Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for Illinois, 68378-68384 [2013-27276]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
68378
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Commonwealth of Virginia that serves
to remove from the SIP Virginia’s
repealed regulation for the National Low
Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program.
Virginia repealed its regulation in
December 2011, because the Virginia
NLEV program regulation had by then
expired and was superseded by more
stringent federal Tier 2 passenger car
and light-duty truck standards, which
were promulgated by EPA on February
10, 2000. More stringent federal Tier 2
vehicle emission standards were
implemented, on a phased-in basis,
between model years 2004 and 2006,
taking the place of the NLEV program.
In the Final Rules section of this
Federal Register, EPA is approving the
Commonwealth’s SIP submittal as a
direct final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and
anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in
response to this action, no further
activity is contemplated. If EPA receives
adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received in
writing by December 16, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2013–0407 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0407,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Program Planning,
Mailcode 3AP30, 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–2013–
0407. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
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 email. 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 email
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,
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:
Brian Rehn, (215) 814–2176, or by email
at rehn.brian@epa.gov.
For
further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final
action, also titled ‘‘Removal of the
Regulation for the National Low
Emission Vehicle Program,’’ which is
located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
section of this Federal Register
publication.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: September 30, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013–27028 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0046; FRL–9902–
91-Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois;
Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program for Illinois
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a state implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) on November 29, 2012,
concerning the state’s vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M) program in the
Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment areas in Illinois. The
revision amends I/M program
requirements in the active control
measures portion of the ozone SIP to
reflect changes that have been
implemented at the state level since
EPA fully approved the I/M program on
February 22, 1999. The submittal also
includes a demonstration under section
110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
addressing lost emission reductions
associated with the program changes.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 16, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2013–0046, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312)692–2450.
4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley,
Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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–2013–
0046. 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 email. 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 email
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. 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 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
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, Mobile Source
Program Manager, at (312)886–6061
before visiting the Region 5 office.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source
Program Manager, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)886–6061,
acevedo.francisco@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
II. Background
III. What changes have been made to the
Illinois I/M program?
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s
submittal?
a. Substantive I/M Requirements
b. Performance Evaluation
c. Demonstrating Noninterference With
Attainment and Maintenance Under
CAA Section 110(l)
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
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.
II. Background
The general purpose of motor vehicle
I/M programs is to reduce emissions
from in-use motor vehicles in need of
repairs and thereby contribute to state
and local efforts to improve air quality
and to attain the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS).
Illinois has operated an enhanced I/M
program in both the Chicago and Metro-
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
68379
East St. Louis ozone nonattainment
areas since February 1999. The program
is presently operating in Cook, DuPage
and Lake Counties and portions of
McHenry, Kane, Will and Kendall
Counties in the Chicago ozone
nonattainment area and in portions of
Madison, St. Clair and Monroe Counties
in the Metro-East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment area. The program was
authorized by the Illinois Vehicle
Emissions Inspection Law (VEIL) of
1995 (625 ILCS 5/13B). EPA fully
approved Illinois’s enhanced I/M
program into the SIP on February 22,
1999, (64 FR 8517) including the
program’s legal authority and
administrative program standards and
procedures found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code
240 and 276. Initially, all vehicles were
inspected by measuring tailpipe
emission levels. As of February 1, 2007,
the program dropped tailpipe testing
entirely and inspected all vehicles by
scanning the on-board diagnostics
(OBD) systems. This change was the
result of statutory changes outlined in
the VEIL of 2005, as amended, 625 ILCS
5/13C.
III. What changes have been made to
the Illinois I/M program?
The Illinois I/M SIP revision
submitted on November 29, 2012,
reflects several changes to the approved
program. The most significant changes
to the Illinois I/M program took effect
beginning on February 2007 and
include:
• The elimination of the IM240
transient mode exhaust test for all
vehicles beginning February 1, 2007.
• The elimination of the evaporative
system integrity (gas cap pressure) test
for all OBD compliant vehicles
beginning February 1, 2007.
• The replacement of the computermatching enforcement mechanism with
a registration denial based system
beginning January 1, 2008.
• The elimination of the steady-state
idle exhaust and evaporative integrity
(gas cap pressure) testing for all vehicles
beginning February 1, 2012.
• The exemption of pre-2007 model
year (MY) heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs)
with gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) between 8,501 and 14,000
pounds beginning February 1, 2012.
• The exemption of all HDVs with a
GVWR greater than 14,000 pounds as of
February 1, 2012.
• The requirement of OBD pass/fail
testing for all 2007 and newer OBDcompliant HDVs.
In addition to the changes discussed
above, the November 29, 2012,
submittal included a number of minor
revisions to the program that do not
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
68380
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules
have a significant impact on overall
program operations or the emissions
reductions associated with it. A full list
of the regulatory changes submitted by
Illinois for EPA approval includes:
• VEIL of 2005, as amended, 625 ILCS
5/13C (Public Act 94–526 enacted on
August 10, 2005; Public Act 94–848
enacted on June 9, 2006; Public Act 97–
106, enacted on July 14, 2011).
• Revisions to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 240
(R11–19 effective March 18, 2011 (35 Ill.
Reg. 5552 (April 1, 2011)); R12–12
effective February 1, 2012 (36 Ill. Reg.
1066 (January 27, 2012)).
• Revisions to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 276
effective June 28, 2011 (35 Ill. Reg.
11268) and January 30, 2012 (36 Ill. Reg.
2257).
To support the changes outlined
above, the revision also included a
summary of the MOVES2010a modeling
inputs used to calculate program
benefits; a demonstration for meeting
the modeling requirements for EPA’s
alternate low enhanced I/M
performance standard; and a section
110(l) demonstration that includes offset
emission credits. Full copies of the SIP
revision are located in EPA’s docket.
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the State’s
submittal?
a. Substantive I/M Requirements
EPA’s requirements for basic and
enhanced I/M programs are found in 40
CFR part 51, subpart S. The I/M SIP
revision submitted by Illinois must be
consistent with these requirements and
must meet EPA’s requirements for
enforceability and section 110(l)
requirements of the CAA. The most
important aspects of I/M affected by the
submitted revisions to the Illinois I/M
program include network type changes,
vehicle coverage and exemptions, test
procedures and standards, test
equipment, waivers and compliance,
and the performance standard
evaluation.
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Network Type and Program
Evaluation—40 CFR 51.353
Under 40 CFR 51.353, basic and
enhanced I/M programs can be
centralized, decentralized, or a hybrid of
the two at the state’s discretion, but
must be demonstrated to achieve the
same (or better) level of emission
reduction as the applicable performance
standard described in either 40 CFR
51.351 or 40 CFR 51.352. The revised
Illinois I/M program consists of a hybrid
network which includes a combination
of centralized test-only stations and
decentralized, appointment-only, test
and repair stations. Provision and
maintenance of all test equipment,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
operation of data management services,
waiver analysis, and inspector training,
is handled by the state’s contractor,
Applus+ Technologies, Inc. All tests,
regardless of station type, are conducted
using the same test equipment and fraud
prevention techniques. Vehicles in the
Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis areas
required to comply with the I/M
program are tested biennially by the
contractor at either centralized test-only
stations or decentralized test and repair
stations. The Illinois I/M program is
conducted under the legal authority of
the VEIL of 2005. The submittal
includes provisions for ongoing program
evaluation to satisfy the requirements of
40 CFR 51.353. In addition, the state has
committed to submit to EPA annual
reports that meet the requirements of 40
CFR 51.353 and 40 CFR 51.366. This
part of the submittal continues to meet
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.353 of
the Federal I/M regulation.
2. Vehicle Coverage—40 CFR 51.356
Under 40 CFR 51.356, the
performance standard for enhanced I/M
programs (including alternate low
enhanced programs) assumes coverage
of all MY 1968 and later light duty
vehicles (LDVs) and light duty trucks
(LDTs) up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, and
includes vehicles operating on all fuel
types. Subject vehicles include vehicles
registered or required to be registered
within the I/M program area boundaries,
and fleets primarily operated within the
I/M program area boundaries and
belonging to the covered model years
and vehicle classes. Under EPA
regulations, other levels of coverage may
be approved if the necessary emission
reductions are achieved. The Illinois
I/M program requires all 1996 and
newer MY LDVs, LDTs, and OBD
compliant HDVs registered in the
Chicago or Metro-East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment area to be subject to the
OBD inspection. The legal authority to
enforce the vehicle coverage
requirement in Illinois is provided by
the VEIL of 2005. The rules
implemented to enforce vehicle
coverage are contained in the emissions
standards adopted by the Illinois
Pollution Control Board (35 Ill. Adm.
Code 240), and the procedural rules
adopted by IEPA (35 Ill. Adm. Code
276). As described in section IV.b
below, EPA concludes that the state has
demonstrated that it meets the alternate
low enhanced performance standards
with the revised program changes. Thus,
the changes in vehicle coverage under
the revised requirements are acceptable
under 40 CFR 51.356.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3. Test Procedures—Standards—40 CFR
51.357
Under 40 CFR 51.357, I/M programs
must establish and implement written
test procedures and pass/fail standards
for each model year and vehicle type.
Under the revised requirements, Illinois
establishes OBD as the primary testing
method and eliminates the previously
established idle and transient tailpipe
testing methods. In addition, the revised
requirements eliminate the evaporative
emission test also known as the ‘‘gas cap
test’’, which was previously required
but is no longer necessary with OBD
technology. The Illinois I/M program
submittal contains detailed procedures
for connecting to the OBD system,
information on readiness codes for OBD
tests, and pass/fail standards for OBD
equipped vehicles. Updated test
procedures are contained in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 276 and applicable emission
standards are contained in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 240. This part of the submittal
meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.357 and 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal
I/M regulation.
4. Test Equipment—40 CFR 51.358
Computerized test systems are
required for performing any
measurement on subject vehicles. The
Federal I/M regulation requires that the
state SIP submittal include written
technical specifications for all test
equipment used in the program. The
specifications must describe the
analysis process, the necessary test
equipment, the required features, and
written acceptance testing criteria and
procedures. As mentioned before, the
revised changes repeal references in the
requirements relating to idle and
transient tailpipe testing methods,
including emission equipment
specifications and inspection
requirements retaining the requirements
and specifications for OBD testing. All
test stations, whether they are
centralized test-only stations, or
decentralized test and repair stations,
are required to use the same test
equipment and data management
systems as provided by the contractor.1
Requirements for the entire test system
and vehicle inspection report are
contained in the Illinois I/M program
contract with Applus+ Technologies,
Inc. The Illinois I/M program submittal
contains detailed technical
specifications for program test
equipment that mirror EPA’s
requirements and guidance. This part of
the submittal continues to meet the
1 The contractor’s license plate recognition
system is not required at low-volume decentralized
test and repair stations.
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
68381
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules
requirements of 40 CFR 51.358 of the
Federal I/M regulation.
5. Quality Control—40 CFR 51.359
Section 3.3.3.22 of Illinois I/M
program contract with Applus+
Technologies, Inc., as well as 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 276, Subpart F, directs IEPA
and the contractor to ensure quality and
reliability. The results of the ongoing
quality assurance program and program
evaluations are incorporated into the
annual report submitted to EPA under
40 CFR 51.366. This part of the
submittal continues to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.359 of the
Federal I/M regulation.
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6. Waivers and Compliance Via
Diagnostic Inspection—40 CFR 51.360
The Federal I/M regulation allows for
the issuance of a waiver, which is a
form of compliance with the program
requirements that allows a motorist to
comply without meeting the applicable
test standards. The waiver requirements
for Illinois are specified in 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 276, Subpart D. In addition to
waivers, the I/M program allows
motorists to comply if they meet the
requirements for an economic hardship
extension, if their vehicle is located
outside of the test area, or if the vehicle
has complied with another jurisdiction’s
testing requirement. Legal authority for
the issuance of waivers in the Illinois
I/M program is contained in the VEIL
of 2005. Specifically, Sections 625 ILCS
5/13C–15 and 5/13C–30 provide the
criteria that must be met before a
vehicle that has failed a vehicle
emissions retest can qualify for a
waiver, economic hardship extension,
outside of affected counties annual
exemption, or reciprocity emission
compliance certificate. In addition, 35
Ill. Adm. Code 276, Subpart D, provides
the procedures to be followed in the
issuance of a waiver, economic hardship
extension, or outside of affected
counties annual exemption. Finally, 35
Ill. Adm. Code 276, Subpart J, provides
the requirements for the issuance of an
emissions compliance certificate under
reciprocity with other states or
jurisdictions. This part of the submittal
continues to meet the requirements of
40 CFR 51.360.
7. Motorist Compliance Enforcement—
40 CFR 51.361 and Motorist Compliance
Enforcement Program Oversight—40
CFR 51.362
Under 40 CFR 51.361, compliance
must be ensured through the denial of
motor vehicle registration in enhanced
I/M programs unless an exception for
use of an existing alternative is
approved. The enforcement mechanism
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
for the Illinois I/M program changed
from a computer-matching system to a
vehicle registration denial based system
on January 1, 2008. Sections 625 ILCS
5/13C–15 and 5/13C–55 of the VEIL of
2005 specifically require that the owner
of a vehicle subject to inspection have
proof of compliance from IEPA in order
to obtain or renew a vehicle registration
for a subject vehicle. As part of this
process, IEPA and the Illinois Secretary
of State maintain a level of motorist
enforcement necessary to ensure a
compliance rate of no less than 96
percent of subject vehicles. This part of
the submittal continues to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.361 and 40
CFR 51.362 of the Federal I/M
regulation.
b. Performance Evaluation
2 EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in
March 2010 (75 FR 9411). EPA subsequently
released two minor model revisions: MOVES2010a
in September 2010 and MOVES2010b in April
2012. Both of these minor revisions enhance model
performance and do not significantly affect the
criteria pollutant emissions results from
MOVES2010.
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[Grams per mile]
Program type
Alternative Low Enhanced I/
M Performance Standard ..
Illinois 2012 I/M Program .....
1 Volatile
2 Oxides
VOC 1
NOX 2
0.37
0.37
1.29
1.24
organic compound.
of nitrogen.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF
IEPA’S ALTERNATIVE LOW ENHANCED PERFORMANCE MODELING
FOR METRO-EAST ST. LOUIS NONATTAINMENT AREA
[Grams per mile]
As part of the November 29, 2012,
I/M SIP revision, IEPA provided an
updated performance evaluation using
the EPA’s motor vehicle emissions
simulator model, MOVES2010a.2 The
updated performance evaluation
included a summary report outlining
the modeling results and full modeling
input files, output data files, and run
specifications for the MOVES2010a
evaluation. The purpose of the updated
performance evaluation is to
demonstrate that the Illinois I/M
program, as amended, would continue
to meet the Federal enhanced I/M
performance standard in both the
Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment areas in Illinois. The
results of IEPA’s analysis are
summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below,
which show that the emissions
reductions achieved by the Illinois I/M
program, as amended, meet or exceed
those achieved under the performance
standards. The amended Illinois I/M
program thus continues to achieve
greater emissions reductions than the
Federal model program because the
Illinois I/M program includes elements
that go beyond Federal I/M
requirements.
PO 00000
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF
IEPA’S ALTERNATIVE LOW ENHANCED PERFORMANCE MODELING
FOR
CHICAGO
NONATTAINMENT
AREA
Program type
VOC
Alternative Low Enhanced I/
M Performance Standard ..
Illinois 2012 I/M Program .....
1 0.47
0.46
NOX
1.50
1.45
1 Value is within +/¥0.02 grams per mile
margin for error allowed for by EPA.
Based on our review of the I/M SIP
revision, EPA finds IEPA’s performance
standard evaluation and use of the
alternate low enhanced I/M
performance standard to be acceptable.
EPA also finds that the Illinois I/M
program, as amended, meets or exceeds
the alternate low enhanced performance
standard in both the Chicago and MetroEast St. Louis nonattainment areas as
required under 40 CFR 51.351.
c. Demonstrating Noninterference With
Attainment and Maintenance Under
CAA Section 110(l)
Revisions to SIP-approved control
measures must meet the requirements of
CAA section 110(l) to be approved by
EPA. Section 110(l) states:
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.
EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply
to all requirements of the CAA and to
all areas of the country, whether
attainment, nonattainment,
unclassifiable, or maintenance for one
or more of the six criteria pollutants.
EPA also interprets section 110(l) to
require a demonstration addressing all
pollutants whose emissions and/or
ambient concentrations may change as a
result of the SIP revision. In the absence
of an attainment demonstration, to
demonstrate no interference with any
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
68382
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules
applicable NAAQS or requirement of
the CAA under section 110(l), EPA
believes it is appropriate to allow states
to substitute equivalent emissions
reductions to compensate for any
change to a SIP approved program, as
long as actual emissions in the air are
not increased. ‘‘Equivalent’’ emissions
reductions mean reductions which are
equal to or greater than those reductions
achieved by the control measure
approved in the active portion of the
SIP. In order to show that compensating
emissions reductions are equivalent,
modeling or adequate justification must
be provided. The compensating,
equivalent reductions must represent
actual, new emissions reductions
achieved in a contemporaneous time
frame to the change of the existing SIP
control measure, in order to preserve the
status quo level of emission in the air.
In addition to being contemporaneous,
the equivalent emissions reductions
must also be permanent, enforceable,
quantifiable, and surplus to be approved
into the SIP.
The Illinois I/M SIP revision includes
a 110(l) demonstration that uses
equivalent emissions reductions to
compensate for emission reduction
losses resulting from changes to the
February 22, 1999, SIP approved I/M
program in the Chicago and Metro-East
St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas in
Illinois. The submittal indicates that
IEPA used the latest version of EPA’s
motor vehicle emissions model
program, MOVES2010a, to estimate the
emissions effects of the program
changes. Based on our review of the
information provided, EPA finds that
IEPA used reasonable methods and
appropriate models in estimating the
emissions effects of the program
changes. IEPA’s MOVES modeling
shows that the changes to the Illinois
I/M program result in fewer reductions
than would have otherwise been
obtained from the I/M program
originally approved in the SIP by EPA
on February 22, 1999. Tables 3 and 4
below summarize IEPA’s emissions
calculations comparing the revised I/M
program to the SIP approved I/M
program in units of tons per day (tpd)
and highlight the emissions increases
that need to be addressed as part of the
110(l) demonstration.
TABLE 3—SIP I/M PROGRAM VS. REVISED I/M PROGRAM IN THE CHICAGO OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
[tpd]
SIP I/M program
Revised I/M program
Emissions increase
Year
VOC
2007
2009
2012
2015
2025
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
VOC
NOX
138.44
108.57
75.42
56.56
39.64
462.33
374.35
255.38
186.63
113.83
146.08
113.76
80.27
59.99
40.06
NOX
VOC
476.28
383.86
260.22
189.59
114.13
NOX
7.65
5.19
4.85
3.43
0.42
13.95
9.51
4.84
2.96
0.31
TABLE 4—SIP I/M PROGRAM VS. REVISED I/M PROGRAM IN THE METRO-EAST ST. LOUIS OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA
[tpd]
SIP I/M program
Revised I/M program
Emissions increase
Year
VOC
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2007
2009
2012
2015
2025
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
15.94
12.76
9.86
7.62
4.91
The revised Illinois I/M program
produces fewer reductions of VOC and
NOX emissions which are contributors
to the formation of ground-level ozone
and fine particular matter (PM2.5). Thus,
the increase in VOC and NOX needs to
be offset with equivalent (or greater)
emissions reductions from another
control measures in order to
demonstrate non-interference with the
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
Although the program also results in
fewer reductions of carbon monoxide
(CO) emissions, substitute CO emissions
reductions are not needed for this
demonstration, because both areas in
Illinois are attaining the CO NAAQS
and CO levels in both areas are well
below the standard. IEPA has
determined that it is unlikely that the
amendments to the Illinois I/M program
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
VOC
NOX
52.65
42.20
31.15
23.20
13.29
17.03
13.59
10.80
8.36
4.95
will interfere with either areas’ ability to
continue to attain the CO NAAQS.
To address the projected loss of VOC
and NOX emission reductions, IEPA
reviewed its records of permitted
emissions sources in both
nonattainment areas in Illinois and
identified those sources that have
ceased operation since 2002. In the
Chicago nonattainment area, IEPA
identified 1,168 facilities with permitted
VOC emissions and 687 facilities with
permitted NOX emissions that have
permanently closed and have expired
permits that have been revoked. In the
Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment
area, IEPA identified 82 facilities with
permitted VOC emissions and 39
facilities with permitted NOX emissions
that have permanently closed and have
expired permits that have been revoked.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NOX
VOC
54.74
43.69
32.25
23.98
13.31
NOX
1.09
0.83
0.94
0.75
0.05
2.09
1.49
1.09
0.78
0.02
The expiration and revocation of these
sources’ permits allows the state to use
the emission credits associated with
them for other purposes under the SIP
and makes such reductions permanent
and enforceable. IEPA review of
emissions from shutdown facilities
shows cumulative reductions of 50.32
tpd of VOC and 121.29 tpd of NOX in
the Chicago area in 2012 and 1.97 tpd
of VOC and 1.74 tpd of NOX in the
Metro-East St. Louis area in 2012.
Tables 5 and 6 below compare the
increases in VOC and NOX emissions
from the revised I/M program to the
cumulative reductions in VOC and NOX
emissions from facility shutdowns.
Table 5 shows that emission offsets for
both VOC and NOX exceed the increase
in emissions resulting from the revised
I/M program in the Chicago
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment area from 2007 through
2012. Table 6 shows that emission
offsets for VOC exceed the increase in
emissions resulting from the revised
I/M program in the Metro-East St. Louis
nonattainment area from 2007 through
2012. However, in 2007 and 2008,
increases in NOX from the revised I/M
68383
program exceeded the offsets of NOX
from shutdown facilities in the MetroEast St. Louis nonattainment area.
TABLE 5—NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS FROM CLOSED FACILITIES IN CHICAGO NONATTAINMENT AREA
[tpd]
Chicago nonattainment area
I/M program
change emissions
increase
(VOC)
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
Cumulative facility
shutdown
emissions
reduction
(VOC)
7.65
6.15
5.19
4.28
3.60
4.85
I/M program
change emissions
increase
(NOX)
33.16
39.96
45.00
48.11
49.30
50.32
13.95
11.22
9.51
7.54
6.29
4.84
Cumulative facility
shutdown
emissions
reduction
(NOX)
100.71
109.33
117.95
120.58
121.24
121.29
TABLE 6—NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS FROM CLOSED FACILITIES IN METRO-EAST ST. LOUIS NONATTAINMENT AREA
[tpd]
Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment area
I/M program
change emissions
increase
(VOC
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
EPA policy allows for substitution
between VOC and NOX emissions in its
guidance on reasonable further progress.
This guidance recommends that states
assume, as an approximation, that
equivalent percent changes in the area’s
inventory for the respective pollutant
yield an equivalent change in ozone
levels. For example, decreasing area
NOX emissions by 3 percent would have
the same effect as decreasing area VOC
Cumulative facility
shutdown
emissions
reduction
(VOC)
1.09
0.94
0.83
0.75
0.68
0.94
I/M program
change emissions
increase
(NOX)
1.64
1.70
1.83
1.85
1.94
1.97
2.09
1.80
1.49
1.41
1.28
1.09
Cumulative facility
shutdown
emissions
reduction
(NOX)
1.39
1.49
1.52
1.56
1.71
1.74
into consideration the VOC to NOX
substitution approach discussed above.
Based on the use of permanent,
enforceable, contemporaneous, surplus
emissions reductions achieved through
the shutdown of permitted emissions
sources, EPA believes that the revisions
to the Illinois I/M program do not
interfere with both areas’ ability to
demonstrate compliance with the 8hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
emissions by 3 percent. Stated another
way, if an area has twice as many tons
of NOX emissions as VOC emissions,
then 2 tons of NOX emissions would be
assumed to have the same effect on
ozone as 1 ton of VOC emissions.
Following this approach, IEPA used a 1
VOC to 2.04 NOX conversion ratio for
the Metro-East St. Louis area.
Table 7 below summarizes IEPA’s I/M
emissions make-up demonstration for
the Metro-East St. Louis area and takes
TABLE 7—METRO-EAST ST. LOUIS AREA COMPARISON OF NOX EMISSIONS SHORTFALL TO EXCESS VOC REDUCTIONS
APPLYING VOC TO NOX SUBSTITUTION POLICY
[tpd]
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Year
2007 .....................................................................................................................
2008 .....................................................................................................................
EPA also examined whether the
amendments to the approved I/M
program in Illinois have interfered with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
Cumulative facility
shutdown excess
VOC emissions
reductions
NOX emissions
shortfall
0.70
0.31
attainment of other air quality
standards. The Illinois I/M program was
implemented to address only the ozone
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.55
0.76
Excess VOC
emissions using
the VOC to NOX
emissions ratio
(1:2.04)
1.12
1.55
NAAQS and EPA has no reason to
believe that the amendments to the
approved I/M program have caused or
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
68384
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules
will cause the nonattainment of the
NAAQS for CO, lead, nitrogen dioxide,
or sulfur dioxide. The Metro-East St.
Louis area is designated as
nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS
and as discussed before, NOX is a
precursor to PM2.5 formation. However,
as demonstrated above, permanent,
enforceable, contemporaneous, surplus
emissions reductions achieved through
the shutdown of permitted VOC and
NOX emissions sources have offset the
minor increase in NOX emissions
resulting from the change to the I/M
program. Therefore, the changes to the
I/M program do not interfere with
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS. In
addition, EPA believes that the
amendments to the approved I/M
program in Illinois will not interfere
with the ability of the Chicago and
Metro-East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment areas to meet any other
CAA requirement.
Based on the above discussion and
the state’s 100(l) demonstration, EPA
believes that the changes to the Illinois
I/M program will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of any of the
NAAQS in either the Chicago and
Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment
areas and would not interfere with any
other applicable requirement of the
CAA, and thus, are approvable under
CAA section 110(l).
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. What action is EPA proposing to
take?
EPA is proposing to approve the
revisions to the Illinois ozone SIP
submitted on November 29, 2012,
concerning the I/M program in the
Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment areas in Illinois. EPA
finds that the revisions meet all
applicable requirements and will not
interfere with reasonable further
progress or attainment of any of the
NAAQS.
VI. 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:21 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: November 1, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013–27276 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 13–236; FCC 13–123]
National Television Multiple Ownership
Rule
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
This Notice commences a
proceeding to consider elimination of
the so-called UHF discount in the
Commission’s national television
multiple ownership rule. Currently, the
national television ownership rule
prohibits a single entity from owning
television stations that, in the aggregate,
reach more than 39 percent of the total
television households in the nation. It
thus appears that the DTV transition has
rendered the UHF discount obsolete and
it should be eliminated. This Notice
seeks comment on that tentative
conclusion. It also tentatively decides,
in the event that the UHF discount is
eliminated, to grandfather existing
television station combinations that
would exceed the 39 percent national
audience reach cap in the absence of the
UHF discount and seeks comment on
that proposal. Finally, it seeks comment
on whether a VHF discount should be
adopted, as it appears that under current
conditions VHF channels may be
technically inferior to UHF channels for
the propagation of digital television
signals.
DATES: The Commission must receive
written comments on or before
December 16, 2013 and reply comments
on or before January 13, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by MB Docket No. 13–236;
FCC 13–123, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. Commercial
overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal
Service Express Mail) must be sent to
9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol
Heights, MD 20743.
• Hand or Messenger Delivery: 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554.
• People With Disabilities: Contact
the FCC to request reasonable
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14NOP1.SGM
14NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68378-68384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27276]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0046; FRL-9902- 91-Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for
Illinois
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) on November 29, 2012, concerning the state's vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M) program in the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis
ozone nonattainment areas in Illinois. The revision amends I/M program
requirements in the active control measures portion of the ozone SIP to
reflect changes that have been implemented at the state level since EPA
fully approved the I/M program on February 22, 1999. The submittal also
includes a demonstration under section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) addressing lost emission reductions associated with the program
changes.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2013-0046, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312)692-2450.
4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The
[[Page 68379]]
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-
2013-0046. 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 email. 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 email 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. 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
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 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, Mobile Source
Program Manager, at (312)886-6061 before visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source
Program Manager, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)886-6061,
acevedo.francisco@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Background
III. What changes have been made to the Illinois I/M program?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
a. Substantive I/M Requirements
b. Performance Evaluation
c. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance
Under CAA Section 110(l)
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
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.
II. Background
The general purpose of motor vehicle I/M programs is to reduce
emissions from in-use motor vehicles in need of repairs and thereby
contribute to state and local efforts to improve air quality and to
attain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Illinois has operated an enhanced I/M program in both the Chicago
and Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas since February 1999.
The program is presently operating in Cook, DuPage and Lake Counties
and portions of McHenry, Kane, Will and Kendall Counties in the Chicago
ozone nonattainment area and in portions of Madison, St. Clair and
Monroe Counties in the Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area.
The program was authorized by the Illinois Vehicle Emissions Inspection
Law (VEIL) of 1995 (625 ILCS 5/13B). EPA fully approved Illinois's
enhanced I/M program into the SIP on February 22, 1999, (64 FR 8517)
including the program's legal authority and administrative program
standards and procedures found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 240 and 276.
Initially, all vehicles were inspected by measuring tailpipe emission
levels. As of February 1, 2007, the program dropped tailpipe testing
entirely and inspected all vehicles by scanning the on-board
diagnostics (OBD) systems. This change was the result of statutory
changes outlined in the VEIL of 2005, as amended, 625 ILCS 5/13C.
III. What changes have been made to the Illinois I/M program?
The Illinois I/M SIP revision submitted on November 29, 2012,
reflects several changes to the approved program. The most significant
changes to the Illinois I/M program took effect beginning on February
2007 and include:
The elimination of the IM240 transient mode exhaust test
for all vehicles beginning February 1, 2007.
The elimination of the evaporative system integrity (gas
cap pressure) test for all OBD compliant vehicles beginning February 1,
2007.
The replacement of the computer-matching enforcement
mechanism with a registration denial based system beginning January 1,
2008.
The elimination of the steady-state idle exhaust and
evaporative integrity (gas cap pressure) testing for all vehicles
beginning February 1, 2012.
The exemption of pre-2007 model year (MY) heavy-duty
vehicles (HDVs) with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 8,501
and 14,000 pounds beginning February 1, 2012.
The exemption of all HDVs with a GVWR greater than 14,000
pounds as of February 1, 2012.
The requirement of OBD pass/fail testing for all 2007 and
newer OBD-compliant HDVs.
In addition to the changes discussed above, the November 29, 2012,
submittal included a number of minor revisions to the program that do
not
[[Page 68380]]
have a significant impact on overall program operations or the
emissions reductions associated with it. A full list of the regulatory
changes submitted by Illinois for EPA approval includes:
VEIL of 2005, as amended, 625 ILCS 5/13C (Public Act 94-
526 enacted on August 10, 2005; Public Act 94-848 enacted on June 9,
2006; Public Act 97-106, enacted on July 14, 2011).
Revisions to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 240 (R11-19 effective March
18, 2011 (35 Ill. Reg. 5552 (April 1, 2011)); R12-12 effective February
1, 2012 (36 Ill. Reg. 1066 (January 27, 2012)).
Revisions to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 276 effective June 28, 2011
(35 Ill. Reg. 11268) and January 30, 2012 (36 Ill. Reg. 2257).
To support the changes outlined above, the revision also included a
summary of the MOVES2010a modeling inputs used to calculate program
benefits; a demonstration for meeting the modeling requirements for
EPA's alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard; and a section
110(l) demonstration that includes offset emission credits. Full copies
of the SIP revision are located in EPA's docket.
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
a. Substantive I/M Requirements
EPA's requirements for basic and enhanced I/M programs are found in
40 CFR part 51, subpart S. The I/M SIP revision submitted by Illinois
must be consistent with these requirements and must meet EPA's
requirements for enforceability and section 110(l) requirements of the
CAA. The most important aspects of I/M affected by the submitted
revisions to the Illinois I/M program include network type changes,
vehicle coverage and exemptions, test procedures and standards, test
equipment, waivers and compliance, and the performance standard
evaluation.
1. Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353
Under 40 CFR 51.353, basic and enhanced I/M programs can be
centralized, decentralized, or a hybrid of the two at the state's
discretion, but must be demonstrated to achieve the same (or better)
level of emission reduction as the applicable performance standard
described in either 40 CFR 51.351 or 40 CFR 51.352. The revised
Illinois I/M program consists of a hybrid network which includes a
combination of centralized test-only stations and decentralized,
appointment-only, test and repair stations. Provision and maintenance
of all test equipment, operation of data management services, waiver
analysis, and inspector training, is handled by the state's contractor,
Applus+ Technologies, Inc. All tests, regardless of station type, are
conducted using the same test equipment and fraud prevention
techniques. Vehicles in the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis areas
required to comply with the I/M program are tested biennially by the
contractor at either centralized test-only stations or decentralized
test and repair stations. The Illinois I/M program is conducted under
the legal authority of the VEIL of 2005. The submittal includes
provisions for ongoing program evaluation to satisfy the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.353. In addition, the state has committed to submit to EPA
annual reports that meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.353 and 40 CFR
51.366. This part of the submittal continues to meet the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.353 of the Federal I/M regulation.
2. Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356
Under 40 CFR 51.356, the performance standard for enhanced I/M
programs (including alternate low enhanced programs) assumes coverage
of all MY 1968 and later light duty vehicles (LDVs) and light duty
trucks (LDTs) up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, and includes vehicles operating
on all fuel types. Subject vehicles include vehicles registered or
required to be registered within the I/M program area boundaries, and
fleets primarily operated within the I/M program area boundaries and
belonging to the covered model years and vehicle classes. Under EPA
regulations, other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary
emission reductions are achieved. The Illinois I/M program requires all
1996 and newer MY LDVs, LDTs, and OBD compliant HDVs registered in the
Chicago or Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area to be subject
to the OBD inspection. The legal authority to enforce the vehicle
coverage requirement in Illinois is provided by the VEIL of 2005. The
rules implemented to enforce vehicle coverage are contained in the
emissions standards adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (35
Ill. Adm. Code 240), and the procedural rules adopted by IEPA (35 Ill.
Adm. Code 276). As described in section IV.b below, EPA concludes that
the state has demonstrated that it meets the alternate low enhanced
performance standards with the revised program changes. Thus, the
changes in vehicle coverage under the revised requirements are
acceptable under 40 CFR 51.356.
3. Test Procedures--Standards--40 CFR 51.357
Under 40 CFR 51.357, I/M programs must establish and implement
written test procedures and pass/fail standards for each model year and
vehicle type. Under the revised requirements, Illinois establishes OBD
as the primary testing method and eliminates the previously established
idle and transient tailpipe testing methods. In addition, the revised
requirements eliminate the evaporative emission test also known as the
``gas cap test'', which was previously required but is no longer
necessary with OBD technology. The Illinois I/M program submittal
contains detailed procedures for connecting to the OBD system,
information on readiness codes for OBD tests, and pass/fail standards
for OBD equipped vehicles. Updated test procedures are contained in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 276 and applicable emission standards are contained in
35 Ill. Adm. Code 240. This part of the submittal meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.357 and 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M
regulation.
4. Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358
Computerized test systems are required for performing any
measurement on subject vehicles. The Federal I/M regulation requires
that the state SIP submittal include written technical specifications
for all test equipment used in the program. The specifications must
describe the analysis process, the necessary test equipment, the
required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and
procedures. As mentioned before, the revised changes repeal references
in the requirements relating to idle and transient tailpipe testing
methods, including emission equipment specifications and inspection
requirements retaining the requirements and specifications for OBD
testing. All test stations, whether they are centralized test-only
stations, or decentralized test and repair stations, are required to
use the same test equipment and data management systems as provided by
the contractor.\1\ Requirements for the entire test system and vehicle
inspection report are contained in the Illinois I/M program contract
with Applus+ Technologies, Inc. The Illinois I/M program submittal
contains detailed technical specifications for program test equipment
that mirror EPA's requirements and guidance. This part of the submittal
continues to meet the
[[Page 68381]]
requirements of 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The contractor's license plate recognition system is not
required at low-volume decentralized test and repair stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359
Section 3.3.3.22 of Illinois I/M program contract with Applus+
Technologies, Inc., as well as 35 Ill. Adm. Code 276, Subpart F,
directs IEPA and the contractor to ensure quality and reliability. The
results of the ongoing quality assurance program and program
evaluations are incorporated into the annual report submitted to EPA
under 40 CFR 51.366. This part of the submittal continues to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.359 of the Federal I/M regulation.
6. Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360
The Federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver,
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. The
waiver requirements for Illinois are specified in 35 Ill. Adm. Code
276, Subpart D. In addition to waivers, the I/M program allows
motorists to comply if they meet the requirements for an economic
hardship extension, if their vehicle is located outside of the test
area, or if the vehicle has complied with another jurisdiction's
testing requirement. Legal authority for the issuance of waivers in the
Illinois I/M program is contained in the VEIL of 2005. Specifically,
Sections 625 ILCS 5/13C-15 and 5/13C-30 provide the criteria that must
be met before a vehicle that has failed a vehicle emissions retest can
qualify for a waiver, economic hardship extension, outside of affected
counties annual exemption, or reciprocity emission compliance
certificate. In addition, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 276, Subpart D, provides
the procedures to be followed in the issuance of a waiver, economic
hardship extension, or outside of affected counties annual exemption.
Finally, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 276, Subpart J, provides the requirements
for the issuance of an emissions compliance certificate under
reciprocity with other states or jurisdictions. This part of the
submittal continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.360.
7. Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361 and Motorist
Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362
Under 40 CFR 51.361, compliance must be ensured through the denial
of motor vehicle registration in enhanced I/M programs unless an
exception for use of an existing alternative is approved. The
enforcement mechanism for the Illinois I/M program changed from a
computer-matching system to a vehicle registration denial based system
on January 1, 2008. Sections 625 ILCS 5/13C-15 and 5/13C-55 of the VEIL
of 2005 specifically require that the owner of a vehicle subject to
inspection have proof of compliance from IEPA in order to obtain or
renew a vehicle registration for a subject vehicle. As part of this
process, IEPA and the Illinois Secretary of State maintain a level of
motorist enforcement necessary to ensure a compliance rate of no less
than 96 percent of subject vehicles. This part of the submittal
continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.361 and 40 CFR 51.362
of the Federal I/M regulation.
b. Performance Evaluation
As part of the November 29, 2012, I/M SIP revision, IEPA provided
an updated performance evaluation using the EPA's motor vehicle
emissions simulator model, MOVES2010a.\2\ The updated performance
evaluation included a summary report outlining the modeling results and
full modeling input files, output data files, and run specifications
for the MOVES2010a evaluation. The purpose of the updated performance
evaluation is to demonstrate that the Illinois I/M program, as amended,
would continue to meet the Federal enhanced I/M performance standard in
both the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas in
Illinois. The results of IEPA's analysis are summarized in Tables 1 and
2 below, which show that the emissions reductions achieved by the
Illinois I/M program, as amended, meet or exceed those achieved under
the performance standards. The amended Illinois I/M program thus
continues to achieve greater emissions reductions than the Federal
model program because the Illinois I/M program includes elements that
go beyond Federal I/M requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR
9411). EPA subsequently released two minor model revisions:
MOVES2010a in September 2010 and MOVES2010b in April 2012. Both of
these minor revisions enhance model performance and do not
significantly affect the criteria pollutant emissions results from
MOVES2010.
Table 1--Summary of Results of IEPA's Alternative Low Enhanced
Performance Modeling for Chicago Nonattainment Area
[Grams per mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX
Program type \1\ \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standard....... 0.37 1.29
Illinois 2012 I/M Program............................... 0.37 1.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Volatile organic compound.
\2\ Oxides of nitrogen.
Table 2--Summary of Results of IEPA's Alternative Low Enhanced
Performance Modeling for Metro-East St. Louis Nonattainment Area
[Grams per mile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program type VOC NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standard....... 0.46 1.50
Illinois 2012 I/M Program............................... \1\ 1.45
0.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Value is within +/-0.02 grams per mile margin for error allowed for
by EPA.
Based on our review of the I/M SIP revision, EPA finds IEPA's
performance standard evaluation and use of the alternate low enhanced
I/M performance standard to be acceptable. EPA also finds that the
Illinois I/M program, as amended, meets or exceeds the alternate low
enhanced performance standard in both the Chicago and Metro-East St.
Louis nonattainment areas as required under 40 CFR 51.351.
c. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance Under
CAA Section 110(l)
Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) to be approved by EPA. Section
110(l) states:
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.
EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the
CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment,
unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria
pollutants. EPA also interprets section 110(l) to require a
demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient
concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. In the
absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no interference
with any
[[Page 68382]]
applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under section 110(l), EPA
believes it is appropriate to allow states to substitute equivalent
emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a SIP approved
program, as long as actual emissions in the air are not increased.
``Equivalent'' emissions reductions mean reductions which are equal to
or greater than those reductions achieved by the control measure
approved in the active portion of the SIP. In order to show that
compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or adequate
justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions
must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in a
contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control
measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emission in the
air. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions
reductions must also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and
surplus to be approved into the SIP.
The Illinois I/M SIP revision includes a 110(l) demonstration that
uses equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for emission
reduction losses resulting from changes to the February 22, 1999, SIP
approved I/M program in the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment areas in Illinois. The submittal indicates that IEPA used
the latest version of EPA's motor vehicle emissions model program,
MOVES2010a, to estimate the emissions effects of the program changes.
Based on our review of the information provided, EPA finds that IEPA
used reasonable methods and appropriate models in estimating the
emissions effects of the program changes. IEPA's MOVES modeling shows
that the changes to the Illinois I/M program result in fewer reductions
than would have otherwise been obtained from the I/M program originally
approved in the SIP by EPA on February 22, 1999. Tables 3 and 4 below
summarize IEPA's emissions calculations comparing the revised I/M
program to the SIP approved I/M program in units of tons per day (tpd)
and highlight the emissions increases that need to be addressed as part
of the 110(l) demonstration.
Table 3--SIP I/M Program vs. Revised I/M Program in the Chicago Ozone Nonattainment Area
[tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIP I/M program Revised I/M program Emissions increase
Year -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................................... 138.44 462.33 146.08 476.28 7.65 13.95
2009.................................................... 108.57 374.35 113.76 383.86 5.19 9.51
2012.................................................... 75.42 255.38 80.27 260.22 4.85 4.84
2015.................................................... 56.56 186.63 59.99 189.59 3.43 2.96
2025.................................................... 39.64 113.83 40.06 114.13 0.42 0.31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--SIP I/M Program vs. Revised I/M Program in the Metro-East St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Area
[tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIP I/M program Revised I/M program Emissions increase
Year -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC NOX VOC NOX VOC NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................................... 15.94 52.65 17.03 54.74 1.09 2.09
2009.................................................... 12.76 42.20 13.59 43.69 0.83 1.49
2012.................................................... 9.86 31.15 10.80 32.25 0.94 1.09
2015.................................................... 7.62 23.20 8.36 23.98 0.75 0.78
2025.................................................... 4.91 13.29 4.95 13.31 0.05 0.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The revised Illinois I/M program produces fewer reductions of VOC
and NOX emissions which are contributors to the formation of
ground-level ozone and fine particular matter (PM2.5). Thus,
the increase in VOC and NOX needs to be offset with
equivalent (or greater) emissions reductions from another control
measures in order to demonstrate non-interference with the 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS. Although the program also results in fewer
reductions of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, substitute CO emissions
reductions are not needed for this demonstration, because both areas in
Illinois are attaining the CO NAAQS and CO levels in both areas are
well below the standard. IEPA has determined that it is unlikely that
the amendments to the Illinois I/M program will interfere with either
areas' ability to continue to attain the CO NAAQS.
To address the projected loss of VOC and NOX emission
reductions, IEPA reviewed its records of permitted emissions sources in
both nonattainment areas in Illinois and identified those sources that
have ceased operation since 2002. In the Chicago nonattainment area,
IEPA identified 1,168 facilities with permitted VOC emissions and 687
facilities with permitted NOX emissions that have
permanently closed and have expired permits that have been revoked. In
the Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment area, IEPA identified 82
facilities with permitted VOC emissions and 39 facilities with
permitted NOX emissions that have permanently closed and
have expired permits that have been revoked. The expiration and
revocation of these sources' permits allows the state to use the
emission credits associated with them for other purposes under the SIP
and makes such reductions permanent and enforceable. IEPA review of
emissions from shutdown facilities shows cumulative reductions of 50.32
tpd of VOC and 121.29 tpd of NOX in the Chicago area in 2012
and 1.97 tpd of VOC and 1.74 tpd of NOX in the Metro-East
St. Louis area in 2012.
Tables 5 and 6 below compare the increases in VOC and
NOX emissions from the revised I/M program to the cumulative
reductions in VOC and NOX emissions from facility shutdowns.
Table 5 shows that emission offsets for both VOC and NOX
exceed the increase in emissions resulting from the revised I/M program
in the Chicago
[[Page 68383]]
nonattainment area from 2007 through 2012. Table 6 shows that emission
offsets for VOC exceed the increase in emissions resulting from the
revised I/M program in the Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment area from
2007 through 2012. However, in 2007 and 2008, increases in
NOX from the revised I/M program exceeded the offsets of
NOX from shutdown facilities in the Metro-East St. Louis
nonattainment area.
Table 5--NOX and VOC Emissions From Closed Facilities in Chicago Nonattainment Area
[tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago nonattainment area
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Cumulative
I/M program change facility shutdown I/M program change facility shutdown
Year emissions increase emissions emissions increase emissions
(VOC) reduction (VOC) (NOX) reduction (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................ 7.65 33.16 13.95 100.71
2008............................ 6.15 39.96 11.22 109.33
2009............................ 5.19 45.00 9.51 117.95
2010............................ 4.28 48.11 7.54 120.58
2011............................ 3.60 49.30 6.29 121.24
2012............................ 4.85 50.32 4.84 121.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--NOX and VOC Emissions From Closed Facilities in Metro-East St. Louis Nonattainment Area
[tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment area
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Cumulative
I/M program change facility shutdown I/M program change facility shutdown
Year emissions increase emissions emissions increase emissions
(VOC reduction (VOC) (NOX) reduction (NOX)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007............................ 1.09 1.64 2.09 1.39
2008............................ 0.94 1.70 1.80 1.49
2009............................ 0.83 1.83 1.49 1.52
2010............................ 0.75 1.85 1.41 1.56
2011............................ 0.68 1.94 1.28 1.71
2012............................ 0.94 1.97 1.09 1.74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA policy allows for substitution between VOC and NOX
emissions in its guidance on reasonable further progress. This guidance
recommends that states assume, as an approximation, that equivalent
percent changes in the area's inventory for the respective pollutant
yield an equivalent change in ozone levels. For example, decreasing
area NOX emissions by 3 percent would have the same effect
as decreasing area VOC emissions by 3 percent. Stated another way, if
an area has twice as many tons of NOX emissions as VOC
emissions, then 2 tons of NOX emissions would be assumed to
have the same effect on ozone as 1 ton of VOC emissions. Following this
approach, IEPA used a 1 VOC to 2.04 NOX conversion ratio for
the Metro-East St. Louis area.
Table 7 below summarizes IEPA's I/M emissions make-up demonstration
for the Metro-East St. Louis area and takes into consideration the VOC
to NOX substitution approach discussed above. Based on the
use of permanent, enforceable, contemporaneous, surplus emissions
reductions achieved through the shutdown of permitted emissions
sources, EPA believes that the revisions to the Illinois I/M program do
not interfere with both areas' ability to demonstrate compliance with
the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
Table 7--Metro-East St. Louis Area Comparison of NOX Emissions Shortfall to Excess VOC Reductions Applying VOC
to NOX Substitution Policy
[tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Excess VOC
facility shutdown emissions using
Year NOX emissions excess VOC the VOC to NOX
shortfall emissions emissions ratio
reductions (1:2.04)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007................................................ 0.70 0.55 1.12
2008................................................ 0.31 0.76 1.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also examined whether the amendments to the approved I/M
program in Illinois have interfered with attainment of other air
quality standards. The Illinois I/M program was implemented to address
only the ozone NAAQS and EPA has no reason to believe that the
amendments to the approved I/M program have caused or
[[Page 68384]]
will cause the nonattainment of the NAAQS for CO, lead, nitrogen
dioxide, or sulfur dioxide. The Metro-East St. Louis area is designated
as nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS and as discussed
before, NOX is a precursor to PM2.5 formation.
However, as demonstrated above, permanent, enforceable,
contemporaneous, surplus emissions reductions achieved through the
shutdown of permitted VOC and NOX emissions sources have
offset the minor increase in NOX emissions resulting from
the change to the I/M program. Therefore, the changes to the I/M
program do not interfere with attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
In addition, EPA believes that the amendments to the approved I/M
program in Illinois will not interfere with the ability of the Chicago
and Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas to meet any other
CAA requirement.
Based on the above discussion and the state's 100(l) demonstration,
EPA believes that the changes to the Illinois I/M program will not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in either
the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment areas and would not
interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and thus,
are approvable under CAA section 110(l).
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the Illinois ozone SIP
submitted on November 29, 2012, concerning the I/M program in the
Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas in Illinois.
EPA finds that the revisions meet all applicable requirements and will
not interfere with reasonable further progress or attainment of any of
the NAAQS.
VI. 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: November 1, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-27276 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
