[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 415-418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[KY98-9808a; FRL-6199-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 
Approval of Revisions to Basic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 
submitted on November 10, 1997, by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 
through the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 
Cabinet. This revision modifies the implementation of a basic motor 
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Jefferson County, 
Kentucky, to require loaded mode testing of vehicles instead of the 
current idle testing.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 8, 1999 without further 
notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by February 4, 
1999. Should the EPA receive such comments, it will publish a timely 
document withdrawing this rule informing the public that the rule will 
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Dale 
Aspy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning 
Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Copies of 
documents relative 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 the visiting day. 
Reference file KY98-9808. The Region 4 office may have additional 
background documents not available at the other locations.

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Dale Aspy, (404) 562-9041.
Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, 
Division for Air Quality, 803 Schenkel Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-
1403, (505) 573-3382.
Jefferson County Air Pollution Control District, 850 Barret Avenue, 
Louisville, Kentucky, (502) 574-6000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale Aspy at 404/562-9041.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act) requires that many 
ozone nonattainment areas adopt either ``basic'' or ``enhanced'' I/M 
programs, depending on the severity of the problem and the population 
of the area. The moderate ozone nonattainment areas, as well as 
marginal ozone areas with existing or previously required I/M programs, 
must adopt programs that meet the ``basic'' I/M requirements. Enhanced 
programs are required in

[[Page 416]]

serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas with 1980 
urbanized populations of 200,000 or more. On November 5, 1992, EPA 
promulgated an I/M regulation that establishes minimum performance 
standards for basic I/M programs as well as other requirements that 
must be met for the program to be approved in the SIP. The performance 
standard for basic I/M programs remains the same as it has been since 
initial I/M policy was established in 1978, pursuant to the 1977 
amendments to the Clean Air Act.
    The Commonwealth of Kentucky contains the Louisville urbanized area 
portion of the Louisville ozone nonattainment area which is classified 
as moderate. The Louisville ozone nonattainment area includes Jefferson 
County, Kentucky, portions of Bullitt and Oldham Counties, Kentucky, 
and two counties in Indiana. This notice addresses only the Jefferson 
County, Kentucky, portion of the nonattainment area.
    The I/M program currently in operation in Jefferson County, 
Kentucky, requires idle testing of a vehicle's emissions and was found 
to meet all EPA requirements for a basic   I/M program. EPA published a 
notice in the July 28, 1995, Federal Register approving the program as 
meeting all EPA requirements for basic I/M programs. However, the Act 
also required ozone nonattainment areas such as Louisville to meet 
several other conditions, including: (1) a 15 percent volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emission reduction plan; (2) reasonably available 
control technologies, and (3) an attainment demonstration including any 
necessary additional reductions sufficient to attain the ozone 
standard. The Jefferson County, Kentucky, Air Pollution Control 
District (APCD) determined that reductions beyond those achievable with 
the basic idle test were needed to meet those additional requirements. 
They determined that a loaded mode I/M test, in which the vehicle's 
emissions are measured while the vehicle is on a dynamometer simulating 
actual driving conditions, would be the most effective emission 
reduction strategy to meet those additional requirements. The Jefferson 
County, Kentucky, APCD also determined that an additional emission 
reduction of 910 tons per year or 2.49 tons per summer day would be 
achieved through the implementation of loaded mode testing.
    On November 10, 1997, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the 
Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet 
submitted to EPA a revised SIP for an I/M program that would achieve 
greater emission reductions than the current basic I/M program for 
Jefferson County. This submittal included revisions to Regulation 8.01, 
Mobile Source Emissions Control and Regulation 8.02, Vehicle Emissions 
Testing Procedure. The majority of the changes to these two regulations 
were minor modifications in the language and numbering of the 
regulation. The significant revision involved the type of vehicle 
emission testing required in Jefferson County. Beginning April 1, 1998, 
all vehicles presented for an emission test in Jefferson County, 
Kentucky, that are capable of being tested on a dynamometer will be 
subject to a loaded mode exhaust gas emission test. The loaded mode 
test adopted and described in Regulation 8.02 is one of the short test 
procedures contained in EPA's I/M rule, as published on November 5, 
1992. The loaded mode procedure is described in Subpart S, Appendix B, 
Section III of the EPA rule. The I/M regulations were adopted by the 
Department of Planning and Environmental Management, Air Pollution 
Control District of Jefferson County, Kentucky, on October 15, 1997.

II. EPA's Analysis of Changes to the Louisville, Kentucky, Basic I/
M Program

    EPA's review of the submitted revisions indicates that the 
Jefferson County I/M program is in accordance with the requirements of 
the Act. Modeling analyses were conducted by the Jefferson County APCD 
using MOBILE5a-H, and demonstrated that additional emission reductions 
beyond those of a basic idle test would be achieved by implementing a 
loaded mode exhaust emission test. Since the revised test procedure 
adopted by the APCD is one of the short test procedures described in 
Subpart S, Appendix B, Section III of the November 5, 1992 EPA I/M 
rule, EPA is approving the Kentucky SIP revision for a loaded mode, 
basic I/M program in Jefferson County.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving this revision to the Kentucky SIP for a basic I/M 
program in Jefferson County. EPA is publishing this action without 
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial 
amendment and anticipates no adverse public comments. However, in the 
proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is 
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to 
approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. 
This rule will be effective March 8, 1999 without further notice unless 
the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by February 4, 1999.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely 
document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the 
rule will not take effect. All public comments received will be 
discussed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Only 
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this 
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this 
rule will be effective on March 8, 1999 and no further action will be 
taken on the proposed rule.

IV. 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. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must 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 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),

[[Page 417]]

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 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. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must 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 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 final 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 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to 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 promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual 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.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 rule is not a 
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 8, 1999. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

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.

    Dated: November 5, 1998.
A. Stanely Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart S--Kentucky

    2. Section 52.920, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(88) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (88) Modifications to the existing basic I/M program in Jefferson 
County to implement loaded mode testing of vehicles submitted by the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky on November 10, 1997.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    Regulation 8.01 and 8.02, adopted on October 15, 1997.

[[Page 418]]

    (ii) Other material. None.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-17 Filed 1-4-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P