[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 41 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7709-7711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4567]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[OK-11-1-6604a; FRL-5430-3]


Approval of Discontinuation of Tail Pipe Lead and Fuel Inlet Test 
for Vehicle Antitampering Program for Oklahoma

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision submitted by the State of Oklahoma for the purpose of 
discontinuing the State's tail pipe lead and fuel inlet test in its 
vehicle antitampering program. The SIP revision also includes minor 
administrative changes related to the Oklahoma antitampering program. 
The SIP revision was submitted by the State in response to the dramatic 
diminished availability of leaded fuel which has resulted in a lack of 
a need for these tests, not only in Oklahoma but also nationwide. The 
rationale for the approval is set forth in this document; additional 
information is available at the address indicated in the ADDRESSES 
section.

DATES: This final rule will become effective on April 29, 1996 unless 
adverse or critical comments are received by April 1, 1996. If the 
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. 
Thomas Diggs, Chief (6PD-L), 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. Interested persons wanting to examine these 
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at 
least 24 hours before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Multimedia Planning & 
Permitting Division (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 
75202-2733.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Program, 4545 
North Lincoln Blvd., Suite 250, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-3483.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Davis, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning & Permitting Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75202-2733, Telephone (214) 665-7584.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The SIP revision, discussed in more detail in the Technical Support 
Document, dated May 24, 1995, is briefly outlined below.
    On May 16, 1994, the State of Oklahoma submitted to the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules for Oklahoma SIP revisions 
allowing for the exclusions of the Plumbtesmo Lead Detection Test (LDT) 
and Fuel Inlet Restrictor (FIR) from the State Department of Public 
Safety's motor vehicle antitampering inspection procedures for Oklahoma 
City and Tulsa. In addition to the State regulations, Oklahoma 
submitted a summary and justification documenting the basis for this 
SIP revision.
    In the mid-1980s, EPA established test procedures and emission 
reduction credits for inspecting and requiring replacement of the 
catalytic converter when a tailpipe lead test revealed lead deposits in 
the tail pipe, or when the fuel inlet restrictor was found to be 
widened to permit refueling with a leaded nozzle. Since the mid-1980s, 
the availability of leaded fuel and the lead content in the fuel has 
diminished dramatically. In addition, leaded gasoline has been banned 
by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 as of December 31, 1995, 
(Sec. 211(n)).

II. Analysis

A. Procedural Background

    The following criteria used to review the submitted SIP revision 
confirm that the State has demonstrated that the LDT and FIR check is 
no longer needed in Oklahoma: (1) proof that leaded gasoline is no 
longer generally available in the Emission Control Areas (ECA) of Tulsa 
and Oklahoma City, (2) verification that the local fleet has undergone 
more than one full inspection cycle with virtually no failures and, (3) 
completion of a State survey coordinated with EPA to determine that the 
fleet has failed the lead detection test less than 1 percent of the 
time. This Oklahoma SIP revision meets the criteria necessary for EPA 
to approve the SIP revision request.
    The State's SIP indicates that at the time of the State's Air 
Quality Council hearing, leaded fuel comprised less than 5 percent of 
the total fuel sales in Oklahoma, and where it was available it 

[[Page 7710]]
was more expensive, thus removing an incentive to misfuel. The State 
also cited a survey conducted in Tulsa in which only 26 of 269 service 
stations sold leaded gasoline. In addition, the SIP cites figures from 
the U.S. Department of Energy that show that leaded gasoline comprised 
about 1 percent of total sales.
    The vehicle antitampering program in Oklahoma City has been in 
place since 1978 to help control carbon monoxide and ozone pollution, 
and the program in Tulsa has been in place since 1986 to help control 
ozone pollution. The data submitted by the State showed that the 
numbers of vehicles failing LDT and FIR are below limits that make the 
benefit of the tests worthwhile. In 1992, the failure rate for the FIR 
was less than .06 percent while the failure rate for the LDT was less 
than .02 percent. In addition, to confirm these statistics the State 
conducted a survey of over 1,000 vehicles in Tulsa and Oklahoma County 
and found that no vehicles subject to the antitampering inspection 
failed the Plumbtesmo LDT.
    Also, EPA's Office of Mobile Sources recently issued a guidance 
memorandum dated September 16, 1994, entitled, ``Discontinuation of 
Tail Pipe Lead and Fuel Inlet Tests,'' which essentially allows the 
discontinuation of these tests without a State-submitted demonstration 
that these tests are no longer necessary. One condition of 
discontinuation stated in this policy to retain full credit is that the 
State has performed the tests for at least one test cycle and has 
required catalyst replacement upon failure. Oklahoma City and Tulsa 
meet these criteria as well as those discussed above. The EPA has 
reviewed the Oklahoma SIP revision submitted to the EPA, using the 
criteria stated above. The Oklahoma regulations represent an acceptable 
approach to the State's vehicle antitampering program.

III. Final Action

    In this action, the EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by 
the State of Oklahoma for removing the Plumbtesmo LDT and FIR test from 
its vehicle antitampering program.
    Copies of the State's SIP revision and the Technical Support 
Document (TSD), detailing EPA's review of the SIP revision, are 
available at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section above. For a 
more detailed analysis of the SIP revision, the reader is referred to 
the TSD.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal 
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision 
should adverse or critical comments be filed. Thus, today's direct 
final action will be effective April 29, 1996 unless, by April 1, 1996, 
adverse or critical comments are received.
    If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn 
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a 
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should 
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective April 29, 1996.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. Each request for revision to a SIP shall be considered separately 
in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and 
in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq, the 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, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant 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 that are 
less than 50,000.
    The SIP revision 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, the EPA 
certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact 
on any 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 actions. The Act forbids the EPA to base its 
actions concerning SIP's on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. 
U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-266 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. section 
7410(a)(2).
    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the 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, the 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 the 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 approval action promulgated today 
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 Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.
    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 has exempted 
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b), petitions 
for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 29, 1996. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.


[[Page 7711]]

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the SIP for the State of 
Oklahoma was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on 
July 1, 1982.

    Dated: January 12, 1996.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator (6A).
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the 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. 7401-7671q.

Subpart LL--Oklahoma

    2. Section 52.1920 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(46) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (46) A revision to the Oklahoma SIP to include revisions to 
Oklahoma Department of Public Safety regulation Title 595, Chapter 20, 
Subchapter 3--Emission and Mechanical Inspection of Vehicles, 
Subchapter 7--Inspection Stickers and Monthly Tab Inserts for 
Windshield and Trailer/Motorcycle, Subchapter 9--Class AE Inspection 
Station, Vehicle Emission Anti-tampering Inspection and Subchapter 11--
Annual Motor Vehicle Inspection and Emission Anti-Tampering Inspection 
Records and Reports, adopted by the State on April 6, 1994, effective 
May 26, 1994 and submitted by the Governor on May 16, 1994.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Revisions to Oklahoma Department of Public Safety regulation 
Title 595, Chapter 20: 3-1(2); 3-3; 3-5; 3-6; 3-12; 3-25; 3-26; 3-27; 
3-41(o); 3-42; 3-46(a) and (b); 3-61(a),(b),(e) and (f); 3-63(b) and 
(g); 7-1(c) and (f); 7-2(a); 7-3; 7-4(a); 7-5(a); 7-6(a); 7-7(a); 9-
1(a); 9-3(l) and (m); 9-7; 9-10(a),(b) and (c); 9-11(a); 9-12(a); 9-
13(a); 9-14(a) and (b); 9-15(a); 11-1; 11-2(a); 11-3(a); 11-4 effective 
May 26, 1994.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) State SIP revision entitled, ``Oklahoma Vehicle Anti-Tampering 
Program SIP Revision,'' which includes a completeness determination, 
SIP narrative, hearing records and other documentation relevant to the 
development of this SIP.

[FR Doc. 96-4567 Filed 2-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P