SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:

I. Background

II. What action is EPA taking?

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

On August 19, 2016, Indiana submitted a request to EPA to redesignate the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment for the 1997 PM_2.5 annual standard, and to approve updates to the maintenance plan for the area. In an action published on June 22, 2017 (82 FR 28435), EPA proposed to redesignate the area and approve several actions related to the redesignation (82 FR 28435). Additional background and details regarding this final action can be found in the June 22, 2017, proposed rule. The comment period for this proposed rulemaking closed on July 24, 2017. No comments were received for this proposed rule.

II. What action is EPA taking?

EPA is taking several actions related to redesignation of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM_2.5 NAAQS.

EPA has previously approved Indiana's PM_2.5 maintenance plan and motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. EPA has determined that this plan and budgets are still applicable.

EPA has previously approved the 2005 primary PM_2.5, NO_X, and sulfur dioxide (SO₂) base year emissions inventory. EPA is approving Indiana's updated emissions inventory which includes emissions inventories for VOCs and ammonia from 2007. EPA has determined that Indiana meets the emissions inventory requirement under section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii).

In The Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan Requirements final rule (final PM_2.5 SIP requirements rule), EPA revoked the 1997 primary annual PM_2.5 NAAQS in areas that had always been attainment for that NAAQS, and in areas that had been designated as nonattainment but that were redesignated to attainment before October 24, 2016, the rule's effective date. See81 FR 58010, August 24, 2016. EPA also finalized a provision that revokes the 1997 primary annual PM_2.5 NAAQS in areas that are redesignated to attainment for that NAAQS after October 24, 2016, effective on the effective date of the redesignation of the area to attainment for that NAAQS. See40 CFR 50.13(d).

EPA is redesignating the Indiana portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM_2.5 NAAQS and approving the CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 1997 primary annual PM_2.5 NAAQS for the reasons described elsewhere in the January 4, 2017, proposed action.^[1] The ( printed page 41528) 1997 primary annual PM_2.5 NAAQS will be revoked in the area on the effective date of this redesignation. Beginning on that date, the area will no longer be subject to transportation or general conformity requirements for the 1997 annual PM_2.5 NAAQS due to the revocation of the primary NAAQS. See81 FR 58125, August 24, 2016. The area will be required to implement the CAA section 175A maintenance plan for the 1997 primary annual PM_2.5 NAAQS and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program for the 1997 annual PM_2.5 NAAQS. Once approved, the maintenance plan could only be revised if the revision meets the requirements of CAA section 110(l) and, if applicable, CAA section 193. The area would not be required to submit a second 10-year maintenance plan for the 1997 primary annual PM_2.5 NAAQS. See81 FR 58144, August 24, 2016.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for these actions to become effective immediately upon publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,” and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. This rulemaking, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the state of planning requirements for this PM_2.5 nonattainment area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these actions to become effective on the date of publication of these actions.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• 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 et seq.);
• 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 inExecutive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject toExecutive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject toExecutive 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, underExecutive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of ozone national ambient air quality standards in tribal lands.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register . This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 31, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

40 CFR part 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

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

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

2. Section 52.776 is amended by revising paragraph (w)(3) to read as follows:

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

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

4. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entry for Cincinnati-Hamilton, IN in the table entitled “Indiana—1997 Annual PM _2.5 NAAQS” to read as follows: