2066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 OF § 1065.1010—ASTM MATERIALS

Document No. and name Part 1065 

reference 

*******

ASTM D93–09, Standard Test Methods for Flash Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester ......................................................... 1065.703 

ASTM D 445–09, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (the Calculation of Dynamic 

Viscosity) .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1065.703 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–246 Filed 1–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0729; FRL–9250–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Removal of Vehicle Inspection and 

Maintenance Programs for Clark and 

Floyd Counties 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Indiana to allow the State to discontinue 

the vehicle inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) program in Clark and Floyd 

Counties, IN, the Indiana portion of the 

Louisville (IN-KY) 1997 8-hour ozone 

area. The revision specifically requests 

that I/M program regulations be 

removed from the active control 

measures portion of the SIP. The 

regulations will remain in the 

contingency measures portion of the 

Clark and Floyd Counties ozone 

maintenance plans. The Indiana 

Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM) submitted this 

request on October 10, 2006, and 

supplemented it on November 15, 2006, 

November 29, 2007, November 25, 2008, 

April 23, 2010, and November 19, 2010. 

EPA is proposing to approve Indiana’s 

request because the State has 

demonstrated that discontinuing the I/M 

program in Clark and Floyd Counties 

will not interfere with the attainment 

and maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) or with the attainment and 

maintenance of other air quality 

standards and requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0729, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, (AR– 

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009– 

0729. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov website is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This Facility is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding Federal 

holidays. We recommend that you 

telephone Francisco J. Acevedo at (312) 

886–6061 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6052. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

A. Submitting CBI 

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2067 

1Although the enhanced I/M program component 

began in 1997, there was a vehicle I/M program 

operating in the Clark and Floyd Counties prior to 

that date, and prior to November 15, 1990. 

2Certain areas classified ‘‘marginal’’ are also 

required to implement I/M. See CAA section 

182(a)(2)(B). 

3Clark and Floyd Counties were classified ‘‘basic’’ 

(i.e., subject to subpart 1) for the 0.08 parts per 

million (ppm) 8-hour ozone standard but that 

classification was vacated by a decision of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

See South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. 

EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). EPA is in the 

process of responding to that decision through 

rulemaking. EPA promulgated a 0.075 ppm 8-hour 

ozone standard but subsequently announced that it 

was reconsidering that standard and in January 

2010 proposed to change it. EPA has not designated 

areas for the 0.075 ppm 8-hour ozone standard that 

is being reconsidered. 

4As discussed below, the measures must be 

retained as contingency measures because CAA 

section 175A(d) requires that the contingency 

measures portion of the SIP include a requirement 

that the State will implement all measures that were 

contained in the SIP before the area was 

redesignated to attainment. 

II. What are EPA’s proposed actions 

III. What changes to the Indiana SIP have 

been submitted to support the removal of 

the I/M program in Clark and Floyd 

Counties? 

IV. What criteria apply to Indiana’s request? 

V. Has Indiana met the criteria for converting 

the I/M program in Clark and Floyd 

Counties to contingency measures? 

VI. What are our conclusions concerning the 

removal of the I/M program in Clark and 

Floyd Counties? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

A. Submitting CBI 

Do not submit this information to EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be 

CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 

CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as 

CBI and then identify electronically 

within the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI). In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date, and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What are EPA’s proposed actions? 

EPA is proposing to approve a SIP 

revision submitted by the State of 

Indiana to modify the ozone SIP such 

that the I/M program in Clark and Floyd 

Counties (the Indiana portion of the 

Louisville (IN-KY) 1997 8-hour ozone 

area) is no longer an active program in 

this area and remains instead as a 

contingency measure in this area’s 

maintenance plan for 1997 8-hour 

ozone. 

III. What changes to the Indiana SIP 

have been submitted to support the 

removal of the I/M program in Clark 

and Floyd Counties? 

Indiana House Enrolled Act No. 1798, 

effective on July 1, 2003, amended 

Indiana code 13–17–5 to eliminate the 

applicability of the vehicle emissions 

testing rule to Clark and Floyd Counties 

after December 31, 2006, at which time 

the program ceased operations. IDEM 

submitted a revision to the Indiana SIP 

for Clark and Floyd Counties (the 

Indiana portion of the Louisville (INKY) 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area) on October 10, 2006, requesting 

that the Indiana I/M program in Clark 

and Floyd Counties be moved from the 

active control measures portion of the 

SIP to the contingency measures portion 

of the Clark and Floyd Counties 1997 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan. 

Clark and Floyd Counties were 

originally required to implement ‘‘basic’’ 

I/M programs under section 182(b)(4) of 

the CAA because they had been 

designated as part of the Louisville 

moderate 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

area. In order to maximize the emissions 

reductions from the I/M program, IDEM 

chose to implement an ‘‘enhanced’’ 

program in those areas and incorporated 

an on-board diagnostic (OBD) 

component into the program. EPA fully 

approved Indiana’s I/M program on 

March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11142). The 

enhanced I/M program component 

began operation in 1997, to help meet 

nonattainment area requirements for the 

ozone NAAQS effective at the time.1

The Louisville 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area was redesignated to 

attainment for that standard on October 

23, 2001 (66 FR 53665). 

Subsequently, Clark and Floyd 

Counties were designated as a portion of 

the IN-KY Louisville nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On 

November 15, 2006, IDEM submitted a 

request to redesignate the Indiana 

portion of the Louisville nonattainment 

area to attainment for the 8-hour 

NAAQS, and for EPA approval of a 

14-year maintenance plan for Clark and 

Floyd Counties. At the same time, IDEM 

requested EPA approval to terminate the 

I/M program in these counties. EPA 

approved the redesignation and 

maintenance plan for Clark and Floyd 

Counties on July 19, 2007 (72 FR 

39571). The approved maintenance plan 

demonstrated that the area could 

maintain the standard without the need 

for emission reductions from I/M. See 

72 FR 26057, 26064–26065 (May 8, 

2007). 

The Louisville 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area also includes 

Jefferson County, Kentucky. EPA 

approved the discontinuation of the I/M 

program in Jefferson County on May 18, 

2005, at 70 FR 28429. 

IV. What criteria apply to Indiana’s 

request? 

Areas designated nonattainment for 

the ozone NAAQS and classified 

‘‘moderate’’ are required by the CAA to 

implement vehicle I/M. See CAA 

section 182(b)(4).2 The Louisville area 

was previously designated moderate 

nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard, prompting the requirement for 

I/M. However, as noted above, the 

Louisville area was redesignated to 

attainment for the 1-hour standard, and 

the 1-hour standard has been revoked. 

While Clark and Floyd Counties were 

designated nonattainment for the 0.08 

ppm 8-hour ozone standard, they were 

not classified for that standard.3 Thus, 

these areas are not currently required to 

have I/M programs under the CAA and 

the State may move them to the 

contingency measures portion of the 

SIP,4 provided the State can satisfy the 

anti-backsliding requirements of the 

CAA (sections 110(l) and 193) and of 

EPA’s ozone implementation rule, 40 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

2068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

CFR 51.905. As previously noted, EPA 

in approving the area’s maintenance 

plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

concluded that it demonstrated 

maintenance without reliance on any 

emissions reductions from the I/M 

program. 

CAA section 110(l) provides: 

The Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable further 

progress (as defined in section 171), or any 

other applicable requirement of this Act. 

In addition, EPA adopted antibacksliding requirements as part of the 

implementation rule for the 0.08 ppm 

8-hour ozone standard. See 40 CFR 

51.905. For areas such as these that were 

required under the CAA to implement 

basic I/M, EPA applies the provisions of 

the implementation rule in concert with 

the provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c). 

The provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c) 

allow certain areas seeking 

redesignation to submit only the 

authority for an I/M program (together 

with certain commitments), rather than 

an implemented program, in satisfaction 

of the applicable I/M requirements. 

Under these I/M rule provisions, a basic 

I/M area (i.e., an area that was required 

to adopt a basic I/M program) which has 

been redesignated to attainment for the 

1-hour ozone NAAQS can convert the 

I/M program to a contingency measure 

as part of the area’s 1-hour ozone 

maintenance plan, notwithstanding the 

anti-backsliding provisions in EPA’s 

8-hour ozone implementation rule 

published April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858). 

A basic I/M area which is designated 

nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, yet is not required to have an 

I/M program based on its 8-hour ozone 

classification, continues to have the 

option to move its I/M program to a 

contingency measure pursuant to the 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.372(c), 

provided the 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area can demonstrate 

that doing so will not interfere with its 

ability to comply with any NAAQS or 

any other applicable CAA requirement 

pursuant to section 110(l) of the Act. For 

further details on the application of 

8-hour ozone anti-backsliding 

provisions to basic I/M programs in 

1-hour ozone maintenance areas, please 

refer to the May 12, 2004, EPA 

Memorandum from Tom Helms, Group 

Leader, Ozone Policy and Strategies 

Group, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, and Leila H. Cook, 

Group Leader, State Measures and 

Conformity Group, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, to the 

Air Program Managers, the subject of 

which is ‘‘1 Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plans Containing Basic I/M Programs.’’ 

A copy of this memorandum may be 

obtained at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

oarpg/t1pgm.html under the file date 

‘‘5–12–04.’’ 

V. Has Indiana met the criteria for 

converting the I/M program in Clark 

and Floyd Counties to contingency 

measures? 

Clark and Floyd Counties were 

redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS on October 23, 2001 (66 

FR 53665). On July 19, 2007 (72 FR 

39571), EPA approved the redesignation 

of Clark and Floyd Counties to 

attainment with respect to the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA approved 

maintenance plans with respect to each 

of these standards in connection with 

these redesignations. The approved 

maintenance plans show that control 

measures in place in these areas are 

sufficient for overall emissions to 

remain beneath the attainment level of 

emissions until the end of the 

maintenance period, even without 

operation of I/M. In both plans, the 

conformity budget in the maintenance 

plans reflects mobile source emissions 

without I/M in future years, and the 

maintenance plans demonstrate that the 

applicable standard will continue to be 

met without I/M. In accordance with the 

Act and EPA redesignation guidance, 

states are free to adjust control strategies 

in the maintenance plan as long as they 

can satisfy section 110(l). With such a 

demonstration of noninterference with 

attainment or other applicable 

requirements, control programs may be 

discontinued and removed from the SIP. 

However, section 175A(d) of the CAA 

requires that contingency measures in 

the maintenance plan include all 

measures in the SIP for the area before 

that area was redesignated to 

attainment. Since the I/M program was 

in the SIP prior to redesignation to 

attainment for ozone, the I/M program 

must be included in the contingency 

portion of the ozone maintenance plan 

as required by section 175A(d). As part 

of its submittal, IDEM provided a 

demonstration showing continued 

maintenance of the 8-hour ozone 

standard without taking credit for 

reductions from the Clark and Floyd 

Counties I/M program after December 

2006. 

As discussed above, EPA interprets its 

regulations as allowing basic I/M areas 

such as these to have the option to move 

an I/M program to a contingency 

measure pursuant to 40 CFR 51.372(c), 

provided that moving I/M to 

contingency measures will not interfere 

with the area’s ability to comply with 

any NAAQS or any other applicable 

CAA requirement (including section 

193). Under 40 CFR 51.372(c), an area 

is required to include in its submittal, 

with a request to place the I/M program 

into the contingency measures: (1) Legal 

authority to implement a basic I/M 

program; (2) a commitment by the 

Governor of the State, or the Governor’s 

designee, to adopt or consider adopting 

regulations to implement an I/M 

program to correct a violation of the 

ozone or carbon monoxide standard, in 

accordance with the maintenance plan; 

and (3) a contingency commitment that 

includes an enforceable schedule, with 

appropriate milestones, for adoption 

and implementation of an I/M program. 

In the State’s supplemental submittal 

of November 25, 2008, IDEM reaffirms 

that Indiana has retained the necessary 

legal authority to implement I/M under 

Indiana Code 13–17–5. EPA examined 

the applicable Indiana statutory 

language and the State’s subsequent 

legal review and concurs with Indiana’s 

finding that it has the necessary legal 

authority to implement I/M if it 

becomes necessary under the CAA to 

implement contingency measures. In 

addition, the State’s supplemental 

submittal includes a commitment by 

IDEM to consider the adoption of I/M as 

a corrective measure should an ambient 

8-hour ozone design value trigger a 

contingency measure in Clark and Floyd 

Counties, and the required program is 

determined by the State to be an I/M 

program. The State’s supplemental 

submittal of April 23, 2010, also 

contains an I/M implementation 

schedule in the event that I/M is 

selected by the State as a corrective 

measure, as required by 40 CFR 

51372(c). 

As mentioned above, on July 19, 2007 

(72 FR 39571), EPA concluded that 

Clark and Floyd Counties met the 0.08 

ppm ozone air quality standard and 

redesignated this area to attainment for 

that standard. The maintenance plan for 

this area shows that the area will 

continue to attain the standard even 

with the discontinuation of I/M. 

As noted above, the 1997 8-hour 

maintenance plan estimated the levels 

of volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions 

in the area associated with attainment of 

the respective ozone standards, and 

found that emissions would remain 

below those quantities even with the 

discontinuation of I/M. Furthermore, 

the maintenance plan demonstrates that 

current emissions of VOC and NOX, 

without the I/M program, are lower than 

emissions were in 2005, representing 

emissions when I/M was still operating. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2069 

5See 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000). 

6As noted in footnote 3 above, EPA is in the 

process of reconsidering this standard. 

7EPA received no comments on that proposal and 

will take final action on that determination before 

taking final action on Indiana’s I/M shutdown 

request for Clark and Floyd Counties. 

8As noted above, the Tier II standards are further 

reducing emissions of new vehicles from the 2004 

to the 2009 model years. 

EPA has also compared the expected 

reductions of VOC and NOX from the 

I/M program with the reduction of 

emissions that have resulted from the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program 

and other emission control programs 

since the I/M program ceased operation. 

EPA concludes that the ongoing 

reductions from implementation of 

these programs, particularly the Tier II 

standards for motor vehicles,5 are 

greater than the emissions reductions 

that would have been achieved from the 

I/M program. 

On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), 

EPA revised the ozone standard to 0.075 

ppm as an 8-hour average.6 EPA 

therefore examined whether 

discontinuation of the I/M program in 

Clark and Floyd Counties might 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of this standard. The most 

direct evidence regarding this issue is 

the most recent three years of air quality 

data. Since the I/M program in Clark 

and Floyd Counties was discontinued in 

2006, the most recent three years have 

all reflected emissions without 

operation of an I/M program in Clark 

and Floyd Counties. All ozone 

monitoring sites in the Louisville area 

are meeting the 0.075 ppm air quality 

standard, with the highest design value 

at 0.075 ppm, observed at the Watson 

Elementary site in Jefferson County, 

Kentucky (site 21–111–0051). Ozone air 

quality in the 2007 to 2009 period, 

representing a period in which the I/M 

program was discontinued, attains the 

ozone NAAQS and is better than ozone 

air quality in the 2004 to 2006, 

representing the last three years in 

which the program operated. 

Furthermore, Indiana’s ozone 

maintenance plan for this area shows a 

continuing decline in the emissions of 

ozone precursors. 

On November 19, 2010, Indiana 

submitted modeling analyses that 

further support the conclusion that the 

discontinuation of the I/M program in 

Clark and Floyd Counties will not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the 0.075 ppm ozone 

standard. This submittal reviews 

analyses conducted by EPA and by the 

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO), in both cases reflecting no 

operation of an I/M program in Clark 

and Floyd Counties. These analyses 

indicate that the Louisville area can be 

expected to continue to attain the 0.075 

ppm ozone standard without I/M in 

Clark and Floyd Counties. Most notably, 

Indiana reviews the modeling 

conducted by EPA in support of its 

proposed transport rule, showing that 

the Louisville area can be expected to 

continue to attain the 0.075 ppm ozone 

standard in 2012 not only with the 

discontinuation of the I/M program in 

Clark and Floyd Counties but also with 

the discontinuation of power plant 

emission controls mandated by the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule. Thus, these 

modeling analyses provide further 

evidence that the discontinuation of the 

I/M program in Clark and Floyd 

Counties will not interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of the 

0.075 ozone standard in the Louisville 

area. 

EPA also examined whether 

discontinuation of the I/M program 

might interfere with attainment of the 

annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

standards. Since Indiana discontinued 

its I/M program at the end of 2006, the 

PM2.5 air quality from 2007 to 2009 are 

indicative of whether the Louisville area 

can be expected to attain the annual 

PM2.5 standard notwithstanding the 

discontinuation of Indiana’s I/M 

program. In a separate rulemaking 

proceeding, published on September 14, 

2010 (75 FR 55725), EPA has proposed 

to determine that the Louisville area is 

now attaining the annual PM2.5

standards.7 Furthermore, mobile source 

emissions affecting PM2.5 concentrations 

are continuing to decline, as a result of 

the Federal Motor Vehicle Control 

Program.8

EPA also examined whether cessation 

of the I/M program has interfered with 

attainment of other air quality 

standards. The Louisville area is 

designated attainment for the coarse 

particulate matter (PM10) standard, for 

the 24-hour PM2.5 standards 

promulgated on July 18, 1997, and 

October 17, 2006, for carbon monoxide, 

for sulfur dioxide, and for nitrogen 

dioxide. EPA has no reason to believe 

that discontinuation of the I/M program 

in Clark and Floyd Counties has caused 

or will cause the Louisville area to 

become nonattainment for any of these 

pollutants. In addition, EPA believes 

that the discontinuation of the I/M 

program in Clark and Floyd Counties 

will not interfere with the area’s ability 

to meet any other CAA requirement. 

VI. What are our conclusions 

concerning the removal of the I/M 

program in Clark and Floyd Counties? 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

believes that Indiana has satisfied 

currently applicable criteria for 

discontinuing I/M in Clark and Floyd 

Counties. We are proposing to find that 

the State of Indiana has demonstrated 

that eliminating the I/M program in 

Clark and Floyd Counties is consistent 

with the requirements of sections 110(l) 

and 193 of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, we are proposing to 

approve Indiana’s request to modify the 

SIP such that I/M is no longer an active 

program in these areas and is instead a 

contingency measure in this area’s 

maintenance plan. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

2070 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 22, 2010. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–343 Filed 1–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–1028; FRL–9251–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority 

and Tailoring Rule Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ). This revision pertains to 

EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting 

provisions as promulgated on June 3, 

2010. This action is being taken under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–1028 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: cox.kathleen@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–1028, 

Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, Office 

of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 

3AP10, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2010– 

1028. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

e-mail at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. On October 27, 2010, the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

submitted a revision to its SIP for the 

addition of a new Chapter 85 of 9VAC5. 

I. Background 

On October 27, 2010, VADEQ 

submitted a draft revision to EPA for 

approval into the Virginia SIP to 

establish appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

or modified stationary sources become 

subject to Virginia’s Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions. Final approval of Virginia’s 

October 27, 2010, SIP revision will put 

in place the GHG emission thresholds 

for PSD applicability set forth in EPA’s 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule,’’ (the Tailoring Rule) Final Rule, 

75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010), ensuring 

that smaller GHG sources emitting less 

than these thresholds will not be subject 

to permitting requirements when these 

requirements begin applying to GHGs 

on January 2, 2011. Pursuant to section 

110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to 

approve this revision into the Virginia 

SIP. 

Today’s proposed action on the 

Virginia SIP generally relates to three 

federal rulemaking actions. The first 

rulemaking is EPA’s Tailoring Rule. The 

second rulemaking is EPA’s ‘‘Action to 

Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under 

the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program to Sources of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of 

Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,’’ 

Proposed Rule (GHG SIP Call). 75 FR 

53892 (September 2, 2010). The third 

rulemaking is EPA’s ‘‘Action to Ensure 

Authority to Issue Permits Under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: Federal Implementation 

Plan,’’ Proposed Rule, 75 FR 53883 

(September 2, 2010) (GHG FIP), which 

serves as a companion rulemaking to 

EPA’s proposed GHG SIP Call. A 

summary of each of these rulemakings 

is described below. 

In the first rulemaking, the Tailoring 

Rule, EPA established appropriate GHG 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS