Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Georgia: Approval of Revisions to Georgia State Implementation Plan; Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance Program

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