[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4133-4136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1834]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[GA-043-1-9905a; and GA-045-1-9906a; FRL-6528-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Georgia: 
Approval of Revisions to Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Portion

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  The EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revisions submitted, in two separate packages, by the State of Georgia 
in November and December of 1998. Both submittals request revisions to 
the enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program, in accordance 
with the requirements of Section 110 of the Clean Air Act as amended in 
1990 (CAA) and section 348 of the National Highway Systems Designation 
Act (NHSDA). In total, these submittals request revisions to modify the 
following sections: ``Emission Inspection Procedures,'' ``Inspection 
Station Requirements,'' ``Certificate of Emissions Inspection,'' 
``Definitions,'' ``Waivers,'' ``Inspection Fees,'' and the 
``Accelerated Simulated Mode (ASM) Start-up Standards'' found in 
Appendix H of the Enhanced I/M Test Equipment, Procedures, and 
Specifications--Phase II.

DATES:  This direct final rule is effective March 27, 2000 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 25, 
2000. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform 
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:  All comments should be addressed to: Dale Aspy (November 
1998 submittal) or Lynorae Benjamin (December 1998 submittal) at the 
EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303.
    Copies of the state submittals are available at the following 
addresses for inspection during normal business hours: Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, 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 30303-8960. Dale Aspy, 404/562-
9041; Lynorae Benjamin, 404/562-9040.

[[Page 4134]]

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection 
Division, Air Protection Branch, 4244 International Parkway, Suite 
1220, Atlanta, Georgia 30354. 404/363-7000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Dale Aspy at 404/562-9041 or Lynorae 
Benjamin at 404/562-9040.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The following sections: Background, 
Analysis of the State's Submittal, and Final Action, provide additional 
information concerning the revisions to the enhanced I/M portion of the 
Georgia SIP.

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, 
submitted on March 27, 1996, by the Georgia Environmental Protection 
Division (EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources, 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 
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 required an ASM test for vehicles older than 
six model years, while newer vehicles continued to be subject to the 
TSI test. Phase 2 also implemented minor changes in software. The 
program was 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 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 interim approval was 
given to the program.
    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, reference above and in the final interim 
approval notice published on August 11, 1997 (62 FR 42916), and will 
not be restated here.

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    On November 4, 1998, EPD submitted a revision to the SIP that 
modified portions of the enhanced I/M program. Specifically, the 
submission deleted emergency rules contained in the ``Emission 
Inspection Procedures,'' and the ``Inspection Station Requirements'' 
for the Georgia I/M regulation. These emergency rules were adopted when 
the ASM portion of the program could not be implemented on schedule due 
to delays in the delivery of hardware and software. The emergency rules 
allowed stations to check vehicle emissions on the TSI through December 
1, 1998. However, the required hardware and software were delivered 
prior to the expected date, allowing ASM testing to start earlier than 
anticipated. Additionally, the ``Certificate of Emissions Inspection'' 
was changed to require a telephone number for tracking purposes. The 
details of the modifications requested in the November 1998 submittal 
are discussed below.

Emission Inspection Procedures

    Paragraph 7 in the Emission Inspection Procedures (Georgia Rule 
391-3-20-.04) is deleted entirely, removing the provision that allowed 
older vehicles to be tested with the TSI procedure.

Inspection Station Requirements

    Sections (1)(a)(3) and (1)(c)(3) are deleted from Georgia Rule 391-
3-20-.09, thereby removing the provisions that allowed certain newer 
vehicle only inspection stations or fleet inspection stations to test 
older vehicles with the TSI procedure.

Certificate of Emissions Inspection

    A new subparagraph (2)(b) of Georgia Rule 391-3-20-.13 completely 
replaces the former subparagraph, requiring a telephone number in 
addition to the other information previously required on the repair 
information form.
    On December 4, 1998, the EPD submitted additional revisions to the 
SIP to modify portions of the enhanced I/M program. Specifically, the 
submission updates the I/M Test Manual definition so that it refers to 
the version of the Enhanced I/M Test Equipment, Procedures and 
Specifications--Phase II dated September 10, 1998; extends the $200 
waiver expenditure requirement through December 31, 1999; and extends 
the $25.00 fixed test fee and the issuing of an administrative fee 
credit of $6.30 to an inspection station owner for each ASM test 
performed through June 30, 1999. The details of the modifications 
requested in the December 1998 submittal are discussed below.

Definitions

    The State updated the I/M Test Manual definition so that it refers 
to the most recent version of the Enhanced I/M Test Equipment, 
Procedures and Specifications--Phase II dated September 10, 1998.

Waivers

    The revision extended the $200 waiver expenditure requirement 
through December 31, 1999. This extension reflects a change in EPA's 
policy which will mandate the $450 wavier amount (plus an increase for 
inflation) to be implemented after January 1, 2000. EPA is approving 
the State's request to extend the deadline for the full implementation 
of the cost waiver including the CPI adjustment until January 1, 2000. 
This allows the State to complete one full cycle of testing with the 
$200 cost waiver and also allows the State to complete a full cycle of 
testing with the full $450 plus the annual CPI adjustment made 
retroactively to 1989 cost waiver before January 1, 2002, which is the 
performance standard modeling evaluation date. EPA believes, that 
consistent with its interpretation that the start dates and evaluation 
dates have been extended by approximately two years by the NHSDA, the 
full implementation of the waiver can also be extended by two years.

Inspection Fees

    The revision extended the $25.00 fixed test fee and the issuing of 
an administrative fee credit of $6.30 to an inspection station owner 
for each ASM test performed through June 30, 1999.

ASM-Start-Up

    The revision delayed implementation of the final emissions 
standards for the dynamometer tests through December 31, 1999. This 
allows one year of ASM testing at the phase in cut points. The delay in 
implementing the final ASM standards was caused by the delay in 
starting Phase 2, the ASM portion, of the Georgia I/M program due to 
ASM hardware and software delivery problems.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP. The Agency 
has reviewed this request for revisions of

[[Page 4135]]

the Federally approved SIP for conformance with provisions of the CAA 
and EPA guidance and has determined that these requests conform to 
those requirements. Therefore, this action revises the State's enhanced 
I/M program as presented in the Analysis of State's Submittal section 
of this document.
    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views these as noncontroversial submittals 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 revisions should 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective March 27, 2000 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
February 25, 2000.
    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 27, 2000 and no 
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces E.O. 
12612 (Federalism) and E.O. 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership). E.O. 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 
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 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 final 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 E.O. 13132. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the E.O. 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.
    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, 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 rule 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

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 government 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 CAA 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 CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
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 
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

[[Page 4136]]

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 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. 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.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by March 27, 2000. 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

    Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: January 5, 2000.
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. In Sec. 52.570(c), the table is amended by revising the entry 
for 391-3-20 to read as follows:


Sec. 52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State effective
         State citation             Title/subject           date          EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
391-3-20.......................  Enhanced             November 12, 1998   March 27, 2000...
                                  Inspection and
                                  Maintenance.
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 00-1834 Filed 1-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P