Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179-0012
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2011-04-29T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23879-23882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10323]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0729; FRL-9299-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Indiana; Removal of Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs for 
Clark and Floyd Counties

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Indiana to allow the 
State to discontinue the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) 
program in Clark and Floyd Counties, IN, the Indiana portion of the 
Louisville (IN-KY) 1997 8-hour ozone area. The revision specifically 
provides that I/M program regulations be removed from the active 
control measures portion of the SIP. The regulations will remain in the 
contingency measures portion of the Clark and Floyd Counties ozone 
maintenance plans. EPA is approving Indiana's request because the State 
has demonstrated that discontinuing the I/M program in Clark and Floyd 
Counties will not interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the 
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or with the 
attainment and maintenance of other air quality standards and 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0729. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be 
publicly-available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket 
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal 
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo at (312) 
886-6061 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental 
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is the background for this action?

[[Page 23880]]

II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of 
proposed rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    Clark and Floyd Counties were originally required to implement a 
``basic'' I/M program under section 182(b)(4) of the CAA because they 
had been designated as part of the Louisville moderate 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment area. In order to maximize the emissions reductions from 
the I/M program, IDEM chose to implement an ``enhanced'' program in 
those areas and incorporated an on-board diagnostic (OBD) component 
into the program. EPA fully approved Indiana's I/M program on March 19, 
1996 (61 FR 11142). The enhanced I/M program began operation in 1997, 
to help meet nonattainment area requirements for the ozone NAAQS 
effective at the time. The Louisville 1-hour ozone nonattainment area 
was redesignated to attainment for that standard on October 23, 2001 
(66 FR 53665).
    Subsequently, Clark and Floyd Counties were designated as a portion 
of the IN-KY Louisville nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. On November 15, 2006, IDEM submitted a request to redesignate 
the Indiana portion of the Louisville nonattainment area to attainment 
for the 8-hour NAAQS, and for EPA approval of a 14-year maintenance 
plan for Clark and Floyd Counties. At the same time, IDEM requested EPA 
approval to terminate the I/M program in these counties. EPA approved 
the redesignation and maintenance plan for Clark and Floyd Counties on 
July 19, 2007 (72 FR 39571). The approved maintenance plan shows that 
control measures in place in this area are sufficient for overall 
emissions to remain beneath the attainment level of emissions until the 
end of the maintenance period, even without operation of I/M. In 
addition, the conformity budget in the maintenance plan reflects mobile 
source emissions without I/M in future years, and the maintenance plan 
demonstrates that the applicable standard will continue to be met 
without I/M. See 72 FR 26057, 26064-26065 (May 8, 2007).
    In accordance with the CAA and EPA redesignation guidance, states 
are free to adjust control strategies in the maintenance plan as long 
as they can demonstrate that the revision will not interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, or any other CAA requirements. 
See CAA sections 175A and 110(l). With such a demonstration of 
noninterference with attainment or other applicable requirements, 
control programs may be discontinued and removed from the SIP. However, 
section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that contingency measures in the 
maintenance plan include all measures in the SIP for the area before 
that area was redesignated to attainment. Since the I/M program was 
approved into the SIP prior to redesignation to attainment for ozone, 
the I/M program must be included in the contingency portion of the 
ozone maintenance plan as required by section 175A(d).
    The SIP revision submitted by IDEM for Clark and Floyd Counties 
included a 110(l) demonstration that addressed all applicable 
requirements and a request that the Indiana I/M program in Clark and 
Floyd Counties be moved from the active control measures portion of the 
SIP to the contingency measures portion of the Clark and Floyd Counties 
1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan.
    On January 12, 2011, EPA proposed to approve Indiana's request to 
discontinue operation of the I/M program in Clark and Floyd Counties 
(76 FR 2066). As noted in the proposal, in order to finalize this 
rulemaking EPA needed to complete rulemaking on a determination of 
attainment for PM2.5 for the Louisville area. EPA has 
subsequently published a final action determining that this area is 
attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS, published on March 9, 2011, at 76 
FR 12860.

II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of proposed 
rulemaking?

    The public comment period for EPA's proposal to approve Indiana's 
request closed on February 11, 2011. EPA received two comments. Those 
comments and EPA's responses follow:
    Comment: ``The notice of the proposed rule does not state that EPA 
conducted a modeling analysis to demonstrate that removal of the I/M 
program will not interfere with maintenance or attainment of the new 1-
hour NOX [sic] NAAQS. It likely will. Therefore, EPA cannot 
approve this SIP modification without a quantitative analysis of its 
impacts on the 1-hour NOX [sic] NAAQS.''
    Response: In its notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA noted that the 
area is designated attainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 
(addressing air quality for the annual standard) and that EPA has ``no 
reason to believe that discontinuation of the I/M program in Clark and 
Floyd Counties has caused or will cause the Louisville area to become 
nonattainment'' for NO2 or other criteria pollutants. The 
commenter offered no data or supporting information on whether 
discontinuation of the I/M program would likely interfere with 
attainment or maintenance of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. In 
response to this comment, EPA further examined air quality data as part 
of an assessment of whether the discontinuation of the I/M program has 
interfered or might interfere with attainment or maintenance of the 1-
hour NO2 air quality.
    No NO2 air quality monitors are currently located in 
Clark or Floyd Counties in Indiana. However, as noted above, Clark and 
Floyd Counties were included in the IN-KY Louisville nonattainment area 
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and air quality data are collected 
nearby in Louisville, Kentucky (at site number 21-111-1021). Since 
Louisville is more urbanized and is also a higher traffic area than 
Clark and Floyd Counties, these air quality data provide a conservative 
representation of air quality in Clark and Floyd Counties for 
NO2. Furthermore, the impact of mobile sources is declining 
as newer cleaner vehicles replace older dirtier vehicles. Accordingly, 
the impact of discontinuing the I/M program in Clark and Floyd Counties 
is expected to decline in the future as well. For the most recent 3-
year period with certified, quality assured data (2007 to 2009), the 
design value (i.e., the NO2 concentration computed for 
comparison to the 1-hour standard) for this site was 53 parts per 
billion, well below the standard of 100 parts per billion.
    These three years are a period when the I/M program both in 
Louisville and in Clark and Floyd Counties had been discontinued. 
Therefore, the air quality data from this period (and mobile source 
emission trends) provide a basis for concluding that the 
discontinuation of the I/M program has not interfered and will not 
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour NO2 
standard. While the commenter did not address the annual average 
NO2 standard, the annual average design value for the 
Louisville site is 14 parts per billion, well below the 53 parts per 
billion standard; thus EPA also finds that the discontinuation of the 
I/M program has not interfered and will not interfere with attainment 
and maintenance of the annual average NO2 standard.
    Comment: ``From my point of view, these plans are good in different 
perspectives because the good is that it could help the state to cut 
down the budget for the two counties in I/M program as it doesn't 
involve equipment and technologies to maintain it while

[[Page 23881]]

the bad thing is that the emission could destroy the ozone layer and 
harm people's health which is worse because people get sick and people 
that own the cars neglect to have their cars inspected as they don't 
have people to warn and check them so it has both pros and cons.
    Even though, they keep the program as an emergency plan but for the 
best interest of the people or to prevent global warming, the state or 
EPA should study thoroughly about the advantages and disadvantages of 
the plans in order to prevent bad things from happening in the future. 
Although, it could help to save money but it could not save human's 
life when something bad happens. So for the best interest, it would be 
better not to remove the program but keep it to check once in a while 
or issue the people in those two counties a letter to have their cars 
inspected regularly according to state's law in order to make them 
alert and be aware of their vehicle's problem.''
    Response: EPA recognizes that there would be advantages as well as 
disadvantages to continuing to operate the I/M program in Clark and 
Floyd Counties. However, at issue in this rulemaking is whether 
discontinuation would be consistent with CAA provisions, including 
whether discontinuation might interfere with attainment and maintenance 
of air quality standards and whether other criteria for discontinuation 
of programs have been met. EPA notes that the NAAQS are required by the 
CAA to be set to protect public health with an adequate margin of 
safety, and that EPA is finding that approval of this revision will not 
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA believes 
that the applicable criteria for discontinuation of the I/M program in 
Clark and Floyd Counties have been met and therefore the revision 
should be approved.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve Indiana's demonstration that 
eliminating the I/M program in Clark and Floyd Counties will not 
interfere with the attainment and maintenance of the ozone NAAQS or 
with the attainment and maintenance of other air quality standards and 
requirements of the CAA. We are further approving Indiana's request to 
modify the SIP such that I/M is no longer an active program in Clark 
and Floyd Counties and is instead a contingency measure in the area's 
maintenance plan.
    For the reasons stated in the proposed notice, EPA believes that 
Indiana has satisfied the requirements for discontinuing I/M in Clark 
and Floyd Counties.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by June 28, 2011. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 20, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.777 is amended by adding paragraph (rr) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.777  Control strategy: Photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons).

* * * * *
    (rr) Approval--EPA is approving a request submitted by the State of 
Indiana on October 10, 2006, and supplemented on November 15, 2006,

[[Page 23882]]

November 29, 2007, November 25, 2008, April 23, 2010 and November 19, 
2010, to discontinue the vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) 
program in Clark and Floyd Counties. The submittal also includes 
Indiana's demonstration that eliminating the I/M programs in Clark and 
Floyd Counties will not interfere with the attainment and maintenance 
of the ozone NAAQS and the fine particulate NAAQS and with the 
attainment and maintenance of other air quality standards and 
requirements of the CAA. We are further approving Indiana's request to 
modify the SIP such that I/M is no longer an active program in these 
areas and is instead a contingency measure in this area's maintenance 
plan.

[FR Doc. 2011-10323 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P