[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58344-58347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28309]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MN42-01-7267; FRL-6465-3]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Minnesota
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving an
amendment to the carbon monoxide (CO) State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for Minnesota. Minnesota submitted this amendment to the SIP to the EPA
in five separate submittals, dated November 14, 1995, July 8, 1996,
September 24, 1996, June 30, 1999, and September 1, 1999. EPA proposed
this action on August 6, 1999 (64 FR 42888). No adverse comments were
received on EPA's proposed approval.
The submittals include revisions to the motor vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M) program currently in operation in the
Minneapolis/St. Paul CO nonattainment area. The revisions make changes
to the State's I/M program, including model year coverage, vehicle
waiver provisions, and other program deficiencies identified by the
EPA. The revision also contains provisions for the discontinuation of
the I/M program if EPA redesignates the area to attainment for CO.
DATES: This final rule is effective on November 29, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision requests are available for inspection
at the following address: United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is
recommended that you telephone John Mooney at 312-886-6043 before
visiting the Region 5 Office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Mooney, Regulation Development
Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6043.
I. Supplementary Information
Overview
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted its initial
I/M submittals to EPA in November and December of 1993. As described in
EPA's proposed approval action (64 FR 42888), the EPA conditionally
approved Minnesota's initial submittal on October
[[Page 58345]]
13, 1994 (59 FR 51860). Subsequently, Minnesota submitted to the EPA
five additional revisions to the State's I/M program. The changes
proposed since 1993 reflect actions taken by the State Legislature
pertaining to model year coverage, waiver provisions, and other program
changes required by EPA's conditional approval.
The information in this section is organized as follows:
A. What SIP amendments is EPA approving?
B. Who sent comments on EPA's proposed action?
C. What happens if the Minneapolis/St. Paul area is redesignated to
attainment for CO?
A. What SIP Amendments is EPA Approving?
The following table outlines the revisions submitted by the State
to EPA subsequent to the State's initial I/M submittal in 1993. The
State's most recent submittal identifies those provisions of their
earlier submittals that address EPA's conditional approval. In this
submittal, the State also withdraws Part 7023.1010, Subp. 35(B), Part
7023.1030, Subp. 11(B, C), and Part 7023.1055, Subp. 1(E)(2) of the
Minnesota Rules. The State is withdrawing these provisions because they
have been superceded by recent amendments to the State I/M program. EPA
is approving the relevant portions of each of these submittals as
requested by the State on June 30, 1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of submittal to EPA Items received
------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 14, 1995...................... Basic I/M performance standard
modeling.
I/M legislation with changes to
model year coverage.
Response to EPA's October 13,
1994 conditional approval (59
FR 51860).
July 8, 1996........................... Notification of public hearing.
September 24, 1996..................... Administrative materials for
the November 14, 1995, and
July 6, 1996 submittals,
including proof of public
hearing.
June 30, 1999.......................... Minnesota Statute Sections
116.60 to 116.65 as amended by
the 1999 Minnesota State
Legislature.
Letter from the Minnesota
Attorney General detailing the
prevalence of statute over
rules.
Letter from the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) requesting approval of
I/M legislation, certain
portions of Minnesota's I/M
regulation, and performance
standard modeling from earlier
submittals. This letter also
withdraws certain obsolete
sections of the State's
earlier submittals.
September 1, 1999...................... Notice of public hearing on
June 30, 1999 submittal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As requested by the State, the EPA is proposing to approve:
Minnesota Statutes Sections 116.60 to 116.65; Minnesota Rules
7023.1010-7023.1105 (except Part 7023.1010, Subp. 35(B), Part
7023.1030, Subp. 11(B, C), and Part 7023.1055, Subp. 1(E)(2)); and
technical materials showing that the program meets EPA's basic I/M
performance standard, as well as the conditions of EPA's October 13,
1994 conditional approval.
B. Who Sent Comments on EPA's Proposed Action?
The MPCA submitted the only comments on EPA's proposal in a letter
dated September 1, 1999. The MPCA's letter included the required notice
of public hearing that completed the State's SIP submittal. The EPA
deemed the State's submittal complete in a letter dated October 7,
1999. As a result, the State's I/M submittal meets all approval
criteria. There were no other comments on EPA's proposed approval of
Minnesota's I/M SIP.
C. What Happens if the Minneapolis/St. Paul Area Is Redesignated to
Attainment for CO?
As noted in EPA's proposed approval of Minnesota's I/M SIP, the
MPCA has performed computer photochemical modeling which shows that in
the future the I/M program will not be necessary to attain or maintain
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO. In its
redesignation request, the State also included the I/M program as a
contingency measure if the program is subsequently needed to correct a
violation of the CO NAAQS. The EPA has reviewed the modeling submitted
with the redesignation and has found that it meets EPA's technical
modeling criteria. As a result, once the Minneapolis/St. Paul CO
nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment, the State may
discontinue operation of its
I/M program. If EPA does not approve the redesignation request for the
area, I/M will remain as an applicable requirement and EPA will work
with the State to ensure that all nonattainment control programs are
implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Act.
II. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Orders on Federalism
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation.
In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected officials and other representatives of
state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely
input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant
unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not create a mandate on state,
local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable
duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a)
of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new executive order
on federalism, Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999))
which will take effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current
Executive Order 12612, (52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987)) on federalism
still applies. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 12612.
The rule affects only one State, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.
[[Page 58346]]
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation.
In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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 rule 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 rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
I. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 28, 1999. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Carbon monoxide.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
[[Page 58347]]
Dated: October 21, 1999.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart Y--Minnesota
2. Section 52.1220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(51) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of Plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(51) On November 14, 1995, July 8, 1996, September 24, 1996, June
30, 1999, and September 1, 1999, the State of Minnesota submitted
revisions to its State Implementation Plan for carbon monoxide
regarding the implementation of the motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program in the Minneapolis/St. Paul carbon monoxide
nonattainment area. This plan approves Minnesota Statutes Sections
116.60 to 116.65 and Minnesota Rules 7023.1010-7023.1105. This plan
also removes Minnesota Rules Part 7023.1010, Subp. 35(B), Part
7023.1030, Subp. 11(B,C), and Part 7023.1055, Subp. 1 (E)(2) from the
SIP.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Minnesota Statutes Sections 116.60 to 116.65;
(B) Minnesota Rules 7023.1010-7023.1105 (except Part 7023.1010,
Subp. 35(B), Part 7023.1030, Subp. 11(B,C), and Part 7023.1055, Subp. 1
(E)(2)).
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 52.1222 the table is amended by revising the entry for
motor vehicles to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1222 EPA-approved Minnesota State regulations.
* * * * *
Table 52.1222.--EPA Approved Regulations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant para.s
Rule description Minnesota rule numbers Contents of SIP Effective date in Sec.
52.1220 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Motor Vehicles.............. 7023.1010-7023.1105 All rules except November 29, c51
Part 7023.1010, 1999.
Subp. 35(B), Part
7023.1030, Subp.
11(B,C), and Part
7023.1055, Subp. 1
(E)(2).
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recodifications affect essentially all rules but are shown only for substantially revised rules.
\2\ ``Existing'' sources are sources other than those subject to a new source performance standard.
[FR Doc. 99-28309 Filed 10-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
