Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Removal of Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs for Clark and Floyd Counties, 23879-23882 [2011-10323]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
2001) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA), Public Law 104–113 (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. This
action does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing these
amendments 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
amendments 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). This
direct final rule will be effective on July
28, 2011.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49
Environmental protection, Air
pollution, Indians—lands, Indians—
tribal government.
Dated: April 22, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, Title 40, Chapter I, Part 49 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA has determined this direct
final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. These amendments
simply rename the title and move
subparts to fit more appropriately in
later subparts. There are no substantive
changes to the regulation.
PART 49—[AMENDED]
K. Congressional Review Act
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
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana;
Removal of Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Programs for Clark and
Floyd Counties
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
1. The authority citation for Part 49
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
PART 49—INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR
QUALITY PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT
2. Revise the part heading for part 49
as set forth above. §§ 49.22–49.24
[Redesignated]
■ 3. Redesignate § 49.22 in subpart A as
§ 49.5511 in subpart L.
■ 4. Redesignate § 49.23 in subpart A as
§ 49.5512 in subpart L.
■ 5. Redesignate § 49.24 in subpart A as
§ 49.5513 in subpart L.
■ 6. Add and reserve new §§ 49.22–
49.24 in subpart A.
■
[FR Doc. 2011–10321 Filed 4–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0729; FRL–9299–7]
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
23879
EPA is taking final action 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 provides
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. EPA is approving
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: This final rule is effective on
May 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0729. 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., Confidential Business Information
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 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that
you telephone 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:
SUMMARY:
I. What is the background for this action?
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
23880
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
II. What is our response to comments
received on the notice of proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this
action?
Clark and Floyd Counties were
originally required to implement a
‘‘basic’’ I/M program 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 began operation
in 1997, to help meet nonattainment
area requirements for the ozone NAAQS
effective at the time. 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
area 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
shows that control measures in place in
this area 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 addition,
the conformity budget in the
maintenance plan reflects mobile source
emissions without I/M in future years,
and the maintenance plan demonstrates
that the applicable standard will
continue to be met without I/M. See 72
FR 26057, 26064–26065 (May 8, 2007).
In accordance with the CAA and EPA
redesignation guidance, states are free to
adjust control strategies in the
maintenance plan as long as they can
demonstrate that the revision will not
interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, or any
other CAA requirements. See CAA
sections 175A and 110(l). With such a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
approved into 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).
The SIP revision submitted by IDEM
for Clark and Floyd Counties included
a 110(l) demonstration that addressed
all applicable requirements and a
request 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.
On January 12, 2011, EPA proposed to
approve Indiana’s request to
discontinue operation of the I/M
program in Clark and Floyd Counties
(76 FR 2066). As noted in the proposal,
in order to finalize this rulemaking EPA
needed to complete rulemaking on a
determination of attainment for PM2.5
for the Louisville area. EPA has
subsequently published a final action
determining that this area is attaining
the PM2.5 NAAQS, published on March
9, 2011, at 76 FR 12860.
II. What is our response to comments
received on the notice of proposed
rulemaking?
The public comment period for EPA’s
proposal to approve Indiana’s request
closed on February 11, 2011. EPA
received two comments. Those
comments and EPA’s responses follow:
Comment: ‘‘The notice of the
proposed rule does not state that EPA
conducted a modeling analysis to
demonstrate that removal of the I/M
program will not interfere with
maintenance or attainment of the new 1hour NOX [sic] NAAQS. It likely will.
Therefore, EPA cannot approve this SIP
modification without a quantitative
analysis of its impacts on the 1-hour
NOX [sic] NAAQS.’’
Response: In its notice of proposed
rulemaking, EPA noted that the area is
designated attainment for nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) (addressing air quality for
the annual standard) and that 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 NO2 or other criteria
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
pollutants. The commenter offered no
data or supporting information on
whether discontinuation of the I/M
program would likely interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS. In response to this
comment, EPA further examined air
quality data as part of an assessment of
whether the discontinuation of the I/M
program has interfered or might
interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the 1-hour NO2 air
quality.
No NO2 air quality monitors are
currently located in Clark or Floyd
Counties in Indiana. However, as noted
above, Clark and Floyd Counties were
included in the IN-KY Louisville
nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, and air quality data are
collected nearby in Louisville, Kentucky
(at site number 21–111–1021). Since
Louisville is more urbanized and is also
a higher traffic area than Clark and
Floyd Counties, these air quality data
provide a conservative representation of
air quality in Clark and Floyd Counties
for NO2. Furthermore, the impact of
mobile sources is declining as newer
cleaner vehicles replace older dirtier
vehicles. Accordingly, the impact of
discontinuing the I/M program in Clark
and Floyd Counties is expected to
decline in the future as well. For the
most recent 3-year period with certified,
quality assured data (2007 to 2009), the
design value (i.e., the NO2 concentration
computed for comparison to the 1-hour
standard) for this site was 53 parts per
billion, well below the standard of 100
parts per billion.
These three years are a period when
the I/M program both in Louisville and
in Clark and Floyd Counties had been
discontinued. Therefore, the air quality
data from this period (and mobile
source emission trends) provide a basis
for concluding that the discontinuation
of the I/M program has not interfered
and will not interfere with attainment
and maintenance of the 1-hour NO2
standard. While the commenter did not
address the annual average NO2
standard, the annual average design
value for the Louisville site is 14 parts
per billion, well below the 53 parts per
billion standard; thus EPA also finds
that the discontinuation of the I/M
program has not interfered and will not
interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the annual average NO2
standard.
Comment: ‘‘From my point of view,
these plans are good in different
perspectives because the good is that it
could help the state to cut down the
budget for the two counties in I/M
program as it doesn’t involve equipment
and technologies to maintain it while
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
the bad thing is that the emission could
destroy the ozone layer and harm
people’s health which is worse because
people get sick and people that own the
cars neglect to have their cars inspected
as they don’t have people to warn and
check them so it has both pros and cons.
Even though, they keep the program
as an emergency plan but for the best
interest of the people or to prevent
global warming, the state or EPA should
study thoroughly about the advantages
and disadvantages of the plans in order
to prevent bad things from happening in
the future. Although, it could help to
save money but it could not save
human’s life when something bad
happens. So for the best interest, it
would be better not to remove the
program but keep it to check once in a
while or issue the people in those two
counties a letter to have their cars
inspected regularly according to state’s
law in order to make them alert and be
aware of their vehicle’s problem.’’
Response: EPA recognizes that there
would be advantages as well as
disadvantages to continuing to operate
the I/M program in Clark and Floyd
Counties. However, at issue in this
rulemaking is whether discontinuation
would be consistent with CAA
provisions, including whether
discontinuation might interfere with
attainment and maintenance of air
quality standards and whether other
criteria for discontinuation of programs
have been met. EPA notes that the
NAAQS are required by the CAA to be
set to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety, and that EPA
is finding that approval of this revision
will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA
believes that the applicable criteria for
discontinuation of the I/M program in
Clark and Floyd Counties have been met
and therefore the revision should be
approved.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is taking final action to approve
Indiana’s demonstration that
eliminating the I/M program in Clark
and Floyd Counties will not interfere
with the attainment and maintenance of
the ozone NAAQS or with the
attainment and maintenance of other air
quality standards and requirements of
the CAA. We are further approving
Indiana’s request to modify the SIP such
that I/M is no longer an active program
in Clark and Floyd Counties and is
instead a contingency measure in the
area’s maintenance plan.
For the reasons stated in the proposed
notice, EPA believes that Indiana has
satisfied the requirements for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
discontinuing I/M in Clark and Floyd
Counties.
IV. 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
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
23881
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 CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by June 28, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: April 20, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
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. Section 52.777 is amended by
adding paragraph (rr) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.777 Control strategy: Photochemical
oxidants (hydrocarbons).
*
*
*
*
*
(rr) Approval—EPA is approving a
request submitted by the State of
Indiana on October 10, 2006, and
supplemented on November 15, 2006,
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
23882
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 83 / Friday, April 29, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
November 29, 2007, November 25, 2008,
April 23, 2010 and November 19, 2010,
to discontinue the vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M) program in Clark
and Floyd Counties. The submittal also
includes Indiana’s demonstration that
eliminating the I/M programs in Clark
and Floyd Counties will not interfere
with the attainment and maintenance of
the ozone NAAQS and the fine
particulate NAAQS and with the
attainment and maintenance of other air
quality standards and requirements of
the CAA. We are further approving
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.
[FR Doc. 2011–10323 Filed 4–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0308; FRL–8869–1]
Metiram; Pesticide Tolerances
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes
tolerances for residues of metiram in or
on bananas and wine grapes. BASF
Corporation requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
DATES: This regulation is effective April
29, 2011. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
June 28, 2011, and must be filed in
accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2005–0308. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., 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 in the electronic docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Apr 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is (703) 305–
5805.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Ertman, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 308–9367; e-mail address:
ertman.andrew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially
affected entities may include, but are
not limited to those engaged in the
following activities:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
This listing is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American
Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to
assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to
certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA’s tolerance
regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through
the Government Printing Office’s e-CFR
site at https://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/
text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl.
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2005–0308 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before June 28, 2011. Addresses for mail
and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR
178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing that does not
contain any CBI for inclusion in the
public docket. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0308, by one of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
Facility’s normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
II. Summary of Petitioned-For
Tolerance
In the Federal Register issue of
November 30, 2005 (70 FR 71829) (FRL–
7747–2), EPA issued a notice pursuant
to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a
pesticide petition (PP 9E6006) by BASF
Corporation, 26 Davis Dr., Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition
requested that 40 CFR part 180 be
amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the fungicide metiram: A
mixture of 5.2 parts by weight of
ammoniates of
ethylenebis(dithiocarbamato) zinc with
1 part by weight
ethylenebis(dithiocarbamic acid)
bimolecular and trimolecular cyclic
anhydrosulfides and disulfides,
calculated as zinc
ethylenebisdithiocarbamate in or on
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23879-23882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10323]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0729; FRL-9299-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Removal of Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs for
Clark and Floyd Counties
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action 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
provides 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. EPA is approving 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: This final rule is effective on May 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0729. 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., Confidential Business
Information 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 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone 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 is the background for this action?
[[Page 23880]]
II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of
proposed rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this action?
Clark and Floyd Counties were originally required to implement a
``basic'' I/M program 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 began operation in 1997,
to help meet nonattainment area requirements for the ozone NAAQS
effective at the time. 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 area 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 shows that
control measures in place in this area 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
addition, the conformity budget in the maintenance plan reflects mobile
source emissions without I/M in future years, and the maintenance plan
demonstrates that the applicable standard will continue to be met
without I/M. See 72 FR 26057, 26064-26065 (May 8, 2007).
In accordance with the CAA and EPA redesignation guidance, states
are free to adjust control strategies in the maintenance plan as long
as they can demonstrate that the revision will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, or any other CAA requirements.
See CAA sections 175A and 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
approved into 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).
The SIP revision submitted by IDEM for Clark and Floyd Counties
included a 110(l) demonstration that addressed all applicable
requirements and a request 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.
On January 12, 2011, EPA proposed to approve Indiana's request to
discontinue operation of the I/M program in Clark and Floyd Counties
(76 FR 2066). As noted in the proposal, in order to finalize this
rulemaking EPA needed to complete rulemaking on a determination of
attainment for PM2.5 for the Louisville area. EPA has
subsequently published a final action determining that this area is
attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, published on March 9, 2011, at 76
FR 12860.
II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of proposed
rulemaking?
The public comment period for EPA's proposal to approve Indiana's
request closed on February 11, 2011. EPA received two comments. Those
comments and EPA's responses follow:
Comment: ``The notice of the proposed rule does not state that EPA
conducted a modeling analysis to demonstrate that removal of the I/M
program will not interfere with maintenance or attainment of the new 1-
hour NOX [sic] NAAQS. It likely will. Therefore, EPA cannot
approve this SIP modification without a quantitative analysis of its
impacts on the 1-hour NOX [sic] NAAQS.''
Response: In its notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA noted that the
area is designated attainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
(addressing air quality for the annual standard) and that 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 NO2 or other criteria pollutants. The
commenter offered no data or supporting information on whether
discontinuation of the I/M program would likely interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. In
response to this comment, EPA further examined air quality data as part
of an assessment of whether the discontinuation of the I/M program has
interfered or might interfere with attainment or maintenance of the 1-
hour NO2 air quality.
No NO2 air quality monitors are currently located in
Clark or Floyd Counties in Indiana. However, as noted above, Clark and
Floyd Counties were included in the IN-KY Louisville nonattainment area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and air quality data are collected
nearby in Louisville, Kentucky (at site number 21-111-1021). Since
Louisville is more urbanized and is also a higher traffic area than
Clark and Floyd Counties, these air quality data provide a conservative
representation of air quality in Clark and Floyd Counties for
NO2. Furthermore, the impact of mobile sources is declining
as newer cleaner vehicles replace older dirtier vehicles. Accordingly,
the impact of discontinuing the I/M program in Clark and Floyd Counties
is expected to decline in the future as well. For the most recent 3-
year period with certified, quality assured data (2007 to 2009), the
design value (i.e., the NO2 concentration computed for
comparison to the 1-hour standard) for this site was 53 parts per
billion, well below the standard of 100 parts per billion.
These three years are a period when the I/M program both in
Louisville and in Clark and Floyd Counties had been discontinued.
Therefore, the air quality data from this period (and mobile source
emission trends) provide a basis for concluding that the
discontinuation of the I/M program has not interfered and will not
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour NO2
standard. While the commenter did not address the annual average
NO2 standard, the annual average design value for the
Louisville site is 14 parts per billion, well below the 53 parts per
billion standard; thus EPA also finds that the discontinuation of the
I/M program has not interfered and will not interfere with attainment
and maintenance of the annual average NO2 standard.
Comment: ``From my point of view, these plans are good in different
perspectives because the good is that it could help the state to cut
down the budget for the two counties in I/M program as it doesn't
involve equipment and technologies to maintain it while
[[Page 23881]]
the bad thing is that the emission could destroy the ozone layer and
harm people's health which is worse because people get sick and people
that own the cars neglect to have their cars inspected as they don't
have people to warn and check them so it has both pros and cons.
Even though, they keep the program as an emergency plan but for the
best interest of the people or to prevent global warming, the state or
EPA should study thoroughly about the advantages and disadvantages of
the plans in order to prevent bad things from happening in the future.
Although, it could help to save money but it could not save human's
life when something bad happens. So for the best interest, it would be
better not to remove the program but keep it to check once in a while
or issue the people in those two counties a letter to have their cars
inspected regularly according to state's law in order to make them
alert and be aware of their vehicle's problem.''
Response: EPA recognizes that there would be advantages as well as
disadvantages to continuing to operate the I/M program in Clark and
Floyd Counties. However, at issue in this rulemaking is whether
discontinuation would be consistent with CAA provisions, including
whether discontinuation might interfere with attainment and maintenance
of air quality standards and whether other criteria for discontinuation
of programs have been met. EPA notes that the NAAQS are required by the
CAA to be set to protect public health with an adequate margin of
safety, and that EPA is finding that approval of this revision will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA believes
that the applicable criteria for discontinuation of the I/M program in
Clark and Floyd Counties have been met and therefore the revision
should be approved.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is taking final action to approve Indiana's demonstration that
eliminating the I/M program in Clark and Floyd Counties will not
interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS or
with the attainment and maintenance of other air quality standards and
requirements of the CAA. We are further approving Indiana's request to
modify the SIP such that I/M is no longer an active program in Clark
and Floyd Counties and is instead a contingency measure in the area's
maintenance plan.
For the reasons stated in the proposed notice, EPA believes that
Indiana has satisfied the requirements for discontinuing I/M in Clark
and Floyd Counties.
IV. 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 Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 28, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: April 20, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
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. Section 52.777 is amended by adding paragraph (rr) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.777 Control strategy: Photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons).
* * * * *
(rr) Approval--EPA is approving a request submitted by the State of
Indiana on October 10, 2006, and supplemented on November 15, 2006,
[[Page 23882]]
November 29, 2007, November 25, 2008, April 23, 2010 and November 19,
2010, to discontinue the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program in Clark and Floyd Counties. The submittal also includes
Indiana's demonstration that eliminating the I/M programs in Clark and
Floyd Counties will not interfere with the attainment and maintenance
of the ozone NAAQS and the fine particulate NAAQS and with the
attainment and maintenance of other air quality standards and
requirements of the CAA. We are further approving 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.
[FR Doc. 2011-10323 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
