[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4568-4570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2194]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[GA 34-2-9902a; FRL-6227-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Georgia:
Approval of Revisions to Georgia State Implementation Plan; Vehicle
Inspection/Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the enhanced Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)
program for the State of Georgia. The program had initially been given
conditional interim approval under the terms of section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and section 348 of the National Highway Systems
Designation Act (NHSDA), as noted in EPA's final conditional interim
rule action in the August 11, 1997, Federal Register. Due to delays in
implementing Phase 2 of the program, the Georgia enhanced I/M program
had been disapproved on March 11, 1998, which triggered an eighteen
month clock prior to the imposition of sanctions. This approval action
also serves to stop the sanctions clock.
DATES: This final interim rule is effective March 30, 1999 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 1, 1999.
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the final interim rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Scott M. Martin at the
EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
Copies of the state submittal(s) are available at the following
addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Contact Scott Martin
404-562-9036. Reference file Georgia 34-2-9902.
Air Protection Branch, Georgia Environmental Protection Division,
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 4244 International Parkway,
Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia 30354.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott M. Martin at 404-562-9036 or for
information regarding the I/M program contact Dale Aspy at 404-562-
9041.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On December 13, 1996 (61 FR 65496), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Georgia. The NPR proposed
conditional interim approval of Georgia's enhanced I/M program, for the
Atlanta ozone nonattainment area, submitted to satisfy the applicable
requirements of both the CAA and the NHSDA. The formal SIP revision,
which was submitted by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(EPD) on March 27, 1996, contained plans to implement the program in
two phases. The plan for Phase 1 described how the program would be
expanded from the four counties in the previous program to the 13 ozone
nonattainment counties. Phase 1 also implemented a two speed idle (TSI)
test and a gas cap pressure check for all vehicles that were subject to
an emissions inspection. The implementation of Phase 2 requires an
acceleration simulation mode (ASM) test for vehicles older than six
model years, while newer vehicles continue to be subject to the TSI
test. Phase 2 also implements minor changes in emission testing
software. It was proposed the program be conditionally approved because
it lacked ASM test method specifications and a requirement to implement
the program in a timely manner. Subsequently, on January 31, 1997, the
Georgia EPD submitted the necessary ASM test method, satisfying one of
the conditions for program approval. These specifications were largely
based upon EPA's specifications for the ASM test. Therefore, on August
11, 1997 (62 FR 42916) EPA noted the test specifications condition of
the December 13, 1996, proposal was met and removed, and final
conditional interim approval was given to the program, contingent upon
a timely start-up. The Georgia EPD began implementation of the I/M
program as scheduled and had met all program milestones at the time the
final conditional interim approval was published on August 11, 1997.
However, problems were encountered when mandatory ASM testing began as
scheduled on October 1, 1997. There were an insufficient number of
stations capable of performing ASM testing due to a lack of test
equipment and also other hardware and software problems. Due to the
continued inability of equipment vendors to supply a sufficient number
of stations with approved ASM equipment and Phase 2 software, the State
passed an emergency rule on November 15, 1997, effective on the same
day, that temporarily
[[Page 4569]]
suspended mandatory ASM testing, but encouraged it as an option through
an incentive program for testing stations. The two speed idle test
continued to be the emissions test used to ultimately pass or fail a
vehicle in the program. Because numerous problems were indicated by
preliminary software testing, and additional time was required to
resolve these problems, on March 25, 1998, the State adopted a rule
which extended the use of the two speed idle test until as late as
January 1, 1999. This rule became effective on April 15, 1998. However,
the State indicated to EPA that it would resume ASM testing earlier, if
sufficient capability existed to minimize testing waiting times. As a
result of this delay in fully implementing the program, EPA sent a
letter to the State on March 11, 1998, indicating that the conditional
approval had converted to a disapproval pursuant to the terms of the
conditional approval, with respect to the full start-up of the program.
This letter had the effect of staying the 18 month evaluation clock
under the NHSDA during the disapproval time period. The Georgia EPD
subsequently determined there would be sufficient testing capability to
minimize waiting times before the January 1, 1999 date. Therefore, on
August 26, 1998, the State adopted rules, which became effective on
October 1, 1998, that moved the resumption of mandatory ASM testing to
October 1, 1998. Subsequently, on October 1, 1998, mandatory ASM
testing of vehicles older than six model years resumed. EPA was
notified of this occurrence via letter on November 4, 1998.
EPA has the authority to reapprove the SIP based on the letter from
the State of Georgia without further SIP submission as the SIP has not
been changed. The program, as described in the above referenced Federal
Register documents, has been implemented.
As noted in the August 11, 1997 Federal Register document
referenced above, the term of the interim approval of the Georgia I/M
program was set to expire on February 11, 1999 as per the NHSDA
requirements. However, the March 11, 1998 letter stayed that clock
until the program was reapproved. Therefore, interim rulemaking will
now expire on November 11, 1999. A full approval of Georgia's final I/M
SIP revision is still necessary under section 110 and under section
182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. After EPA reviews Georgia's submitted
enhanced I/M program evaluation and regulations, final rulemaking on
the State's full SIP revision will occur.
Additional detailed discussion of the Georgia enhanced I/M SIP and
the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the proposal notice
published December 13, 1996, at 61 CFR 65496-65504 and in the final
conditional interim approval notice published on August 11, 1997, at 62
FR 42916-42918 and will not be restated here.
II. Final Action
EPA is giving final interim approval to the Georgia I/M program
because it is consistent with the CAA and Agency requirements.
The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective March 30, 1999
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
March 1, 1999.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on March 30, 1999 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
III. 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 Order 12875
Under Executive Order 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, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to 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 any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 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 Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly 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, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to 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, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials 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. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule.
D. 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
[[Page 4570]]
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 is not
economically significant under E.O. 12866 and it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
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. This rule is not a
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. 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 March 30, 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, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides.
Dated: January 13, 1999.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, 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 L--Georgia
2. Section 52.582 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.582 Control Strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(c) EPA is giving final interim approval to the Georgia Inspection
and Maintenance (I/M) Program submitted on March 27, 1996, with
supplemental information submitted on January 31, 1997, until November
11, 1999.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-2194 Filed 1-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
