clean Air Act's
requirement that maintenance plans address a period that covers 10
years after EPA approves the submitted maintenance plan. Also,
consistent with Question 5 in EPA's ``Policy Guidance on the Use of
MOVES 2010 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation
Conformity, and Other Purposes'' (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/420b09046.pdf) we believe that since the bulk of the work on the
maintenance plan was performed in 2008, which well before MOVES2010 was
released, the continued use of MOBILE6.2 in this maintenance plan is
warranted. Even the supplemental work performed by Indiana to support
the April 2011 revision was done relatively soon after MOVES was
officially released for use in SIPs on March 2, 2010, at 75 FR 9411. It
is also worth noting that the area has been attaining the standard for
several years, and future anticipated emissions reductions will ensure
that the area will continue to maintain the standard through the
maintenance period. Based on all of these factors we believe that
Indiana's continued use of MOBILE6.2 is justified because it avoids an
adverse impact on state resources as is also described in Question 5 of
the MOVES SIP and Conformity guidance document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MOVES2010a is EPA's most recent model for estimating on-road
mobile source emissions. It was officially released for use in SIPs
and regional transportation conformity determinations on March 2,
2010, at 75 FR 9411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the nonroad emission estimates were derived using EPA's
NONROAD model. Nonroad activity levels reflect information compiled by
the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), described at http://www.ladco.org/reports/technical_support_document/references/round_5_emissions_summary-february_2008.pdf. In addition, the inventory
includes emission estimates for marine and railroad sources under
contract to LADCO. Area source emissions were developed using local
activity level estimates and EPA emission factors as reflected in the
2005 National Emissions Inventory.
    Base year emissions for EGUs for SO2 and NOX
were obtained from continuously monitored emission data that the
facilities reported to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division. Projections of
these emissions were based on simulations using the Integrated Planning
Model (IPM) premised on implementation of CAIR and the associated
allowance allocations and trading programs. Indiana's April 2011
submittal states that these emission projections rely on an expectation
that the Transport Rule that EPA proposed on August 2, 2010, will
require EGUs to achieve a similar set of reductions as has been
required by CAIR. EGU emissions of PM2.5 were estimated
using the same information on activity levels (i.e., baseline heat
inputs reported to EPA and projected heat inputs forecast by IPM) in
conjunction with EPA emission factors and current emission control
levels. For other point sources, baseline emissions were obtained from
routine source reports to the State, and projections were based on
growth factors developed by LADCO based on appropriate economic
indicators.
    Table 2 summarizes the 2005 base year emissions estimates,
subdivided by source type, that Indiana provided in its maintenance
plan as submitted on January 28, 2011. The area has a modest number of
people--the 2009 population estimate for the Evansville Metropolitan
Statistical Area according to the U.S. Census Bureau is 351,911. The
PM2.5 nonattainment area includes several large power plants
that serve a broad area within the industrial Midwest and beyond.
Therefore, point sources (in particular power plants) emit a very high
fraction of the area's emissions. Indeed, point sources are estimated
to emit over 99 percent of the area's SO2 emissions, about
86 percent of the area's NOX emissions, and about 71 percent
of the area's PM2.5 emissions, and most of the point source
emissions are from power plants. EPA proposes to find that

the inventory satisfies the requirements of section 172(c)(3).

 Table 2--Summary of 2005 Emissions Estimates for the Evansville Area by
                               Source Type
                             [Tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          SO2         NOX        PM2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGUs................................     360,822      85,320       8,240
Point...............................       3,685         774       1,427
On-road.............................         237       6,528         118
Non-road............................         537       5,676         337
Area................................         674       1,624          37
                                     -----------------------------------
    Total...........................     365,954      99,922      10,160
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 shows the 2005 base year emission estimates and the 2015
and 2022 emission projections for the Evansville area that Indiana
provided in its April 8, 2011, submission.

                                  Table 3--Evansville Area Emission Projections
                                                 [Ions per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             SO2                        NOX                       PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005............................  365,954..................  99,922...................  10,160.
2015............................  117,830..................  59,897...................  13,892.
2022............................  94,627...................  51,885...................  12,604.
Change 2005-2022................  -271,327.................  -48,037..................  +2,444.
                                  74% decrease.............  48% decrease.............  24% increase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Other Nonattainment Area Requirements
    EPA is proposing to determine that, if EPA issues final approval of
the emission inventories discussed above, the Indiana SIP will meet the
SIP requirements for the Evansville area applicable for purposes of
redesignation under Part D of the Clean Air Act. Subpart 1 of Part D,
sections 172 to 176 of the Clean Air Act, set forth the basic
nonattainment plan requirements applicable to PM2.5
nonattainment areas.
    Under section 172, states with nonattainment areas must submit
plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other
requirements. However, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1004(c), EPA's November
27, 2009, determination that the Evansville area is attaining the
PM2.5 standard suspended Indiana's obligation to submit most
of the attainment planning requirements that would otherwise apply.
Specifically, the determination of attainment suspended Indiana's
obligation to submit an attainment demonstration, and requirements to
provide for reasonable further progress, reasonable available control
measures, and contingency measures under section 172(c)(9).
    The General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992) also discusses the evaluation of these requirements in
the context of EPA's consideration of a redesignation request. The
General Preamble sets forth EPA's view of applicable requirements for
purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining
the standard. General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR
13498, April 16, 1992).
    Because attainment has been reached, no additional measures are
needed to provide for attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements
for an attainment demonstration and RACM are no longer considered to be
applicable for purposes of redesignation as long as the area continues
to attain the standard until redesignation. See also 40 CFR 51.1004(c).
The RFP requirement under section 172(c)(2) and contingency measures
requirement under section 172(c)(9) are similarly not relevant for
purposes of redesignation.
    Section 172(c)(3) requires submission and approval of a
comprehensive, accurate and current inventory of actual emissions. As
part of Indiana's redesignation request for the Evansville area, the
State submitted a 2005 emissions inventory. As discussed above, EPA is
proposing to approve this inventory as meeting the section 172(c)(3)
emissions inventory requirement.
    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources in an
area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary sources
anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that, since
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirements will apply
after redesignation, areas being redesignated need not comply with the
requirement that a nonattainment new source review (NSR) program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled,
``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' Indiana has demonstrated that emissions
will remain sufficiently low even without part D NSR in effect for the
Evansville area to be able to maintain the standard; therefore, the
State need not have a fully approved part D NSR program prior to
approval of the redesignation request. The State's PSD program will
become effective in the Evansville area upon redesignation to
attainment. See rulemakings for Detroit, Michigan (March 7, 1995, at 60
FR 12467-12468); Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, Ohio (May 7,

1996, at 61 FR 20458, 20469-20470); Louisville, Kentucky (October 23,
2001, at 66 FR 53665); and Grand Rapids, Michigan (June 21, 1996, at 61
FR 31834-31837).
    Section 172(c)(6) requires the SIP to contain control measures
necessary to provide for attainment of the standard. Because attainment
has been reached, no additional measures are needed to provide for
attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, we believe the Indiana
SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for purposes
of redesignation.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that Federally-supported or funded activities,
including highway projects, conform to the air quality planning goals
in the applicable SIPs.
    EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) for two reasons. First, the
requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity
provisions of the CLEAN AIR ACT continues to apply to areas after
redesignation to attainment, since such areas would be subject to a
section 175A maintenance plan. Second, EPA's Federal conformity rules
require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of
Federally-approved state rules. Therefore, because areas are subject to
the conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated
to attainment and, because they must implement conformity under Federal
rules if state rules are not yet approved, EPA believes it is
reasonable to view these requirements as not applying for purposes of
evaluating a redesignation request. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th
Cir. 2001), upholding this interpretation. See also 60 FR 62748, 62749-
62750 (Dec. 7, 1995) (Tampa, Florida).
    EPA approved Indiana's general and transportation conformity SIPs
on January 14, 1998, at 63 FR 2146, and August 17, 2010, at 75 FR
50730, respectively. Indiana has submitted onroad motor vehicle budgets
for the Evansville area for 2015 and 2022. The area must use the MVEBs
from the maintenance plan in any conformity determination that is
effective on or after the effective date of the maintenance plan
approval.
    No SIP provisions relevant to the Evansville area are currently
disapproved, conditionally approved, or partially approved. If EPA
approves the Evansville area emission inventory as proposed, EPA
believes that Indiana will have a fully approved SIP for all
requirements applicable for purposes of redesignation.

3. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

    Indiana's original redesignation submission cited a number of
regulatory programs that it believed resulted in the air quality
improvement in the Evansville area between the period that was the
basis of the area's 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment designation
(2002 to 2004), and the period that the Evansville area began attaining
the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard (2004 to 2006). These
programs included the EPA NOX Budget Trading Program, the
acid rain program, mobile source rules such as Heavy-duty Highway
Vehicle standards and Non-road Diesel Engine standards, and CAIR.
    Indiana subsequently supplemented its request with submittals
intended to demonstrate that the Evansville area could be expected to
continue to attain the standard even if the emission reductions
associated with the promulgation of CAIR did not continue. In
particular, on December 7, 2009, Indiana submitted the results of
modeling purporting to show PM2.5 concentrations that
Indiana estimated would occur in the Evansville area in the absence of
CAIR. For most power plants, this modeling was based on projections
derived from actual emission rates for 2007. For the power plants
within the Evansville nonattainment area, this modeling used the
highest emission rates from 2000 to 2007. Indiana's modeling showed
that these emission rates yielded Evansville area concentrations below
the PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA has reviewed Indiana's submission and believes that Indiana's
modeling does not properly reflect power plant emissions that would
occur in the absence of CAIR. Although the compliance deadlines in CAIR
were 2009 for the first phase of NOX reductions and 2010 for
the first phase of SO2 reductions, CAIR provided significant
incentives for earlier emission reductions. Indeed, especially for
SO2, a comparison of 2007 emissions for states in the CAIR
region against 2003 emissions shows a significant decline in emissions.
For example, according to continuous emission monitoring data submitted
by EGUs to EPA's Clean Air Markets Division, EGU emissions of
SO2 in Indiana declined from 804,800 tons per year in 2003
to 714,500 tons per year in 2007, a decline of 93,000 tons per year.
Similarly, according to the same set of data, EGU emissions of
NOX in Indiana declined from 261,000 tons per year to
196,600 tons per year, a decline of 64,400 tons per year. Similar
declines occur in other states influencing Evansville area air quality.
These declines can reasonably be attributed to the incentives of CAIR,
such that even the 2004 to 2006 air quality data underlying Indiana's
request would reflect benefits from EPA's development, proposal, and
promulgation of CAIR.
    Given that the DC Circuit has now remanded CAIR to EPA, it will not
remain in force indefinitely. As a consequence, the emission reductions
associated with CAIR cannot be considered to be permanent.
    EPA's proposed Transport Rule would, in a manner consistent with
the D.C. Circuit opinion on CAIR, among other things identify emission
reductions in the Eastern United States necessary to address
significant interference with attainment and maintenance pursuant to
section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act with respect to the
1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The comment period
on this proposed rule closed on October 1, 2010. EPA is reviewing all
comments received. EPA may not prejudge the requirements of the final
Transport Rule, and so cannot complete final rulemaking on Indiana's
redesignation request in a manner that relies on Transport Rule
requirements unless and until EPA has promulgated a final Transport
Rule.
    In the proposed Transport Rule, EPA proposed to quantify the
reductions needed in specific states to address each covered state's
significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance of specific NAAQS. In that action, EPA also proposed to
establish FIPs to ensure that the significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance identified by EPA is
prohibited.
    The Evansville area is notable for having several sizable electric
generating facilities, and most of these facilities are operating with
new or upgraded SO2 and NOX controls for their
coal-fired units. Vectron's A.B. Brown facility operates a dual alkali
system for SO2 control and select catalytic reduction (SCR)
of NOX. Alcoa's Warrick Power Plant uses wet lime scrubbing
to control SO2 emissions and combustion controls, and uses
SCR for one unit and low NOX burners (LNB) and over-fire air
(OFA) for all units to limit its NOX emissions. Vectron's
F.B. Culley generating station uses wet limestone scrubbing for
SO2 control and SCR with LNB for NOX control at
its two

units. Hoosier Energy uses LNB to reduce NOX emissions from
both Frank E. Ratts Generating Station units. Duke Energy's Gibson
plant uses wet limestone scrubbing with SCR, LNB, and OFA on all five
units. Indianapolis Power and Light operates wet limestone scrubbers
along with SCR, LNB, and OFA on the four units of its Petersburg power
plant. Indiana-Michigan Power uses LNB on the two coal-fired units at
the Rockport plant.
    These emission controls, along with similar controls at many other
plants in the Eastern United States, are providing substantial air
quality benefits. As explained above, some of the reductions were
associated with the now-remanded CAIR. The proposed Transport Rule, if
finalized, would similarly require reductions in NOX and
SO2 from EGUs. The reductions associated with the Transport
Rule, if and when it is finalized, may be considered permanent and
enforceable.
    The modeling for the proposed Transport Rule identified 13 states,
including Indiana, that have emissions that significantly affect
Evansville area air quality. Table 4 shows state-wide emission
estimates for SO2 and NOX for 2005, 2012, and
2014 for these states. The values for 2005 reflect base year emissions
estimates. Given the timing of attainment in the Evansville area, these
values reflect an approximation of statewide emission levels at which
the Evansville area attained the PM2.5 standard. The values
for 2012 reflect estimates for a scenario in which neither CAIR nor a
replacement Transport Rule is in effect, reflecting a baseline that EPA
used in developing its proposed rule. The values for 2014 reflect
estimates for a scenario in which the proposed Transport Rule is
finalized as proposed. These estimates are taken from Tables 6-1
(NOX) and 6-2 (SO2) of the emissions technical
support document for the proposed Transport Rule, available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/pdfs/TR_Proposal_Emissions_TSD.pdf.
These estimates exclude emissions from fires, which are a small
fraction of the inventory (well under 0.1 percent) that is projected to
remain constant and does not materially affect the comparison here.

      Table 4--SO2 and NOX Emissions for States Identified in the Proposed Transport Rule as Significantly
              Contributing to Nonattainment or Interfering With Maintenance in the Evansville Area
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            SO2 emissions                             NOX emissions
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State                             2012 (w/o     2014 (w/                    2012 (w/o     2014 (w/
                                  2005        Transport     Transport       2005        Transport     Transport
                                                Rule)         Rule)                       Rule)         Rule)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana.....................     1,047,371       986,601       396,403       614,861       505,039       386,251
Alabama.....................       592,389       461,314       296,138       443,748       360,357       280,763
Georgia.....................       748,020       674,183       214,726       577,858       405,825       337,889
Illinois....................       516,950       866,376       304,834       773,276       542,886       480,743
Iowa........................       221,877       250,930       182,875       312,015       251,632       221,442
Kentucky....................       572,424       780,885       182,630       435,837       345,073       247,270
Michigan....................       490,190       415,042       300,560       638,546       478,625       410,319
Missouri....................       421,979       570,575       315,283       505,195       353,407       317,092
Ohio........................     1,276,270     1,076,470       361,138       816,239       552,864       453,167
Pennsylvania................     1,173,296     1,119,680       303,071       704,936       566,301       454,248
Tennessee...................       388,191       708,905       218,065       471,705       338,154       270,171
West Virginia...............       535,586       645,431       184,341       294,016       206,630       144,970
Wisconsin...................       263,615       181,760       159,927       358,787       257,290       228,637
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................     8,250,163     8,740,164     3,419,991     6,949,024     5,166,095     4,232,962
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Table 4, 2005 emissions represent an approximation of emissions
at which Evansville attains the standard. Table 4 shows that, in
comparison, the proposed Transport Rule would establish enforceable
emission restrictions that would be expected to result in emissions in
the most pertinent states (as listed in Table 4) that for
SO2 are 4,830,172 tons per year (59 percent) lower and that
for NOX are 2,716,062 tons per year (39 percent) lower. That
is, the proposed Transport Rule would provide for permanent and
enforceable emission reductions in the Eastern United States that are
significantly greater than the reductions needed to assure maintenance
in the Evansville area.
    Similar results are obtained by comparing emission estimates in
2012 without the proposed Transport Rule to emission estimates in 2014
with the proposed Transport Rule. In the proposed Transport Rule, EPA
estimated that total emissions across these states would reflect
5,320,173 tons per year lower SO2 emissions and 933,133 tons
per year lower NOX emissions in the 2014 controlled case
than in the 2012 base case, i.e., emissions that are 61 percent and 18
percent lower, respectively. According to EPA modeling for the proposed
Transport Rule, comparing concentrations projected in 2014 with the
proposed Transport Rule in place against concentrations projected in
2012 in the absence of a Transport Rule, the Transport Rule achieves
approximately a 4 [mu]g/m\3\ air quality improvement in the Evansville
area, yielding concentrations well below the annual PM2.5
NAAQS and below the concentrations that have been achieved by power
plant emission reductions to date.
    The modeling for the proposed Transport Rule also projects an
Evansville area concentration of about 11 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2014 based on
implementation of the proposed Transport Rule, whereas for purposes of
this proposed redesignation it is only necessary for the Transport Rule
to help provide for the Evansville area to maintain a concentration at
or below 15 [mu]g/m\3\.
    This proposal is premised on the expectation that the final
Transport Rule will be similarly effective as the proposed Transport
Rule would be in providing for maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5
standard in the Evansville area. Given the substantial margin by which
EPA expects the Evansville area to maintain the standard, numerous
details

of the final Transport Rule could differ from corresponding features of
the proposed Transport Rule without causing changes in the impact on
Evansville air quality that are significant for purposes of this
proposal to redesignate the Evansville area. This proposal to
redesignate the Evansville area is predicated on the final Transport
Rule being substantially equivalent for purposes of air quality in the
Evansville area to the Transport Rule proposed on August 2, 2010. In
EPA's view, this premise will be met if the emission levels expected
under the final Transport Rule in states most pertinent to Evansville,
and the associated expected air quality benefits in Evansville, are
sufficiently similar to the emission levels and associated Evansville
air quality benefits expected under the proposed rule so as to provide
a comparable degree of confidence that the Evansville area will
maintain the standard.
    In summary, a limited set of reductions of EGU emissions of
SO2 and NOX contributed significantly to the air
quality improvement in the Evansville area. Given the remanded status
of CAIR, this air quality improvement cannot be considered permanent.
However, the proposed Transport Rule proposed to mandate even greater
reductions than have already occurred and, more importantly, proposed
to mandate more reductions than are needed to maintain the standard in
the Evansville area. Therefore, with the final promulgation of a
Transport Rule that is substantially equivalent to the proposed rule
for purposes of maintaining the standard in the Evansville area, in
combination with the other measures cited by Indiana, EPA believes that
the emission reductions that led the Evansville area to attain the
PM2.5 air quality standard could be considered as permanent
and enforceable for purposes of section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).

4. Maintenance Plan

    Sections 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) and 175A require that the State
demonstrate that the area to be redesignated will continue to meet the
PM2.5 NAAQS for at least a ten-year maintenance period after
redesignation in 2011. Indiana's maintenance plan includes emission
inventories discussed in section V.2.c above.
    The sizeable reductions in SO2 and NOX
emissions by 2015 and 2022 shown in Table 3 above are due in
significant part to restrictions mandated by EPA to reduce power plant
emissions of SO2 and NOX in the Eastern United
States in order to reduce pollutant transport in this region. In this
inventory, Indiana used emission projections premised on the
implementation of CAIR requirements as an approximation of the
emissions levels the State projects to occur following the promulgation
of the Transport Rule. As explained above, the DC Circuit found CAIR
unlawful and remanded it to EPA. Because CAIR is not in place
permanently, and because EPA has not completed final promulgation of
the Transport Rule, EPA cannot currently grant final approval to a
maintenance plan that relies in significant part on either of these
rules.
    On the other hand, as noted above, EPA's recently proposed
Transport Rule would, if finalized, achieve substantial regional
reductions of SO2 and NOX emissions. While EPA
has not made emission estimates for 2022 that are premised on the
implementation of the proposed Transport Rule, Table 4 above shows
emission estimates that EPA has made for 2014 that assume the
implementation of the proposed Transport Rule. These emission estimates
show a substantial decline in SO2 and NOX
emissions comparable to that shown in Indiana's maintenance plan. Given
the substantial degree of control of the various EGUs in the Evansville
area both currently and projected into the future, EPA finds Indiana's
projection of such emission declines through 2022 to be appropriate
forecasts of future emissions, provided EPA promulgates a final
Transport Rule whose requirements are substantially equivalent to those
in the proposed rule with respect to continued maintenance of the
PM2.5 annual standard in the Evansville area.
    In conjunction with the projections for dramatic declines in
Evansville area emissions of SO2 and NOX
emissions, Indiana's maintenance plan shows an increase in
PM2.5 emissions. Therefore, further evaluation is needed to
judge whether the increase in PM2.5 emissions, in
combination with the decreases in SO2 and NOX
emissions, is likely to provide for maintenance of the standard.
    Each of these pollutants is characterized by a different
relationship between emissions and air quality. Therefore, simply
summing up the emissions of these various pollutants does not provide a
meaningful indicator of the combined air quality impact of these
emission changes. Instead, a more appropriate indicator is the
percentage change in emissions for each emitted pollutant, weighted
according to the air quality impact for each.
    For this purpose, EPA examined speciation data available from its
Air Explorer Web site for 2007 and 2008 for the Evansville area. These
data suggest that PM2.5 in the Evansville area consists of
approximately 54 percent sulfate, 7 percent nitrate, 32 percent organic
particulate, 4 percent miscellaneous inorganic particulate (sometime
labeled ``crustal particles''), and 4 percent other types of
particulate matter.
    EPA used a conservative approach that assumes that the full ambient
concentration of organic particulate matter plus miscellaneous
inorganic particulate matter will vary in accordance with changes in
total nonattainment area emissions of directly emitted
PM2.5. This analysis thus assumes that the entirety of this
component of ambient PM2.5 will increase by the 24 percent
that Indiana's maintenance plan projects that directly emitted
PM2.5 emissions will increase. In this analysis, the
baseline concentration is conservatively assumed to be 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\,
of which directly emitted PM2.5 is estimated to include 32
plus 4 or 36 percent, or 5.4 [mu]g/m\3\. Indiana estimates that
emissions of directly emitted PM2.5 will increase by 24
percent from 2005. EPA's assessment assumes that this increase will
cause a corresponding increase in ambient concentrations of
PM2.5, which would suggest an increase in the concentration
of this component by 1.3 [mu]g/m\3\. However, EPA believes that this
potential increase will be fully compensated by a greater decrease in
sulfate and nitrate concentrations. The precise decrease in sulfate and
nitrate concentrations is a complicated result of emission reductions
not just in the Evansville area but also in many other parts of the
Eastern United States. Nevertheless, modeling conducted by EPA for the
proposed Transport Rule estimated that future Evansville area
concentrations with the Transport Rule as proposed in place would be
about 4 [mu]g/m\3\ below the standard, and the emission reductions that
have already occurred have already brought Evansville area
concentrations to about 13.0 [mu]g/m\3\ (as shown in Table 4 above).
Therefore, the 1.3 [mu]g/m\3\ increase in the components associated
with directly emitted PM2.5 would not be expected to yield
concentrations above the standard. That is, EPA expects that the trends
in direct emissions of PM2.5 in the Evansville area will not
prevent the area from maintaining the standard.
    Maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5 air quality
standard in the Evansville area is a function of regional as well as
local emissions trends. The regional impacts are dominated by the
impacts of SO2 and NOX emissions. The previous
section (discussing permanent and

enforceable emission reductions) showed that the proposed Transport
Rule could be expected to provide for substantial SO2 and
NOX emission reductions through 2014, reductions that would
be maintained throughout and well beyond the period (through 2022)
addressed in Indiana's maintenance plan. While EPA in its Transport
Rule rulemaking developed emission projections extending to 2020 only
for a scenario without regional emission limitations and not for a
scenario with a Transport Rule in place, the ongoing downward emission
trend evident in EPA's 2020 emission projections in absence of regional
emission limitations lends support to Indiana's projection that the
scenario with regional emission limitations in place will continue to
have low emissions in 2022. With a Transport Rule as proposed, the caps
on emissions of SO2 and NOX from the power sector
will ensure against growth in SO2 and NOX
emissions from these sources, and in combination with motor vehicle
rules and other rules will assure a continuing decline in
SO2 and NOX emissions. Therefore, EPA believes
that available emissions data indicate that, with a Transport Rule
substantially equivalent to the one proposed, for purposes of
maintaining the standard in the Evansville area, the Evansville area
can be expected to maintain the standard through 2022.
    Under section 175A of the Clean Air Act, maintenance plans must
demonstrate attainment through at least 10 years beyond the date of EPA
approval of a state's redesignation request. Indiana's maintenance
plan, demonstrating maintenance through 2022, satisfies this
requirement.
    EPA also has modeling evidence indicating that the Evansville area
will continue to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS well into the
future, provided that EPA promulgates a Transport Rule substantially
equivalent for purposes of demonstrating maintenance in the Evansville
area to its recently proposed rule. The first modeling evidence is the
modeling analysis, referenced above, that Indiana has submitted. As
discussed above, EPA disputes Indiana's contention that its modeling
demonstrates attainment in the Evansville area in the absence of CAIR,
insofar as the analysis was predicated on 2007 emission levels that
already include a set of emission reductions attributable to CAIR.
However, EPA believes that Indiana's modeling analysis, showing
attainment with implementation of a subset of the emission reductions
expected from CAIR, supports the conclusion that implementation of the
full set of reductions that were expected from CAIR (or a relatively
similar set of reductions from a Transport Rule) will also assure that
the standard is maintained.
    EPA has also conducted its own modeling, provided in support of the
Transport Rule proposed rulemaking. This modeling projects that the
Evansville area will achieve a PM2.5 concentration of 11.1
[mu]g/m\3\ by 2014 if the Transport Rule as proposed is made final.
Although EPA did not perform modeling for years later than 2014, the
Transport Rule as proposed would provide for utility emissions in 2022
to be similar and in fact slightly lower than emissions in 2014, and
more generally EPA expects total emissions to be similar or slightly
lower in 2022 than in 2014, so that air quality in 2022 is likely to be
similar or slightly better than air quality in 2014 as well. Therefore,
these two modeling analyses support the conclusion that should EPA
finalize a transport rule that provides for relatively similar air
quality in the Evansville area, the Evansville area will maintain the
PM2.5 standard throughout the maintenance plan period.
    Indiana's maintenance plan includes additional elements. These
include a commitment to continue to operate an EPA-approved monitoring
network, as necessary to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the NAAQS.
Indiana currently operates six PM2.5 monitors in the
Evansville area. Indiana remains obligated to continue to quality
assure monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and enter all
data into the Air Quality System in accordance with Federal guidelines.
Indiana will use these data, supplemented with additional information
if necessary, to assure that the area continues to attain the standard.
Indiana will also continue to develop and submit periodic emission
inventories as required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting
Rule (codified at 40 CFR part 51 subpart A) to track future levels of
emissions.
    Indiana's maintenance plan also includes a contingency plan as
required by section 175A(d). The contingency plan provisions are
designed to correct promptly or to prevent a violation of the NAAQS
that might occur after redesignation. Section 175A of the Clean Air Act
requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a
violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation, including all
measures that were in the plan prior to redesignation. Under Indiana's
plan, if a violation occurs, Indiana will implement an ``Action Level
Response'' to evaluate what measures are warranted to address the
violation, in particular considering implementing one or more measures
from a list of candidate measures given in the plan. Indiana's
candidate contingency measures include diesel retrofit projects, idling
restrictions, a wood stove change out program, additional
transportation control measures, and additional NOX and
SO2 emission controls. Under Indiana's plan, control
measures are to be adopted and implemented within 18 months from the
end of the season in which air quality triggering the Action Level
Response occurred. Indiana further commits to conduct ongoing review of
its monitored data, and if monitored concentrations or emissions are
trending upward, Indiana commits to take appropriate steps to avoid a
violation if possible. EPA believes that Indiana's contingency plan
satisfies the pertinent requirements of section 175A(d).
    As required by section 175A(b) of the Clean Air Act, Indiana
commits to submit to the EPA an updated PM2.5 maintenance
plan eight years after redesignation of the Evansville area to assure
maintenance for an additional ten-year period beyond the initial
maintenance plan. As required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act,
Indiana has also committed to retain the PM2.5 control
measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation.
    For all of the reasons outlined above, EPA is proposing to approve
Indiana's maintenance plan for the Evansville area following the
establishment of requirements substantially equivalent to the
requirements of EPA's proposed Transport Rule for purposes of
maintaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard in the Evansville
area.

5. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

    Under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, transportation plans and
transportation improvement programs (TIPs) must be evaluated for
conformity with State Implementation Plans. Consequently, Indiana's
redesignation request provides MVEBs, conformance with which will
assure that motor vehicle emissions are at or below levels that can be
expected to provide for attainment and maintenance of the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Indiana's submittal of April 2008 included
emission budgets for NOX and PM2.5 for 2010 and
2020. EPA initiated an adequacy review of the budgets that Indiana
included in its April 2008 submittal. As such, a notice of the
submission of these budgets was posted on its adequacy web page (http:

//www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm). The public
comment period closed on July 2, 2008. There were no public comments.
    However, Indiana then submitted a replacement set of budgets in its
submittals of January and April 2011. These updated budgets address the
years 2015 and 2022. (See section V.2.c of this proposal for a
discussion related to the development of the onroad inventory for
2022.) Since these budgets replace the budgets submitted in April 2008,
EPA will no longer conduct rulemaking on the April 2008 budgets.
    Table 5 shows the updated budgets as well as the 2005, 2015, and
2022 emission projections on which these budgets are based. Indiana did
not provide emission budgets for SO2, VOCs, and ammonia
because it concluded, consistent with EPA's presumptions regarding
these precursors, that emissions of these precursors from motor
vehicles are not significant contributors to the area's
PM2.5 air quality problem.

                                   Table 5--Mobile Source Emission Projections
                                                 [Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         NOX                      PM2.5
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Emissions                 Emissions
                                                                estimate      Budget      estimate      Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005........................................................     6,528.04  ...........       117.67  ...........
2015........................................................     2,503.19      2628.35        54.33        57.05
2022........................................................     1,699.86      1869.84        48.93        53.83
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 shows substantial decreases in on-road NOX and
PM2.5 emissions from 2005 to 2015 and additional reductions
between 2015 and 2022. The emission reductions are expected because
newer vehicles, subject to more stringent emission standards, are
continually replacing older, dirtier vehicles. Indiana provided
emission budgets that for 2015 include a safety margin of 5 percent
above projected levels and that for 2022 include a safety margin of 10
percent above projected levels.
    In the Evansville area, the motor vehicle budgets and motor vehicle
emission projections for both NOX and PM2.5 are
lower than base year levels, but the overall emissions of
PM2.5 summed across all source types is projected to
increase. This requires further examination of the question of whether
an increase in PM2.5 emissions by the amounts requested by
Indiana as safety margins would still provide for maintenance of the
PM2.5 standard.
    The discussion of the maintenance plan above describes EPA's
rationale for believing that the impact of the projected increase in
PM2.5 emissions will be more than compensated by the
projected decreases in emissions of SO2 and NOX.
EPA examined whether the same conclusion would apply if the Evansville
area used the entire safety margin, i.e., if mobile source
PM2.5 emissions were higher than projected levels by an
amount equal to the safety margin. Using the first approach above, EPA
found that if mobile source PM2.5 are five tons per year
higher than baseline projections, the expected impact of the overall
PM2.5 emissions increase still rounds to 1.3 [mu]g/m\3\,
which EPA again believes is more than compensated by the decrease in
sulfate and nitrate concentrations resulting from reductions in
SO2 and NOX emissions. Similar results are
obtained from the second approach for assessing the impact of
PM2.5 emission trends discussed above. Therefore, EPA
believes that the requested budgets, including the requested safety
margins, provide for a quantity of mobile source emissions that would
be expected to maintain the PM2.5 standard.
    EPA has posted Indiana's more recently submitted recommended
budgets (for 2015 and 2022) on its adequacy findings web page, to
provide parallel opportunities for review of these budgets. These
budgets have been submitted by IDEM with the intent that these budgets
replace the budgets submitted in 2008 that were subject to previous
adequacy review. See (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm).
    EPA is not able to complete its adequacy review for the Evansville
MVEBs for 2015 and 2022 at this time because EPA has not yet taken
final action on the proposed Transport Rule. In the absence of a final
Transport Rule, we cannot determine if other emissions sources and the
budgets, when considered together, are consistent with applicable
requirements for maintenance as required by 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).
Therefore, EPA cannot at this time find the MVEBs adequate. However,
EPA is proposing to approve the Evansville MVEBs into the Indiana SIP
because, based on our review of the submitted maintenance plan, we have
determined that the maintenance plan and motor vehicle emissions
budgets will be approvable if the Transport Rule as finalized is
substantially equivalent to the proposed rule in terms of its impact on
the maintenance of the standard in the Evansville area. This is
consistent with EPA's intentions for acting on the rest of the
maintenance plan as described above in this proposal.
    The budgets that Indiana submitted were calculated using the
MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle emissions model. EPA is proposing to approve
the inventory and the conformity budgets calculated using this model
because this model was the most current model available at the time
Indiana was performing its analysis. Separate from today's proposal,
EPA has issued an updated motor vehicle emissions model known as the
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator or MOVES. In its announcement of this
model, EPA established a two-year grace period for continued use of
MOBILE6.2 in transportation conformity determinations for
transportation plans and TIPs (extending to March 2, 2012), after which
states and metropolitan planning organizations (other than California)
must use MOVES for transportation plan and TIP conformity
determinations. (See 75 FR 9411, March 2, 2010.)
    Additional information on the use of MOVES in SIPs and conformity
determinations can be found in the December 2009 Policy Guidance on the
Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan Development,
Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes. This guidance document
is available at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/420b09046.pdf.
During the conformity grace period, the State and MPO(s) should use the
interagency consultation process to examine how MOVES2010 will impact
their future transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations,
including regional emissions analyses. For example, an

increase in emission estimates due to the use of MOVES2010 may affect
an area's ability to demonstrate conformity for its transportation plan
and/or TIP. Therefore, state and local planners should carefully
consider whether the SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget(s) should
be revised with MOVES2010 or if transportation plans and TIPs should be
revised before the end of the conformity grace period, since doing so
may be necessary to ensure conformity determinations in the future.
    We would expect that states and metropolitan planning organizations
would work closely with EPA and the local Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration offices to determine
an appropriate course of action to address this type of situation if it
is expected to occur. If Indiana chooses to revise the Evansville
maintenance plan, it should consult Question 7 of the December 2009
Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan
Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes for
information on requirements related to such revisions.

6. Summary of Proposed Actions

    In its rulemaking of November 27, 2009, EPA determined that the
Evansville area is attaining the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA's review of more recent data indicates that the area continues to
attain this standard. Thus EPA is proposing to determine that the area
continues to attain the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard. EPA is
proposing to approve Indiana's maintenance plan, provided EPA
promulgates a final Transport Rule substantially equivalent to the
Transport Rule as proposed with respect to maintenance of the standard
in the Evansville area. EPA proposes to approve the emissions inventory
included in Indiana's maintenance plan as satisfying the requirement in
section 172(c)(3) for a comprehensive emission inventory. With respect
to two criteria for redesignation--permanent enforceable emissions
reductions and a fully approvable maintenance plan--EPA believes that
Indiana is currently relying on CAIR for a significant portion of the
air quality improvement leading to attainment and a significant portion
of the reductions needed to maintain the standard. EPA believes,
however, that these two prerequisites for redesignation will be
satisfied if and when the Transport Rule that EPA proposed on August 2,
2010 is finalized in a form that is substantially equivalent to the
rule as proposed, for purposes of maintenance of the annual
PM2.5 standard in Evansville. Therefore, EPA proposes that
the Evansville area will qualify for redesignation to attainment at
such time as the Transport Rule in such a form is finalized and takes
effect. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve motor vehicle emission
budgets for the Evansville area.

VI. What are the effects of EPA's proposed actions?

    If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change
the legal designation of the Evansville area for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to
attainment. EPA is also proposing to approve several revisions to the
Indiana SIP for the Evansville area, including the maintenance plans,
the emission inventory submitted with the maintenance plan, and the
2015 and 2022 MVEBs. EPA is proposing to take these actions if and when
EPA promulgates the Transport Rule limiting SO2 and
NOX emissions in the Eastern United States to an extent
substantially equivalent in pertinent respects to the Transport Rule
proposed August 2, 2010 for purposes of maintaining air quality in
Evansville.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, redesignation of an area to attainment and
the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in
the applicability of requirements contained in the Clean Air Act for
areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the
Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies
with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the
criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, these actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: May 6, 2011.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011-12609 Filed 5-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 19548-19549]
[DOCID:fr29ap09-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC09-567-001]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-567); Comment
Request; Submitted for OMB Review

April 22, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has submitted the
information collection described below to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission received no comments in response to the Federal Register
notice (73 FR 74163, 12/5/2008) and has made this notation in its
submission to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by May 28,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o oira__
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and include OMB Control No. 1902-0005 as a point
of reference. The OMB Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 202-
395-4638.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and should refer to Docket No. IC09-567-001.
Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper format. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an
acceptable filing format and in compliance with the FERC submission
guidelines. Complete filing instructions and acceptable filing formats
are available at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-
media.asp. To file the document electronically, access the Commission's
Web site and click on Documents & Filing, E-Filing (http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp), and then follow the instructions
for each screen. First time users will have to establish a user name
and password. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to
the sender's e-mail address upon receipt of comments.
    For paper filings, an original and 2 copies of the comments should
be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should
refer to Docket No. IC09-567-001.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FERC is requesting comments on the FERC-
567,\1\ Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of System Flow
Diagrams. FERC-567 is an existing data collection (OMB Control No.
1902-0005) consisting of a set of filing requirements, as contained in
18 CFR 260.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FERC-567 was formerly known as ``Gas Pipeline Certificates:
Annual Reports of System Flow Diagrams and System Capacity''. The
capacity reporting requirements under 18 CFR 284.13 had been
inadvertently included under both the FERC-567 and the FERC-549B
(``Gas Pipeline Rates: Capacity Information''; OMB Control No. 1902-
0169). To correct the inadvertent `double-counting', the capacity
reporting requirements under 18 CFR 284.13 are removed from FERC-
567, and remain a part of FERC-549B for the purpose of OMB
clearance. FERC-549B is not a subject of this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information from the FERC-567 is used by the Commission staff
to obtain accurate data on pipeline facilities and to validate the need
for new facilities proposed by pipelines in certificate applications.
In modeling a pipeline applicant's system, Commission staff utilizes
the FERC-567 data to determine configuration and location of installed
pipeline facilities; verify and determine the receipt and delivery
points between shippers, producers and pipeline companies; determine
the location of receipt and delivery points and emergency
interconnections on a pipeline system; determine the location of
pipeline segments, laterals and compressor stations on a pipeline
system; verify pipeline segment lengths and pipeline diameters; justify
the maximum allowable operating pressures and suction and discharge
pressures at compressor stations; verify the installed horsepower and
volumes compressed at each compressor station; determine the existing
shippers and producers currently using each pipeline company; and
develop and evaluate alternatives to the proposed facilities as a means
to mitigate environmental impact of new pipeline construction.
    18 CFR 260.8 requires each major natural gas pipeline with a system
delivery capacity exceeding 100,000 Mcf per day to file, to submit by
June 1 of each year, diagrams reflecting operating conditions on the
pipeline's main transmission system during the previous 12 months ended
December 31. These data are physical/engineering data which are not
included as part of any other data collection requirement.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date, with no change to the existing
requirements.\1\
    Burden Statement: Annual reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of           Number of        Average  burden
      FERC data  collection           respondents        responses per        hours  per         Total annual
                                       annually           respondent           response        burden hours \2\
                                                (1)                 (2)                 (3)     (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-567........................             94 \3\               1.714               81.28            13,095.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated annual cost burden \2\ to respondents is $807,747
(13,095.5 hours/2080 hours per year times $128,297 per year average per
employee = $807,747). The estimated cost per respondent is $8,593.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The burden and cost figures may not be exact, due to
rounding. For these calculations, the number of hours an employee
works each year is 2,080, and the average annual salary per employee
is estimated to be $128,297.
    \3\ An estimate of 100 respondents was included in the 60-day
notice. That estimate has been updated here, based on the number of
filings submitted in 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization, rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9709 Filed 4-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P