IBJNews

New EPA rules could trigger Indiana emission testing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Drivers across Indiana could be required to have their vehicles undergo emissions testing if new federal Environmental Protection Agency rules set for release this summer are strict enough, a state environmental official said.

Keith Baugues, the assistant commissioner for air quality for the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, said the statewide testing might be required if the EPA adopts the strictest new rules being considered for harmful air pollutants, such as ozone, The Times of Munster reported Friday.

The EPA announced in December it was delaying the new rules, drawing criticism from environmental groups.

IDEM spokesman Rob Elstro told The Associated Press on Friday that scenario was a "very outside possibility" and said there is a wide range of possible remedies, depending on how strict the EPA standards are.

He said emissions testing would more likely be considered on a county-by-county basis or in metropolitan areas. He said other possibilities could be tighter emissions for businesses and industries and initiatives to increase carpooling and use of public transportation.

"We tailor the regulations to specific areas, so what works for Indianapolis may not work for Elkhart," Elstro said.

Two counties are watching closely to see what the EPA decides.

Lake and Porter counties have not met air-quality standards for ozone for years and are the only counties in the state that currently require vehicle emissions checks.

Monitors last year showed both counties were below the standard for ozone, and IDEM has asked the EPA to redesignate the counties as attainment zones.

That process is under way, but if the new standards fall lower than the current emissions levels in those counties, both will remain in the nonattainment zone.

Baugues said the entire state could fall to nonattainment for ozone if the EPA chooses the strictest rules.

"We hope if anything the ozone standard would be at the top of that range rather than the bottom of the range," Baugues said.

Baugues says the EPA's decision will have a significant impact on business and the economy.

"That's really what's going to be driving our industry over the next couple of years, all these new standards and how we react to them," he said.

Nicole Kamins, executive director of Save the Dunes, said Baugues missed the point.

"While Save the Dunes understands the complexities and challenges businesses have in adhering to reduced air emissions levels set by U.S. EPA, the standards should be driven by public health as the primary consideration," Kamins said. "For example, if U.S. EPA lowers the ozone emissions level, there will be great benefits to the respiratory health of residents, particularly the elderly and children."

Brian Urbaszewski, director of environmental health programs with the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, said he found it "extremely surprising and extremely disappointing" that health issues were not brought up by Baugues.

Elstro said Baugues didn't talk about health issues because he wasn't asked. He said Baugues said at the beginning of his talk that EPA sets the standards and uses health studies to set those.

"We are concerned about making sure we protect human health and we do that using these standards," Elstro said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • car testing
    I see this as a way to force the poorer drivers off the roads and increase car sales for those who can afford to do so. Remember how corrupt the car inspection were
  • Bad Move
    With gas at $4 a gallon, we are NOW going to charge, what, $50 for an inspection "permit" and then $100 to do that inspection, in addition to excise on the plates? That should go over well in this economy. I wonder if the EPA and Al Gore get the proceeds from this farce. If we want to cut pollutants, let's start with the corporate jets first.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT