57696 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 Clean Air Act. 

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 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, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: September 6, 2011. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23862 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2011–0687, FRL–9465–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New York; 

Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection 

and Maintenance Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on a 

proposed State Implementation Plan 

revision submitted by the New York 

State Department of Environmental 

Conservation. This revision consists of 

changes to New York’s motor vehicle 

enhanced inspection and maintenance 

program that would eliminate the 

transient emission short test program as 

it relates to the New York portion of the 

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY–NJ–CT 8-hour ozone 

moderate nonattainment area. EPA is 

proposing approval of this State 

Implementation Plan revision because it 

meets all applicable requirements of the 

Clean Air Act and EPA’s regulations and 

because the revision will not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

national ambient air quality standards 

in the affected area. The intended effect 

of this action is to maintain consistency 

between the State-adopted rules and the 

Federally approved SIP. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket Number EPA–R02– 

OAR–2011–0687, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2011–0687. 

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 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 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 or any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

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 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57697 

New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if 

at all possible, that you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view 

the hard copy of the docket. You may 

view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk 

Wieber (wieber.kirk@epa.gov), Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866, (212) 637–4249. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. Background Information 

What are the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements for a moderate 8-hr ozone 

nonattainment area? 

History of the Ozone Standard and Area 

Designations CAA Requirements for I/M 

Programs 

III. What was included in New York’s 

proposed SIP submittal? 

IV. What are the I/M performance standard 

requirements and does New York’s I/M 

program satisfy them? 

V. Does New York demonstrate 

noninterference with attainment and 

maintenance under Section 110(l) of the 

CAA? 

VI. What are EPA’s conclusions? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

The EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to the New York State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) pertaining to 

New York’s motor vehicle enhanced 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program that proposes to end tailpipe 

testing on December 31, 2010. This 

proposed SIP revision also outlines 

several changes to New York’s enhanced 

I/M programs currently operating within 

the New York portion of the New YorkNorthern New Jersey-Long Island, NY– 

NJ–CT nonattainment area. New York 

proposes to reduce the percentage of 

emissions waivers allowed within that 

area to 2% (from 3%). New York 

indicates that the decentralized 

program, which features on-board 

diagnostics inspections, is as effective as 

a centralized test-only program for 

modeling purposes. 

II. Background Information 

What are the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements for a moderate 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area? 

History of the Ozone Standard and Area 

Designations 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 

parts per million averaged over an 8- 

hour period. EPA set the 8-hour ozone 

standard based on scientific evidence 

demonstrating that ozone causes 

adverse health effects at lower ozone 

concentrations and over longer periods 

of time than was understood when the 

pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was 

set. EPA determined that the 8-hour 

standard would be more protective of 

human health, especially with regard to 

children and adults who are active 

outdoors, and individuals with a preexisting respiratory disease, such as 

asthma. 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA 

finalized its attainment/nonattainment 

designations for areas across the country 

with respect to the 8-hour ozone 

standard. These actions became 

effective on June 15, 2004. The New 

York portion of the New York-Northern 

New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT 

nonattainment area is composed of the 

five boroughs of New York City and the 

surrounding counties of Nassau, 

Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland. This 

is collectively referred to as the New 

York City Metropolitan Area or NYMA. 

The NYMA was classified as a severe 

ozone nonattainment area under the 

pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard. 

These designations triggered the 

requirements under section 182(b) of the 

CAA for moderate and above 

nonattainment areas, including a 

requirement to submit an enhanced 

motor vehicle I/M program. 

CAA Requirements for I/M Programs 

The CAA requires certain states to 

implement an enhanced I/M program to 

detect gasoline-fueled motor vehicles 

that exhibit excessive emissions of 

certain air pollutants. The enhanced I/ 

M program is intended to help states 

meet Federal health-based NAAQS for 

ozone and carbon monoxide by 

requiring vehicles with excess 

emissions to have their emissions 

control systems repaired. Section 182 of 

the CAA requires I/M programs in those 

areas of the nation that are most 

impacted by carbon monoxide and 

ozone pollution. 

On April 5, 2001, EPA published in 

the Federal Register ‘‘Amendments to 

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 

Program Requirements Incorporating the 

On-Board Diagnostics Check’’ (66 FR 

18156). The revised I/M rule requires 

that electronic checks of the On-Board 

Diagnostics (OBD) system on model year 

1996 and newer OBD-equipped motor 

vehicles be conducted as part of states’ 

motor vehicle I/M programs. 

OBD is part of the sophisticated 

vehicle powertrain management system 

and is designed to detect engine and 

transmission problems that might cause 

vehicle emissions to exceed allowable 

limits. 

The OBD system monitors the status 

of up to 11 emission control related 

subsystems by performing either 

continuous or periodic functional tests 

of specific components and vehicle 

conditions. The first three testing 

categories—misfire, fuel trim, and 

comprehensive components—are 

continuous, while the remaining eight 

only run after a certain set of conditions 

has been met. The algorithms for 

running these eight periodic monitors 

are unique to each manufacturer and 

involve such things as ambient 

temperature as well as driving 

conditions. Most vehicles will have at 

least five of the eight remaining 

monitors (catalyst, evaporative system, 

oxygen sensor, heated oxygen sensor, 

and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR 

system) while the remaining three (air 

conditioning, secondary air, and heated 

catalyst) are not necessarily applicable 

to all vehicles. When a vehicle is 

scanned at an OBD–I/M test site, these 

monitors can appear as either ‘‘ready’’ 

(meaning the monitor in question has 

been evaluated), ‘‘not ready’’ (meaning 

the monitor has not yet been evaluated), 

or ‘‘not applicable’’ (meaning the 

vehicle is not equipped with the 

component monitor in question). 

The OBD system is also designed to 

fully evaluate the vehicle emissions 

control system. If the OBD system 

detects a problem that may cause 

vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times 

the Federal Test Procedure standards, 

then the Malfunction Indicator Light 

(MIL) is illuminated. By turning on the 

MIL, the OBD system notifies the 

vehicle operator that an emissionrelated fault has been detected, and the 

vehicle should be repaired as soon as 

possible thus reducing the harmful 

emissions contributed by that vehicle. 

EPA’s revised OBD I/M rule applies to 

only those areas that are required to 

implement I/M programs under the 

CAA, which include the NYMA and 

certain counties in Upstate New York. 

This rule established a deadline of 

January 1, 2002 for states to begin 

performing OBD checks on 1996 and 

newer model OBD-equipped vehicles 

and to require repairs to be performed 

on those vehicles with malfunctions 

identified by the OBD check. 

On May 7, 2001 (66 FR 22922), EPA 

fully approved New York’s enhanced I/ 

M program as it applies to NYMA and 

included the State’s performance 

standard modeling as meeting the 

applicable requirements of the CAA. 

The OBD component of that program 

was not being implemented at that time 

WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

57698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1New York identified four general program 

enhancements to serve as the basis for claiming 

100% test-and-repair credit for NYVIP; Program 

Manager Network Design, System Integrity/ 

Enhanced Enforcement, Training/Certification, and 

Inspector and Motorist Information. 

and therefore was not approved by EPA 

as satisfying a fully operational OBD 

program. 

However, on February 21, 2007 (72 FR 

7826) EPA fully approved a revision to 

New York’s SIP that incorporates OBD 

system requirements in the NYMA and 

the 53 counties located in upstate New 

York, therefore making OBD a statewide 

requirement. The reader is referred to 

that rulemaking action for a more 

detailed discussion on New York’s OBD 

program. 

III. What was included in New York’s 

proposed SIP submittal? 

After completing the appropriate 

public notice and comment procedures, 

on July 10, 2009, the New York State 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted to 

EPA a proposed SIP revision that 

includes changes to the New York State 

enhanced I/M program. The changes 

include a proposal to end tailpipe 

testing through the New York Transient 

Emissions Short Test (NYTEST) I/M 

program on December 31, 2010. The 

proposed revision also includes a 

reduction in the percentage of emissions 

test waivers allowed within NYMA to 

2% (from 3%) beginning in calendar 

year 2008. The SIP revision includes 

MOBILE6 vehicle emission modeling 

software (MOBILE6) demonstration for 

the high enhanced I/M performance 

standard. 

On February 15, 2011, NYSDEC made 

a supplemental SIP submittal to EPA 

which included recent revisions to Title 

6 of the New York Codes, Rules and 

Regulations (NYCRR), Part 217, ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Emissions,’’ and the New York 

State Department of Motor Vehicles 

(NYSDMV) regulation found at Title 15 

NYCRR Part 79, ‘‘Motor Vehicle 

Inspection.’’ New York adopted these 

rule revisions to end the NYTEST I/M 

program. This submittal was also 

subject to public notice and comment. 

IV. What are the I/M performance 

standard requirements and does New 

York’s I/M program satisfy them? 

Table 1 below compares New York’s 

existing NYMA I/M program 

requirements, which includes both the 

New York Vehicle Inspection Program 

(NYVIP) and NYTEST programs, to a 

future design after the NYTEST tailpipe 

testing program ends (‘‘Post-NYTEST’’). 

TABLE 1 

Vehicle type current NYMA I/M (NYVIP and NYTEST Programs) Post-NYTEST 

Non-electric and non-diesel light-duty vehicles 

(<8,501 lbs. GVWR), MYs 1996 to 2 MYs old.

Emissions Test Type: NYVIP OBD II ..............

ECD Checks for Weight Code 1: air pump, 

fuel inlet restrictor, EGR, PCV, TAC, CAT, 

EVAP system disablement.

Gas Cap: Cap Presence Only .........................

Emissions Test Type: NYVIP OBD II 

ECD Checks for Weight Code 1: air pump, 

fuel inlet restrictor, EGR, PCV, TAC, CAT, 

EVAP system disablement. 

Gas Cap: Cap Presence Only. 

Non-electric and non-diesel light-duty vehicles 

(<8,501 lbs. GVWR), 25 MYs old to MY 1995.

Emissions Test Type: NYTEST Transient .......

ECD Checks for Weight Code 1: air pump, 

fuel inlet restrictor, EGR, PCV, TAC, CAT, 

EVAP system disablement.

Gas Cap: NYTEST Pressure Test ...................

Emissions Test Type: Low Enhanced: 

ECD Checks for Weight Code 1: air pump, 

fuel inlet restrictor, EGR, PCV, TAC, CAT, 

EVAP system disablement. 

Gas Cap: Cap Presence only. 

Non-electric and non-diesel medium- and 

heavy-duty vehicles (8,501–<18,001 lbs. 

GVWR), 25 MYs old to older than 2MYs 

(DMV Weight Codes 2, 3).

Emissions Test Type: NYTEST Idle ................

ECD Checks for Weight Codes 2 and 3: air 

pump, fuel inlet restrictor, EGR, PCV, TAC, 

CAT, EVAP system disablement..

Gas Cap: NYTEST Pressure Test ...................

Emissions Test Type: Low Enhanced: 

ECD Checks for Weight Codes 2 and 3: air 

pump, fuel inlet restrictor, EGR, PCV, TAC, 

CAT, EVAP system disablement. 

Gas Cap: Cap Presence only. 

Non-electric and non-diesel medium- and 

heavy-duty vehicles (>18,000 lbs. GVWR), 

25 MYs old to older than 2MYs (DMV Weight 

Code 4).

Emissions Test Type: NYTEST Idle ................

ECD Checks for Weight Code 4: air pump, 

fuel inlet restrictor, EGR, PCV, TAC, CAT, 

EVAP system disablement.

Gas Cap: NYTEST Pressure Test ...................

Safety only (NYVIP) 

(No emissions, ECD, or gas cap checks). 

NOTE: The reader is referred to the following NYSDEC Web site for a list of Acronyms and Abbreviations: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/ 

53288.html. 

I/M programs are designed and 

implemented to meet or exceed an 

applicable minimum Federal 

performance standard. EPA’s 

performance standards were derived 

from MOBILE6 utilizing ‘‘model’’ inputs 

and local characteristics (i.e., vehicle 

mix, fuel controls). Performance 

standards are expressed as emissions 

levels, in area-wide average grams per 

mile (gpm) values, resulting from the I/ 

M program. More conventionally, 

performance standards are expressed as 

emission reductions, as compared to a 

no I/M scenario. The NYSDEC 

determined EPA’s high enhanced 

performance standard (HEPS) by 

utilizing the ‘‘model’’ inputs contained 

under 40 CFR 51.351(f)(1) through 

(f)(13). While I/M jurisdictions are 

allowed to adopt alternate design 

features other than EPA’s ‘‘model’’ 

inputs, compliance with the applicable 

performance standard must be 

demonstrated for the pollutant(s) that 

established I/M requirements. 

NYSDEC proposed changes that differ 

from the initial 1996 NYMA 

demonstration. These modifications will 

affect a revised NYMA HEPS 

demonstration as follows: 

— Emissions test type changes to reflect 

the end of NYTEST tailpipe testing 

(see Table above); 

— New York estimated, and included a 

justification that the NYVIP OBDbased I/M program is as effective as a 

centralized test-only network.1 The 

previously approved NYTEST 

network effectiveness of 88%, 84%, 

and 86% for hydrocarbons, carbon 

monoxide and oxides of nitrogen, 

respectively, are no longer applicable 

to the NYVIP program; 

— New York evaluated, and included a 

justification for using MOBILE6 

national default values for annual 

vehicle mileage accumulations rather 

than using local inputs derived from 

the outdated Nationwide Personal 

Transportation Survey (NPTS, 1995), 

as was previously used in the 1996 

and 2006 I/M SIPs; 

— A commitment to increase the 

stringency of the NYMA waiver rate 

to 2% beginning in 2008, as opposed 

WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57699 

to a 3% waiver rate claimed within 

the 1996 SIP. 

— Of note, MOBILE5 previously 

allowed for partial repair technician 

training credit. New York previously 

claimed 50% repair technician credit 

within the 1996 SIP revision for the 

NYSDMV sponsored automotive 

technician training program. 

MOBILE6 does not allow for partial 

repair technician training, therefore 

no additional credit is assumed 

within this modeling effort. 

With each new calendar year 

(beginning January 1), a greater 

percentage of NYMA vehicles will 

receive OBD II inspections through 

NYVIP I/M while the percentage of 

NYTEST inspections will decrease due 

to the 25 model year extension and 

escalated vehicle turnover (compared to 

newer NYVIP vehicles). To determine 

the date that a NYVIP only based I/M 

program complies with EPA’s HEPS 

(i.e., following the end of the NYTEST 

tailpipe emissions testing), NYSDEC 

completed a multi-year modeling 

analysis employing the following 

general inputs: 

Network Type: decentralized test-and 

-repair. 

NYVIP NYMA Start Date: 2006. 

Test Frequency: annual. 

Test-and-Repair Effectiveness: 100%. 

Vehicle Types: LDV, LDT1, LDT2, 

LDT3, LDT4. 

Visual Inspection Tests: air pump, 

catalyst, fuel inlet restrictor, EGR, 

evaporative disablement, PCV, and 

missing gas cap. 

Applicable model years: model years 

25 and newer. 

Emissions Test Types: OBD: I/M & 

Evap. 

Waiver Rate: 2% (beginning in CY 

2008). 

Compliance Rate: 98%. 

OBD Exemption Ages: LDVs older 

than model year 1996, 2 newest model 

years. 

Pre-81 Stringency: N/A. 

Repair Technician Training: 0% 

credit. 

NYMA I/M benefits were estimated 

using the MOBILE6 emission model and 

individual inputs for each county in the 

NYMA nonattainment area. Daily 

Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT) 

inventory was constructed by the New 

York State Department of 

Transportation (NYSDOT) to provide 

DVMT estimates by county, geographic 

component (urban, small urban, and 

rural) and functional class. This 

resulting vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 

by county and by functional class is 

then multiplied by a seasonal 

adjustment factor to account for 

seasonal differences. This seasonal 

adjustment factor, which appropriately 

takes into account hourly temperature, 

relative humidity data and other factors, 

is also supplied by the NYSDOT. 

The vehicle mix for each of the 11 

NYSDOT regions in New York State are 

used to produce VMT by vehicle type. 

There are 28 fuel and weight based 

categories employed by MOBILE6. The 

main objective was to create a separate, 

distinct (where justified) vehicle mix for 

each of the twelve roadway types in the 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) classification scheme. 

However, an hourly VMT was input to 

the model using the VMT BY HOUR 

command and was used in the 

computation of the composite daily 

emission factor. The local data were 

obtained through analyses conducted by 

NYSDOT. 

The vehicle distributions used in 

MOBILE6 were obtained from the New 

York State Department of Motor 

Vehicles (NYSDMV) registration 

database for the current year at the 

beginning of July. Each record was 

sorted into the 28 vehicle types by 

county. 

NYSDEC’s MOBILE6 modeling 

demonstration estimated volatile 

organic compound (VOC) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) reductions for a NYVIPonly program in NYMA against EPA’s 

HEPS. Modeling comparisons were 

completed for the 2009, 2010, and 2011 

ozone seasons. The HEPS evaluation 

included the ±0.02 gpm emission level 

margin provided by 40 CFR 

51.351(f)(13). While MOBILE6 reports 

gpm emission levels to the thousandths 

place, the calculated differences 

between the future NYVIP program and 

HEPS were rounded to the hundredths 

place to reflect the ±0.02 gpm margin. 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) reductions are 

included for demonstration purposes. 

The summary of New York’s multi-year 

modeling evaluation is provided below 

in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—NYVIP–ONLY HIGH ENHANCED I/M PERFORMANCE STANDARD COMPARISON FUTURE OZONE SEASONS

VMT 

(1,000’s) VOC (gpm) CO (gpm) NOX (gpm) 

2009 .................................... EPA’s HEPS ................................................................... 212,776.18 0.576 5.149 0.842 

Target NYVIP .................................................................. ’’ 0.606 5.446 0.857 

Difference ........................................................................ .................... (0.03) (0.30) (0.02) 

Is it within the 0.02 gpm margin? ................................... .................... No No Yes. 

2010 .................................... EPA’s HEPS ................................................................... 216,180.83 0.520 4.807 0.750 

Target NYVIP .................................................................. ’’ 0.547 5.072 0.766 

Difference ........................................................................ .................... (0.03) (0.27) (0.02) 

Is it within the 0.02 gpm margin? ................................... .................... No No Yes. 

2011 .................................... EPA’s HEPS ................................................................... 219,585.48 0.474 4.526 0.670 

Target NYVIP .................................................................. ’’ 0.495 4.739 0.684 

Difference ........................................................................ .................... (0.02) (0.21) (0.01) 

Is it within the 0.02 gpm margin? ................................... .................... Yes No Yes. 

As Table 2 indicates, the NYVIP I/M 

program alone cannot meet EPA’s HEPS 

in either the 2009 or 2010 ozone seasons 

(June 1–September 30), but does meet 

EPA’s HEPS for the 2011 ozone season 

(i.e., prior to June 1). NYSDEC proposed 

that tailpipe testing be discontinued on 

December 31, 2010. NYSDEC believed 

this was the best date between the 2010 

and 2011 ozone seasons to implement 

regulatory and inspection software 

based changes. 

EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA has reviewed NYSDEC’s 

proposed changes to its enhanced I/M 

program that differ from the previous 

Federally approved program and has 

determined that those changes satisfy 

the high enhanced performance 

standard, by utilizing the ‘‘model’’ 

inputs contained under 40 CFR 

51.351(f)(1) through (f)(13), and are 

therefore approvable into the SIP. EPA 

will continue to evaluate the New York 

enhanced I/M program effectiveness 

through the annual and biennial reports 

submitted by the NYSDEC in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.366, ‘‘Data 

Analysis and Reporting.’’ 

WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

57700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2On July 6, 2011, EPA issued the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace the CAIR rule, 

which was vacated and then remanded to the EPA 

in 2008, see http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/. A 

December 2008 court decision kept the 

requirements of CAIR in place temporarily, but 

directed EPA to issue a new rule to implement the 

CAA requirements concerning the transport of air 

pollution across state boundaries. This CSAPR is 

designed to implement these CAA requirements 

and respond to the court’s concerns. The CSAPR 

takes effect January 1, 2012; CAIR will be 

implemented through the 2011 compliance periods, 

and then replaced by the CSAPR. 

V. Does New York demonstrate 

noninterference with attainment and 

maintenance under Section 110(l) of the 

CAA? 

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. Thus, for 

example, modification of a SIPapproved measure may impact NOX

emissions, may also impact PM2.5

emissions, and this would have to be 

evaluated. The scope and rigor of an 

adequate section 110(l) demonstration 

of noninterference depends on the air 

quality status of the area, the potential 

impact of the revision on air quality, the 

pollutant(s) affected, and the nature of 

the applicable CAA requirements. 

It is important to note, aside from 

ozone, the NYMA is attaining the 

NAAQS for all of the other criteria 

pollutants, including PM2.5 and carbon 

monoxide. There are two SIPs where I/ 

M has been included as an emission 

reduction control measure, the 1-hour 

and 8-hour ozone SIPs. For the 8-hour 

ozone SIP, New York included in the 

attainment demonstration the proposed 

I/M program as discussed in this action, 

so no further evaluation is needed. 

For the 1-hour ozone SIP, NYSDEC 

discusses the ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provisions within the Rate of Progress/ 

Reasonable Further Progress 

Demonstration discussion of its I/M SIP 

submittal. Since the NYTEST program is 

part of the 1-hour ozone SIP for the 

NYMA, NYSDEC must, in accordance 

with CAA section 181(b)(4), continue to 

meet the reasonable further progress 

requirements of CAA section 182(b)(1). 

In other words, NYSDEC needs to 

‘‘make up’’ for any decrease in projected 

emission reductions, as indicated in 

Table 3, that will occur as a result of the 

changes being made to the I/M program 

through the application of programs not 

already included in the 1-hour ozone 

SIP. 

TABLE 3—NYVIP–ONLY HIGH ENHANCED I/M PERFORMANCE STANDARD COMPARISON 2011 OZONE SEASON

[In tons per day (tpd)] 

VMT 

(1,000’s) VOC (tpd) NOX (tpd) 

2011 EPA HEPS ......................................................................................................................... 219,585.48 114.49 161.83 

Target NYVIP ..................................................................................................................... ’’ 119.56 165.22 

Difference/Shortfall ............................................................................................................ .................... (5.07) (3.39) 

In its submittal, NYSDEC noted it had 

or was planning to adopt revisions to its 

regulations (6 NYCRR Parts 228, 235, 

241 and 243) that would more than 

make up this difference. 

As part of the NYMA ozone 

attainment demonstration SIP, NYSDEC 

has estimated the emission reductions 

that will result from each of these 

control measures. The expected 

reductions in 2011 are identified below 

in Table 4. 

TABLE 4 

Regulation Rule name State effective 

date Pollutant Reduction in 2011 (tpd) 

Part 228 ........................... Adhesives and Sealants .......................................................... 9/30/10 VOC 6.08 

Part 235 ........................... Consumer Products ................................................................. 10/15/09 VOC 16.73 

Part 241 ........................... Asphalt Paving ......................................................................... 1/1/11 VOC 2.45 

Part 243 ........................... Clean Air Intrastate Rule (CAIR) ............................................. 5/6/10 NOX 8.7 

As a result of this analysis, it can be 

concluded that the adoption of either 

the Consumer Products or Adhesives 

and Sealants provisions (when 

compared to the Table 3 shortfall 

emission reductions) are all that is 

needed in VOC reductions to prevent 

‘‘backsliding’’ under the 1-hour ozone 

SIP, and the adopted CAIR provisions 

alone make up the necessary NOX

reductions.2 New York has adopted all 

of these rules with the respective State 

effective dates identified. 

New York has demonstrated that the 

changes to its enhanced I/M program 

will meet the performance standard 

requirements and will therefore 

continue to achieve emission reductions 

necessary to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. EPA 

proposes to find that New York has 

satisfied the section 110(l) of the CAA 

demonstration of noninterference. 

VI. What are EPA’s conclusions? 

EPA’s review of the materials 

submitted indicates that New York has 

revised its I/M program in accordance 

with the requirements of the CAA, 40 

CFR part 51 and all of EPA’s technical 

requirements for an approvable 

enhanced I/M program. EPA is 

proposing to approve the revisions to 

the Title 6, New York Codes, Rules and 

Regulations (NYCRR), Part 217, ‘‘Motor 

Vehicle Emissions,’’ Subparts 217–1, 

217–4 and the adoption of new Subpart 

217–6, as effective on December 5, 2010, 

WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 180 / Friday, September 16, 2011 / Proposed Rules 57701 

and the New York State Department of 

Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) regulation 

Title 15 NYCRR Part 79 ‘‘Motor Vehicle 

Inspection,’’ Sections 79.1–79.15, 79.17, 

79.20, 79.21, 79.24, 79.25, as effective 

on December 29, 2010, which 

incorporate the State’s motor vehicle I/ 

M program requirements. The CAA 

gives states the discretion in program 

planning to implement programs of the 

state’s choosing as long as necessary 

emission reductions are met. EPA is also 

proposing to approve New York’s 

performance standard modeling 

demonstration, which reflects the 

State’s I/M program as it is currently 

implemented in the NYMA as well as 

throughout New York State. 

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 

Act 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: September 6, 2011. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23855 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0003; FRL–9465–4] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 29, 2011, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published a Notice of Intent to Delete 

and a Direct Notice of Deletion for the 

Palmer Barge Line (PBL) Superfund Site 

from the National Priorities List. The 

EPA is withdrawing the Notice of Intent 

to Delete because the deletion notices 

were published in the Federal Register 

without Headquarter’s concurrence as 

required under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

Delegation of Authority. After 

appropriate Headquarters concurrence 

is received on the Notice of Intent to 

Delete the PBL Superfund Site from the 

National Priorities List, the EPA will republish a Notice of Intent to Delete in 

the Federal Register. 

DATES: The proposed rule published on 

July 29, 2011, (76 FR 45484) is 

withdrawn as of September 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: 

Information Repositories: 

Comprehensive information on the PBL 

Superfund Site, as well as the comments 

that we received during the comment 

period, are available in Docket EPA– 

HQ–SFUND–2000–0003, accessed 

through the http://www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the docket 

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: 

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733; Hours of 

operation: Monday thru Friday, 9 a.m. to 12 

p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Contact: Rafael A. 

Casanova (214) 665–7437. 

2. Port Arthur Public Library, 4615 9th 

Avenue, Port Arthur, Texas 77642–5799; 

Hours of operation: Monday thru Thursday, 

9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; 

Saturday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; and Sunday, 2 

p.m. to 5 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rafael A. Casanova, Remedial Project 

Manager; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, Superfund Division 

(6SF–RA), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733; 

telephone number: (214) 665–7437; 

e-mail: casanova.rafael@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated: September 6, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23871 Filed 9–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

WREIER-aviles on DSK29S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS