[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 161 (Friday, August 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45454-45457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21660]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[LA-49-1-7411; FRL-6422-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation
Plans (SIP); Interim Final Determination That Louisiana Continues To
Correct the Deficiencies of Its Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/
M) SIP Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Previously EPA published a proposed rulemaking (December 30,
1998, 63 FR 71807) to conditionally approve the State of Louisiana's
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision concerning a low-enhanced
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program under section
110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) as amended in 1990. Based on the
proposed approval, EPA is making an interim final determination by this
action, that the State has more likely than not cured the deficiencies
prompting the original disapproval (November 19, 1997, 62 FR 61633) of
the Louisiana enhanced I/M SIP revision. This action will defer the
future application of the offset sanction and the highway sanction.
Although this action is effective upon signature, EPA will take comment
on this interim final determination. The EPA will publish a final
action taking into consideration any comments received on this interim
final action.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1999.
Comments: Comments must be received on or before September 20,
1999.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA Regional
Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to this action
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following locations. Persons interested in examining these documents
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24
hours before the visiting day. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Air
Quality Compliance Division, 7290 Bluebonnet, 2nd Floor, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Capital Regional
[[Page 45455]]
Office, 11720 Airline Highway, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra G. Rennie, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, telephone (214) 665-7367.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Louisiana's May 1996 I/M SIP Revision Approval Status
In a December 2, 1997, letter to the Governor, EPA notified
Louisiana that the conditional approval of the State's enhanced I/M SIP
revision, conditionally approved on June 9, 1997, (62 FR 31388) had
converted to a disapproval because Louisiana failed to meet the
conditions specified for approval. A later correction notice dated
February 13, 1998, changed the effective date of the disapproval to the
February 13, 1998, date of publication (63 FR 7289). A letter dated
March 4, 1998, informed the State of this change. The disapproval
triggered the 18-month time clock for the mandatory application of
sanctions under section 179(a) of the Act. The 18-month clock expires
on August 13, 1999.
On August 20, 1998, the Governor of the State requested parallel
processing of its I/M program SIP revision. We acknowledged the State's
request in a September 3, 1998, letter. On October 20, 1998, the State
made available a proposed I/M SIP revision for public comment and
parallel processing by EPA. We proposed conditional approval on
December 30, 1998, in 63 FR 71807. The State submitted the adopted I/M
SIP on February 12, 1999, under the Governor's signature. Because the
State has now submitted a SIP that EPA believes is approvable for its
enhanced I/M program, we believe this interim final determination is
justified. We conclude that Louisiana has more likely than not
corrected the deficiency that initiated the sanctions clock, and
therefore do not believe that sanctions are warranted simply because a
State approved I/M SIP revision has not been finally approved by EPA.
We are making this interim final determination now because a final
conditional approval requires amendments to the Federal I/M regulation
that will allow the State to operate the I/M program as described in
the SIP. The Administrator signed a notice of proposed rulemaking on
August 6, 1999, proposing amendments to the Federal I/M regulation that
will accommodate Louisiana's I/M program. Because we believe these
amendments are justified, we are making this interim final
determination to defer sanctions.
EPA's Current Rulemaking Actions
We believe that the submission of the I/M SIP revision that we
proposed to approve more likely than not cures the SIP deficiency that
triggered the sanctions clock. Therefore, with this finding the
imposition of sanctions for that deficiency is stayed for the duration
of EPA's rulemaking process on this I/M SIP revision. This interim
determination will not halt or reset the sanctions deadline, but will
defer implementation of sanctions until either: the proposed
conditional approval converts to a disapproval, or the State's enhanced
I/M SIP is fully approved or disapproved.
Today EPA is also providing the public with an opportunity to
comment on this interim final determination. If, based on any relevant
comments we receive on this interim final determination action or the
proposed conditional approval, we determine that the SIP revision is
not finally approvable, we will take further action to disapprove the
State's I/M SIP revision. If EPA does disapprove the I/M revision, or
if EPA's conditional approval of the Louisiana I/M SIP revision is not
finalized, then sanctions would be applied as required under 179(a) of
the Act and 40 CFR 52.31.
II. EPA Action
What Action Is EPA Taking?
Based on the proposed conditional approval previously published in
the Federal Register, we believe that the State has more likely than
not corrected the deficiency that prompted the original disapproval of
the Louisiana enhanced I/M SIP. Therefore, we conclude that sanctions
should be stayed for the duration of Louisiana's proposed conditional
SIP approval.
What Is the Effective Date for This Rule?
The effective date for this rule is August 10, 1999, the date this
action was signed.
Because we have preliminarily determined that the February 12,
1999, I/M SIP revision is conditionally approvable, we believe that
relief from future sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible.
Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for
comment before this action takes effect.\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). We
believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date of
this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. We
have reviewed the State's October 1998, proposed SIP revision and the
February 1999, adopted SIP revision. Through this interim final
determination action, the Agency finds the State has more likely than
not corrected the deficiency for which the sanctions clock was started
(i.e., failure of the State to provide legislative authority to
implement and continuously operate an I/M program under sections 182
and 184 of the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As previously noted, however, by this action EPA is
providing the public with a chance to comment on EPA's determination
after the effective date and EPA will consider any comments received
in determining whether to reverse such action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, it is not in the public interest to initially apply
sanctions when the State has most likely corrected the deficiency that
triggered the sanctions clock. Moreover, it would be impracticable to
go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State
has corrected the deficiency prior to the rulemaking fully approving
the State's I/M SIP revision. Therefore, we believe that it is
necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to defer
sanctions while we complete our rulemaking process on the approvability
of the State's I/M SIP revision. In addition, we are invoking the good
cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the
purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction. See 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1).
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from review under 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 EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
provide to OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with representatives of affected State, local,
[[Page 45456]]
and tribal governments, the nature of their concern, 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 government ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's interim final determination does not create a mandate on
State, local, or tribal governments. The determination 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.
The interim final determination 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.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 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, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to
provide to OMB, 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 interim final determination 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, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., 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 proposed rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because
conditional approval of SIP submittals under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the Act does not create any new requirements but simply
approves requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore,
because the Federal SIP approval does not impose 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 Act, preparation of
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. See 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,
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 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.
The EPA has determined that the interim final determination does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 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
preexisting 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. The 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 U.S. Comptroller General prior to publication
of the rule in the Federal Register. This determination 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 Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 19, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
[[Page 45457]]
Dated: August 10, 1999.
Myron O. Knudson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VI.
[FR Doc. 99-21660 Filed 8-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
