Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This
When submitting comments, remember to:
1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading,
2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period.
EPA is proposing to approve new MOVES2010a-based budgets for the South Bend-Elkhart, Indiana 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area. The South Bend-Elkhart, Indiana area was redesignated to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard effective July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39577), and the MOBILE6.2-based budgets were approved in that action. If EPA finalizes this proposed approval, the newly submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets will replace the existing MOBILE6.2-based budgets in the state's 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan and must then be used in future transportation conformity analyses for the area. At that time, the previously approved MOBILE6.2-based budgets would no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes.
If EPA approves the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the South Bend-Elkhart 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area must use the MOVES2010a-based budgets starting on the effective date of the final approval. See the official release of the MOVES2010 Emissions Model (75 FR 9411) for background and section III(c) below for details.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment and maintenance areas for a given National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans include budgets of on-road mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address pollution from cars, trucks, and other on-road vehicles. These motor vehicle SIP budgets are the portions of the total emissions that are allocated to on-road vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance, if they are not exceeded. The budget serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. For more information about budgets, see the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).
Under CAA section 176(c), transportation plans, Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and transportation projects must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP before they can be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or delay an interim milestone. The transportation conformity regulations can be found at 40 CFR parts 51 and 93.
In general, before budgets can be used in conformity determinations, EPA must affirmatively find the budgets adequate. However, budgets that are replacing approved budgets must be found adequate and approved before the budgets can replace the older budgets. Therefore, EPA cannot just find these replacement budgets adequate because adequate budgets do not supersede approved budgets for the same CAA purpose. If the submitted SIP budgets are meant to replace budgets for the same purpose, as is the case with Indiana's MOVES2010a 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan budgets, EPA must approve the revised SIP and budgets, and must affirm that they are adequate at the same time. Once EPA approves the budgets in the SIP, the revised budgets must be used by state and Federal agencies in determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of budgets are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
EPA had previously approved budgets for the South Bend-Elkhart, 8-hour ozone maintenance area for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NO
The MOVES model is EPA's state-of-the-art tool for estimating highway emissions. The model is based on analyses of millions of emission test results and considerable advances in the agency's understanding of vehicle emissions. MOVES incorporates the latest emissions data, more sophisticated calculation algorithms, increased user flexibility, new software design, and significant new capabilities relative to those reflected in MOBILE6.2.
EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR 9411). EPA subsequently released two minor model revisions: MOVES2010a in September 2010 and MOVES2010b in April 2012. Both of these minor revisions enhance model performance and do not significantly affect the criteria pollutant emissions results from MOVES2010.
MOVES will be required for new regional emissions analyses for transportation conformity determinations (“regional conformity analyses”) outside of California that begin after March 2, 2013, or when EPA approves MOVES-based budgets, whichever comes first.
EPA encouraged areas to examine how MOVES would affect future transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations so, if necessary, SIPs and budgets could be revised with MOVES or transportation plans and TIPs could be revised (as appropriate) prior to the end of the regional transportation conformity grace period. EPA also encouraged state and local air agencies to consider how the release of MOVES would affect analyses supporting SIP submissions under development (77 FR 9411 and 77 FR 11394).
The Michiana Council of Governments (MACOG), which is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the South Bend-Elkhart area, has used MOVES2010a emission rates with the transportation network information to estimate emissions in the years of the transportation plan and also for the SIP. Indiana is revising the budgets at this time using the latest planning assumptions including population and employment updates. In addition, newer vehicle registration data has been used to update the age distribution of the vehicle fleet. Since MOVES2010 (or a minor model revision) will be required for conformity analyses after the grace period ends, Indiana has concluded that updating the budgets with MOVES2010a will prepare the areas for the transition to using MOVES for conformity analyses and determinations. The interagency consultation group has had extensive consultation on the requirements and need for new budgets.
On June 15, 2012, Indiana submitted to EPA, for parallel processing, replacement budgets based on MOVES2010a for the South Bend-Elkhart area. Indiana provided public review and comment which ended on July 18, 2012. There were no comments. Indiana submitted the final SIP revision request on August 17, 2012.
The MOVES2010a budgets are proposed to replace the prior approved MOBILE6.2 budgets and are for the same years and pollutants/precursors. The new MOVES2010a budgets are for the year 2020 for both VOCs and NO
The submittal demonstrates how all emissions decline from the attainment year of 2004. In 2004, the total estimated NO
No additional control measures were needed to maintain the 1997 ozone standard in the South Bend-Elkhart area. An appropriate safety margin for NO
EPA has always required that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets continue to meet applicable requirements (i.e., RFP, attainment, or maintenance). States that revise their existing SIPs to include MOVES budgets must therefore show that the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements with the new level of motor vehicle emissions contained in the budgets. The SIP must also meet any applicable SIP requirements under CAA section 110.
In addition, the transportation conformity rule (at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)) requires that “the budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for RFP, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to the given implementation plan submission).” This and the other adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before EPA can find submitted budgets adequate or approve them for conformity purposes.
In addition, EPA has stated that areas can revise their budgets and inventories using MOVES without revising their entire SIP if (1) the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2) the state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP. For example, the first criterion could be satisfied by demonstrating that the emissions reductions between the baseline/attainment year and maintenance year are the same or greater using MOVES than they were previously. The Indiana submittal meets this requirement, as described below in section V.
For more information, see EPA's latest “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes” (April 2012).
The Indiana SIP revision request for South Bend-Elkhart 1997 ozone maintenance seeks to revise only the on-road mobile source inventories and not the non-road inventories, area source inventories, or point source inventories for the 2020 year for which the SIP revises the budgets. IDEM has certified that the control strategies remain the same as in the original SIP, and that no other control strategies are necessary. Attainment of the ozone standard with current control strategies is confirmed by the monitoring data for South Bend-Elkhart, IN, which continues to monitor attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The area is also monitoring attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. Thus, the current control strategies are continuing to keep the area in attainment of the NAAQS.
EPA has reviewed the emission estimates for point, area, and non-road sources and concluded that no major changes to the projections need to be made, as discussed further below. Indiana finds that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e., area, non-road, and point) have not changed significantly from the original submittal for the years 2004, 2010, and 2020. As a result, the growth and control strategy assumptions for the non-mobile sources for the years 2004, 2010, and 2020 continue to be valid and do not affect the overall conclusions of the plan.
Indiana confirms that the SIP continues to demonstrate its purpose of maintaining the 1997 ozone standard because the emissions are continuing to decrease from the attainment year to the final year of the maintenance plan. The total emissions in the revised SIP (which includes MOVES2010a emissions from mobile sources) are 91.48 tpd for NO
Indiana has submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets for the South Bend-Elkhart area that are clearly identified in Table 5.2-A of the submittal. The on-road budgets for 2020 are 13.95 tpd for NO
EPA is proposing to approve the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted by the state for use in determining transportation conformity in the South Bend-Elkhart 1997 ozone maintenance area. EPA is making this proposal based on our evaluation of these budgets using the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and our in-depth evaluation
The adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) are as follows:
• The submitted SIP was endorsed by [the Governor/Governor's designee] and was subject to a state public hearing (§ 93.118(e)(4)(i));
• Before the control strategy implementation plan was submitted to EPA, consultation among Federal, state, and local agencies occurred, and the state fully documented the submittal (§ 93.118(e)(4)(ii));
• The budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified (§ 93.118(e)(4)(iii));
• The budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for RFP, attainment, or maintenance (§ 93.118(e)(4)(iv));
• The budgets are consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and control measures in the control strategy implementation plan (§ 93.118(e)(4)(v); and
• The revisions explain and document changes to the previous budgets, impacts on point and area source emissions and changes to established safety margins and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or vehicle miles traveled) (§ 93.118(e)(4)(vi).
Our review finds that Indiana has met all of the adequacy criteria. The final submittal is dated August 17, 2012, and signed by the governor's designee. All public hearing materials were submitted with the formal SIP revision request. The interagency consultation group, which is comprised of the state air agency, state Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, EPA, and the MPOs for the area, have discussed and reviewed the budgets developed with MOVES2010a and the safety margin allocation. The budgets are clearly identified and precisely quantified in the submittal in table 5.2-A. The budgets when considered with other emissions sources (point, area, non-road) are consistent with continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard. The budgets are clearly related to the emissions inventory and control measures in the SIP. The changes from the previous budgets are clearly explained with the change in the model from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a and the revised and updated planning assumptions. The inputs to the model are detailed in the Appendix to the submittal. EPA has reviewed the inputs to the MOVES2010a modeling and participated in the consultation process. The Federal Highway Administration—Indiana Division and the Indiana Department of Transportation have taken a lead role in working with the MPO and contractor to provide accurate, timely information and inputs to the MOVES2010a model runs. The MACOG network model provided the vehicle miles of travel and other necessary data from the travel demand network model.
The CAA requires that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets continue to meet applicable requirements (in this case, maintenance). Therefore, states that revise existing SIPs with MOVES must show that the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements with the new level of motor vehicle emissions calculated by the new model.
To that end, Indiana's submitted MOVES2010a budgets meet EPA's two criteria for revising budgets without revising the entire SIP:
(1) The SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES2010a base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and
(2) The state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.
The State has documented that growth and control strategy assumptions continue to be valid and do not change the overall conclusions of the maintenance plan. The emission estimates for point, area and non-road sources have not changed. Indiana finds that growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e., area, non-road, and point) from the original submittal for the years 2004, 2010, and 2020 were developed before the downturn in the economy over the last several years. Because of this, the factors included in the original submittal may project more growth than actual into the future. As a result, the growth and control strategy assumptions for the non-mobile sources for the years 2004, 2010, and 2020 continue to be valid and do not affect the overall conclusions of the plan.
Indiana confirms that the SIP continues to demonstrate its purpose of maintaining the 1997 ozone standard because the emissions are continuing to decrease from the attainment year to the final year of the maintenance plan. The total emissions in the revised SIP (which includes MOVES2010a emissions for mobile sources) decrease from the 2004 attainment year to the year 2020 (the last year of the maintenance plan). These totals demonstrate that emissions in the South Bend-Elkhart area are continuing to decline and remain below the attainment levels. The table below shows total emissions in the South Bend-Elkhart area including point, area, non-road, and mobile sources and demonstrates the declining emissions from the 2004 attainment year.
The following table displays the submitted budgets that are proposed in the notice to be approved. The budgets include an appropriate margin of safety while still maintaining total emissions below the attainment level.
Based on our review of the SIP and the new budgets provided, EPA has determined that the SIP will continue to meet its requirements if the revised motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES2010a inventories.
Pursuant to the State's request, EPA is proposing that, if we finalize the approval of the revised budgets, the state's existing MOBILE6.2-based budgets will no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes upon the effective date of that final approval.
In addition, once EPA approves the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the regional transportation conformity grace period for using MOBILE6 instead of MOVES2010 (and subsequent minor revisions) for the pollutants included in these budgets will end for the South Bend-Elkhart ozone maintenance area on the effective date of that final approval.
EPA is proposing in this action that the South Bend-Elkhart, Indiana existing approved budgets for VOCs and NO
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.