Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Utah: Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for Utah County

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[UT-NHA-01; FRL-5629-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Utah: Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for Utah County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing interim approval of a State Implementation

Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Utah. This revision

establishes and requires the implementation of an improved inspection

and maintenance (I/M) program in the Provo-Orem Metropolitan

Statistical Area (Utah County) which claims ``full credit'' for a test-

and-repair network. The intended effect of this action is to propose

interim approval of an I/M program proposed by the State, based upon

the State/County's good faith estimate, which asserts that the State/

County's network design credits are appropriate and the revision is

otherwise in compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is

being taken under section 348 of the National Highway System

Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA) and section 110 of the CAA.

EPA proposes that the State/County's program must start no later

than November 15, 1997. EPA also proposes that if the State/County

fails to start its program as defined in this notice on this schedule,

the approval granted under the provisions of the NHSDA will convert to

a disapproval after a finding letter is sent to the State.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, Air

Programs, USEPA Region VIII (P2-A), 999 18th Street--Suite 500, Denver,

Colorado 80202-2466. Copies of the documents relevant to this action

are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the

above address. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24

hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott P. Lee, at (303) 312-6736 or via

e-mail at [email protected]. While information may be requested

via e-mail, comments must be submitted in writing to the EPA Region

VIII address above.

I. Background

A. Impact of the National Highway System Designation Act on the Design

and Implementation of Inspection and Maintenance Programs Under the

Clean Air Act

The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA)

establishes two key changes to the I/M rule requirements previously

developed by EPA. Under the NHSDA, EPA cannot require states to adopt

or implement centralized, test-only IM240 enhanced vehicle inspection

and maintenance programs as a means of compliance with section 182, 184

or 187 of the CAA. Also under the NHSDA, EPA cannot disapprove a State

SIP revision, nor apply an automatic discount to a State SIP revision

under section 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA, because the I/M program in

such plan revision is decentralized, or a test-and-repair program.

Accordingly, the so-called ``50% credit discount'' that was established

by the EPA's I/M Program Requirements Final Rule, (published November

5, 1992, and herein referred to as the I/M Rule) has been effectively

replaced with a presumptive equivalency criteria, which places the

emission reductions credits for decentralized networks on par with

credit assumptions for centralized networks, based upon a state's good

faith estimate of reductions as provided by the NHSDA and explained

below in this section.

EPA's I/M Rule established many other criteria for states unrelated

to network design or test type to use in designing I/M programs. All

other elements of the I/M Rule, and the statutory requirements

established in the CAA continue to be required of those states

submitting I/M SIP revisions under the NHSDA, and the NHSDA

specifically requires that these submittals must otherwise comply in

all respects with the I/M Rule and the CAA.

The NHSDA also requires states to swiftly develop, submit, and

begin implementation of these I/M programs, since the anticipated

start-up dates developed under the CAA and EPA's rules have already

been delayed. In requiring states to submit these plans within 120 days

of the NHSDA passage, and in allowing these states to submit proposed

regulations for this plan (which can be finalized and submitted to EPA

during the interim period) it is clear that Congress intended for

states to begin testing vehicles as soon as practicable, now that the

decentralized credit issue has been clarified and directly addressed by

the NHSDA.

Submission criteria described under the NHSDA allows for a State to

submit proposed regulations for this interim program, provided that the

State has all of the statutory authority necessary to carry out the

program. Also, in proposing the interim credits for this program,

states are required to make good faith estimates regarding the

performance of their I/M program. Since these estimates are expected to

be difficult to quantify, the state need only provide that the proposed

credits claimed for the submission have a basis in fact. A good faith

estimate of a State's program may be an estimate that is based on any

of the following: the performance of any previous I/M program; the

results of remote sensing or other roadside testing techniques; fleet

and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) profiles; demographic studies; or

other evidence which has relevance to the effectiveness or emissions

reducing capabilities of an I/M program.

This action is being taken under the authority of both the NHSDA

and section 110 of the CAA. Section 348 of the NHSDA expressly directs

EPA to issue this interim approval. At that time, the Conference Report

on section 348 of the NHSDA states that it is expected that the

proposed credits claimed by the State in its submittal, and the

emissions reductions demonstrated through the program data may not

match exactly. Therefore, the Conference Report suggests that EPA use

the program data to appropriately adjust these credits on a program

basis as demonstrated by the program data.

B. Interim Approvals Under the NHSDA

The NHSDA directs EPA to grant interim approval for a period of 18

months to approvable I/M submittals under this Act. This Act also

directs EPA and the states to review the interim program results at the

end of 18 months, and to make a determination as to the effectiveness

of the interim program. Following this demonstration, EPA will adjust

any credit claims made by the state in its good faith effort to reflect

the

[[Page 53181]]

emissions reductions actually measured by the state during the program

evaluation period.

The NHSDA is clear that the interim approval shall last for only 18

months, and that the program evaluation is due to EPA at the end of

that period. Therefore, EPA believes Congress intended for these

programs to start up as soon as possible, which EPA believes should be

on or before November 15, 1997, so that at least 6 months of

operational program data can be collected to evaluate the interim

program. EPA believes that in setting such a strict timetable for

program evaluations under the NHSDA, Congress recognized and attempted

to mitigate any further delay with the start-up of this program.

For the purposes of this program, ``start-up'' is defined as a

fully operational program which has begun regular, mandatory

inspections and repairs, using the final test strategy and covering

each of a state's required areas. EPA proposes that if the State/Utah

County fails to start its program on this schedule, the approval

granted under the provisions of the NHSDA will convert to a disapproval

after a finding letter is sent to the State.

The program evaluation to be used by the State/Utah County during

the 18 month interim period must be acceptable to EPA. EPA anticipates

that such a program evaluation process will be developed by the

Environmental Council of States (ECOS) group that is convening now and

that was organized for this purpose. In addition to this interim

evaluation, EPA further encourages the State/County to conduct a longer

term, ongoing evaluation of its I/M program.

C. Process for Full Approvals of This Program Under the CAA

Per the NHSDA requirements, this interim rulemaking will expire 18

months after the final interim approval, or on the date of final full

approval. A full approval of the State's final I/M SIP revision for

Utah County (which will include the State/County's program evaluation

and final adopted State/County regulations) is still necessary under

section 110 and under section 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. After EPA

reviews the State's submitted program evaluation, final rulemaking on

the State's SIP revision will occur.

II. EPA's Analysis of Utah's Submittal

On March 15, 1996, Governor Michael O. Leavitt submitted a revision

to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for an I/M program for Utah

County to qualify under the NHSDA. The revision consists of enabling

legislation that allows Utah County to implement the I/M program,

proposed State/County regulations, a description of the I/M program

(including a modeling analysis and detailed description of program

features), and a good faith estimate that includes the state's basis in

fact for emission reductions claims for the program. The State/County's

credit assumptions are based upon the removal of the 50% credit

discount for all portions of the program that are based on a test-and-

repair network, and the application of the State/County's estimate of

the effectiveness of its decentralized test and repair program.

A. Analysis of the NHSDA Submittal Criteria

Transmittal Letter

On March 15, 1996, Utah submitted an I/M SIP revision to EPA,

requesting action under the NHSDA of 1995 and the CAA of 1990. The

official submittal was made by the appropriate state official, Governor

Michael O. Leavitt, and was addressed to the appropriate EPA official

in the Region.

Enabling Legislation

Utah's enabling legislation, as submitted, delegates authority for

the implementation of a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance

program in the Provo-Orem nonattaiment area to Utah County pursuant to

Section 41-6-163.6, Utah Annotated Code, 1953, as amended.

Proposed Regulations

On March 6, 1996, the State of Utah proposed regulations in

accordance with 40 CFR Part 51, establishing a revised I/M program

following the Utah County Commission's adoption of the County's I/M

Ordinance for public hearing on February 28, 1996. The State and County

anticipate fully adopting regulations during the interim period.

Program Description

Utah County's program consists of a decentralized test-and-repair

network requiring two-speed idle testing of all vehicles registered in

Utah County, excluding construction equipment, farm vehicles and

motorcycles; a technician training program; certified I/M repair

stations; aggressive investigation of illegal registrations; recall of

a statistically significant number of vehicles that were repaired to

ensure repair effectiveness; tighter waiver requirements; and a remote

sensing program. Additionally, Utah County has implemented a diesel I/M

program which ensures all vehicles independent of fuel type are tested.

Emission Reduction Claim and Basis for the Claim

The State/County's emissions reduction claims are based on modeling

performed using EPA's MOBILE5ah emission factor model, claiming

``full'' credit (no 50% discount) for a test-and-repair program. The

State/County bases its claim of ``full credit'' on past performance as

preliminarily demonstrated using the Analytical Protocol Assessment of

the Credit Discount(s) to the Test-and-Repair I/M Programs in Salt

Lake, Davis, and Utah Counties (Utah Protocol), dated June 26, 1995.

This protocol was developed jointly by EPA, Utah Division of Air

Quality, and County I/M program staff. Utah County claims 100% of the

technician training credit modeled using the MOBILE5ah model, based on

its technician training program, the certification of I/M repair

facilities, and a repair effectiveness program.

B. Analysis of the EPA I/M Regulation and CAA Requirements

As previously stated, the NHSDA left those elements of the I/M Rule

that do not pertain to the network design or test type intact. Based

upon EPA's review of Utah County's submittal, EPA believes the State/

County has complied with all aspects of the NHSDA as detailed above.

Additionally, EPA believes the State/County has fulfilled the

requirements of the CAA and the I/M Rule as follows:

Applicability--40 CFR Part 51.350

The SIP needs to describe the applicable areas in detail and,

consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, needs to include the legal authority or

rules necessary to establish program boundaries. Utah County's I/M

program, as authorized by Sections 41-6-163.6 thru 41-6-163.7 of Utah

Code Unannotated, is to be implemented county-wide in Utah County, as

described in Utah State Implementation Plan, Section X, Basic

Automotive Inspection and Maintenance (I/M).

Basic I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR Part 51.352

The I/M program provided for in the SIP is required to meet a

performance standard for basic I/M for the pollutants that caused the

affected area to come under I/M requirements. The performance standard

sets an emission reduction target that must be met by a program in

order for the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also provide that the

program will meet the performance standard in actual operation, with

provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met. As

part of this SIP revision,

[[Page 53182]]

the State/County submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA

computer model, MOBILE 5ah, showing that the basic performance standard

is exceeded for the affected Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).

Network Type--40 CFR Part 51.353

The SIP needs to include a description of the network to be

employed, and the required legal authority. Utah has chosen to

implement a decentralized, test-and-repair I/M program which is

comprised of independently operated facilities. The Utah County I/M

program allows fleet self-testing programs with oversight by County

Health Department employees. Legal authority which is contained in

Sections 41-6-163.6 thru 41-6-163.7, Utah Code Unannotated, authorizes

the Counties to implement these programs.

Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR Part 51.354

The SIP needs to include a description of the resources that will

be used for program operation, which include: (1) A detailed budget

plan which describes the source of funds for personnel, program

administration, program enforcement, purchase of necessary equipment,

and any other requirements discussed in 40 CFR 51.354; and (2) a

description of personnel resources, the number of personnel dedicated

to overt and covert auditing, data analysis, program administration,

enforcement, and other necessary functions and the training attendant

to each function.

The SIP narrative and County Ordinance contained in the submittal

describe the budget, staffing support, and equipment and resources

dedicated to the program meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.354.

Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR Part 51.355

The SIP needs to describe the test schedule in detail, including

the test year selection scheme if testing is other than annual. Also,

the SIP needs to include the legal authority necessary to implement and

enforce the test frequency requirement and explain how the test

frequency will be integrated with the enforcement process.

The Utah I/M program requires annual inspections for all subject

motor vehicles. For new vehicles, the first test is required for re-

registration two years after initial registration. In addition, all

motor vehicles registered as government-owned vehicles, diesel

vehicles, and gasoline powered heavy-duty trucks are required to be

certified annually.

Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR Part 51.356

The SIP needs to include a detailed description of the number and

types of vehicles to be covered by the program, and a plan for how

those vehicles are to be identified, including vehicles that are

routinely operated in the area, but which may not be registered in the

area. Also, the SIP needs to include a description of any special

exemptions which will be granted by the program, and an estimate of the

percentage and number of subject vehicles which will be impacted. Such

exemptions need to be accounted for in the emission reduction analysis.

In addition, the SIP needs to include the legal authority or rule

necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage requirement.

The County-run program's vehicle coverage includes all light-duty

cars and trucks, and heavy-duty gasoline powered trucks, registered or

required to be registered within the MSA and fleets primarily operated

within the I/M program areas, including government-owned and operated

vehicles. Vehicles are identified through the State of Utah's Tax

Commission Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) database.

Vehicles exempted from the program include: motorcycles, farm

trucks, and diesel vehicles. The latter are required to be inspected in

County-run diesel I/M lanes.

Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR Part 51.357

The SIP needs to include a description of each test procedure used.

The SIP also needs to include the rule, ordinance or law describing and

establishing the test procedures.

Utah's I/M programs use EPA's Preconditioned two-speed idle test as

specified in EPA-AA-TSA-I/M-90-3 March 1990, Technical Report,

``Recommended I/M Short Test Procedures for the 1990's: Six

Alternatives.'' The UTAH91 Analyzer calibration specifications and

emissions test procedures meet the minimum standard established in

Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 51 Subpart S. Test procedures are established

in the proposed Utah County I/M Ordinance as incorporated in the SIP.

Test Equipment--40 CFR Part 51.358

The SIP needs to include written technical specifications for all

test equipment used in the program and shall address each of the

requirements in 40 CFR 51.358. The specifications need to describe the

emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment, the required

features, and written acceptance testing criteria and procedures.

The Utah I/M SIP commits to meeting the California BAR 90 accuracy

standards at a minimum. The Utah SIP addresses the requirements in 40

CFR 51.358 and includes descriptions of performance features and

functional characteristics of the UTAH91 computerized test systems. The

necessary test equipment, required features, and acceptance testing

criteria are also contained in the SIP.

Quality Control--40 CFR Part 51.359

The SIP needs to include a description of quality control and

record keeping procedures. The SIP also needs to include the procedures

manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and establishing the

quality control procedures and requirements. The Utah I/M SIP narrative

contains descriptions and requirements establishing the quality control

procedures in accordance with 40 CFR 51.359. These requirements will

help ensure that equipment calibrations are properly performed and

recorded, as well as maintaining compliance document security.

Additional requirements are documented in the proposed Utah County I/M

Ordinance, which is part of the SIP.

Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR Part 51.360

The SIP needs to include a maximum waiver rate expressed as a

percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver rate needs to be

used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling

analysis. Also, the State needs to take corrective action if the waiver

rate exceeds that estimated in the SIP or revise the SIP and the

emission reductions claimed accordingly. In addition, the SIP needs to

describe the waiver criteria and procedures, including cost limits,

quality assurance methods and measures, and administration. Lastly, the

SIP shall include the necessary legal authority, ordinance, or rules to

issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out

any other functions necessary to administer the waiver system,

including enforcement of the waiver provisions. The Utah I/M program

commits to a waiver rate of 1 percent or less. Waiver procedures are

incorporated into the SIP. Legal authority for waivers is delegated to

the County in section 41-6-163 Utah Code Unannotated.

[[Page 53183]]

Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR Part 51.361

The SIP needs to provide information concerning the enforcement

process, including: (1) A description of the existing compliance

mechanism if it is to be used in the future and the demonstration that

it is as effective or more effective than registration-denial

enforcement; (2) an identification of the agencies responsible for

performing each of the applicable activities in this section; (3) a

description of and accounting for all classes of exempt vehicles; and

(4) a description of the plan for testing fleet vehicles, rental car

fleets, leased vehicles, and any other special classes of subject

vehicles, e.g. those operated in (but not necessarily registered in)

the program area. Also, the SIP needs to include a determination of the

current compliance rate based on a study of the system that includes an

estimate of compliance losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and

unregistered vehicles. Estimates of the effect of closing such

loopholes and otherwise improving the enforcement mechanism need to be

supported with detailed analyses. In addition, the SIP needs to include

the legal authority to implement and enforce the program. Lastly, the

SIP needs to include a commitment to an enforcement level to be used

for modeling purposes and to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.

The motorist compliance enforcement program will be implemented, in

part, by the Utah Tax Commission Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV),

which will take the lead in ensuring that owners of all subject

vehicles are denied registration unless they provide valid proof of

having received a certificate indicating they passed an emissions test

or were granted a compliance waiver. State and local police agencies

have the authority to cite motorists with expired registration tags.

Current compliance rates are estimated at greater than 97 percent

in the County. The SIP commits to a level of motorist enforcement

necessary to ensure a compliance rate of no less than 97 percent among

subject vehicles.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR Part 51.362

The SIP needs to include a description of enforcement program

oversight and information management activities. The SIP commits the

State/County to periodically review the compliance rate of the Utah

County I/M program to ensure the 97 percent commitment is being met.

The DMV, Utah Division of Air Quality, Utah highway patrol, and County

I/M program staff meet twice a month to ensure on-going high quality

oversight of a joint motorist compliance program.

Quality Assurance--40 CFR Part 51.363

The SIP needs to include a description of the quality assurance

program, and written procedures manuals covering both overt and covert

performance audits, record audits, and equipment audits. This

requirement does not include materials or discussion of details of

enforcement strategies that would ultimately hamper the enforcement

process.

The Utah I/M SIP includes a description of its quality assurance

program. The program includes operation and progress reports and overt

and covert audits of emission inspectors and emission inspections.

Overt and covert audits will be conducted by the County I/M staff.

Remote inspector audits will be performed by the County I/M personnel.

Procedures and techniques for overt and covert performance, record

keeping, and equipment audits are given to auditors and updated as

needed. Current auditor procedures are contained in the County

Ordinance Appendices.

Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR Part

51.364

The SIP needs to include the penalty schedule and the legal

authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines, license

suspension, and revocations. In the case of state constitutional

impediments to immediate suspension authority, the state Attorney

General shall furnish an official opinion for the SIP explaining the

constitutional impediment, as well as relevant case law. Also, the SIP

needs to describe the administrative and judicial procedures and

responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which

agencies, courts, and jurisdictions are involved; who will prosecute

and adjudicate cases; and other aspects of the enforcement of the

program requirements, the resources to be allocated to this function,

and the source of those funds. In states without immediate suspension

authority, the SIP needs to demonstrate that sufficient resources,

personnel, and systems are in place to meet the three day case

management requirement for violations that directly affect emission

reductions.

Utah County staff are responsible for enforcement actions against

incompetent or dishonest stations and inspectors. The County I/M

ordinance includes a penalty schedule. For repeat or serious offenses,

auditors are authorized to immediately suspend the station or inspector

by locking out the UTAH91 analyzer(s). A station permit may be

suspended or revoked even if the owner/operator had no direct knowledge

of the violation. In the case of incompetence, re-training is required

before a permit is restored.

Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR Part 51.366

The SIP needs to describe the types of data to be collected. The

Utah I/M SIP provides for the reporting of summary data based upon

program activities taking place in the previous year. The report will

provide statistics for the testing program, the quality control

program, the quality assurance program, and the enforcement program. At

a minimum, Utah commits to address all of the data elements listed in

40 CFR 51.366.

Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR Part 51.367

The SIP needs to include a description of the training program, the

written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or certification process.

The Utah I/M SIP provides for the implementation of training,

certification, and refresher programs for emission inspectors. Training

will include all elements required by 51.367(a) of the EPA I/M rule.

All inspectors will be required to be certified to inspect vehicles in

the Utah I/M program.

Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR Part 51.369

The SIP needs to include a description of the technical assistance

program to be implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria

to be used in meeting the performance monitoring requirements of this

section for enhanced I/M programs, and a description of the repair

technician training resources available in the community.

The Utah SIP commits the program technical and supervisory staff to

continue to work with both motor vehicle owners and the automotive

service industry regarding vehicles failing to meet the exhaust

emission levels. These direct contacts are normally either by telephone

or person-to-person. Customers with vehicles that present unusual

testing problems or situations will be referred to a County-run

Technical Center for further testing and diagnostics.

III. Discussion for Rulemaking Action

Today's notice proposes interim approval of the Utah SIP revision

for the Provo-Orem MSA motor vehicle I/M

[[Page 53184]]

program. If the State/County does not implement the interim program by

November 15, 1997, EPA is proposing in this notice that the interim

approval will convert to a disapproval after a finding letter is sent

to the state.

A. Explanation of the Interim Approval

At the end of the 18 month interim period, the approval status for

this program will automatically lapse pursuant to the NHSDA. It is

expected that the state will at that time be able to make a

demonstration of the program's effectiveness using an appropriate

evaluation criteria. As EPA expects that these programs will have

started no later than November 15, 1997, in order for the State/County

to collect at least 6 months of program data that can be used for the

demonstration. If the state fails to provide a demonstration of the

program's effectiveness to EPA within 18 months of the final interim

rulemaking, the interim approval will lapse, and EPA will be forced to

disapprove the state's permanent I/M SIP revision. If the state's

program evaluation demonstrates a lesser amount of emission reductions

actually realized than were claimed in the state's previous submittal,

EPA will adjust the state's credits accordingly, and use this

information to act on the state's permanent I/M program.

B. Further Requirements for Permanent I/M SIP Approval

At the end of the 18 month period, final approval of the state's

plan will be granted based upon the following criteria:

1. EPA's review of the State's program evaluation confirms that the

appropriate amount of program credit was claimed by the State and

achieved with the interim program,

2. Final State and County program regulations are submitted to EPA.

C. EPA's Evaluation of the Interim Submittal

EPA's review of this material indicates Utah has met the

requirement of the NHSDA, the CAA and the I/M Rule. EPA is proposing

interim approval of the Utah SIP revision for the Utah County I/M

program, which was submitted on March 15, 1996. EPA is soliciting

public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other

relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final

action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking

procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional office

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

IV. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing interim approval of the SIP revision submitted by

the State of Utah for the purpose of implementing an improved I/M

program in Utah County. EPA has reviewed this revision to the Utah SIP

and is proposing interim approval of the revision as submitted. The

State's I/M program revisions for Utah County meet requirements

pursuant to sections 182 and 187 of the Act and 40 CFR part 51, Subpart

S and section 348 of the NHSDA for interim approval.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600, et seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify 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 government entities with jurisdiction over populations

of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 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 impose any new requirements, I certify that it does

not have a significant impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory 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.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. 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

costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to

the 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 proposed 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 pre-

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this

action.

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.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Dated: September 19, 1996.

Patricia D. Hull,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 96-25982 Filed 10-9-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P