[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4568-4570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2194]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[GA 34-2-9902a; FRL-6227-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Georgia: 
Approval of Revisions to Georgia State Implementation Plan; Vehicle 
Inspection/Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the enhanced Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) 
program for the State of Georgia. The program had initially been given 
conditional interim approval under the terms of section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) and section 348 of the National Highway Systems 
Designation Act (NHSDA), as noted in EPA's final conditional interim 
rule action in the August 11, 1997, Federal Register. Due to delays in 
implementing Phase 2 of the program, the Georgia enhanced I/M program 
had been disapproved on March 11, 1998, which triggered an eighteen 
month clock prior to the imposition of sanctions. This approval action 
also serves to stop the sanctions clock.

DATES: This final interim rule is effective March 30, 1999 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by March 1, 1999. 
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the final interim rule in the Federal Register and inform the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to: Scott M. Martin at the 
EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303.
    Copies of the state submittal(s) are available at the following 
addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Contact Scott Martin 
404-562-9036. Reference file Georgia 34-2-9902.
    Air Protection Branch, Georgia Environmental Protection Division, 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 4244 International Parkway, 
Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia 30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott M. Martin at 404-562-9036 or for 
information regarding the I/M program contact Dale Aspy at 404-562-
9041.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 13, 1996 (61 FR 65496), EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Georgia. The NPR proposed 
conditional interim approval of Georgia's enhanced I/M program, for the 
Atlanta ozone nonattainment area, submitted to satisfy the applicable 
requirements of both the CAA and the NHSDA. The formal SIP revision, 
which was submitted by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division 
(EPD) on March 27, 1996, contained plans to implement the program in 
two phases. The plan for Phase 1 described how the program would be 
expanded from the four counties in the previous program to the 13 ozone 
nonattainment counties. Phase 1 also implemented a two speed idle (TSI) 
test and a gas cap pressure check for all vehicles that were subject to 
an emissions inspection. The implementation of Phase 2 requires an 
acceleration simulation mode (ASM) test for vehicles older than six 
model years, while newer vehicles continue to be subject to the TSI 
test. Phase 2 also implements minor changes in emission testing 
software. It was proposed the program be conditionally approved because 
it lacked ASM test method specifications and a requirement to implement 
the program in a timely manner. Subsequently, on January 31, 1997, the 
Georgia EPD submitted the necessary ASM test method, satisfying one of 
the conditions for program approval. These specifications were largely 
based upon EPA's specifications for the ASM test. Therefore, on August 
11, 1997 (62 FR 42916) EPA noted the test specifications condition of 
the December 13, 1996, proposal was met and removed, and final 
conditional interim approval was given to the program, contingent upon 
a timely start-up. The Georgia EPD began implementation of the I/M 
program as scheduled and had met all program milestones at the time the 
final conditional interim approval was published on August 11, 1997. 
However, problems were encountered when mandatory ASM testing began as 
scheduled on October 1, 1997. There were an insufficient number of 
stations capable of performing ASM testing due to a lack of test 
equipment and also other hardware and software problems. Due to the 
continued inability of equipment vendors to supply a sufficient number 
of stations with approved ASM equipment and Phase 2 software, the State 
passed an emergency rule on November 15, 1997, effective on the same 
day, that temporarily

[[Page 4569]]

suspended mandatory ASM testing, but encouraged it as an option through 
an incentive program for testing stations. The two speed idle test 
continued to be the emissions test used to ultimately pass or fail a 
vehicle in the program. Because numerous problems were indicated by 
preliminary software testing, and additional time was required to 
resolve these problems, on March 25, 1998, the State adopted a rule 
which extended the use of the two speed idle test until as late as 
January 1, 1999. This rule became effective on April 15, 1998. However, 
the State indicated to EPA that it would resume ASM testing earlier, if 
sufficient capability existed to minimize testing waiting times. As a 
result of this delay in fully implementing the program, EPA sent a 
letter to the State on March 11, 1998, indicating that the conditional 
approval had converted to a disapproval pursuant to the terms of the 
conditional approval, with respect to the full start-up of the program. 
This letter had the effect of staying the 18 month evaluation clock 
under the NHSDA during the disapproval time period. The Georgia EPD 
subsequently determined there would be sufficient testing capability to 
minimize waiting times before the January 1, 1999 date. Therefore, on 
August 26, 1998, the State adopted rules, which became effective on 
October 1, 1998, that moved the resumption of mandatory ASM testing to 
October 1, 1998. Subsequently, on October 1, 1998, mandatory ASM 
testing of vehicles older than six model years resumed. EPA was 
notified of this occurrence via letter on November 4, 1998.
    EPA has the authority to reapprove the SIP based on the letter from 
the State of Georgia without further SIP submission as the SIP has not 
been changed. The program, as described in the above referenced Federal 
Register documents, has been implemented.
    As noted in the August 11, 1997 Federal Register document 
referenced above, the term of the interim approval of the Georgia I/M 
program was set to expire on February 11, 1999 as per the NHSDA 
requirements. However, the March 11, 1998 letter stayed that clock 
until the program was reapproved. Therefore, interim rulemaking will 
now expire on November 11, 1999. A full approval of Georgia's final I/M 
SIP revision is still necessary under section 110 and under section 
182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. After EPA reviews Georgia's submitted 
enhanced I/M program evaluation and regulations, final rulemaking on 
the State's full SIP revision will occur.
    Additional detailed discussion of the Georgia enhanced I/M SIP and 
the rationale for EPA's action are explained in the proposal notice 
published December 13, 1996, at 61 CFR 65496-65504 and in the final 
conditional interim approval notice published on August 11, 1997, at 62 
FR 42916-42918 and will not be restated here.

II. Final Action

    EPA is giving final interim approval to the Georgia I/M program 
because it is consistent with the CAA and Agency requirements.
    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no 
adverse 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 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective March 30, 1999 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
March 1, 1999.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document 
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will 
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this rule will be effective on March 30, 1999 and no 
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

III. 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 Executive Order 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 any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 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 Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly 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 Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

D. 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

[[Page 4570]]

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 it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

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 30, 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, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, 
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: January 13, 1999.
A. Stanley 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 L--Georgia

    2. Section 52.582 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.582  Control Strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA is giving final interim approval to the Georgia Inspection 
and Maintenance (I/M) Program submitted on March 27, 1996, with 
supplemental information submitted on January 31, 1997, until November 
11, 1999.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-2194 Filed 1-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P