[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70659-70660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32516]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Region II Docket No. NJ41-206, FRL-6509-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey; 
Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to find that the State of New Jersey will 
have implemented the enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program 
when mandatory testing begins on December 13, 1999 and to reinstate the 
interim approval granted under section 348 of the National Highway 
Systems Designation Act (NHSDA). Due to New Jersey's delays in starting 
the enhanced I/M program, EPA notified New Jersey by a December 12, 
1997 letter that the sanctions clock was started for failure to 
implement the enhanced I/M program. The offset sanction began in New 
Jersey on June 14, 1999. The highway sanction would begin six months 
thereafter if New Jersey did not implement the program. This action is 
proposing to reinstate the interim approval and to stop the sanctions 
clock and lift any sanctions applied in New Jersey.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 18, 2000, and 
will be considered before taking final action.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Raymond Werner, Acting 
Branch Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the following 
locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air 
Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866 and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 
Air Quality Planning, 401 East State Street, CN418, Trenton, New Jersey 
08625.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy-Ann Mitchell, Air Programs 
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New 
York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    New Jersey submitted changes to the existing I/M program on March 
27, 1996 to satisfy the applicable requirements of both the Clean Air 
Act (CAA) and the National Highway System Designation Act (NHSDA). On 
October 31, 1996 (61 FR 56172), EPA published a notice of proposed 
conditional interim approval of New Jersey's enhanced I/M program. On 
May 14, 1997 (62 FR 26401), EPA published a final conditional interim 
approval of New Jersey's enhanced I/M program which began the 18-month 
interim period under section 348 of the NHSDA.
    Due to New Jersey's delays in starting the enhanced I/M program, 
EPA notified New Jersey by a December 12, 1997 letter that the 
sanctions clock was started for failure to implement the enhanced I/M 
program, in accordance with section 179(a)(4) of the Act. The offset 
sanction began in New Jersey on June 14, 1999. The highway sanction 
would begin six months thereafter.
    Additionally, on November 4, 1998, EPA informed New Jersey that the 
December 12, 1997 letter tolled the interim approval period for the 
State. Since approximately six months of the interim period had passed, 
the State will have the remaining 12 months of the interim approval 
period to demonstrate their I/M program's effectiveness.

II. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to find that the State of New Jersey implemented 
the enhanced I/M program when mandatory testing begins on December 13, 
1999 and to reinstate the interim approval granted under section 348 of 
the NHSDA. Elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA is announcing an 
interim final determination that the sanctions have been stayed and 
deferred because the State will have more likely than not started up 
the approved I/M program. Implementing the program on a mandatory basis 
cures the deficiency cited in the December 12, 1997 letter. EPA is now 
proposing to find that the deficiency was corrected and proposing to 
make a finding that the State is implementing the I/M SIP and EPA is 
reinstating the interim approval granted under section 348 of the 
NHSDA. This will result in stopping the sanctions that were announced 
on December 12, 1997.
    On November 19, 1999, New Jersey notified EPA by letter that the 
mandatory enhanced I/M program will be implemented on December 13, 
1999. EPA has been working closely with the State during the phase-in 
period of the enhanced I/M program and agrees that the State will have 
the program implemented on December 13, 1999. If comments are received 
which cause EPA to conclude that the enhanced I/M program has not been 
implemented, EPA will not proceed with the final rulemaking and will 
withdraw the interim final rule finding that the state has more likely 
than not implemented the program. In such event, the sanctions will be 
immediately reinstated via a letter and a Federal Register notice.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism

[[Page 70660]]

implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults 
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. This proposed rule will not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act.
    Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 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 
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 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. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 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 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 proposed 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. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic 
compounds.

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

    Dated: December 7, 1999.
Jeanne M. Fox,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 99-32516 Filed 12-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P