[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69594-69598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33475]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[ME059-7008; A-1-FRL-6203-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maine; Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program; Restructuring OTR 
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Maine State 
Implementation Plan (SIP), which was submitted to EPA for approval on 
November 19, 1998 by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). 
This submittal requested further flexibility from requirements 
applicable to the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) in light of the current 
air quality status of the area. The SIP revision includes sections of 
the ``Maine Safety Inspection Manual,'' and additional supporting 
material including detailed authorizing legislation (L.D. 2223, ``An 
Act to Reduce Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles and to Meet 
Requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act''), administrative items, and 
a description of the program being implemented. This action is being 
taken under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: 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, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, 
MA 02114-2023. 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 Bureau of Air Quality Control, 
Department of Environmental Protection, State House--Station No. 17, 
Augusta, ME 04333.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 19, 1998, Maine submitted a 
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for vehicle inspection 
and maintenance (I/M). This submittal requested further flexibility 
from requirements applicable to the OTR in light of the current air 
quality status of the area. The SIP revision includes Sections of the 
``Maine Safety Inspection Manual,'' and additional supporting material 
including detailed authorizing legislation (L.D. 2223, ``An Act to 
Reduce Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles and to Meet Requirements of 
the Federal Clean Air Act''), administrative items, and a description 
of the program being implemented. This action is being taken under 
section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

I. Clean Air Act Requirements

    Section 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires certain areas in the Ozone 
Transport Region (OTR) to adopt and implement an inspection and 
maintenance program meeting EPA's enhanced I/M performance standard. 
EPA's I/M rule was established on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950). EPA 
made significant revisions to the I/M rule on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 
48035) and on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 39036). Maine is affected by 
requirements of the Act related to I/M in certain areas of the State. 
Specifically, under EPA's I/M rule, enhanced I/M programs would be 
required in the Portland, Maine ozone nonattainment area. This program 
was initially submitted to fulfill Maine's obligations to implement I/M 
pursuant to these requirements. The State is only required to submit an 
I/M program because of its location in the OTR.
    By this action, EPA proposes to approve Maine's submittal. EPA has 
reviewed the State submittal against the requirements of the Act and 
EPA's final I/M rule. The present version of the SIP submission does 
not meet all of the requirements of EPA's final rule for enhanced I/M 
in the OTR. The program does, however, contribute to air quality 
improvement. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the program for several 
reasons. First, Maine has achieved all of its Clean Air Act control 
plan requirements for overall emission reductions without I/M. That is, 
the State has submitted an acceptable 15

[[Page 69595]]

percent VOC reduction plan, and based on 1996-1998 data in AIRS, has 
achieved attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard without the 
implementation of a vehicle I/M program. In addition, Maine and all 
areas nearby, including New Hampshire, Eastern Massachusetts, and Rhode 
Island appear to have attained the 1-hour ozone standard based on 1996-
1998 data, as discussed elsewhere in the Federal Register. 
Additionally, Maine does not contribute to nonattainment of the 1-hour 
ozone standard in any areas in the OTR (or elsewhere) where that 
standard continues to be violated based on evidence submitted by the 
State separately as part of their overwhelming ozone transport 
demonstration. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the State should not 
need to meet all the requirements for enhanced I/M in the OTR. Section 
176A of the Clean Air Act states that the ``Administrator . . . may 
remove any State . . . from the [OTR] whenever the Administrator has 
reason to believe that control of emissions in that State . . . 
pursuant to [the Act requirements for the OTR] will not significantly 
contribute to attainment of the standard in the region.'' Implicit in 
EPA's authority to remove a State from the OTR entirely is the 
authority to eliminate or ``restructure'' specific control requirements 
for States that remain in the OTR, provided the State demonstrates that 
the control of emissions from such requirement will not significantly 
contribute to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard anywhere in the 
OTR.
    We propose that the State has met the test of section 176A and it 
has requested further flexibility in meeting the Clean Air Act 
requirements for I/M in the OTR. EPA believes that Maine's continued 
participation in the OTR is beneficial, and that EPA's approval of this 
I/M program will improve air quality. Therefore, in light of the above, 
EPA is proposing to approve this I/M program as strengthening the SIP 
despite the fact that it does not meet all requirements for enhanced I/
M in the OTR. Further, EPA did finalize the NOX SIP call for 
22 States and the District of Columbia by notice dated October 27, 1998 
(63 FR 57356). Maine was not included among those States, but EPA 
intends to conduct modeling to determine whether a SIP revision under 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) should be required from Maine in the future. 
Currently, EPA does not have evidence that emissions from sources in 
Maine significantly contribute to 1-hour nonattainment downwind, but if 
EPA determines that sources in Maine contribute significantly to 
downwind nonattainment, today's action will be revisited.
    EPA concludes that an enhanced I/M program is not required in Maine 
because control of emissions from an I/M program would not contribute 
significantly to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in any area of 
the OTR. A summary of EPA's analysis of the State's I/M program is 
provided below.

II. I/M Regulation General SIP Submittal Requirements

    On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), EPA published a final regulation 
establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to sections 182, 184, and 
187 of the Act. EPA made significant revisions to the I/M rule on 
September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48035) and on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 39036). 
The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, and 
requires States subject to the I/M requirement to submit an I/M SIP 
revision that includes all necessary legal authority and the items 
specified in 40 CFR 51.350 through 51.373.

III. State Submittal

    On November 19, 1998, the State of Maine submitted an I/M SIP 
revision for Cumberland County, which includes the Portland area. A 
public hearing for the November 19, 1998 submittal was held on October 
13, 1998.
    The I/M SIP submittal provides for the implementation of I/M in 
Maine's Cumberland County beginning on January 1, 1999. Maine will be 
implementing an annual, test and repair I/M program which the State has 
designed to meet the requirements of EPA's performance standard and 
many other requirements contained in the federal I/M rule. Testing will 
be overseen by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and implemented by 
individual garages in the existing safety inspection network. Aspects 
of the Maine I/M program include: anti-tampering testing for catalytic 
converters on 1983 and newer light duty vehicles and trucks, gas cap 
pressure testing on 1974 and newer vehicles, and OBD2 checks (beginning 
in January 2000), enforcement by the existing windshield safety 
inspection stickers, requirements for testing convenience, quality 
assurance, data collection, no cost waivers, reporting, test equipment 
and test procedure specifications, public information and consumer 
protection, inspector training and certification, penalties against 
inspectors which perform faulty inspections, and emission recall 
enforcement. An analysis of the Maine program, and Maine's 
demonstration of how the I/M program meets many of the federal I/M SIP 
requirements, is provided below.

A. Applicability

    The Maine I/M regulations and authorizing legislation specify that 
the I/M program be implemented only in Cumberland County, the minimum 
required area under EPA rules, covering the Portland, Maine area.

B. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard

    The I/M program was designed, in part, to meet the enhanced I/M 
performance standard for ozone precursors causing air quality problems 
in Maine. Maine's program was designed to meet the performance standard 
for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides 
(NOx), under 40 CFR 51.351(h) of the I/M rule.
    The State submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA computer 
model, MOBILE5b, showing that the enhanced performance standard will be 
met. The State's demonstration shows that it expects to achieve the 
reductions required by that section of the rule, and explains that they 
intend to utilize additional benefits from reformulated gasoline to 
ensure that the total emission reductions attributed to I/M meets 
federal I/M requirements. On October 30, 1998, at the Governor of 
Maine's request, EPA allowed the State to opt-out of the reformulated 
gasoline program, contingent upon certain conditions being met. We 
expect the State to meet those conditions, which include demonstrating 
that they have adopted measures which achieve equivalent reductions. At 
this point in time, however, the State cannot demonstrate that it meets 
this requirement of the I/M rule.

C. Network Type and Program Evaluation

    Maine has chosen to implement a test and repair I/M network program 
design. The State has assumed conservative assumptions for credit 
claims relative to its network design in its demonstration that it 
meets the performance standard. EPA believes that a further 
demonstration is not necessary. Furthermore, EPA's OTR low enhanced 
rule does not require that the State perform additional program 
evaluations beyond the data reporting requirements of the I/M rule in 
the future.

D. Adequate Tools and Resources

    The State's SIP outlines the level of resources dedicated to the I/
M program, and includes descriptions of the funding expended and the 
personnel utilized within DEP and DPS to implement the program. The SIP 
also describes the role

[[Page 69596]]

of DPS State Police enforcement personnel to be utilized in enforcing 
the program. DEP will also play a role in implementing and analyzing 
the program. Finally, the ``per test fee'' collected for each 
inspection has been raised, with the additional funds going to the 
State Highway fund, which the Transportation Committee of the 
legislature can authorize to be spent on I/M program implementation.
    The State has described both current and future plans to ensure 
that adequate funding is provided to implement the program. While the 
State has described in significant detail the plans it has to ensure an 
effective program, the State has not dedicated funding to this effort.

E. Test Frequency and Convenience

    The Maine SIP revision requires annual inspections for all subject 
motor vehicles in Cumberland County. The inspections will be conducted 
in concert with the existing schedule for the annual safety inspection 
program. Short waiting times and short driving distances are not an 
issue since this will be part of the State's existing safety inspection 
network, with longstanding stations scattered throughout Cumberland 
County prepared to test all subject vehicles.

F. Vehicle Coverage

    Maine's I/M program covers all model year gasoline powered light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, registered, or required to be 
registered, within Cumberland County, with very limited exceptions. 
Based on discussions with the State, EPA evaluated the effect of the 
fact that antique vehicles and other similar vehicles are exempt from 
testing and determined that such exemptions would not be the cause of 
the program not achieving the performance standard. Model year 1974 and 
newer vehicles are required to undergo the gas cap pressure test, and 
1983 and newer vehicles are required to undergo the catalytic converter 
check. Legal authority for the vehicle coverage requirement is 
contained in the Maine Safety Inspection rules and the April 1998 
authorizing legislation. EPA proposes to approve the submission as a 
strengthening of the SIP based on the DEP's submittal, although it has 
not met all EPA rule requirements.

G. Test Procedures and Standards

    The Maine I/M SIP revision obligates the State to perform anti-
tampering checks of the nature described in the plan submission. The 
State will be requiring these checks for 1983 and newer model year 
vehicles in the area for the presence of the catalytic converter, and 
checks for 1974 and newer vehicles for the presence, proper fit and 
function of a gas cap. In addition, the State of Maine will be 
requiring OBD2 system checks in accordance with EPA rules, beginning in 
2001, with checks of the systems, but no repairs, starting in 2000.

H. Test Equipment

    In its November 19, 1998 submittal, Maine's I/M SIP revision 
describes procedures to follow to test vehicles. These procedures are 
articulated in more detail in the Maine Safety Inspection Manual, and 
the State's I/M authorizing legislation.
    The SIP does not include a ``real time'' data link, but instead 
every vehicle which leaves a station without a passing sticker is 
reported to the Department of Public Safety with a ``safety refusal 
card.'' The State feels that the fact that these vehicles are reported 
to the Department of Public Safety will ensure that vehicle owners 
comply, and do not shop around for a ``passing test.'' EPA believes 
that the relatively unobtrusive program that the State is implementing 
will help ensure that vehicle owners do not ``shop'' for passing 
stickers any more than is done under the present safety inspection 
program. For reasons described elsewhere in this notice, EPA is 
proposing approval of this as a SIP strengthening measure, but it does 
not meet EPA I/M requirements. The State does not require a ``real 
time'' data link to prevent this sticker shopping, nor to collect the 
requisite data required under the I/M rule.

I. Quality Control

    The Maine I/M SIP narrative outlines quality control procedures. 
However, since no significant test equipment is utilized, it is 
minimal. Efforts to ensure that documents related to the inspection 
remain secure are already in place and enforced by the DPS as part of 
the existing safety inspection program.

J. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection

    Since Maine is implementing largely an anti-tampering program, it 
will not be issuing any waivers whatsoever, and this is approvable.
    Maine will require the replacement of gas caps which fail the 
pressure test.

K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement

    The State of Maine has chosen to use a program of windshield 
sticker based enforcement, based on its current safety inspection 
program. Any vehicle driven without a valid sticker will ultimately be 
caught by law enforcement officials. The motorist compliance 
enforcement program will be implemented primarily by the Maine 
Department of Public Safety (DPS). The enforcement strategy is 
described in Maine's November 19, 1998 submittal. The enforcement 
strategy is designed to ensure a high rate of compliance rate for all 
vehicles within a short time of the compliance deadline. As described 
in the November 19, 1998 submittal, this will be accomplished by 
surveillance by law enforcement officials to identify uninspected and 
unregistered vehicles. Vehicle owners of those vehicles operated 
without a valid safety inspection sticker are fined, just as those that 
are driven unregistered. Maine feels that the fact that windshield 
safety inspection stickers are more easily identified helps ensure a 
higher rate of compliance than with the less visible registration 
stickers required to be on license plates. Maine does have a penalty 
system whose purpose is to deter noncompliance, but the penalties 
imposed may not be a sufficient incentive to deter noncompliance if a 
vehicle owner expects that significant repairs will be required upon 
inspection.
    This program is not viewed as intrusive to the general public, and 
it is not likely that citizens of Maine's Cumberland County will take 
additional steps to avoid this I/M program. EPA is comfortable that, in 
light of the type of vehicle ``testing'' being proposed, Maine's 
program will be enforced in a manner commensurate with the type of 
program implemented, and emission reductions expected. However, this 
section of the State's program does not meet Clean Air Act requirements 
to have the program based on vehicle registration. Further, while the 
State did make a demonstration that this mechanism was both a ``pre-
existing'' enforcement mechanism and that it would be more effective 
than registration denial would be, EPA has not concurred with those 
assertions. Further, the State has not committed to ensuring the 
continued effectiveness of its sticker based enforcement mechanism. In 
general, EPA believes that a registration based program would be more 
effective than sticker based enforcement since a vehicle can be 
registered without being inspected, but cannot be inspected without 
being registered. Further discussion on the State's enforcement 
demonstration is included in the TSD prepared for this notice. 
Nevertheless, for reasons outlined elsewhere in this notice, EPA 
believes that this program should be

[[Page 69597]]

approved because it will strengthen the SIP, despite the fact that it 
does not meet the requirements for enhanced I/M under the Clean Air 
Act. The legal authority to implement and enforce the program is 
included in the Maine State law and in DPS rules.

L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight

    The Maine I/M SIP revision provides that EPA may perform regular 
auditing of its enforcement program. The State does not describe its 
own methods for ensuring that the program is enforced and overseen 
sufficiently. The State's efforts for the motorist compliance 
enforcement program do not meet federal I/M rule requirements.

M. Quality Assurance

    The November 19, 1998 submittal from Maine states that the quality 
assurance program will be developed. Since that program has not been 
developed, what was submitted does not meet EPA requirements.

N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors

    The Maine I/M SIP revision describes specific sanctions available 
in its enforcement against stations and inspectors which fail to give 
proper inspections. An inspector or station can have its authority to 
inspect suspended if improper inspections are performed. Other 
penalties include fines, warnings, and revocations. This section of the 
State's program is appropriate for the type of program the State is 
implementing for the purpose of strengthening the SIP.

O. Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting

    The Maine I/M SIP provides for collecting test data to link 
specific test results to specific vehicles, I/M program registrants, 
test sites, and inspectors. The SIP lists the specific types of test 
data and quality control data which will be collected, which include 
all the relevant data points of 40 CFR 51.365. We expect that the data 
collected would therefore include, at a minimum: station identification 
number, technician name, customer name, vehicle ID and license plate 
number, vehicle make, model, model year and mileage, pass/fail 
determination, reason for failure, inspection sticker number, and 
repairs performed.

P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification

    The November 19, 1998 submittal describes the training and the 
testing that is required of each inspector, prior to being certified to 
perform these tests.

Q. Improving Repair Effectiveness

    In the November 19, 1998 submittal, the State committed to 
providing technical assistance and training opportunities for the 
repair industry. The DEP does intend to work with the repair industry 
to provide additional OBD2 training in the future.

R. Compliance With Recall Notices

    The Maine I/M SIP will ensure that vehicles subject to its I/M 
program, that are included in either a voluntary emission recall or a 
remedial plan determination pursuant to the CAA, have had the 
appropriate repairs made prior to the inspection. Lists of vehicles 
that have received recall notices will be provided to the inspection 
stations, by coordination between the DEP and DPS.

S. On-Road Testing

    Maine has stated that it has the legislative authority to move 
forward with an on-road testing program. It intends to design a program 
which meets EPA requirements in the future, and the program will be 
conducted either by remote sensing or by ``on-road'' inspections.

T. Concluding Statement

    A more detailed analysis of the State's submittal is contained in 
the EPA's technical support document prepared for this action. The TSD 
is available from the EPA New England Regional office listed above. The 
Maine regulations and accompanying materials contained in the SIP 
represent an acceptable I/M plan for the purpose of strengthening the 
Maine SIP.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted by Maine on 
November 19, 1998 as a revision to the SIP. The SIP revision proposes 
approval of the State's I/M program. While the I/M program does not 
meet all of the requirements of the enhanced I/M rule, EPA has 
determined, based on the State's showing that additional reductions 
from a fully enhanced I/M program will not significantly contribute to 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard anywhere in the OTR, that the 
requirements for an enhanced I/M program are not required in Maine. 
Therefore, EPA is approving the Maine I/M program as strengthening the 
SIP.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be 
considered before EPA takes 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 action.

V. Administrative Requirements

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 that does not already exist as a matter of State law. EPA 
is simply approving a state regulation under the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, the requirements of 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

[[Page 69598]]

and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not 
``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and does not 
involve an action that addresses environmental 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 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 proposed rule will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities because 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 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Clean Air Act, preparation of 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).

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 the proposed approval 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 approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 9, 1998.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator, OAR.
[FR Doc. 98-33475 Filed 12-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P