[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