[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 161 (Friday, August 20, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45454-45457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21660]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[LA-49-1-7411; FRL-6422-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation 
Plans (SIP); Interim Final Determination That Louisiana Continues To 
Correct the Deficiencies of Its Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/
M) SIP Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Previously EPA published a proposed rulemaking (December 30, 
1998, 63 FR 71807) to conditionally approve the State of Louisiana's 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision concerning a low-enhanced 
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program under section 
110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) as amended in 1990. Based on the 
proposed approval, EPA is making an interim final determination by this 
action, that the State has more likely than not cured the deficiencies 
prompting the original disapproval (November 19, 1997, 62 FR 61633) of 
the Louisiana enhanced I/M SIP revision. This action will defer the 
future application of the offset sanction and the highway sanction. 
Although this action is effective upon signature, EPA will take comment 
on this interim final determination. The EPA will publish a final 
action taking into consideration any comments received on this interim 
final action.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 10, 1999.
    Comments: Comments must be received on or before September 20, 
1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. 
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, 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. Persons interested in examining these documents 
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 
hours before the visiting day. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, 
Texas 75202-2733. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Air 
Quality Compliance Division, 7290 Bluebonnet, 2nd Floor, Baton Rouge, 
Louisiana.
    Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Capital Regional

[[Page 45455]]

Office, 11720 Airline Highway, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra G. Rennie, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, telephone (214) 665-7367.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Louisiana's May 1996 I/M SIP Revision Approval Status

    In a December 2, 1997, letter to the Governor, EPA notified 
Louisiana that the conditional approval of the State's enhanced I/M SIP 
revision, conditionally approved on June 9, 1997, (62 FR 31388) had 
converted to a disapproval because Louisiana failed to meet the 
conditions specified for approval. A later correction notice dated 
February 13, 1998, changed the effective date of the disapproval to the 
February 13, 1998, date of publication (63 FR 7289). A letter dated 
March 4, 1998, informed the State of this change. The disapproval 
triggered the 18-month time clock for the mandatory application of 
sanctions under section 179(a) of the Act. The 18-month clock expires 
on August 13, 1999.
    On August 20, 1998, the Governor of the State requested parallel 
processing of its I/M program SIP revision. We acknowledged the State's 
request in a September 3, 1998, letter. On October 20, 1998, the State 
made available a proposed I/M SIP revision for public comment and 
parallel processing by EPA. We proposed conditional approval on 
December 30, 1998, in 63 FR 71807. The State submitted the adopted I/M 
SIP on February 12, 1999, under the Governor's signature. Because the 
State has now submitted a SIP that EPA believes is approvable for its 
enhanced I/M program, we believe this interim final determination is 
justified. We conclude that Louisiana has more likely than not 
corrected the deficiency that initiated the sanctions clock, and 
therefore do not believe that sanctions are warranted simply because a 
State approved I/M SIP revision has not been finally approved by EPA.
    We are making this interim final determination now because a final 
conditional approval requires amendments to the Federal I/M regulation 
that will allow the State to operate the I/M program as described in 
the SIP. The Administrator signed a notice of proposed rulemaking on 
August 6, 1999, proposing amendments to the Federal I/M regulation that 
will accommodate Louisiana's I/M program. Because we believe these 
amendments are justified, we are making this interim final 
determination to defer sanctions.

EPA's Current Rulemaking Actions

    We believe that the submission of the I/M SIP revision that we 
proposed to approve more likely than not cures the SIP deficiency that 
triggered the sanctions clock. Therefore, with this finding the 
imposition of sanctions for that deficiency is stayed for the duration 
of EPA's rulemaking process on this I/M SIP revision. This interim 
determination will not halt or reset the sanctions deadline, but will 
defer implementation of sanctions until either: the proposed 
conditional approval converts to a disapproval, or the State's enhanced 
I/M SIP is fully approved or disapproved.
    Today EPA is also providing the public with an opportunity to 
comment on this interim final determination. If, based on any relevant 
comments we receive on this interim final determination action or the 
proposed conditional approval, we determine that the SIP revision is 
not finally approvable, we will take further action to disapprove the 
State's I/M SIP revision. If EPA does disapprove the I/M revision, or 
if EPA's conditional approval of the Louisiana I/M SIP revision is not 
finalized, then sanctions would be applied as required under 179(a) of 
the Act and 40 CFR 52.31.

II. EPA Action

What Action Is EPA Taking?

    Based on the proposed conditional approval previously published in 
the Federal Register, we believe that the State has more likely than 
not corrected the deficiency that prompted the original disapproval of 
the Louisiana enhanced I/M SIP. Therefore, we conclude that sanctions 
should be stayed for the duration of Louisiana's proposed conditional 
SIP approval.

What Is the Effective Date for This Rule?

    The effective date for this rule is August 10, 1999, the date this 
action was signed.
    Because we have preliminarily determined that the February 12, 
1999, I/M SIP revision is conditionally approvable, we believe that 
relief from future 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\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). We 
believe that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date of 
this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. We 
have reviewed the State's October 1998, proposed SIP revision and the 
February 1999, adopted SIP revision. Through this interim final 
determination action, the Agency finds the State has more likely than 
not corrected the deficiency for which the sanctions clock was started 
(i.e., failure of the State to provide legislative authority to 
implement and continuously operate an I/M program under sections 182 
and 184 of the Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 initially apply 
sanctions when the State has most likely corrected the deficiency that 
triggered the sanctions clock. Moreover, it would be impracticable to 
go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State 
has corrected the deficiency prior to the rulemaking fully approving 
the State's I/M SIP revision. Therefore, we believe that it is 
necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to defer 
sanctions while we complete our rulemaking process on the approvability 
of the State's I/M SIP revision. In addition, we are invoking the good 
cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the 
purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction. See 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(1).
    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.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from review under 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 EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to 
provide to OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with representatives of affected State, local,

[[Page 45456]]

and tribal governments, the nature of their concern, 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 government ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's interim final determination does not create a mandate on 
State, local, or tribal governments. The determination 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), 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.
    The interim final determination 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.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 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, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to 
provide to OMB, 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, E.O. 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 interim final determination does not significantly or 
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. 
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, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., 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 
conditional approval of SIP submittals under section 110 and subchapter 
I, part D of the Act does not create any new requirements but simply 
approves requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, 
because the Federal SIP approval does not impose 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 Act, preparation of 
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of State action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions 
concerning SIPs on such grounds. See 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, 
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 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.
    The EPA has determined that the interim final determination 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 
preexisting 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. The 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 U.S. Comptroller General prior to publication 
of the rule in the Federal Register. This determination 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 Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by October 19, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.


[[Page 45457]]


    Dated: August 10, 1999.
Myron O. Knudson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VI.
[FR Doc. 99-21660 Filed 8-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P