Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana; Removal of Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs for Clark and Floyd Counties, 2066-2070 [2011-343]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2066
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1 OF § 1065.1010—ASTM MATERIALS
Part 1065
reference
Document No. and name
*
*
*
*
*
*
ASTM D93–09, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester .........................................................
ASTM D 445–09, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (the Calculation of Dynamic
Viscosity) ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0729; FRL–9250–7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Removal of Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Programs for Clark and
Floyd Counties
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Indiana to allow the State to discontinue
the vehicle inspection and maintenance
(I/M) program in Clark and Floyd
Counties, IN, the Indiana portion of the
Louisville (IN-KY) 1997 8-hour ozone
area. The revision specifically requests
that I/M program regulations be
removed from the active control
measures portion of the SIP. The
regulations will remain in the
contingency measures portion of the
Clark and Floyd Counties ozone
maintenance plans. The Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted this
request on October 10, 2006, and
supplemented it on November 15, 2006,
November 29, 2007, November 25, 2008,
April 23, 2010, and November 19, 2010.
EPA is proposing to approve Indiana’s
request because the State has
demonstrated that discontinuing the I/M
program in Clark and Floyd Counties
will not interfere with the attainment
and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) or with the attainment and
maintenance of other air quality
standards and requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 11, 2011.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
17:24 Jan 11, 2011
*
Submit comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2009–0729, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 408–2279.
4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief,
Control Strategies Section, (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano,
Chief, Control Strategies Section, (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–2009–
0729. 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 website 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
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2011–246 Filed 1–11–11; 8:45 am]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
1065.703
1065.703
*
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 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 Francisco J. Acevedo at (312)
886–6061 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6052.
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 should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
A. Submitting CBI
B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules
II. What are EPA’s proposed actions
III. What changes to the Indiana SIP have
been submitted to support the removal of
the I/M program in Clark and Floyd
Counties?
IV. What criteria apply to Indiana’s request?
V. Has Indiana met the criteria for converting
the I/M program in Clark and Floyd
Counties to contingency measures?
VI. What are our conclusions concerning the
removal of the I/M program in Clark and
Floyd Counties?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
II. What are EPA’s proposed actions?
EPA is proposing to approve a SIP
revision submitted by the State of
Indiana to modify the ozone SIP such
that the I/M program in Clark and Floyd
Counties (the Indiana portion of the
Louisville (IN-KY) 1997 8-hour ozone
area) is no longer an active program in
this area and remains instead as a
contingency measure in this area’s
maintenance plan for 1997 8-hour
ozone.
I. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
III. What changes to the Indiana SIP
have been submitted to support the
removal of the I/M program in Clark
and Floyd Counties?
Indiana House Enrolled Act No. 1798,
effective on July 1, 2003, amended
Indiana code 13–17–5 to eliminate the
applicability of the vehicle emissions
testing rule to Clark and Floyd Counties
after December 31, 2006, at which time
the program ceased operations. IDEM
submitted a revision to the Indiana SIP
for Clark and Floyd Counties (the
Indiana portion of the Louisville (INKY) 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area) on October 10, 2006, requesting
that the Indiana I/M program in Clark
and Floyd Counties be moved from the
active control measures portion of the
SIP to the contingency measures portion
of the Clark and Floyd Counties 1997
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
Clark and Floyd Counties were
originally required to implement ‘‘basic’’
I/M programs under section 182(b)(4) of
the CAA because they had been
designated as part of the Louisville
moderate 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area. In order to maximize the emissions
reductions from the I/M program, IDEM
chose to implement an ‘‘enhanced’’
program in those areas and incorporated
an on-board diagnostic (OBD)
component into the program. EPA fully
approved Indiana’s I/M program on
March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11142). The
enhanced I/M program component
began operation in 1997, to help meet
nonattainment area requirements for the
ozone NAAQS effective at the time.1
The Louisville 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area was redesignated to
attainment for that standard on October
23, 2001 (66 FR 53665).
Subsequently, Clark and Floyd
Counties were designated as a portion of
the IN-KY Louisville nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On
November 15, 2006, IDEM submitted a
request to redesignate the Indiana
portion of the Louisville nonattainment
A. Submitting CBI
Do not submit this information to EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov or
e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark
the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD–ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI). In
addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information
claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment
that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
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—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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jan 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
1 Although the enhanced I/M program component
began in 1997, there was a vehicle I/M program
operating in the Clark and Floyd Counties prior to
that date, and prior to November 15, 1990.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2067
area to attainment for the 8-hour
NAAQS, and for EPA approval of a
14-year maintenance plan for Clark and
Floyd Counties. At the same time, IDEM
requested EPA approval to terminate the
I/M program in these counties. EPA
approved the redesignation and
maintenance plan for Clark and Floyd
Counties on July 19, 2007 (72 FR
39571). The approved maintenance plan
demonstrated that the area could
maintain the standard without the need
for emission reductions from I/M. See
72 FR 26057, 26064–26065 (May 8,
2007).
The Louisville 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area also includes
Jefferson County, Kentucky. EPA
approved the discontinuation of the I/M
program in Jefferson County on May 18,
2005, at 70 FR 28429.
IV. What criteria apply to Indiana’s
request?
Areas designated nonattainment for
the ozone NAAQS and classified
‘‘moderate’’ are required by the CAA to
implement vehicle I/M. See CAA
section 182(b)(4).2 The Louisville area
was previously designated moderate
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard, prompting the requirement for
I/M. However, as noted above, the
Louisville area was redesignated to
attainment for the 1-hour standard, and
the 1-hour standard has been revoked.
While Clark and Floyd Counties were
designated nonattainment for the 0.08
ppm 8-hour ozone standard, they were
not classified for that standard.3 Thus,
these areas are not currently required to
have I/M programs under the CAA and
the State may move them to the
contingency measures portion of the
SIP,4 provided the State can satisfy the
anti-backsliding requirements of the
CAA (sections 110(l) and 193) and of
EPA’s ozone implementation rule, 40
2 Certain areas classified ‘‘marginal’’ are also
required to implement I/M. See CAA section
182(a)(2)(B).
3 Clark and Floyd Counties were classified ‘‘basic’’
(i.e., subject to subpart 1) for the 0.08 parts per
million (ppm) 8-hour ozone standard but that
classification was vacated by a decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
See South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). EPA is in the
process of responding to that decision through
rulemaking. EPA promulgated a 0.075 ppm 8-hour
ozone standard but subsequently announced that it
was reconsidering that standard and in January
2010 proposed to change it. EPA has not designated
areas for the 0.075 ppm 8-hour ozone standard that
is being reconsidered.
4 As discussed below, the measures must be
retained as contingency measures because CAA
section 175A(d) requires that the contingency
measures portion of the SIP include a requirement
that the State will implement all measures that were
contained in the SIP before the area was
redesignated to attainment.
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
2068
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules
CFR 51.905. As previously noted, EPA
in approving the area’s maintenance
plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
concluded that it demonstrated
maintenance without reliance on any
emissions reductions from the I/M
program.
CAA section 110(l) provides:
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
The Administrator shall not approve a
revision of a plan if the revision would
interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or any
other applicable requirement of this Act.
In addition, EPA adopted antibacksliding requirements as part of the
implementation rule for the 0.08 ppm
8-hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR
51.905. For areas such as these that were
required under the CAA to implement
basic I/M, EPA applies the provisions of
the implementation rule in concert with
the provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c).
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c)
allow certain areas seeking
redesignation to submit only the
authority for an I/M program (together
with certain commitments), rather than
an implemented program, in satisfaction
of the applicable I/M requirements.
Under these I/M rule provisions, a basic
I/M area (i.e., an area that was required
to adopt a basic I/M program) which has
been redesignated to attainment for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS can convert the
I/M program to a contingency measure
as part of the area’s 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan, notwithstanding the
anti-backsliding provisions in EPA’s
8-hour ozone implementation rule
published April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858).
A basic I/M area which is designated
nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, yet is not required to have an
I/M program based on its 8-hour ozone
classification, continues to have the
option to move its I/M program to a
contingency measure pursuant to the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c),
provided the 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area can demonstrate
that doing so will not interfere with its
ability to comply with any NAAQS or
any other applicable CAA requirement
pursuant to section 110(l) of the Act. For
further details on the application of
8-hour ozone anti-backsliding
provisions to basic I/M programs in
1-hour ozone maintenance areas, please
refer to the May 12, 2004, EPA
Memorandum from Tom Helms, Group
Leader, Ozone Policy and Strategies
Group, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, and Leila H. Cook,
Group Leader, State Measures and
Conformity Group, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, to the
Air Program Managers, the subject of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jan 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
which is ‘‘1 Hour Ozone Maintenance
Plans Containing Basic I/M Programs.’’
A copy of this memorandum may be
obtained at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg/t1pgm.html under the file date
‘‘5–12–04.’’
V. Has Indiana met the criteria for
converting the I/M program in Clark
and Floyd Counties to contingency
measures?
Clark and Floyd Counties were
redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS on October 23, 2001 (66
FR 53665). On July 19, 2007 (72 FR
39571), EPA approved the redesignation
of Clark and Floyd Counties to
attainment with respect to the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA approved
maintenance plans with respect to each
of these standards in connection with
these redesignations. The approved
maintenance plans show that control
measures in place in these areas are
sufficient for overall emissions to
remain beneath the attainment level of
emissions until the end of the
maintenance period, even without
operation of I/M. In both plans, the
conformity budget in the maintenance
plans reflects mobile source emissions
without I/M in future years, and the
maintenance plans demonstrate that the
applicable standard will continue to be
met without I/M. In accordance with the
Act and EPA redesignation guidance,
states are free to adjust control strategies
in the maintenance plan as long as they
can satisfy section 110(l). With such a
demonstration of noninterference with
attainment or other applicable
requirements, control programs may be
discontinued and removed from the SIP.
However, section 175A(d) of the CAA
requires that contingency measures in
the maintenance plan include all
measures in the SIP for the area before
that area was redesignated to
attainment. Since the I/M program was
in the SIP prior to redesignation to
attainment for ozone, the I/M program
must be included in the contingency
portion of the ozone maintenance plan
as required by section 175A(d). As part
of its submittal, IDEM provided a
demonstration showing continued
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard without taking credit for
reductions from the Clark and Floyd
Counties I/M program after December
2006.
As discussed above, EPA interprets its
regulations as allowing basic I/M areas
such as these to have the option to move
an I/M program to a contingency
measure pursuant to 40 CFR 51.372(c),
provided that moving I/M to
contingency measures will not interfere
with the area’s ability to comply with
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
any NAAQS or any other applicable
CAA requirement (including section
193). Under 40 CFR 51.372(c), an area
is required to include in its submittal,
with a request to place the I/M program
into the contingency measures: (1) Legal
authority to implement a basic I/M
program; (2) a commitment by the
Governor of the State, or the Governor’s
designee, to adopt or consider adopting
regulations to implement an I/M
program to correct a violation of the
ozone or carbon monoxide standard, in
accordance with the maintenance plan;
and (3) a contingency commitment that
includes an enforceable schedule, with
appropriate milestones, for adoption
and implementation of an I/M program.
In the State’s supplemental submittal
of November 25, 2008, IDEM reaffirms
that Indiana has retained the necessary
legal authority to implement I/M under
Indiana Code 13–17–5. EPA examined
the applicable Indiana statutory
language and the State’s subsequent
legal review and concurs with Indiana’s
finding that it has the necessary legal
authority to implement I/M if it
becomes necessary under the CAA to
implement contingency measures. In
addition, the State’s supplemental
submittal includes a commitment by
IDEM to consider the adoption of I/M as
a corrective measure should an ambient
8-hour ozone design value trigger a
contingency measure in Clark and Floyd
Counties, and the required program is
determined by the State to be an I/M
program. The State’s supplemental
submittal of April 23, 2010, also
contains an I/M implementation
schedule in the event that I/M is
selected by the State as a corrective
measure, as required by 40 CFR
51372(c).
As mentioned above, on July 19, 2007
(72 FR 39571), EPA concluded that
Clark and Floyd Counties met the 0.08
ppm ozone air quality standard and
redesignated this area to attainment for
that standard. The maintenance plan for
this area shows that the area will
continue to attain the standard even
with the discontinuation of I/M.
As noted above, the 1997 8-hour
maintenance plan estimated the levels
of volatile organic compounds (VOC)
and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions
in the area associated with attainment of
the respective ozone standards, and
found that emissions would remain
below those quantities even with the
discontinuation of I/M. Furthermore,
the maintenance plan demonstrates that
current emissions of VOC and NOX,
without the I/M program, are lower than
emissions were in 2005, representing
emissions when I/M was still operating.
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules
EPA has also compared the expected
reductions of VOC and NOX from the
I/M program with the reduction of
emissions that have resulted from the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
and other emission control programs
since the I/M program ceased operation.
EPA concludes that the ongoing
reductions from implementation of
these programs, particularly the Tier II
standards for motor vehicles,5 are
greater than the emissions reductions
that would have been achieved from the
I/M program.
On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436),
EPA revised the ozone standard to 0.075
ppm as an 8-hour average.6 EPA
therefore examined whether
discontinuation of the I/M program in
Clark and Floyd Counties might
interfere with attainment and
maintenance of this standard. The most
direct evidence regarding this issue is
the most recent three years of air quality
data. Since the I/M program in Clark
and Floyd Counties was discontinued in
2006, the most recent three years have
all reflected emissions without
operation of an I/M program in Clark
and Floyd Counties. All ozone
monitoring sites in the Louisville area
are meeting the 0.075 ppm air quality
standard, with the highest design value
at 0.075 ppm, observed at the Watson
Elementary site in Jefferson County,
Kentucky (site 21–111–0051). Ozone air
quality in the 2007 to 2009 period,
representing a period in which the I/M
program was discontinued, attains the
ozone NAAQS and is better than ozone
air quality in the 2004 to 2006,
representing the last three years in
which the program operated.
Furthermore, Indiana’s ozone
maintenance plan for this area shows a
continuing decline in the emissions of
ozone precursors.
On November 19, 2010, Indiana
submitted modeling analyses that
further support the conclusion that the
discontinuation of the I/M program in
Clark and Floyd Counties will not
interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the 0.075 ppm ozone
standard. This submittal reviews
analyses conducted by EPA and by the
Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO), in both cases reflecting no
operation of an I/M program in Clark
and Floyd Counties. These analyses
indicate that the Louisville area can be
expected to continue to attain the 0.075
ppm ozone standard without I/M in
Clark and Floyd Counties. Most notably,
Indiana reviews the modeling
5 See
65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
noted in footnote 3 above, EPA is in the
process of reconsidering this standard.
6 As
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jan 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
conducted by EPA in support of its
proposed transport rule, showing that
the Louisville area can be expected to
continue to attain the 0.075 ppm ozone
standard in 2012 not only with the
discontinuation of the I/M program in
Clark and Floyd Counties but also with
the discontinuation of power plant
emission controls mandated by the
Clean Air Interstate Rule. Thus, these
modeling analyses provide further
evidence that the discontinuation of the
I/M program in Clark and Floyd
Counties will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the
0.075 ozone standard in the Louisville
area.
EPA also examined whether
discontinuation of the I/M program
might interfere with attainment of the
annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
standards. Since Indiana discontinued
its I/M program at the end of 2006, the
PM2.5 air quality from 2007 to 2009 are
indicative of whether the Louisville area
can be expected to attain the annual
PM2.5 standard notwithstanding the
discontinuation of Indiana’s I/M
program. In a separate rulemaking
proceeding, published on September 14,
2010 (75 FR 55725), EPA has proposed
to determine that the Louisville area is
now attaining the annual PM2.5
standards.7 Furthermore, mobile source
emissions affecting PM2.5 concentrations
are continuing to decline, as a result of
the Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program.8
EPA also examined whether cessation
of the I/M program has interfered with
attainment of other air quality
standards. The Louisville area is
designated attainment for the coarse
particulate matter (PM10) standard, for
the 24-hour PM2.5 standards
promulgated on July 18, 1997, and
October 17, 2006, for carbon monoxide,
for sulfur dioxide, and for nitrogen
dioxide. EPA has no reason to believe
that discontinuation of the I/M program
in Clark and Floyd Counties has caused
or will cause the Louisville area to
become nonattainment for any of these
pollutants. In addition, EPA believes
that the discontinuation of the I/M
program in Clark and Floyd Counties
will not interfere with the area’s ability
to meet any other CAA requirement.
7 EPA received no comments on that proposal and
will take final action on that determination before
taking final action on Indiana’s I/M shutdown
request for Clark and Floyd Counties.
8 As noted above, the Tier II standards are further
reducing emissions of new vehicles from the 2004
to the 2009 model years.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2069
VI. What are our conclusions
concerning the removal of the I/M
program in Clark and Floyd Counties?
For the reasons discussed above, EPA
believes that Indiana has satisfied
currently applicable criteria for
discontinuing I/M in Clark and Floyd
Counties. We are proposing to find that
the State of Indiana has demonstrated
that eliminating the I/M program in
Clark and Floyd Counties is consistent
with the requirements of sections 110(l)
and 193 of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, we are proposing to
approve Indiana’s request to modify the
SIP such that I/M is no longer an active
program in these areas and is instead a
contingency measure in this area’s
maintenance plan.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
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 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
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
2070
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
• 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: December 22, 2010.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011–343 Filed 1–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–1028; FRL–9251–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration;
Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority
and Tailoring Rule Revision
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ). This revision pertains to
EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting
provisions as promulgated on June 3,
2010. This action is being taken under
the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before February 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2010–1028 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Jan 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
B. E-mail: cox.kathleen@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–1028,
Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, Office
of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode
3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010–
1028. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The 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 www.regulations.gov, your email 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
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by
e-mail at talley.david@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. On October 27, 2010, the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality
submitted a revision to its SIP for the
addition of a new Chapter 85 of 9VAC5.
I. Background
On October 27, 2010, VADEQ
submitted a draft revision to EPA for
approval into the Virginia SIP to
establish appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new
or modified stationary sources become
subject to Virginia’s Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permitting requirements for GHG
emissions. Final approval of Virginia’s
October 27, 2010, SIP revision will put
in place the GHG emission thresholds
for PSD applicability set forth in EPA’s
‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration
and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring
Rule,’’ (the Tailoring Rule) Final Rule,
75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010), ensuring
that smaller GHG sources emitting less
than these thresholds will not be subject
to permitting requirements when these
requirements begin applying to GHGs
on January 2, 2011. Pursuant to section
110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to
approve this revision into the Virginia
SIP.
Today’s proposed action on the
Virginia SIP generally relates to three
federal rulemaking actions. The first
rulemaking is EPA’s Tailoring Rule. The
second rulemaking is EPA’s ‘‘Action to
Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under
the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,’’
Proposed Rule (GHG SIP Call). 75 FR
53892 (September 2, 2010). The third
rulemaking is EPA’s ‘‘Action to Ensure
Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Federal Implementation
Plan,’’ Proposed Rule, 75 FR 53883
(September 2, 2010) (GHG FIP), which
serves as a companion rulemaking to
EPA’s proposed GHG SIP Call. A
summary of each of these rulemakings
is described below.
In the first rulemaking, the Tailoring
Rule, EPA established appropriate GHG
E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM
12JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2066-2070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-343]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0729; FRL-9250-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Removal of Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs for Clark and
Floyd Counties
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Indiana to allow the State to
discontinue the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in
Clark and Floyd Counties, IN, the Indiana portion of the Louisville
(IN-KY) 1997 8-hour ozone area. The revision specifically requests that
I/M program regulations be removed from the active control measures
portion of the SIP. The regulations will remain in the contingency
measures portion of the Clark and Floyd Counties ozone maintenance
plans. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)
submitted this request on October 10, 2006, and supplemented it on
November 15, 2006, November 29, 2007, November 25, 2008, April 23,
2010, and November 19, 2010. EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's
request because the State has demonstrated that discontinuing the I/M
program in Clark and Floyd Counties will not interfere with the
attainment and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) or with the attainment and maintenance of
other air quality standards and requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2009-0729, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 408-2279.
4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Control Strategies Section, (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, (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-
2009-0729. 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 website
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. 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 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 Francisco J. Acevedo at (312)
886-6061 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052.
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 should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
A. Submitting CBI
B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
[[Page 2067]]
II. What are EPA's proposed actions
III. What changes to the Indiana SIP have been submitted to support
the removal of the I/M program in Clark and Floyd Counties?
IV. What criteria apply to Indiana's request?
V. Has Indiana met the criteria for converting the I/M program in
Clark and Floyd Counties to contingency measures?
VI. What are our conclusions concerning the removal of the I/M
program in Clark and Floyd Counties?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
A. Submitting CBI
Do not submit this information to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
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--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 are EPA's proposed actions?
EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State
of Indiana to modify the ozone SIP such that the I/M program in Clark
and Floyd Counties (the Indiana portion of the Louisville (IN-KY) 1997
8-hour ozone area) is no longer an active program in this area and
remains instead as a contingency measure in this area's maintenance
plan for 1997 8-hour ozone.
III. What changes to the Indiana SIP have been submitted to support the
removal of the I/M program in Clark and Floyd Counties?
Indiana House Enrolled Act No. 1798, effective on July 1, 2003,
amended Indiana code 13-17-5 to eliminate the applicability of the
vehicle emissions testing rule to Clark and Floyd Counties after
December 31, 2006, at which time the program ceased operations. IDEM
submitted a revision to the Indiana SIP for Clark and Floyd Counties
(the Indiana portion of the Louisville (IN-KY) 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area) on October 10, 2006, requesting that the Indiana I/
M program in Clark and Floyd Counties be moved from the active control
measures portion of the SIP to the contingency measures portion of the
Clark and Floyd Counties 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
Clark and Floyd Counties were originally required to implement
``basic'' I/M programs under section 182(b)(4) of the CAA because they
had been designated as part of the Louisville moderate 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area. In order to maximize the emissions reductions from
the I/M program, IDEM chose to implement an ``enhanced'' program in
those areas and incorporated an on-board diagnostic (OBD) component
into the program. EPA fully approved Indiana's I/M program on March 19,
1996 (61 FR 11142). The enhanced I/M program component began operation
in 1997, to help meet nonattainment area requirements for the ozone
NAAQS effective at the time.\1\ The Louisville 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area was redesignated to attainment for that standard on
October 23, 2001 (66 FR 53665).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although the enhanced I/M program component began in 1997,
there was a vehicle I/M program operating in the Clark and Floyd
Counties prior to that date, and prior to November 15, 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, Clark and Floyd Counties were designated as a portion
of the IN-KY Louisville nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
On November 15, 2006, IDEM submitted a request to redesignate the
Indiana portion of the Louisville nonattainment area to attainment for
the 8-hour NAAQS, and for EPA approval of a 14-year maintenance plan
for Clark and Floyd Counties. At the same time, IDEM requested EPA
approval to terminate the I/M program in these counties. EPA approved
the redesignation and maintenance plan for Clark and Floyd Counties on
July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39571). The approved maintenance plan demonstrated
that the area could maintain the standard without the need for emission
reductions from I/M. See 72 FR 26057, 26064-26065 (May 8, 2007).
The Louisville 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area also includes
Jefferson County, Kentucky. EPA approved the discontinuation of the I/M
program in Jefferson County on May 18, 2005, at 70 FR 28429.
IV. What criteria apply to Indiana's request?
Areas designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS and classified
``moderate'' are required by the CAA to implement vehicle I/M. See CAA
section 182(b)(4).\2\ The Louisville area was previously designated
moderate nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, prompting the
requirement for I/M. However, as noted above, the Louisville area was
redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour standard, and the 1-hour
standard has been revoked. While Clark and Floyd Counties were
designated nonattainment for the 0.08 ppm 8-hour ozone standard, they
were not classified for that standard.\3\ Thus, these areas are not
currently required to have I/M programs under the CAA and the State may
move them to the contingency measures portion of the SIP,\4\ provided
the State can satisfy the anti-backsliding requirements of the CAA
(sections 110(l) and 193) and of EPA's ozone implementation rule, 40
[[Page 2068]]
CFR 51.905. As previously noted, EPA in approving the area's
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard concluded that it
demonstrated maintenance without reliance on any emissions reductions
from the I/M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Certain areas classified ``marginal'' are also required to
implement I/M. See CAA section 182(a)(2)(B).
\3\ Clark and Floyd Counties were classified ``basic'' (i.e.,
subject to subpart 1) for the 0.08 parts per million (ppm) 8-hour
ozone standard but that classification was vacated by a decision of
the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. See South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.
2006). EPA is in the process of responding to that decision through
rulemaking. EPA promulgated a 0.075 ppm 8-hour ozone standard but
subsequently announced that it was reconsidering that standard and
in January 2010 proposed to change it. EPA has not designated areas
for the 0.075 ppm 8-hour ozone standard that is being reconsidered.
\4\ As discussed below, the measures must be retained as
contingency measures because CAA section 175A(d) requires that the
contingency measures portion of the SIP include a requirement that
the State will implement all measures that were contained in the SIP
before the area was redesignated to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 110(l) provides:
The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section
171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.
In addition, EPA adopted anti-backsliding requirements as part of
the implementation rule for the 0.08 ppm 8-hour ozone standard. See 40
CFR 51.905. For areas such as these that were required under the CAA to
implement basic I/M, EPA applies the provisions of the implementation
rule in concert with the provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c).
The provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c) allow certain areas seeking
redesignation to submit only the authority for an I/M program (together
with certain commitments), rather than an implemented program, in
satisfaction of the applicable I/M requirements. Under these I/M rule
provisions, a basic I/M area (i.e., an area that was required to adopt
a basic I/M program) which has been redesignated to attainment for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS can convert the I/M program to a contingency measure
as part of the area's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan, notwithstanding
the anti-backsliding provisions in EPA's 8-hour ozone implementation
rule published April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858). A basic I/M area which is
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, yet is not
required to have an I/M program based on its 8-hour ozone
classification, continues to have the option to move its I/M program to
a contingency measure pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c),
provided the 8-hour ozone nonattainment area can demonstrate that doing
so will not interfere with its ability to comply with any NAAQS or any
other applicable CAA requirement pursuant to section 110(l) of the Act.
For further details on the application of 8-hour ozone anti-backsliding
provisions to basic I/M programs in 1-hour ozone maintenance areas,
please refer to the May 12, 2004, EPA Memorandum from Tom Helms, Group
Leader, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, and Leila H. Cook, Group Leader, State Measures
and Conformity Group, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to the
Air Program Managers, the subject of which is ``1 Hour Ozone
Maintenance Plans Containing Basic I/M Programs.'' A copy of this
memorandum may be obtained at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html
under the file date ``5-12-04.''
V. Has Indiana met the criteria for converting the I/M program in Clark
and Floyd Counties to contingency measures?
Clark and Floyd Counties were redesignated to attainment of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS on October 23, 2001 (66 FR 53665). On July 19, 2007
(72 FR 39571), EPA approved the redesignation of Clark and Floyd
Counties to attainment with respect to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
approved maintenance plans with respect to each of these standards in
connection with these redesignations. The approved maintenance plans
show that control measures in place in these areas are sufficient for
overall emissions to remain beneath the attainment level of emissions
until the end of the maintenance period, even without operation of I/M.
In both plans, the conformity budget in the maintenance plans reflects
mobile source emissions without I/M in future years, and the
maintenance plans demonstrate that the applicable standard will
continue to be met without I/M. In accordance with the Act and EPA
redesignation guidance, states are free to adjust control strategies in
the maintenance plan as long as they can satisfy section 110(l). With
such a demonstration of noninterference with attainment or other
applicable requirements, control programs may be discontinued and
removed from the SIP. However, section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that
contingency measures in the maintenance plan include all measures in
the SIP for the area before that area was redesignated to attainment.
Since the I/M program was in the SIP prior to redesignation to
attainment for ozone, the I/M program must be included in the
contingency portion of the ozone maintenance plan as required by
section 175A(d). As part of its submittal, IDEM provided a
demonstration showing continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard without taking credit for reductions from the Clark and Floyd
Counties I/M program after December 2006.
As discussed above, EPA interprets its regulations as allowing
basic I/M areas such as these to have the option to move an I/M program
to a contingency measure pursuant to 40 CFR 51.372(c), provided that
moving I/M to contingency measures will not interfere with the area's
ability to comply with any NAAQS or any other applicable CAA
requirement (including section 193). Under 40 CFR 51.372(c), an area is
required to include in its submittal, with a request to place the I/M
program into the contingency measures: (1) Legal authority to implement
a basic I/M program; (2) a commitment by the Governor of the State, or
the Governor's designee, to adopt or consider adopting regulations to
implement an I/M program to correct a violation of the ozone or carbon
monoxide standard, in accordance with the maintenance plan; and (3) a
contingency commitment that includes an enforceable schedule, with
appropriate milestones, for adoption and implementation of an I/M
program.
In the State's supplemental submittal of November 25, 2008, IDEM
reaffirms that Indiana has retained the necessary legal authority to
implement I/M under Indiana Code 13-17-5. EPA examined the applicable
Indiana statutory language and the State's subsequent legal review and
concurs with Indiana's finding that it has the necessary legal
authority to implement I/M if it becomes necessary under the CAA to
implement contingency measures. In addition, the State's supplemental
submittal includes a commitment by IDEM to consider the adoption of I/M
as a corrective measure should an ambient 8-hour ozone design value
trigger a contingency measure in Clark and Floyd Counties, and the
required program is determined by the State to be an I/M program. The
State's supplemental submittal of April 23, 2010, also contains an I/M
implementation schedule in the event that I/M is selected by the State
as a corrective measure, as required by 40 CFR 51372(c).
As mentioned above, on July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39571), EPA concluded
that Clark and Floyd Counties met the 0.08 ppm ozone air quality
standard and redesignated this area to attainment for that standard.
The maintenance plan for this area shows that the area will continue to
attain the standard even with the discontinuation of I/M.
As noted above, the 1997 8-hour maintenance plan estimated the
levels of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) emissions in the area associated with attainment of
the respective ozone standards, and found that emissions would remain
below those quantities even with the discontinuation of I/M.
Furthermore, the maintenance plan demonstrates that current emissions
of VOC and NOX, without the I/M program, are lower than
emissions were in 2005, representing emissions when I/M was still
operating.
[[Page 2069]]
EPA has also compared the expected reductions of VOC and
NOX from the I/M program with the reduction of emissions
that have resulted from the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program and
other emission control programs since the I/M program ceased operation.
EPA concludes that the ongoing reductions from implementation of these
programs, particularly the Tier II standards for motor vehicles,\5\ are
greater than the emissions reductions that would have been achieved
from the I/M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA revised the ozone standard to
0.075 ppm as an 8-hour average.\6\ EPA therefore examined whether
discontinuation of the I/M program in Clark and Floyd Counties might
interfere with attainment and maintenance of this standard. The most
direct evidence regarding this issue is the most recent three years of
air quality data. Since the I/M program in Clark and Floyd Counties was
discontinued in 2006, the most recent three years have all reflected
emissions without operation of an I/M program in Clark and Floyd
Counties. All ozone monitoring sites in the Louisville area are meeting
the 0.075 ppm air quality standard, with the highest design value at
0.075 ppm, observed at the Watson Elementary site in Jefferson County,
Kentucky (site 21-111-0051). Ozone air quality in the 2007 to 2009
period, representing a period in which the I/M program was
discontinued, attains the ozone NAAQS and is better than ozone air
quality in the 2004 to 2006, representing the last three years in which
the program operated. Furthermore, Indiana's ozone maintenance plan for
this area shows a continuing decline in the emissions of ozone
precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As noted in footnote 3 above, EPA is in the process of
reconsidering this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 19, 2010, Indiana submitted modeling analyses that
further support the conclusion that the discontinuation of the I/M
program in Clark and Floyd Counties will not interfere with attainment
and maintenance of the 0.075 ppm ozone standard. This submittal reviews
analyses conducted by EPA and by the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO), in both cases reflecting no operation of an I/M
program in Clark and Floyd Counties. These analyses indicate that the
Louisville area can be expected to continue to attain the 0.075 ppm
ozone standard without I/M in Clark and Floyd Counties. Most notably,
Indiana reviews the modeling conducted by EPA in support of its
proposed transport rule, showing that the Louisville area can be
expected to continue to attain the 0.075 ppm ozone standard in 2012 not
only with the discontinuation of the I/M program in Clark and Floyd
Counties but also with the discontinuation of power plant emission
controls mandated by the Clean Air Interstate Rule. Thus, these
modeling analyses provide further evidence that the discontinuation of
the I/M program in Clark and Floyd Counties will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the 0.075 ozone standard in the
Louisville area.
EPA also examined whether discontinuation of the I/M program might
interfere with attainment of the annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) standards. Since Indiana discontinued its I/M
program at the end of 2006, the PM2.5 air quality from 2007
to 2009 are indicative of whether the Louisville area can be expected
to attain the annual PM2.5 standard notwithstanding the
discontinuation of Indiana's I/M program. In a separate rulemaking
proceeding, published on September 14, 2010 (75 FR 55725), EPA has
proposed to determine that the Louisville area is now attaining the
annual PM2.5 standards.\7\ Furthermore, mobile source
emissions affecting PM2.5 concentrations are continuing to
decline, as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ EPA received no comments on that proposal and will take
final action on that determination before taking final action on
Indiana's I/M shutdown request for Clark and Floyd Counties.
\8\ As noted above, the Tier II standards are further reducing
emissions of new vehicles from the 2004 to the 2009 model years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also examined whether cessation of the I/M program has
interfered with attainment of other air quality standards. The
Louisville area is designated attainment for the coarse particulate
matter (PM10) standard, for the 24-hour PM2.5
standards promulgated on July 18, 1997, and October 17, 2006, for
carbon monoxide, for sulfur dioxide, and for nitrogen dioxide. EPA has
no reason to believe that discontinuation of the I/M program in Clark
and Floyd Counties has caused or will cause the Louisville area to
become nonattainment for any of these pollutants. In addition, EPA
believes that the discontinuation of the I/M program in Clark and Floyd
Counties will not interfere with the area's ability to meet any other
CAA requirement.
VI. What are our conclusions concerning the removal of the I/M program
in Clark and Floyd Counties?
For the reasons discussed above, EPA believes that Indiana has
satisfied currently applicable criteria for discontinuing I/M in Clark
and Floyd Counties. We are proposing to find that the State of Indiana
has demonstrated that eliminating the I/M program in Clark and Floyd
Counties is consistent with the requirements of sections 110(l) and 193
of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, we are proposing to approve
Indiana's request to modify the SIP such that I/M is no longer an
active program in these areas and is instead a contingency measure in
this area's maintenance plan.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 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
[[Page 2070]]
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
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: December 22, 2010.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011-343 Filed 1-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
