[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69557-69559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33474]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NH037-7164; A-1-FRL-6203-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of New Hampshire; Interim Final Determination That New Hampshire 
has Avoided the Deficiencies of its I/M SIP Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA has published 
rulemaking actions proposing to determine that the one hour ozone 
standard no longer applies in New Hampshire and other nearby areas, and 
proposing approval of the State of New Hampshire's motor vehicle 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, under Section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA). Additionally, EPA is proposing to lift the 
requirement that New Hampshire submit an enhanced I/M program 
consistent with specific Clean Air Act requirements for the Ozone 
Transport Region (OTR). Based on these proposed actions, EPA is making 
an interim final determination, by this action, that the State is more 
likely than not no longer subject to the requirements prompting the 
original disapproval of the New Hampshire enhanced I/M SIP revision. 
This action will defer the application of the offset sanction that is 
otherwise applicable beginning December 6, 1998, and defers the future 
application of the highway sanction. Although this action is effective 
upon publication, EPA will take comment on this interim final 
determination as well as EPA's action proposing approval of the State's 
submittal and a determination that the one-hour ozone standard no 
longer applies in New Hampshire and other nearby areas. EPA will 
publish a final notice taking into consideration any comments received 
on EPA's proposed actions and this interim final action.

DATES: Effective December 17, 1998. Written comments must be received 
on or before January 19, 1999. Public comments on this document are 
requested and will be considered before taking final action on this SIP 
revision.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director, 
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., Boston, MA 02203. 
Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by 
appointment, at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, 
MA and the Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental 
Services, 64 North Main Street, Caller Box 2033, Concord, NH 03302-
2033.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, (617) 918-1045.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 4, 1998, New Hampshire 
submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for an I/M 
program. This submittal was supplemented by a letter dated November 20, 
1998 providing additional information about the New Hampshire I/M 
program and a request for further flexibility from requirements 
applicable to the OTR in light of the current air quality status of the 
area. The SIP revision includes New Hampshire Code of Administrative 
Rules, Part Saf-C 3220 ``Official Motor Vehicle Inspection 
Requirements'' and Part Saf-C 5800 ``Roadside Diesel Opacity 
Inspection'' and additional supporting material including authorizing 
legislation, administrative items, and a description of the program 
being implemented. This action is being taken under Section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act.

[[Page 69558]]

I. Background

    On October 12, 1994, EPA conditionally approved in the Federal 
Register (59 FR 51517) an I/M SIP submitted by the State. By means of a 
June 6, 1997 letter, EPA notified New Hampshire that the conditional 
approval of the New Hampshire enhanced I/M SIP revision had been 
converted to a disapproval. The letter triggered the 18-month time 
clock for the mandatory application of sanctions under section 179(a) 
of the CAA. Therefore, the Act's offset sanction applies beginning 
December 6, 1998. To remedy that failure, on September 4, 1998, the 
State of New Hampshire submitted an I/M SIP revision to EPA, requesting 
approval action under the CAA. On November 20, 1998, a supplement to 
the September 4, 1998 SIP revision was officially submitted to EPA.
    The purpose of these SIP revisions was to remedy deficiencies 
identified by EPA in its June 6, 1997 letter. In the November 20, 1998 
letter, New Hampshire submitted a request that EPA grant the State 
further flexibility under the CAA to implement an I/M program that does 
not meet all the specific requirements for an enhanced I/M program in 
the OTR.

II. EPA's Current Rulemaking Actions

    In the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, EPA is 
proposing approval of the State's I/M SIP revision to strengthen its 
SIP, as well as an action proposing to determine that the 1-hour ozone 
standard no longer applies in New Hampshire and certain other nearby 
areas. Additionally, EPA has proposed to remove the detailed CAA 
requirements for an enhanced I/M program in the OTR for New Hampshire 
based on the State's demonstration that reductions from an I/M program 
will not significantly contribute to attainment of the 1-hour ozone 
standard in any area in the OTR.
    EPA believes that, as a result of today's related rulemaking 
actions, it is more likely than not that New Hampshire is no longer 
subject to the requirement to have an enhanced I/M program which 
triggered the sanctions clock in New Hampshire. This interim 
determination will not halt or reset the sanctions deadline, but will 
continue to defer the implementation of sanctions until EPA's proposal 
is finalized or the State's I/M program is disapproved. Disapproval 
will result in sanctions being imposed, as previously scheduled.
    Today EPA is also providing the public with an opportunity to 
comment on this interim final determination. If, based on any comments 
received by EPA upon this interim final determination action and any 
comments on EPA's proposed finding with respect to New Hampshire's air 
quality and proposed approval of the State's I/M SIP revision, EPA 
determines that those actions are inappropriate and the SIP revision is 
not approvable and, therefore, this final action was also 
inappropriate, EPA will take further action to disapprove the State's 
I/M SIP revision. If EPA's proposed approval of the New Hampshire I/M 
SIP revision is disapproved, then sanctions would be applied as 
required under Section 179(a) of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.31.

III. EPA Action

    Based on the proposed actions determining that the 1-hour ozone 
standard no longer applies in New Hampshire and removing the I/M 
requirement in New Hampshire set forth elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register, EPA believes that it is more likely than not that the State 
is no longer subject to the I/M requirement that prompted the original 
disapproval of the New Hampshire I/M SIP for which the June 6, 1997 
disapproval finding was issued. Therefore, EPA concludes that sanctions 
should be stayed until EPA takes final action on those proposals and 
the New Hampshire I/M SIP.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Because EPA has preliminarily determined that New Hampshire is no 
longer subject to enhanced I/M requirements and therefore that the 
September 4, 1998 New Hampshire I/M SIP revision is approvable, relief 
from sanctions should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, 
EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for comment before 
this action takes effect.\1\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The EPA believes that 
notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date of this action 
is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The EPA has 
reviewed the State's September 4, 1998 I/M SIP revision and November 
20, 1998 letter. Through this interim final determination action, the 
Agency believes that it is more likely than not that the State is no 
longer subject to the requirement for which the sanctions clock was 
started.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As previously noted, however, by this action EPA is 
providing the public with a chance to comment on EPA's determination 
after the effective date and EPA will consider any comments received 
in determining whether to reverse such action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, it is not in the public interest to apply sanctions when 
the State is most likely no longer subject to the requirement that 
triggered the sanctions clock. Moreover, it would be impracticable to 
go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State is 
no longer subject to that requirement prior to the date sanctions would 
take effect. Therefore, EPA believes that it is necessary to use the 
interim final rulemaking process to defer sanctions while EPA completes 
its rulemaking process. In addition, EPA is invoking the good cause 
exception to the 30-day advance notice requirement of the APA because 
the purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction. See 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(1).

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of

[[Page 69559]]

section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not 
economically significant under E.O. 12866 and does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it does not create any new 
requirements. Therefore, because this rule does not create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that 
this action 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 imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not 
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be 
effective upon publication.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 9, 1998.
John DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 98-33474 Filed 12-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P