[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 198 (Thursday, October 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53180-53184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25982]


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


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