Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0729-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed Approval of the Clark and Floyd Counties Indiana I/M Shutdown Request
Posted Date: 2011-01-12T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2066-2070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-343]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 2067]]

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 (IN-KY) 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2068]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Certain areas classified ``marginal'' are also required to 
implement I/M. See CAA section 182(a)(2)(B).
    \3\ Clark 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.
    \4\ As 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 anti-backsliding 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.

[[Page 2069]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As noted in footnote 3 above, EPA is in the process of 
reconsidering this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA 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.
    \8\ As noted above, the Tier II standards are further reducing 
emissions of new vehicles from the 2004 to the 2009 model years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 2070]]

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