Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; Removal of Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs for Clark and Floyd Counties |
|---|
|
Susan Hedman (Federal Register)
April 29, 2011
[Federal Register: April 29, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 83)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23879-23882]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ap11-7]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 http://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 http://
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