[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1871-1875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-570]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[ME059-7008A; A-1-FRL-6928-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maine; Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program; Restructuring OTR 
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine. On December 17, 1998 
(63 FR 69594), EPA proposed to approve a revision to the Maine SIP. 
This SIP revision request was submitted to EPA for approval on November 
19, 1998 by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for 
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M). That submittal requested 
further flexibility from I/M requirements applicable to the Ozone 
Transport Region (OTR) in light of the air quality status of the area. 
EPA proposed approval of the State's I/M program under the concept of 
OTR ``restructuring.'' EPA received no comments on the December 17, 
1998 proposal. This action is being taken under section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule will become effective on February 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents relevant to this action are available 
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment, at 
the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA; Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Room M-1500, 401 M Street, (Mail Code 6102), S.W., Washington, 
D.C.; and the

[[Page 1872]]

Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, 
State House-Station No. 17, Augusta, ME 04333.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, (617) 918-1045.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This Supplementary Information section is organized as follows:

I. What SIP revision was submitted by the State of Maine?
II. What are the relevant Clean Air Act requirements?
III. What action did EPA propose for the Maine I/M SIP?
IV. What action did EPA take to defer the offset sanction in Maine?
V. What is EPA's basis for restructuring the Ozone Transport Region 
requirements?
VI. Have any circumstances changed since the original proposal?
VII. What action is EPA taking on Maine's 
I/M program?
VIII. EPA Action
IX. Administrative Requirements

I. What SIP Revision Was Submitted by the State of Maine?

    Maine DEP submitted a revision to the Maine SIP on November 19, 
1998 for a vehicle I/M program. This submittal requested further 
flexibility from requirements applicable to states in the OTR in light 
of the air quality status of the area at that time. The SIP revision 
includes sections of the ``Maine Safety Inspection Manual,'' and 
additional supporting material including detailed authorizing 
legislation (L.D. 2223, ``An Act to Reduce Air Pollution from Motor 
Vehicles and to Meet Requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act''), 
administrative items, and a description of the program being 
implemented.

II. What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?

    Section 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires areas with a population of 
at least 100,000 in a metropolitan statistical area in the OTR to adopt 
and implement an inspection and maintenance program meeting EPA's 
enhanced I/M performance standard. EPA's I/M rule was established on 
November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950). EPA made significant revisions to the 
I/M rule on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48035) and on July 25, 1996 (61 
FR 39036). Maine is subject to the requirements of the Act for an I/M 
program in the Portland, Maine area. Maine's program was initially 
submitted to fulfill the State's obligations to implement I/M pursuant 
to these requirements. The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR part 
51, subpart S, and requires States subject to the I/M requirement to 
submit an I/M SIP revision that includes all necessary legal authority 
and the items specified in 40 CFR 51.350 through 51.373.

III. What Action Did EPA Propose for the Maine I/M SIP?

    EPA proposed approval of Maine's 
I/M program under the concept of OTR ``restructuring'' on December 17, 
1998 (63 FR 69594). EPA stated that the Portland, Maine area and all 
nearby areas had met the one-hour national ambient air quality standard 
(NAAQS) for ozone. Because of this, and because of the technical 
demonstration made by the State, EPA made a determination that emission 
reductions from I/M under section 184 would not significantly 
contribute to the attainment of the one-hour ozone standard anywhere in 
the OTR, and the I/M requirement could be ``restructured.'' EPA then 
proposed approval of the I/M SIP as a SIP strengthening measure under 
section 110 of the Clean Air Act. EPA received no comments on its 
proposal.

IV. What Action Did EPA Take To Defer the Offset Sanction in Maine?

    Due to the disapproval of an earlier 
I/M SIP submitted by the State of Maine, the Clean Air Act's offset 
sanction was applicable in Maine beginning December 6, 1998. Based on 
the December 17, 1998 proposed approval (63 FR 69594) on that same day, 
EPA published an interim final rule in the Federal Register which 
stayed that sanction and deferred the imposition of the highway funding 
sanction in Maine (63 FR 69559). In that action EPA said that the stay 
and deferral would remain in effect until EPA took final action on the 
Maine I/M SIP proposed on that same day or retracted its proposed 
approval.
    Today EPA is issuing a final, full approval of Maine's submitted I/
M program SIP revision, and a final determination that the CAA 
requirement for an enhanced I/M program for areas in the OTR does not 
apply for Maine. Accordingly, all sanctions and FIP clocks started 
based on EPA's earlier disapproval of Maine's I/M program are 
terminated upon the effective date of today's action.

V. What Is EPA's Basis for ``Restructuring'' Ozone Transport Region 
Requirements?

    Section 176A of the Clean Air Act is entitled ``Interstate 
Transport Commissions,'' and discusses the criteria used to add or 
remove areas from transport regions. Section 176A(a)(2) states that the 
``Administrator . . . may remove any State . . . from the [OTR] 
whenever the Administrator has reason to believe that control of 
emissions in that State . . . pursuant to [the Act's requirements for 
the OTR] will not significantly contribute to attainment of the 
standard in the region.'' Implicit in EPA's authority to remove a State 
from the OTR entirely is the authority to eliminate or ``restructure'' 
specific control requirements for States that remain in the OTR, 
provided the State demonstrates that the control of emissions from such 
requirement will not significantly contribute to attainment of the one-
hour ozone standard anywhere in the OTR.

VI. Have Any Circumstances Changed Since the Original Proposal?

    In the December 17, 1998 notice proposing to approve Maine's I/M 
SIP, we noted that this program is designed to get the emission 
reductions required by EPA's I/M regulation for enhanced I/M programs 
mandated solely pursuant to OTR requirements in section 184(b)(1)(A). 
Nevertheless, the program did not meet these enhanced I/M requirements 
primarily due to the Act's requirement for a registration-based 
enforcement program. We proposed that since Maine had demonstrated that 
it did not affect any other one-hour ozone nonattainment areas in the 
OTR that were violating that standard, this area could have ``opted-
out'' of the OTR under section 176A. Maine is also attaining the 1-hour 
ozone standard. But since Maine did not want to ``opt-out'' of the OTR, 
and merely wanted flexibility on enhanced I/M, we proposed to accept 
the I/M program that Maine had submitted as a SIP strengthening measure 
under section 110. The proposal was also based on air quality data that 
demonstrated that all of the remaining nearby ozone nonattainment areas 
in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island had achieved the 1-
hour standard. EPA had proposed to revoke the 1-hour standard based on 
these air quality data. That proposal to revoke the one-hour ozone 
standard in each of these areas was finalized on June 9, 1999 (64 FR 
30911).
    However, due to uncertainty regarding the status of implementing 
EPA's 8-hour ozone standard, on October 25, 1999 (64 FR 57424), EPA 
proposed that the one-hour standard should apply again in all areas 
where it was previously revoked. That action was finalized on July 20, 
2000 (65 FR 45182). Many of these areas that were previously designated 
nonattainment have air quality which meets the one-hour ozone NAAQS, 
including all the areas noted in EPA's December, 1998 proposed action. 
It should be noted that

[[Page 1873]]

air quality monitoring data averaged over the years 1997 through 1999 
showed that the Portland, Maine area (consisting of York, Cumberland 
and Sagadahoc Counties) had a design value of 0.125 ppm. During this 
period, this area was exceeding the one-hour ozone standard, albeit by 
a small margin. But more recent data based on 1998 through 2000 
monitoring data, and earlier data which was the basis for our proposal 
(1996 through 1998 monitoring data), shows that the Portland area is 
attaining the one-hour ozone standard. EPA is basing this determination 
upon three years of complete, quality-assured, ambient air monitoring 
data for the 1998 to 2000 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 
Portland area has attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS, as recorded in 
EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). All other areas 
in Maine, New Hampshire, eastern Massachusetts and Vermont continue to 
measure air quality that meets the one-hour ozone standard. Therefore, 
EPA has concluded that its earlier finding under section 176A is still 
valid and we are finalizing approval of the December 1998 proposed 
action.

VII. What Action Is EPA Taking With Maine's I/M program and OTR 
``Restructuring''?

    EPA is approving Maine's I/M submittal. EPA has reviewed the State 
submittal against the requirements of the Act and EPA's final I/M rule. 
The SIP submission does not meet all of the requirements of EPA's final 
rule for enhanced I/M. The program does, however, contribute to air 
quality improvement. Therefore, EPA is approving Maine's I/M program 
because it is a SIP strengthening measure under section 110. The EPA is 
also determining that an enhanced I/M program in Maine would not 
significantly contribute to attainment in any other State in the OTR.

VIII. EPA Action

    EPA is approving the SIP revision Maine submitted on November 19, 
1998 as a revision to the Maine SIP for I/M. EPA is approving the Maine 
I/M program as strengthening the State's SIP under section 110 of the 
Act. EPA is also taking final action removing the detailed CAA 
requirements for an enhanced I/M program in the OTR for Maine. 
Accordingly, all sanctions and FIP clocks related to approval of 
Maine's I/M program are terminated upon the effective date of today's 
action.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
State implementation plan. Each request for revision to the State 
implementation plan shall be considered separately in light of specific 
technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to 
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IX. 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 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 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, 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.

[[Page 1874]]

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    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 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the 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 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. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published 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 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 12, 2001. 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: December 27, 2000.
Carol Browner,
Administrator.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the 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 U--Maine

    2. Section 52.1019 is removed.

    3. Section 52.1020 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(48) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (48) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the 
Maine Department of Environmental Protection on November 19, 1998.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) ``Maine Motor Vehicle Inspection Manual,'' as revised in 1998, 
pages 1-12 through 1-14, and page 2-14, D.1.g.
    (B) Authorizing legislation effective July 9, 1998 and entitled 
H.P. 1594--L.D. 2223, ``An Act to Reduce Air Pollution from Motor 
Vehicles and to Meet Requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act.''
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Document entitled ``State of Maine Implementation Plan for 
Inspection/Maintenance'' dated November 11, 1998.
    (B) Letter from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection 
dated November 19, 1998 submitting a revision to the Maine State 
Implementation Plan.
    4. In Sec. 52.1031, the Table is amended by adding a new citation 
for vehicle inspection and maintenance at the end of the table to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1031--EPA--approved  Maine regulations.

* * * * *

[[Page 1875]]



                                                    Table 52.1031--EPA-Approved Rules and Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Date         Date       Federal
              State citation                       Title/Subject         adopted  by    approved     Register     52.1020
                                                                            State        by EPA      citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                *                   *                   *                   *                   *                   *                  *
``Vehicle I/M''..........................  Vehicle Inspection and             7/9/98      1/10/01   66 FR 1875      (c)(48)  Maine Motor Vehicle
                                            Maintenance.                                                                      Inspection Manual,''
                                                                                                                              revised in 1998, pages 1-
                                                                                                                              12 through 1-14, and page
                                                                                                                              2-14, D.1.g. Also,
                                                                                                                              Authorizing legislation
                                                                                                                              effective July 9, 1998 and
                                                                                                                              entitled L.D. 2223, ``An
                                                                                                                              Act to Reduce Air
                                                                                                                              Pollution from Motor
                                                                                                                              Vehicles and to Meet
                                                                                                                              Requirements of the
                                                                                                                              Federal Clean Air Act.''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-570 Filed 1-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P