Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Transportation Conformity Consultation Requirement, 50708-50711 [2010-20180]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
50708
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
LEWIS has passed until and including
11:59 p.m. on September 11, 2010. The
opposite connecting spans on the south
side while not under repair will
continue to open for vessels;
(3) Closed to vessels beginning at 6
a.m. on September 12, 2010 until and
including 11:59 p.m. on October 6,
2010; however, vessels openings will be
provided if at least 48 hours advance
notice is given;
(4) Single leaf operation on the
northeast side span starting at 5 a.m. on
October 8, 2010 until and including
11:59 p.m. on October 28, 2010. The
opposite connecting spans on the south
side while not under repair will
continue to open for vessels;
(5) Closed to vessels beginning at 6
a.m. on October 29, 2010 until and
including 11:59 p.m. on December 1,
2010; however, vessels openings will be
provided if at least 48 hours advance
notice is given.
Coast Guard vessels bound for the
Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay, as well
as a significant amount of commercial
vessel traffic, must pass through the
Pennington Avenue Bridge. The Coast
Guard has carefully coordinated the
restrictions with the Yard and the
commercial users of the waterway.
Additionally, the Coast Guard will
inform unexpected users of the
waterway through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the
closure periods for the bridge so that
vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation.
Vessels may pass underneath the
bridge while the bridge is in the closed
position. There are no alternate routes
for vessels transiting this section of
Curtis Creek and the drawbridge will be
able to open in the event of an
emergency.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the drawbridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the designated time period. This
deviation from the operating regulations
is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Dated: August 5, 2010.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Chief, Bridge Administration Branch, Fifth
Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010–20250 Filed 8–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Aug 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0529; FRL–9189–8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Transportation Conformity
Consultation Requirement
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is taking direct final
action to approve a revision to the
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted on June 4, 2010. This revision
consists of criteria and procedures
related to the State’s interagency
consultation and certain control and
mitigation measures addressing
‘‘Transportation Conformity.’’ This
approval will meet a requirement of the
Clean Air Act (Act) and EPA’s
Transportation Conformity regulations.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective October 18, 2010, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by
September 16, 2010. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2010–0529, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2054.
4. Mail: Jay Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Jay Elmer Bortzer,
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–2010–
0529. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This Facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you
telephone Patricia Morris,
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 353–
8656 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8656,
morris.patricia@epa.gov.
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
SIP revisions that address the other
sections of the Federal Rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is Transportation Conformity?
II. What is the Background for This Action?
III. What Did the State Submit and How Did
We Evaluate It?
IV. What Action is EPA Taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is Transportation Conformity?
Transportation Conformity is required
under Section 176(c) of the Act to
ensure that Federally supported
highway, transit projects, and other
activities are consistent with (conform
to) the purpose of the approved SIP.
Transportation Conformity currently
applies to areas that are designated
nonattainment and those areas
redesignated to attainment after 1990
(maintenance areas), with maintenance
plans developed under section 175A of
the Act for the following transportationrelated criteria pollutants: Ozone,
particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10),
carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen
dioxide (NO2). Conformity to the
purpose of the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause
new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations or delay timely
attainment of the relevant National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The Federal Transportation
Conformity regulations (Federal Rule)
are found in 40 CFR part 93 subpart A,
and provisions related to conformity
SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
II. What is the Background for This
Action?
On August 10, 2005, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub. L. 109–59)
was signed into law. SAFETEA–LU
revised certain provisions of section
176(c) of the Act, related to
Transportation Conformity. Prior to
SAFETEA–LU, States were required to
address all of the Federal Rule’s
provisions in their conformity SIPs.
After SAFETEA–LU, SIPs were required
to contain all or portions of only the
following three sections of the Federal
Rule, modified as appropriate to each
State’s circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105
(consultation procedures); 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii) (written commitments to
implement certain kinds of control
measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c)
(written commitments to implement
certain kinds of mitigation measures).
Pursuant to SAFETEA–LU, States are no
longer required to submit conformity
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Aug 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
III. What Did the State Submit and How
Did We Evaluate It?
A public hearing on the
Transportation Conformity SIP was held
on May 11, 2010 in Indianapolis,
Indiana. Also, a 30-day public comment
period was announced which closed on
May 14, 2010. No comments were
received from the public. EPA, however,
made comments on three items which
needed clarification.
On June 4, 2010, the Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted a
revision to its SIP for Transportation
Conformity purposes. Indiana provided
the requested clarifications in the cover
letter.
The SIP revision consists of nine
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) board resolutions, one MPO
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),
one State and Federal agency statewide
MOU and an interagency consultation
group conformity consultation guidance
document, which will constitute the
Indiana SIP for transportation
conformity purposes. The MPO board
resolutions are for the Delaware-Muncie
Metropolitan Plan Commission, the
Evansville Metropolitan Planning
Organization, the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Planning Organization, the
Michiana Area Council of Governments,
the Madison County Council of
Government, the Northeastern Indiana
Regional Coordinating Council, the
Northwestern Indiana Regional
Planning Commission, the OhioKentucky-Indiana Regional Council of
Governments, and the West Central
Indiana Economic Development District.
The Kentuckiana Regional Planning and
Development Agency is the MPO that
has a signed MOU as the consultation
agreement.
The resolutions and MOUs were
executed among the State of Indiana, the
MPOs in nonattainment and
maintenance areas, and the Federal
agencies which have responsibility for
undertaking transportation conformity
in conjunction with transportation
planning activities. The statewide MOU
adopts the individual MPO resolutions,
covers rural nonattainment and
maintenance areas and provides for
consultation among and between State
and Federal agencies. These resolutions
and agreements which make up the SIP
revision address the three provisions of
the Federal Rule required under
SAFETEA–LU: 40 CFR 93.105
(consultation procedures); 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii) (certain control
measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c)
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50709
(mitigation measures). Each of the
individual MPO resolutions and the
MOUs provide detailed consultation
procedures specific to each MPO area
and adopted by the participants in that
MPO area.
Indiana has included several bi-State
areas. The Louisville area is a bi-State
Indiana/Kentucky area and the MOU for
this area provides for consultation with
all parties in both States. The MOU has
been submitted by Kentucky as part of
the Kentucky transportation conformity
SIP, and EPA approved the SIP on April
21, 2010 (75 FR 20780). The same MOU
has been submitted by Indiana as part
of the Indiana transportation conformity
SIP.
The Cincinnati area is also a bi-State
area with portions of Indiana and
Kentucky included in the Cincinnati,
Ohio ozone and PM nonattainment
areas. The resolution passed by the
MPO board for this area provides for
consultation between Ohio State and
local agencies and Indiana State
agencies and Federal agencies in both
Indiana and Ohio. The MPO has a
separate agreement for the Kentucky
portion to provide for consultation on
Kentucky conformity determinations. A
separate agreement is acceptable
because the SIPs provide separate motor
vehicle emissions budgets for the
Kentucky portion of the Cincinnati area.
The Ohio and Indiana portions of the
Cincinnati area have combined motor
vehicle emissions budgets and thus
must work together for conformity
determinations.
EPA has evaluated this SIP revision
including the nine MPO board
resolutions, the one MPO MOU, and the
one statewide MOU, and has
determined that the nine MPO board
resolutions and the MOU for KIPDA
have met the requirements of the
Federal transportation conformity rules
as described in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart
T, and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A. As
EPA has previously informed Indiana,
there were three wording clarifications
needed for consistency between the
State and Federal agency MOU and the
Conformity Rule. EPA believes that the
State of Indiana has satisfactorily
addressed these concerns, as follows.
First, the statewide MOU seemed to
have inadvertently left off a sentence in
the conflict resolution section that
would allow the Governor of Indiana to
delegate the decision on conflicts. In
response, IDEM has agreed to
incorporate the recommended language
into a future revision of the MOU; and,
in the interim, IDEM agrees to resolve
conflicts in accordance with language
provided by EPA.
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
50710
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
In addition, the statewide MOU did
not address the cost of documents to the
public (if there is a cost) in accordance
with EPA’s fee schedule in 49 CFR 7.43.
IDEM responded by citing Indiana’s
statutory authority which it believes is
consistent with the Federal fee rule, and
agreed to also clarify this matter in a
future MOU revision.
Finally, EPA noted that IDEM had not
provided sufficient detail about the
public process for ‘‘hot spot analysis’’
reviews. Indiana responded by citing a
specific policy document, the ‘‘INDOT
Public Involvement Manual,’’ which
details the public participation process.
Indiana has satisfied the public
participation and comprehensive
interagency consultation requirement
during development and adoption of the
resolutions at the MPO level and also
with a public hearing and public
comment on the entire SIP on May 11,
2010 and public comment period until
May 14, 2010. EPA’s rule requires the
States to develop their own processes
and procedures to be followed by the
MPO, State Departments of
Transportation (DOTs), and United
States Department of Transportation
(USDOT) in consulting with the State
and local air quality agencies and EPA
before making conformity
determinations.
The conformity SIP revision must also
include processes and procedures for
the State and local air quality agencies
and EPA to coordinate the development
of applicable SIPs with MPOs, State
DOTs, and USDOT.
EPA has reviewed the submittal to
assure consistency with the CAA as
amended by SAFETEA–LU and EPA
regulations (40 CFR Part 93 and 40 CFR
51.390) governing State procedures for
transportation conformity and
interagency consultation. Our review
used the document ‘‘Guidance for
Developing Transportation Conformity
SIPs’’ dated January 2009, including
‘‘Appendix A: Checklist for Developing
a Conformity SIP’’, and has concluded
that the submittal is approvable.
IV. What Action is EPA Taking?
For the reasons set forth above, EPA
is taking action under section 110 of the
Act to approve the Indiana SIP revision
for Transportation Conformity, which
was submitted on June 4, 2010.
We are publishing this action without
prior proposal because we view this as
a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the
State plan if relevant adverse written
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Aug 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
comments are filed. This rule will be
effective October 18, 2010 without
further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by September
16, 2010. If we receive such comments,
we will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective October 18,
2010.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Act, 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 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,
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 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Act; 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.
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 Act,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 18, 2010. 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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 5, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
■
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart P—Indiana
2. Part 52 is amended by adding a new
§ 52.799 to read as follows:
■
§ 52.799
Transportation conformity.
On June 4, 2010, Indiana submitted
the Transportation Conformity
Consultation SIP consisting of
Metropolitan Planning Organization
resolutions and Memorandums of
Understanding to address interagency
consultation and enforceability of
certain transportation related control
measures and mitigation measures. EPA
is approving the Transportation
Conformity SIP from Indiana.
[FR Doc. 2010–20180 Filed 8–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2005–OH–0003; FRL–
9187–4]
I. What Were EPA’s Proposed Actions?
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. What Actions is EPA Taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio;
Final Approval and Promulgation of
State Implementation Plans; Carbon
Monoxide and Volatile Organic
Compounds
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Under section 110(k)(3) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is
disapproving an Ohio regulation
revision pertaining to volatile organic
compound (VOC) limits for high
performance architectural coatings
contained in Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC) 3745–21–09(U)(1)(h). Under
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, we are
also conditionally approving a revision
of paragraph (BBB)(1) of OAC 3745–21–
09, based on a State commitment to
provide for enforceability of a pertinent
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Aug 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
limit no later than one year from the
date of EPA’s conditional approval.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
September 16, 2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2005–OH–0003. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Anthony
Maietta, Environmental Protection
Specialist, at (312) 353–8777 before
visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777,
maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What Were EPA’s Proposed Actions?
On January 22, 2010 (75 FR 3668),
EPA proposed a variety of actions
regarding revisions to OAC 3745–21,
from submittals dated October 9, 2000,
February 6, 2001, August 3, 2001, and
June 24, 2003. We proposed to (1)
approve into the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) certain revisions in OAC
3745–21 which have been adopted by
the State; (2) disapprove a revision
pertaining to high performance
architectural coatings; (3) conditionally
approve a revision of paragraph
(BBB)(1) of OAC 3745–21–09, if the
State gives EPA a letter that commits to
provide for enforceability of the 1 ton
per year limit no later than one year
from the expected date of EPA’s
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50711
conditional approval; (4) take no action
on certain regulation revisions, and, (5)
provide notice that EPA and Ohio have
created a mechanism to incorporate into
the Ohio SIP permits to facilities
operating under previously issued
alternate VOC limit and emission
control exemptions for miscellaneous
metal coating operations under OAC
3745–21–09(U)(2)(f). For administrative
convenience, in a separate rulemaking
published June 21, 2010, at 75 FR
34939, we approved certain submitted
regulation revisions, took no action on
others, and recognized various emission
control exemptions that have been
granted for miscellaneous metal coating
operations under OAC 3745–21–
09(U)(2)(f). Today’s action makes final
our disapproval and conditional
approval of portions of OAC rule 3745–
21–09. You can learn more information
about the rule revisions submitted and
our evaluation of them in our proposed
action.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
EPA’s proposed action provided a
30-day public comment period. We did
not receive any comments on the
proposed action. On March 1, and July
2, 2010, Ohio EPA committed to remedy
deficiencies in OAC 3745–21–
09(BBB)(1).
III. What Actions is EPA Taking?
EPA is disapproving the coating VOC
content limit for high performance
architectural aluminum coatings
contained in paragraph (U)(1)(h) of OAC
3745–21–09 because the State has not
demonstrated that the relaxation of the
VOC content limit for high performance
architectural aluminum coatings would
not interfere with attainment of the
ozone standard and other requirements.
EPA is conditionally approving a
revision to OAC 3745–21–09(BBB)(1)
provided that the State is able to, within
one year of our final rulemaking, further
revise the paragraph to include test
procedures and recordkeeping
requirements compatible with the
paragraph’s revised emission limit. On
March 1, and July 2, 2010, Ohio EPA
committed to remedy the deficiencies in
this revision. If the State fails to correct
this rule and confirm this correction
within the allowed one year period, this
conditional approval will revert to
disapproval.
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 17, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50708-50711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20180]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0529; FRL-9189-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Transportation Conformity Consultation Requirement
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on June 4, 2010. This
revision consists of criteria and procedures related to the State's
interagency consultation and certain control and mitigation measures
addressing ``Transportation Conformity.'' This approval will meet a
requirement of the Clean Air Act (Act) and EPA's Transportation
Conformity regulations.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 18, 2010,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 16, 2010. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0529, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692-2054.
4. Mail: Jay Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Jay Elmer Bortzer, 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-
2010-0529. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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 https://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.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Patricia Morris,
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 353-8656 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8656, morris.patricia@epa.gov.
[[Page 50709]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is Transportation Conformity?
II. What is the Background for This Action?
III. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It?
IV. What Action is EPA Taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is Transportation Conformity?
Transportation Conformity is required under Section 176(c) of the
Act to ensure that Federally supported highway, transit projects, and
other activities are consistent with (conform to) the purpose of the
approved SIP. Transportation Conformity currently applies to areas that
are designated nonattainment and those areas redesignated to attainment
after 1990 (maintenance areas), with maintenance plans developed under
section 175A of the Act for the following transportation-related
criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and
PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations or delay timely attainment of the relevant
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Federal
Transportation Conformity regulations (Federal Rule) are found in 40
CFR part 93 subpart A, and provisions related to conformity SIPs are
found in 40 CFR 51.390.
II. What is the Background for This Action?
On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L.
109-59) was signed into law. SAFETEA-LU revised certain provisions of
section 176(c) of the Act, related to Transportation Conformity. Prior
to SAFETEA-LU, States were required to address all of the Federal
Rule's provisions in their conformity SIPs. After SAFETEA-LU, SIPs were
required to contain all or portions of only the following three
sections of the Federal Rule, modified as appropriate to each State's
circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation procedures); 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii) (written commitments to implement certain kinds of
control measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c) (written commitments to
implement certain kinds of mitigation measures). Pursuant to SAFETEA-
LU, States are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions
that address the other sections of the Federal Rule.
III. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It?
A public hearing on the Transportation Conformity SIP was held on
May 11, 2010 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Also, a 30-day public comment
period was announced which closed on May 14, 2010. No comments were
received from the public. EPA, however, made comments on three items
which needed clarification.
On June 4, 2010, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) submitted a revision to its SIP for Transportation Conformity
purposes. Indiana provided the requested clarifications in the cover
letter.
The SIP revision consists of nine Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) board resolutions, one MPO Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), one State and Federal agency statewide MOU and an
interagency consultation group conformity consultation guidance
document, which will constitute the Indiana SIP for transportation
conformity purposes. The MPO board resolutions are for the Delaware-
Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission, the Evansville Metropolitan
Planning Organization, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning
Organization, the Michiana Area Council of Governments, the Madison
County Council of Government, the Northeastern Indiana Regional
Coordinating Council, the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning
Commission, the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments,
and the West Central Indiana Economic Development District. The
Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency is the MPO that
has a signed MOU as the consultation agreement.
The resolutions and MOUs were executed among the State of Indiana,
the MPOs in nonattainment and maintenance areas, and the Federal
agencies which have responsibility for undertaking transportation
conformity in conjunction with transportation planning activities. The
statewide MOU adopts the individual MPO resolutions, covers rural
nonattainment and maintenance areas and provides for consultation among
and between State and Federal agencies. These resolutions and
agreements which make up the SIP revision address the three provisions
of the Federal Rule required under SAFETEA-LU: 40 CFR 93.105
(consultation procedures); 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) (certain control
measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c) (mitigation measures). Each of the
individual MPO resolutions and the MOUs provide detailed consultation
procedures specific to each MPO area and adopted by the participants in
that MPO area.
Indiana has included several bi-State areas. The Louisville area is
a bi-State Indiana/Kentucky area and the MOU for this area provides for
consultation with all parties in both States. The MOU has been
submitted by Kentucky as part of the Kentucky transportation conformity
SIP, and EPA approved the SIP on April 21, 2010 (75 FR 20780). The same
MOU has been submitted by Indiana as part of the Indiana transportation
conformity SIP.
The Cincinnati area is also a bi-State area with portions of
Indiana and Kentucky included in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone and PM
nonattainment areas. The resolution passed by the MPO board for this
area provides for consultation between Ohio State and local agencies
and Indiana State agencies and Federal agencies in both Indiana and
Ohio. The MPO has a separate agreement for the Kentucky portion to
provide for consultation on Kentucky conformity determinations. A
separate agreement is acceptable because the SIPs provide separate
motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Kentucky portion of the
Cincinnati area. The Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati area
have combined motor vehicle emissions budgets and thus must work
together for conformity determinations.
EPA has evaluated this SIP revision including the nine MPO board
resolutions, the one MPO MOU, and the one statewide MOU, and has
determined that the nine MPO board resolutions and the MOU for KIPDA
have met the requirements of the Federal transportation conformity
rules as described in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart T, and 40 CFR Part 93,
Subpart A. As EPA has previously informed Indiana, there were three
wording clarifications needed for consistency between the State and
Federal agency MOU and the Conformity Rule. EPA believes that the State
of Indiana has satisfactorily addressed these concerns, as follows.
First, the statewide MOU seemed to have inadvertently left off a
sentence in the conflict resolution section that would allow the
Governor of Indiana to delegate the decision on conflicts. In response,
IDEM has agreed to incorporate the recommended language into a future
revision of the MOU; and, in the interim, IDEM agrees to resolve
conflicts in accordance with language provided by EPA.
[[Page 50710]]
In addition, the statewide MOU did not address the cost of
documents to the public (if there is a cost) in accordance with EPA's
fee schedule in 49 CFR 7.43. IDEM responded by citing Indiana's
statutory authority which it believes is consistent with the Federal
fee rule, and agreed to also clarify this matter in a future MOU
revision.
Finally, EPA noted that IDEM had not provided sufficient detail
about the public process for ``hot spot analysis'' reviews. Indiana
responded by citing a specific policy document, the ``INDOT Public
Involvement Manual,'' which details the public participation process.
Indiana has satisfied the public participation and comprehensive
interagency consultation requirement during development and adoption of
the resolutions at the MPO level and also with a public hearing and
public comment on the entire SIP on May 11, 2010 and public comment
period until May 14, 2010. EPA's rule requires the States to develop
their own processes and procedures to be followed by the MPO, State
Departments of Transportation (DOTs), and United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) in consulting with the State and local air
quality agencies and EPA before making conformity determinations.
The conformity SIP revision must also include processes and
procedures for the State and local air quality agencies and EPA to
coordinate the development of applicable SIPs with MPOs, State DOTs,
and USDOT.
EPA has reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the CAA
as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 93 and 40 CFR
51.390) governing State procedures for transportation conformity and
interagency consultation. Our review used the document ``Guidance for
Developing Transportation Conformity SIPs'' dated January 2009,
including ``Appendix A: Checklist for Developing a Conformity SIP'',
and has concluded that the submittal is approvable.
IV. What Action is EPA Taking?
For the reasons set forth above, EPA is taking action under section
110 of the Act to approve the Indiana SIP revision for Transportation
Conformity, which was submitted on June 4, 2010.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 18,
2010 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by September 16, 2010. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be
effective October 18, 2010.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Act, 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 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, 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 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 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 Act; 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.
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 Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 18, 2010. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
[[Page 50711]]
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 5, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart P--Indiana
0
2. Part 52 is amended by adding a new Sec. 52.799 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.799 Transportation conformity.
On June 4, 2010, Indiana submitted the Transportation Conformity
Consultation SIP consisting of Metropolitan Planning Organization
resolutions and Memorandums of Understanding to address interagency
consultation and enforceability of certain transportation related
control measures and mitigation measures. EPA is approving the
Transportation Conformity SIP from Indiana.
[FR Doc. 2010-20180 Filed 8-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
