[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 49 (Monday, March 15, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12749-12751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6253]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[KY108-9904a; FRL-6307-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky;
Approval of Revisions to Basic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted on August 27, 1998, by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through
the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet.
This revision modifies the implementation of a basic motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Jefferson County, Kentucky,
to require, beginning January 1, 2001, a check of the On Board
Diagnostic (OBD) system of 1996 and newer cars and light duty trucks
equipped with the system.
DATES: This final rule is effective May 14, 1999 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse or critical comments by April 14,
1999. If adverse comment is received EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: All comments on this action should be addressed to Dale Aspy
at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch,
61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies of documents
relative to this action are available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the following locations. The interested
persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment
with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
Reference file KY108-9904. The Region 4 office may have additional
background documents not available at the other locations.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Dale Aspy, (404) 562-9041.
Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet,
Division for Air Quality, 803 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-
1403. (505) 573-3382.
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control District, 850 Barret Avenue,
Louisville, Kentucky. (502) 574-6000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale Aspy at 404/562-9041.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 6, 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated a final rule that established the minimum requirements for
inspecting vehicles equipped with OBD systems. Additionally, the OBD
test program component was to begin January 1, 1998. An approved OBD
program is required for state and local Inspection/Maintenance (I/M)
programs by section 203(m)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Section
182(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the CAA required a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission by August 6, 1998, for I/M programs to implement an OBD
system check. However, on May 4, 1998, EPA published a final rule that
delayed until January 1, 2001, the date by which the OBD test component
is required to begin. Although EPA delayed the OBD test component date
by three years, the CAA requirement for submitting a SIP two years
after promulgation of OBD requirements for vehicle manufacturers was
not changed. Therefore, in the May 4, 1998, Federal Register preamble
to the OBD regulation
[[Page 12750]]
revisions, EPA indicated it would accept a ``. . . brief SIP amendment
which commits to implementing EPA approved OBD checks, as outlined in
the I/M OBD rule, by January 1, 2001.'' The Kentucky submission meets
the EPA requirements.
II. EPA's Analysis of Changes to the Louisville, Kentucky, Basic I/
M Program
EPA's review of the submitted revisions indicates that the
Jefferson County I/M program is in accordance with the requirements of
the Act. Since Kentucky's OBD testing requirement meets the criteria of
the EPA OBD rule, EPA is approving the Kentucky SIP revision for OBD
testing in the Jefferson County, Kentucky, basic I/M program.
III. Final Action
EPA is approving this revision to the Kentucky SIP for a basic I/M
program in Jefferson County. EPA is publishing this action without
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial
amendment and anticipates no adverse public 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 relevant adverse comments be filed.
This rule will be effective May 14, 1999 without further notice unless
the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by April 14, 1999.
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the final rule informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will be discussed in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this rule. Only parties interested
in commenting on this rule should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be
effective on May 14, 1999 and no further action will be taken on the
proposed rule.
IV. 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 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.
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, Executive Order 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. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. 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. Disclaimer Language Approving SIP Revisions in Audit Law States
Nothing in this action should be construed as making any
determination or expressing any position regarding Kentucky's audit
privilege and penalty immunity law, Kentucky KRS 224.01-040, or its
impact upon any approved provision in the SIP, including the revision
at issue here. The action taken
[[Page 12751]]
herein does not express or imply any viewpoint on the question of
whether there are legal deficiencies in this or any other Clean Air Act
program resulting from the effect of Kentucky's audit privilege and
immunity law. A state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only
state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement
authorities. EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean
Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise
unaffected by a state audit privilege or immunity law.
G. 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.
H. 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).
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 May 14, 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 23, 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 S--Kentucky
2. Section 52.920, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(93) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.920 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(93) Modifications to the existing basic I/M program in Jefferson
County to implement a check of a vehicle's On-Board Diagnostic system,
for vehicles of model 1996 and newer that are so equipped, submitted by
the Commonwealth of Kentucky on August 27, 1998.
(i) Incorporation by reference. Regulation 8.02, adopted on July
15, 1998.
(ii) Other material. None.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-6253 Filed 3-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
