[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 241 (Friday, December 13, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65496-65504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-31737]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[GA-34-2-9644; FRL-5656-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Georgia: Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a conditional, interim approval of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Georgia.
This revision establishes and requires the implementation of an
enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Cherokee, Clayton,
Cobb, Coweta, Dekalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett,
Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale Counties. The intended effect of this
action is to propose conditional interim approval of an I/M program
proposed by the State, based upon the State's good faith estimate,
which asserts that the State'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 the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA) and section 110 of the CAA.
If the State commits within 30 days of this proposed conditional
interim approval notice to correct the major deficiencies by dates
certain as described below, then this proposed conditional approval
shall expire pursuant to the NHSDA and section 110 of the CAA on the
earlier of 18 months from final interim approval, or on the date of EPA
takes final action on the states full I/M SIP. In the event that the
State fails to submit a commitment to correct all of the major
deficiencies within 30 days after the publication of this proposed
conditional interim approval notice, then EPA is proposing in the
alternative to dissaprove the SIP revision. If the State does make a
timely commitment but the conditions are not met by the specified date
within one year, EPA proposes that this proposed conditional interim
approval will convert to final disapproval. If the conditional interim
approval is converted to a disapproval, EPA will notify the State by
letter that the conditions have not been met and that the conditional
approval has converted to a disapproval.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 13, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Benjamin Franco 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. The interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office
at least 24 hours before visiting day.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 100
Alabama St., SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 4244 International Parkway,
Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia 30354.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin Franco, Mobile Source and
Community Planning Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides &
Toxics Management Division, Region 4 Environmental Protection Agency,
100 Alabama St., SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303. The telephone number is
404/562-9039. Reference file GA 34-2-9644.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Impact of the National Highway System Designation Act on the Design
and Implementation of Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Programs
Under the Clean Air Act
The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA)
establishes two key changes to the enhanced 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 SIP revision, nor apply an automatic discount to a 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 unrelated to network
design or test type for states to use in designing enhanced 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 enhanced 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 allow 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 enhanced 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 one 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.
[[Page 65497]]
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 for a period of 18 months, at which
time the interim program will be evaluated. 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.
Furthermore, EPA believes that in also taking action under section
110 of the CAA, it is appropriate to grant a conditional approval to
this submittal since there are some deficiencies with respect to CAA
statutory or regulatory requirements (identified herein) that EPA
believes can be corrected by the State during the interim period.
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 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 at the latest, November 15, 1997, so that
approximately six 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, that 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 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 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 State (ECOS) group that is convening now and that was
organized for this purpose. EPA further anticipates that in addition to
the interim, short term evaluation, the state will conduct a long term,
ongoing evaluation of the I/M program as required by the I/M Rule in
Secs. 51.353 and 51.366.
C. Process for Full Approvals of This Program Under the CAA
As per the NHSDA requirements, this interim rulemaking will expire
within 18 months of the final interim approval, or the date of final
full approval. A full approval of the state's final I/M SIP revision
(which will include the state's program evaluation and final adopted
state 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 Georgia's Submittal
On March 27, 1996, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(GAEPD) submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
an enhanced I/M program to qualify under the NHSDA. The revision
consists of enabling legislation that will allow the State to implement
the I/M program, proposed 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. The State's credit assumptions
were 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's own good faith estimate of the effectiveness
of its decentralized test and repair program. Georgia's credit
assumption were based upon a remote sensing study performed by Georgia
Tech. Subsequently, on June 17, 1996, GAEPD submitted amendments to the
earlier SIP revisions.
A. Analysis of the NHSDA Submittal Criteria
Transmittal Letter
On March 27, 1996, Georgia submitted an enhanced I/M SIP revision
to EPA, requesting action under the NHSDA of 1995 and the CAA of 1990.
A subsequent submittal amending the I/M program was submitted to EPA on
June 17, 1996. The official submittal was made by the appropriate State
official, Harold Reheis of the Georgia EPD, and was addressed to the
appropriate EPA official, John Hankinson, the Regional Administrator.
Enabling Legislation
The State of Georgia has legislation in Chapter 391-3-10 and 391-3-
20 enabling the implementation of a hybrid program consisting of the
use of a two speed idle exhaust emission test and an Accelerated
Simulation Mode (ASM) exhaust emission test.
Proposed Regulations
On August 16, 1995, the State of Georgia, proposed regulations in
accordance with 40 CFR part 51, establishing an enhanced I/M program.
The State adopted, under emergency rule, Chapter 39-3-20, Rules for
Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance, on May 29, 1996. This rule was
permanently adopted by Georgia on August 26, 1996. Also, Chapter 391-3-
10, Rules for Inspection and Maintenance, was adopted on June 24, 1996.
Program Description
The Georgia program is a decentralized hybrid program consisting of
an Acceleration Simulation Mode test for older vehicles, and a 2 speed
idle test for newer vehicles. All vehicles will receive a gas cap
pressure integrity test. The primary compliance mechanism is
registration denial. Newer vehicles are those with a designated model
year which is of the current test year and up to five years older than
the current test year. Older vehicles are those more than five years
older than the current test year and through the 1975 model year.
Stations may be either test-only or test-and-repair. Fleets are allowed
to self test. Vehicles that are 10 or more years old, driven less than
5000 miles per year, and owned by persons aged 65 years or older are
exempt from testing, as are antique or collector cars or trucks 25
years old or older. The Management Contractor will be responsible for
quality control, quality assurance, program oversight, and outreach.
The idle test portion of the program was expanded to all 13 metro
Atlanta nonattainment counties on October 1, 1996. ASM testing will
begin on July 1, 1997.
[[Page 65498]]
Emission Reduction Claim and Basis for the Claim
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 network design or test type intact. Based upon
EPA's review of Georgia's submittal, EPA believes the State has not
complied with all aspects of the NHSDA, the CAA and the I/M Rule. For
those sections of the I/M Rule, or of the CAA identified below, with
which the State has not yet fully complied, EPA proposes to
conditionally approve the SIP if it receives a commitment from the
State to correct said deficiency. Before EPA can continue with the
interim rulemaking process, the State must make a commitment within 30
days of December 13, 1996 to correct these major SIP elements by a date
certain within one year of interim approval. If the State does not make
this commitment, EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the
State submittal. The State must correct these major deficiencies by the
date specified in the commitment or this proposed approval will convert
to a disapproval under CAA section 110(k)(4).
Applicability--40 CFR 51.350
The Atlanta area is classified as a serious ozone nonattainment
area and also required to implement an enhanced I/M program as per
section 182(c)(3) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.350(2).
Under the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the following counties
in Georgia are subject to the enhanced I/M program requirements:
Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, Dekalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth,
Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale.
The Georgia I/M legislative authority provides the legal authority
to establish the geographic boundaries. The program boundaries are
listed in Chapter 391-3-20-0.32-.02. EPA is proposing to find that the
geographic applicability requirements are satisfied. The federal I/M
regulation requires that the state program shall not sunset until it is
no longer necessary.
EPA interprets the federal regulation as stating that a SIP which
does not sunset prior to the attainment deadline for each applicable
area satisfies this requirement. The Georgia I/M regulation provides
for the program to continue past the attainment dates for all
applicable nonattainment areas in the Georgia.
The State submission meets the Applicability requirements of the
Federal I/M regulation for interim approval.
Enhanced I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.351
The enhanced I/M program must be designed and implemented to meet
or exceed a minimum performance standard, which is expressed as
emission levels in area-wide average grams per mile (gpm) for certain
pollutants. The performance standard shall be established using local
characteristics, such as vehicle mix and local fuel controls, and the
following model I/M program parameters: network type, start date, test
frequency, model year coverage, vehicle type coverage, exhaust emission
test type, emission standards, emission control device, evaporative
system function checks, stringency, waiver rate, compliance rate and
evaluation date. The emission levels achieved by the State's program
design shall be calculated using the most current version, at the time
of submittal, of the EPA mobile source emission factor model. At the
time of the Georgia submittal the most current version was MOBILE5a.
Areas shall meet the performance standard for the pollutants which
cause them to be subject to enhanced I/M requirements. In the case of
ozone nonattainment areas, the performance standard must be met for
both nitrogen oxides (NOx) and hydrocarbons (HC). The state's
submittal must meet the enhanced I/M performance standard for HC and
NOx in the subject I/M area.
The Georgia submittal includes the following program design
parameters:
Network type--Hybrid, consisting of a test and repair program and a
test only program, modeled as test-only for 100% emission reduction
credit.
Start date--1982.
Test frequency--Biennial.
Model year/vehicle type coverage--1975/LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2.
Exhaust emission test type--ASM for vehicles seven years old back
to 1975, 2-speed idle for newest six model years.
Emission standards--ASM: .8 g/mile HC, 15.0 g/mile CO, 2.0 g/mile
NOx. 2-speed idle: 220 ppm HC, 1.2 ppm CO, and 999 ppm NOx.
Emission control device--Visual inspections of catalyst.
Evaporative system function checks--gas cap pressure test.
Stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)--20%.
Waiver rate--3% for all model years.
Compliance rate--97%.
Evaluation dates--January 2000.
The Georgia program design parameters meet the federal I/M
regulations and are approvable.
The State program demonstrates compliance with the low enhanced
performance standard established in 40 CFR 51.351(g). That section
provides that states may select the low enhanced performance standard
if they have an approved SIP for reasonable further progress in 1996,
commonly known as a 15 percent reduction SIP. In fact EPA approval of
15 percent plans has been delayed, and although EPA is preparing to
take action on 15 percent plans in the near future, it is unlikely that
EPA will have completed final action on most 15 percent plans prior to
the time EPA believes it would be appropriate to give final interim
approval to I/M programs under the NHSDA.
In enacting the NHSDA, Congress evidenced an intent to have states
promptly implement I/M programs under interim approval status to gather
the data necessary to support state claims of appropriate credit for
alternative network design systems. By providing that such programs
must be submitted within a four month period, that EPA could approve I/
M programs on an interim basis based only upon proposed regulations,
and that such approvals would last only for an 18 month period, it is
clear that Congress anticipated both that these programs would start
quickly and that EPA would act quickly to give them interim approval.
Many states have designed a program to meet the low enhanced
performance standard, and have included that program in their 15
percent plan submitted to EPA for approval. Such states anticipated
that EPA would propose approval both of the I/M programs and the 15
percent plans on a similar schedule, and thus that the I/M programs
would qualify for approval under the low performance standard. EPA does
not believe it would be consistent with the intent of the NHSDA to
delay action on interim I/M approval until the Agency has completed
action on the corresponding 15 percent plans. Although EPA acknowledges
that under its regulations full final approval of a low enhanced I/M
program after the 18 month evaluation period would have to await
approval of the corresponding 15 percent plan, EPA believes that in
light of the NHSDA it can take final interim approval of such I/M plans
provided that the Agency has determined as an initial matter that
approval of the 15 percent plan is appropriate, and has issued a
proposed approval of that 15 percent plan.
Georgia has submitted a 15 percent plan which includes the low
enhanced I/M program. EPA is currently reviewing that program and plans
to
[[Page 65499]]
propose action on it shortly. EPA here proposes to approve the I/M
program as satisfying the low enhanced performance standard provided
that EPA does propose to approve the 15 percent plan containing that
program. Should EPA propose approval of the 15 percent plan, EPA will
proceed to take final interim approval action on the I/M plan. EPA
proposes in the alternative that if the Agency proposes instead to
disapprove the 15 percent plan, EPA would then disapprove the I/M plan
as well because the State would no longer be eligible to select the low
enhanced performance standard under the terms of 51.351(g).
The emission levels achieved by GAEPD were modeled using MOBILE5a
and utilizing the ASM2 credit matrix in that model. The modeling
demonstration was performed correctly, used local characteristics and
demonstrated that the program design will meet the minimum enhanced I/M
performance standard, expressed in gpm, for HC, and NOx, for each
milestone and for the attainment deadline. In addition, the existing I/
M rules require that the modeling demonstrate that the state program
has met the performance standard by fixed evaluation dates. The first
such date is January 1, 2000. However, few state programs will be able
to demonstrate compliance with the performance standard by that date as
a result of delays in program start up and phase in of testing
requirements. EPA believes that based on the provisions of the NHSAD,
the evaluation dates in the current I/M rule have been superseded.
Congress provided in the NHSDA for programs that would start
significantly later than the start dates in the current I/M rule.
Consistent with Congressional intent, such programs by definition will
not achieve full compliance with the performance standard by the
beginning of 2000.
As explained above, EPA has concluded that the NHSDA superseded the
start date requirements of the I/M rule, but that states should still
be required to start their programs as soon as possible, which EPA has
determined would be by November 15, 1997. Therefore, EPA believes that
pursuant to the NHSDA, delaying program implementation for
approximately two years, the initial evaluation date for modeling
purposes should also be pushed back two years to January 1, 2002. This
evaluation date will allow states to fully implement their I/M programs
and complete one cycle of testing at full cut points in order to
demonstrate compliance with the performance standard.
Georgia will be required to repeat the modeling demonstration if
EPA provides the appropriate ASM1 credit matrix as part of the MOBILE
model. The enhanced performance standard required for the Georgia
program is 1.684 grams per mile for VOC and 1.968 grams per mile for
NOx. The low enhanced performance standard required for the Georgia
program is 2.254 grams per mile for VOC and 2.231 grams per mile for
NOx. The model results for the Georgia I/M program are 2.002 grams per
mile for VOC and 1.996 grams per mile for NOx. While the Georgia
program falls below the enhanced I/M performance standard, it is above
the low enhanced I/M performance standard. GAEPD will achieve
additional emission reductions elsewhere, consistent with the
requirements of the EPA flexibility rule creating the low enhanced
standard. Georgia will implement a ban on all open-burning in addition
to a 7.0 Reid Vapor Pressure program in order to achieve the necessary
reductions.
The State submittal meets the Performance Standard requirements of
the federal I/M regulation for interim approval.
Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353
The enhanced program must include an ongoing evaluation to quantify
the emission reduction benefits of the program, and to determine if the
program is meeting the requirements of the Act and the federal I/M
regulation. The SIP must include details on the program evaluation and
must include a schedule for submittal of biennial evaluation reports,
data from a state monitored or administered mass emission test of at
least 0.1% of the vehicles subject to inspection each year, description
of the sampling methodology, the data collection and analysis system
and the legal authority enabling the evaluation program. ECOS has
formed a committee to develop an evaluation protocol to be used by
states in order to evaluate program effectiveness. ECOS has recommended
that states follow the evaluation procedure in EPA's Final I/M rule. In
a letter dated October 2, 1996, the Georgia EPD committed to a program
evaluation that will comply with both the ECOS recommendation and 40
CFR 51.353(c). EPA interprets this to mean the evaluation program shall
consist, at a minimum, of those items described in 40 CFR 51.353(b)(1)
and mass emission test data using the procedure specified in 40 CFR
51.357(a)(11), or any other transient, mass emission test procedure
approved as equivalent, and evaporative system checks. The first of the
required biennial reports will be provided to EPA by July 1, 1998, with
subsequent reports on July 1 every second year following.
The network is composed of private and public testing stations.
Public testing stations may be test-only or test and repair. Fleets are
allowed to conduct tests on their own vehicles, and are considered
private testing stations.
The Georgia submittal meets the Network Type and Program Evaluation
requirements of the federal I/M regulation for interim approval.
Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354
The federal regulation requires the state to demonstrate that
adequate funding of the program is available. A portion of the test fee
or separately assessed per vehicle fee shall be collected, placed in a
dedicated fund and used to finance the program. Alternative funding
approaches are acceptable if it is demonstrated that the funding can be
maintained. Reliance on funding from the state or local General Fund is
not acceptable unless doing otherwise would be a violation of the
state's constitution. The SIP shall include a detailed budget plan
which describes the source of funds for personnel, program
administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP
shall also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality
assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement,
public education and assistance and other necessary functions.
Georgia requires quality assurance, data analysis and reporting,
audits, and other oversight and management functions to be performed by
the Management Contractor. A portion of the test fee will be used to
pay the Management Contractor, and another portion will be paid to
GAEPD to cover program oversight. The Management Contractor will
receive $5.45 for each vehicle inspected at a public test station.
GAEPD will receive $0.95 per vehicle inspected at a public test station
in order to cover the cost of providing oversight and implementation of
the program. The inspection fee at a fleet test station will be $8.40.
The Management Contractor will receive $5.45 per vehicle inspected at a
fleet testing station. GAEPD will receive $1.95 per vehicle inspected
at a fleet test station in order to cover the cost of providing
oversight and implementation of the program. The State constitution
prohibits a dedicated fund for the operation of the program. The
General Assembly will provide appropriations
[[Page 65500]]
equal to fees collected. The expected staff level at GAEPD will be
approximately five persons. Most of the work will be done by the
Management Contractor, therefore the State's primary function is to
oversee contractor's operation. The Georgia submittal meets the
Adequate Tools and Resources requirements set forth in the federal I/M
regulations and is approvable.
Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355
The enhanced I/M performance standard assumes an annual test
frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the performance
standard is achieved. The SIP shall describe the test year selection
scheme, how the test frequency is integrated into the enforcement
process and shall include the legal authority, regulations or contract
provisions to implement and enforce the test frequency. The program
shall be designed to provide convenient service to the motorist by
ensuring short wait times, short driving distances and regular testing
hours.
The Georgia I/M program will be a biennial program testing even
model year vehicles in even test years, and testing odd model years in
odd test years. Legislation was passed to allow for a 12-month
registration period beginning in January 1, 1998. Currently, all
vehicles are required to be registered in a four month period (January-
April). Stations will be required to operate a minimum of 40 hours per
week. As the program will operate on a decentralized basis, it is
anticipated that there will be ample coverage in the I/M program.
The State submittal meets the Test Frequency and Convenience
requirements of the federal I/M regulation for interim approval.
Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356
The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs assumes coverage
of all 1968 and later model year light duty vehicles and light duty
trucks up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and
includes vehicles operating on all fuel types. Other levels of coverage
may be approved if the necessary emission reductions are achieved.
Vehicles registered or required to be registered within the I/M program
area boundaries and fleets primarily operated within the I/M program
area boundaries and belonging to the covered model years and vehicle
classes comprise the subject vehicles. Fleets may be officially
inspected outside of the normal I/M program test facilities, if such
alternatives are approved by the program administration, but shall be
subject to the same test requirements using the same quality control
standards as non-fleet vehicles and shall be inspected in the same type
of test network as other vehicles in the state, according to the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.353(a). Vehicles which are operated on
Federal installations located within an I/M program area shall be
tested, regardless of whether the vehicles are registered in the state
or local I/M area.
The federal I/M regulation requires that the SIP must include the
legal authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle
coverage requirement, 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 may not be registered in the area, and a description of
any special exemptions, including the percentage and number of vehicles
to be impacted by the exemption. Such exemptions shall be accounted for
in the emissions reduction analysis.
The Georgia program will cover 1975 and later model years light
duty vehicles and light duty trucks weighing up to 8500 pounds gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Based on parking lot surveys, the current
program compliance rate is estimated at 99 percent. GAEPD used 97
percent in its demonstration allowing for vehicles operating in but not
registered in the program area, and for changes in the compliance rate
as a result of the more stringent emission standards. Vehicles that are
10 years old, driven less than 5000 miles and owned by persons aged 65
or older are exempted from the test. The loss of credit due to this
exemption was accounted for in the performance demonstration. The
Georgia I/M program requires that federal fleets operating and
registered in the covered area be tested. The Georgia submittal meets
the Vehicle Coverage requirements of the federal I/M regulations for
interim approvable.
Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR 51.357
Written test procedures and pass/fail standards shall be
established and followed for each model year and vehicle type included
in the program. Test procedures and standards are detailed in 40 CFR
51.357 and in the EPA documents entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test
Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and
Equipment Specifications,'' EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-93-1, dated April 1994 and
``Acceleration Simulation Mode Test Procedures, Emission Standards,
Quality Control Requirements, and Equipment Specifications,'' EPA-AA-
RSPD-IM-96-2, dated July 1996. The federal I/M regulation also requires
vehicles that have been altered from their original certified
configuration (i.e. engine or fuel switching) to be subject to the
requirements of Sec. 51.357(d).
The Georgia I/M program will consist of a single mode ASM and two-
speed idle test, and a gas cap integrity test. A visual emission
control inspection for the presence of the catalytic converter on all
1975 and newer model year vehicles will be required. The ASM test will
be conducted using a chassis dynamometer. Georgia has been working with
other states and the equipment manufacturers, in coordination with EPA,
to develop their own procedures, specifications and standards. Georgia,
in the June 17, 1996 amendments, stated a two phase approach for the
ASM portion of the program. They included a copy of the draft EPA ASM
specifications and noted that due to the short time available to
manufacturers, current specifications would be used to the maximum
extent possible. They also noted that Phase I will only require the
analyzer portion of ASM needed to perform the two speed idle testing
and that the Phase II upgrade will include the hardware and software
needed to perform ASM. It is anticipated that these test procedures,
specifications and standards will be released in the near future. The 2
speed idle test procedure is one of the test methods described in EPA's
``Recommended I/M Short Test Procedures for the 1990's: Six
Alternatives.'' All vehicles will receive a gas cap pressure integrity
test. For 1996 and later vehicles, a check of the on-board diagnostic
system to detect any emission control system problems will be
performed. Georgia will use a form of phased in cutpoints while
implementing the ASM portion of their enhanced I/M program. Less
stringent phase in cutpoints will be utilized from the start of ASM
testing, on July 1, 1997, till December 31, 1997. Final ASM cutpoints
will be utilized after that time. The reason for this is two fold. One
is to introduce ASM testing to the area. However, the primary reason is
to encourage people to have their cars tested before they are required.
This unique situation is due to the current four month registration
window (January-April) in Georgia. However, Georgia will start a 12
month registration period beginning January 1, 1998. This is why final
cutpoints will be implemented at that time. Georgia is hoping to
encourage people to bring
[[Page 65501]]
their cars in after they have their 1997 registration (again, after
January-April), but prior to the 1998 registration in order to more
evenly distribute the testing load. The two-speed idle test will start
with the final cutpoints and experience no phase in standards.
Georgia's submittal does not include a description of the final ASM
test procedure which is acceptable to both Georgia and EPA for one-mode
ASM testing and the gas cap integrity test. The Georgia submittal does
not establish HC, CO, and CO2 pass/fail exhaust standards for the
one-mode ASM test procedure. The Georgia regulation does not establish
gas cap integrity standards. The final Georgia I/M regulation must
include the test procedures and emission standards for these items. The
emission standards found in the final regulation must be identical to
the standards found in the modeling in the March 27, 1996 SIP revision
and the June 17, 1996 SIP supplement.
If the State: (a) commits within 30 days of this proposal, to
correct these deficiencies by a date certain within one year of interim
approval; and (b) corrects the deficiencies by that date, then this
interim approval shall expire pursuant to the NHSDA on the earlier of
18-months from final interim approval, or on the date of EPA action
taking final full approval of this program. If the commitment is not
made within 30 days, EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the
SIP revision. If the State does make a timely commitment but the
conditions are not met by the date committed to, EPA proposes that this
rulemaking will convert to a final disapproval. EPA will notify the
State by letter that the conditions have not been met and that the
conditional approval has converted to a disapproval.
The Georgia submittal does not meet the Test Procedures and
Standards requirements of the federal I/M regulations and is not
approvable. Georgia must commit to correct the deficiencies to enable
EPA to conditionally approve the program.
Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358
Computerized test systems are required for performing any
measurement on subject vehicles. The federal I/M regulation requires
that the SIP submittal include written technical specifications for all
test equipment used in the program. The specifications shall describe
the emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment, the
required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and
procedures.
Georgia has proposed a hybrid program requiring subject vehicles to
be tested with either a one-mode ASM exhaust test or a two speed idle
test, depending upon the age of the vehicle, and all vehicles to be
tested with a gas cap integrity test in the 13 county metro Atlanta
area. Older vehicles would be subject to the ASM test while newer
vehicles are subject to a two speed idle test. Georgia has been working
with other states and the equipment manufacturers, in coordination with
EPA, to develop their own procedures, specifications and standards for
one mode ASM testing. As noted above, Georgia, in the June 17, 1996,
amendments identified a two phase equipment specification. Phase I will
allow manufacturers to produce an analyzer that perform the two speed
idle test. Phase II will include the hardware and software needed to
perform the ASM test. It is anticipated that these test procedures,
specifications and standards will be released in the near future. In
addition to the emission testing and gas cap integrity check, a visual
emission control inspection for the presence of the catalytic converter
on 1975 and newer model year vehicles will be required.
Georgia's regulation does not include a description of a final ASM
test procedure. Georgia's submittal does not establish final equipment
specifications for the one-mode ASM test procedure. The State
regulation also does not establish gas cap integrity test
specifications. The final Georgia I/M regulation must include the test
procedures, equipment specifications and emission standards for these
items.
If the State: (a) commits within 30 days of this proposal, to
correct these deficiencies by a date certain within one year of interim
approval; and (b) corrects the deficiencies by that date, then this
interim approval shall expire pursuant to the NHSDA on the earlier of
18-months from final interim approval, or on the date of EPA action
taking final full approval of this program. If the commitment is not
made within 30 days, EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the
SIP revision. If the State does make a timely commitment but the
conditions are not met by the date committed to, EPA proposes that this
rulemaking will convert to a final disapproval. EPA will notify the
State by letter that the conditions have not been met and that the
conditional approval has converted to a disapproval.
The Georgia submittal does not meet the Test Equipment requirements
of the federal I/M regulations and is not approvable. Georgia must
commit to correct the deficiencies to enable EPA to conditionally
approve the program.
Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359
Quality control measures shall insure that emission measurement
equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection,
calibration records, and control charts are accurately created,
recorded and maintained.
Georgia commits to implement quality control measures for the
emission measurement equipment, record keeping requirements and
measures to maintain the security of all documents used to establish
compliance with the inspection requirements. These measures are to be
implemented by the Management Contractor as per the request for
proposal, which was submitted as part of the SIP revision package. The
Georgia submittal meets the Quality Control requirements of the federal
I/M regulation for interim approval.
Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360
The federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver,
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. For
enhanced I/M programs, an expenditure of at least $450 in repairs,
adjusted annually to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) as compared to the CPI for 1989, is required in order to qualify
for a waiver. Waivers can only be issued after a vehicle has failed a
retest performed after all qualifying repairs have been made. Any
available warranty coverage must be used to obtain repairs before
expenditures can be counted toward the cost limit. Tampering related
repairs shall not be applied toward the cost limit. Repairs must be
appropriate to the cause of the test failure. Repairs for 1980 and
newer model year vehicles must be performed by a recognized repair
technician. The federal regulation allows for compliance via a
diagnostic inspection after failing a retest on emissions and requires
quality control of waiver issuance. The SIP must set a maximum waiver
rate and must describe corrective action that would be taken if the
waiver rate exceeds that committed to in the SIP.
Georgia will phase in the waiver requirements. Between October 1,
1996, and December 31, 1997, the waiver limit will be $200 for
qualifying repairs. Starting January 1, 1998, the waiver rate will be
$450 (with appropriate CPI adjustment). GAEPD established a waiver rate
of 3 percent. If this waiver rate is exceeded, GAEPD will take
corrective action to; (1) reduce the rate to 3 percent, (2) revise the
SIP emission
[[Page 65502]]
reduction claimed to reflect the actual rate, or (3) make other program
changes needed to ensure the emission reductions committed to in the
SIP. The Georgia submittal meets the Waiver requirements of the federal
I/M regulations for interim approval.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361
The federal regulation requires that compliance shall be ensured
through the denial of motor vehicle registration in enhanced I/M
programs unless an exception for use of an existing alternative is
approved. An enhanced I/M area may use either sticker-based enforcement
programs or computer-matching programs if either of these programs were
used in the existing program, which was operating prior to passage of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and it can be demonstrated that the
alternative has been more effective than registration denial. For newly
implementing enhanced areas, there is no provision for enforcement
alternatives in the CAA. The SIP shall provide information concerning
the enforcement process, legal authority to implement and enforce the
program, and a commitment to a compliance rate to be used for modeling
purposes and to be maintained in practice.
Georgia uses registration denial as an enforcement mechanism. The
Georgia SIP commits to a compliance rate of 97 percent which was used
in the performance standard modeling demonstration. The Georgia
submittal meets the Motorist Compliance Enforcement requirements of the
federal I/M regulation for interim approval.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362
The federal I/M regulation requires that the enforcement program
shall be audited regularly and shall follow effective program
management practices, including adjustments to improve operation when
necessary. The SIP shall include quality control and quality assurance
procedures to be used to insure the effective overall performance of
the enforcement system. An information management system shall be
established which will characterize, evaluate and enforce the program.
The Georgia program requires the Management Contractor to analyze
registration and inspection databases to ensure that all subject
vehicles are presented for inspection. Registration and inspection
databases will be completely automated. Cross checking of the two
databases will be used to identify any vehicles which, by any means,
obtain registration without complying with the inspection requirement,
and to otherwise assess program effectiveness. The Georgia submittal
meets the Motorist Compliance Enforcement program oversight provisions
of the federal I/M regulation for interim approval.
Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363
An ongoing quality assurance program shall be implemented to
discover, correct and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the program.
The program shall include covert and overt performance audits of the
inspectors, audits of station and inspector records, equipment audits,
and formal training of all state I/M enforcement officials and
auditors. A description of the quality assurance program which includes
written procedure manuals on the above discussed items must be
submitted as part of the SIP.
GAEPD included in their request for proposal (RFP) a requirement
that quality control procedures which meet the requirements of the EPA
rule be established by the Management Contractor. Additional quality
control measures for the program will be established by GAEPD as part
of its operations manual. These quality control requirements will apply
to all testing stations regardless of the test. The Georgia submittal
meets the Quality Control requirements of the federal I/M regulation
for interim approval.
Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364
Enforcement against licensed stations, contractors and inspectors
shall include swift, sure, effective, and consistent penalties for
violation of program requirements. The federal I/M regulation requires
the establishment of minimum penalties for violations of program rules
and procedures which can be imposed against stations, contractors and
inspectors. The legal authority for establishing and imposing
penalties, civil fines, and license suspensions and revocations must be
included in the SIP. State quality assurance officials shall have the
authority to temporarily suspend station and/or inspector licenses
immediately upon finding a violation that directly affects emission
reduction benefits, unless constitutionally prohibited. An official
opinion explaining any state constitutional impediments to immediate
suspension authority must be included in the submittal. The SIP shall
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 the resources and sources of those resources which
will support this function.
GAEPD has the authority to penalize, suspend or revoke
certification of inspectors and stations for violation of program
regulations. The Management Contractor will promptly prepare
recommendations for suspensions or other penalties whenever violations
of program requirements are discovered as a result of overt and covert
audits. GAEPD will maintain records of all program enforcement
activity. The Georgia submittal meets the Enforcement Against
Contractors, Stations and Inspectors requirements of the federal I/M
regulation for interim approval.
Data Collection--40 CFR 51.365
Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation
and enforcement of an I/M program. The federal I/M regulation requires
data to be gathered on each individual test conducted and on the
results of the quality control checks of test equipment required under
40 CFR 51.365.
The Georgia program requires the Management Contractor to collect
and maintain all inspection and quality control data required by 40 CFR
51.365. The Georgia submittal meets the Data Collection requirements of
the federal I/M regulation for interim approval.
Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR 51.366
Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring
and evaluation of the program by the state and EPA. The federal I/M
regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide
information and statistics and summarize activities performed for each
of the following programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control
and enforcement. These reports are to be submitted to EPA by July and
shall provide statistics for the period of January to December of the
previous year. A biennial management report shall be submitted to EPA
which addresses changes in program design, regulations, legal
authority, program procedures and any weaknesses in the program found
during the two year period and how these problems will be or were
corrected.
GAEPD will prepare annual reports containing summaries of test
data, quality assurance and quality control activities and enforcement.
GAEPD will submit the required biennial management report on July 1,
1998, and every year thereafter. The Georgia
[[Page 65503]]
submittal meets the Data Analysis and Reporting requirements of the
federal I/M regulation for interim approval.
Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR 51.376
The federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally
trained and licensed or certified to perform inspections.
The Georgia program will require that all inspectors receive
training and be certified by GAEPD. The Management Contractor will
supply the training. GAEPD will monitor the training and testing of
inspectors. Inspectors must pass with 80% correct answers. Inspectors
will be required to take a refresher course after two years in order to
renew the certification. The Georgia submittal meets the Inspector
Training and Certification requirements of the federal I/M regulation
for interim approval.
Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR 51.368
The federal I/M regulations require the SIP to include public
information and consumer protection programs.
The Georgia program requires the Management Contractor to develop a
public information program. The Georgia Request for Proposal specifies
that all requirements of this section must be met by the contractor.
This program will include general information on the I/M program,
information on repair facilities, and emission warranty coverage. In
addition, the Management Contractor will provide a referee program for
resolving complaints about the validity of tests. The Georgia submittal
meets the Public Information and Consumer Protection requirements of
the federal I/M regulation for interim approval.
Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369
Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The
federal regulation requires states to take steps to ensure that the
capability exists in the repair industry to repair vehicles. The SIP
must 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 required in the federal
regulation, and a description of the repair technician training
resources available in the community.
Georgia's repair effectiveness program includes an outreach program
and a repair technician hotline. The Management Contractor will oversee
this, and will be required to collect information on repair facilities.
This information will be available for vehicle owners. The Management
Contractor will be required to meet all components of 40 CFR 51.369.
GAEPD has contracted with vocational-technical schools to provide an
updated training program for repair technicians. The Georgia submittal
meets the Improving Repair Effectiveness requirements of the federal I/
M regulation for interim approval.
Compliance With Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370
The federal regulation requires the states to establish methods to
ensure that vehicles that are subject to enhanced I/M and are included
in a emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to
completing the emission test and/or renewing the vehicle registration.
The Georgia program requires that vehicle owners comply with
emission recall notices issued after January 1, 1995. Vehicles which
have not completed the recall requirements within six months after the
initial notification will be required to obtain the recall repairs
prior to obtaining a test. The Georgia submittal meets the Compliance
Recall Notices requirements of the federal I/M regulation for interim
approval.
On-Road Testing--40 CFR 51.371
On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas. The use of
either remote sensing devices (RSD) or roadside pullovers including
tailpipe emission testing can be used to meet the federal regulations.
The program must include on-road testing of 0.5 percent of the subject
fleet or 20,000 vehicles, whichever is less, in the nonattainment area
or the I/M program area. Motorists that have passed an emission test
and are found to be high emitters as a result of an on-road test shall
be required to pass an out-of-cycle test.
The Georgia Institute of Technology, under contract with GAEPD,
will test 0.5 percent of the subject fleet per year using remote
sensing devices. Vehicles that fail will have to undergo a two-speed
idle or ASM inspection, depending on the age of the vehicles. The
Georgia submittal meets the on-road testing requirements of the federal
I/M regulation for interim approval.
State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR
51.372 through 51.373
GAEPD has submitted a schedule that meets EPA approval. The State
signed a contract on March 1996 with the Management Contractor, and the
idle test program will be expanded to all 13 nonattainment counties on
October 1, 1996. Starting July 1, 1997, the GAEPD will implement the
ASM test.
III. Discussion for Rulemaking Action
Today's notice of proposed rulemaking begins a 30-day clock for the
State to make a commitment to EPA to correct the major elements of the
SIP that EPA considers deficient, by a date certain within one year of
interim approval. These elements are: The submittal does not contain
the necessary details of the final ASM program. Within 30 days, the
State must make a commitment to EPA to correct these deficiencies by a
date certain within one year of interim approval. If the State does not
make such a commitment within 30 days, EPA today is proposing in the
alternative that this SIP revision be disapproved.
If the State makes the commitment within 30 days, EPA's conditional
approval of the plan will last until the date by which the State has
committed to correct all of the deficiencies.
EPA expects that within this period the State will not only correct
the deficiencies as committed to by the State, but that the State will
also begin program start-up by November 15, 1997. If the State does not
correct deficiencies and 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.
IV. 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 by November 15, 1997, the State will have approximately six
months of program data that can be used for the demonstration, in
accordance to the evaluation procedure agreed upon by ECOS. If the
State fails to provide an adequate 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
[[Page 65504]]
State's credits accordingly, and use this information to act on the
State's permanent I/M program.
V. 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. The State has complied with all the conditions of its commitment
to EPA,
2. 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,
3. Final program regulations are submitted to EPA, and
4. The State I/M program meets all of the requirements of EPA's I/M
rule, including those deficiencies found de minimis for purposes of
interim approval.
VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Interim Submittal
EPA's review of this material indicates that Georgia is deficient
in providing the details of the final ASM procedures, standards and
specification requirements. EPA is proposing a conditional, interim
approval of the Georgia SIP revision for the Inspection and Maintenance
Program, which was submitted on March 27, 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 document.
Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this revision to the
Georgia SIP for an enhanced I/M program based on certain conditions.
The conditions for approvability are as follows: Georgia must submit
the required final ASM and gas cap test details that are acceptable to
EPA.
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.
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 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
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 impose any new requirements, the
Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a 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).
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 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.
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.
The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the SIP
revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA
regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.
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: November 12, 1996.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-31737 Filed 12-12-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P