53174 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 198 / Thursday, October 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

testing on 0.1% of the subject fleet each

year.

(6) The SIP submittal is deficient in

providing adopted regulations and

procedures for each test type.

Major deficiencies must be corrected

with regard to sections, 51.351,

Enhanced I/M Performance Standard,

51.353, Network Type and Program

Evaluation, 51,354, Adequate Tools and

Resources, 51.357, Test Procedures and

Standards, and 51.360, Motorist

Compliance Enforcement.

In addition, the District’s submittal

does not meet a number of

miscellaneous requirements of the I/M

rule. Specifically sections: 51.350,

Applicability, 51.355, Testing

Frequency and Convenience, 51.356,

Vehicle Coverage, 51.358, Test

Equipment, 51.359, Quality Control,

51.360 Waivers and Compliance via

Diagnostic Inspection, 51.362 Motorist

Compliance Enforcement Program

Oversight, 51.363, Quality Assurance,

51.364 Enforcement against Contractors,

Stations and Inspectors, 51.365 Data

Collection, 51.366, Data Analysis and

Reporting, 51.367 Inspection Training

and Licensing or Certification, 51.368,

Public Information and Consumer

Protection, 51.369, Improving Repair

Technician Effectiveness, 51.370,

Compliance with Recall Notices, 51.371,

On-Road Testing, and 51.372, State

Implementation Plan Transmittals.

These deficiencies, described in more

detail above in the section by section

analysis, must be corrected before EPA

could provide full approval for the

District’s I/M SIP revision.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing 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.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.

Sections 603 and 604. Alternatively,

EPA may certify that the rule will not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

government entities with jurisdiction

over populations of less than 50,000.

EPA’s disapproval of the District’s

request under Section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not

affect any existing requirements

applicable to small entities. Any preexisting federal requirements remain in

place after this disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the state submittal does

not affect its state-enforceability.

Moreover, EPA’s disapproval of the

submittal does not impose any new

Federal requirements. Therefore, EPA

certifies that this disapproval action

does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it does not remove existing

requirements and impose any new

Federal requirements.

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandate 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 that

includes a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs to State, local

or tribal governments in 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

disapproval action proposed does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated cost of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

maintains pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional cost to State,

local, or tribal governments, or to the

private sector, result from this action.

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as

amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, EPA submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule [is/

is not] a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by

section 804(2) of the APA as amended.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

The Administrator’s decision to

approve or disapprove the District’s

enhanced I/M SIP revision will be based

on whether it meets the requirements of

section 110(a)(2) (A)–(K) and part D of

the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA

regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

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.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: September 19, 1996.

Michael M. McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 96–25983 Filed 10–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[PA036–4016, PA036–4017; FRL–5633–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request,

Maintenance Plan, and Emissions

Inventory for the Reading Ozone

Nonattainment Area; Policy Change for

Ozone Redesignations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a redesignation request for the Reading

ozone nonattainment area, and State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, contingent upon

Pennsylvania’s correction of all

deficiencies contained in the request

and SIP revision. The revisions consist

of a maintenance plan and 1990 base

year inventories for the Reading ozone

nonattainment area. EPA is also

proposing to disapprove the

redesignation request and SIP revisions

for the Reading area, if Pennsylvania

does not correct the deficiencies. In

addition, for the purposes of

redesignation, EPA is proposing to

approve Pennsylvania’s legislative

authority to adopt and implement a

vehicle inspection and maintenance

program. These actions are being taken

under sections 107 and 110 of the Clean

Air Act. Furthermore, EPA is proposing

a change in its policy on redesignation

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas in the Ozone Transport Region

(OTR). The proposed policy change

makes redesignation requirements for

areas in the OTR consistent with
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 198 / Thursday, October 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 53175

requirements for areas outside the OTR

by interpreting meeting the

requirements under section 184 of the

Clean Air Act as not being a prerequisite

for the purpose of redesignation. The

policy does not affect duplicate

requirements under other sections of the

Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO &

Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode

3AT21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107 and the Pennsylvania Department

of Environmental Protection, Bureau of

Air Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria A. Pino, (215) 566–2181, at the

EPA Region III office address listed

above, or via e-mail at

pino.maria@epamail.epa.gov. While

information may be requested via email, comments must be submitted in

writing to the above Region III address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 12, 1993, the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania formally submitted a

redesignation request for the Reading

ozone nonattainment area. At the same

time, the Commonwealth submitted a

maintenance plan for the Reading area

as a SIP revision. The maintenance plan

was subsequently amended on January

13, 1994 and, again, on May 12, 1995.

On November 12, 1992, Pennsylvania

submitted its 1990 base year VOC, NOx,

and CO inventories for all areas in the

Commonwealth. On November 12, 1993,

Pennsylvania included revisions to its

1990 base year inventories for the

Reading area as part of the SIP revision

submittal, along with the maintenance

plan.

Background

The Reading area, which includes

Berks County, is designated

nonattainment for ozone and is

classified as moderate (56 FR 56694).

Monitored air quality data recorded in

the Reading area first met the ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) during the three-year period

1989–1991, and continues to meet the

NAAQS.

On July 19, 1995, EPA published a

final rule (1) determining that the

Reading area and the Pittsburgh-Beaver

Valley area (the Pittsburgh area) had

attained the ozone standard, and (2)

waiving the Clean Air Act requirements

for a 15% plan, an attainment

demonstration, and contingency

measures for these areas (60 FR 37015).

This action also lifted sanctions

imposed on the areas for failure to

submit these requirements. EPA took

this action pursuant to a May 10, 1995

policy that allows a waiver of these

requirements for areas that show,

through air quality monitoring data, that

they meet the ozone standard.

Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed

against EPA on the application of this

waiver policy.

A settlement agreement between EPA

and the petitioners in the lawsuit (the

Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for

Clean Air, also known as the Clean Air

Council) was signed on May 20, 1996,

and a notice regarding it was published

in the Federal Register on May 29, 1996

(61 FR 26903). By agreement with the

petitioners, the Regional Administrator

is to sign a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on the Reading

redesignation request and maintenance

plan by September 30, 1996. In

addition, the Regional Administrator is

to sign the Final Rulemaking Notice by

March 3, 1997.

Under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the

Clean Air Act (the Act), the following

five criteria must be met for an ozone

nonattainment area to be redesignated to

attainment:

1. The area must meet the ozone

NAAQS.

2. The area must meet applicable

requirements of section 110 and Part D.

3. The area must have a fully

approved SIP under section 110(k) of

the Act.

4. The area must show that its

experienced improvement in air quality

is due to permanent and enforceable

measures.

5. The area must have a fully

approved maintenance plan under

section 175A of the Act, including

contingency measures.

Policy Change for Redesignations—

Section 184 Requirements

All areas in the Ozone Transport

Region (OTR), both attainment and

nonattainment, are subject to additional

control requirements under section 184

for the purpose of reducing interstate

transport of emissions that may

contribute to downwind ozone

nonattainment. The section 184

requirements are reasonably available

control technology (RACT) for sources

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

with the potential to emit 50 tons per

year (TPY) or more, RACT for sources of

oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) with the

potential to emit 100 TPY or more, Part

D new source review (NSR) for major

sources of VOC and NOX, enhanced

vehicle inspection and maintenance

(I/M), Stage II vapor recovery or a

comparable measure, and any measures

that are mandated by EPA under section

184(c) based on a petition by the Ozone

Transport Commission (OTC). To date,

only the OTC Low Emission Vehicle

program (or acceptable equivalent) has

been required under section 184(c) [60

FR 4712; December 19, 1994].

Some of the section 184 requirements

duplicate requirements under other

sections of the Act for certain

classifications of nonattainment areas.

For example, as a moderate

nonattainment area, Reading is also

subject to VOC RACT under section

182(b)(2) for sources with the potential

to emit 100 TPY or more, Part D NSR

for major sources of NOX and NOX

RACT for sources with the potential to

emit 100 TPY or more under section

182(f), and Part D NSR for major sources

of VOC under sections 173 and

182(b)(5). Reading is also subject to

basic I/M for moderate areas under

section 182(b)(4). The EPA believes that,

for purposes of redesignation, it is

appropriate to consider the section 184

requirements separately from the

requirements under other sections

because the express purpose of the

section 184 requirements is different.

Section 184 requirements are regionwide requirements intended for the

control of interstate transport of ozone

pollution, whereas the similar moderate

area requirements are linked with the

particular nonattainment area

designation and classification to address

local air quality problems. These latter

requirements for Reading are discussed

below. (See ‘‘Status of Moderate Area

Requirements—Sections 173 and 182.’’)

Although this redesignation request

was submitted after the due date for

several of the section 184 requirements,

including NSR for sources of both VOCs

and NOx, RACT for sources of VOCs

with the potential to emit between 50

and 100 TPY, and enhanced I/M, EPA

believes it is reasonable and appropriate

to interpret the section 184

requirements as not being applicable

requirements for purposes of evaluating

a redesignation request. The rationale is

based on two factors. First, the

requirement to submit SIP revisions for

the section 184 requirements continues

to apply to areas in the OTR after

redesignation to attainment. Therefore,

the State remains obligated to adopt

NSR, RACT, and I/M even after

redesignation and would risk sanctions
53176 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 198 / Thursday, October 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

for failure to do so. While redesignation

of an area to attainment enables the area

to avoid further compliance with the

requirements of section 110 and part D

that are linked with an area’s

nonattainment status, the section 184

requirements apply to both

nonattainment and maintenance

(attainment) areas. Second, the section

184 control measures are region-wide

requirements and do not apply to

Reading by virtue of the area’s

designation and classification. Rather,

the section 184 measures are required in

Reading because Reading is located in

the OTR. The purpose of these measures

is not to address air quality in the

designated Reading nonattainment area,

but to reduce regional emissions in the

OTR. Where the Act has deemed the

same controls needed as part of a

strategy to reduce emissions in certain

nonattainment areas, those control

measures are specifically required for

those areas under different sections of

the Act. It is these latter requirements

that are linked with a particular

nonattainment area’s designation and

classification that EPA believes are the

relevant measures to evaluate in

reviewing a redesignation request.

Therefore, with this notice, EPA is

proposing to modify its policy regarding

the interpretation of section 107(d)(3)(E)

concerning the applicable requirements

for purposes of reviewing an ozone

redesignation request. Under this new

policy, for the reasons just discussed,

EPA believes that the ozone

redesignation requests for areas in the

OTR may be approved notwithstanding

the lack of fully approved section 184

requirements. Based on this

interpretation, EPA is proceeding to

propose approval of the Reading

redesignation request despite the lack of

SIP approved NSR, enhanced I/M, and

RACT for VOC sources with the

potential to emit between 50 and 100

TPY. Redesignation to attainment will

not remove the requirement for

Pennsylvania to adopt and implement

all of these section 184 measures in the

Reading area. It should be noted that

Pennsylvania has submitted its NSR and

I/M programs for the Reading area.

These submittals are the subject of

separate rulemaking actions.

This new policy is consistent with,

and an extension of, EPA’s existing

redesignation policies regarding

conformity and oxygenated fuels

requirements. Transportation and

general conformity rules, required under

section 176, apply to both

nonattainment and maintenance areas.

Just as with the section 184

requirements, States remain obligated to

adopt and implement conformity rules

even after redesignation to attainment.

Primarily for this reason, EPA has

previously interpreted the conformity

requirements as not being applicable

requirements for purposes of evaluating

redesignation requests (60 FR 62748;

December 7, 1995).

Under section 211(m), oxygenated

fuels programs are required in moderate

and serious carbon monoxide

nonattainment areas with design values

of 9.5 parts per million (ppm) or greater.

The oxygenated fuels program must be

applied throughout a consolidated

metropolitan statistical area (CMSA) or

metropolitan statistical area (MSA),

even if the nonattainment area

boundaries do not encompass the entire

CMSA. Previously, a situation occurred

where several not-classified carbon

monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas

were located in the CMSA of a moderate

CO area whose design value triggered

the oxygenated fuels requirement.

Therefore, the not-classified areas were

required to sell oxygenated fuels

although it was not a requirement

linked specifically with the notclassified areas’ designation,

classification and design value. In this

case, for purposes of evaluating a

redesignation request, EPA interpreted

the oxygenated fuels program as not

being an applicable requirement for the

not-classified areas because the State

would still be obligated to adopt and

implement the oxygenated fuels

program in the areas after redesignation

(due to the continuing moderate area

requirement) and because the areas were

only required to implement an

oxygenated fuels program by virtue of

their location in the CMSA of a

moderate CO area (60 FR 62741;

December 7, 1995).

Status of OTR Requirements—Section

184

RACT: Under section 184, and

excluding the requirements of section

182, RACT is required for VOC sources

with the potential to emit between 50

and 100 TPY. On February 4, 1994,

Pennsylvania submitted a ‘‘generic’’

RACT rule for NOX sources and for VOC

sources not covered by a control

techniques guidelines (CTG) document,

so-called non-CTG sources. This rule

was effective in the Commonwealth on

January 15, 1994. On February 28, 1994,

EPA determined that the submittal was

complete. This generic RACT rule does

not contain any specific requirements

for VOC sources, and contains only a

control technology requirement for a

class of NOX sources and operation and

maintenance requirements for several

NOX source categories. All other VOC

and NOX sources are required to submit

case-by-case RACT determinations.

Pennsylvania is in the process of

submitting the case-by-case RACT

determinations to EPA for approval into

the Pennsylvania SIP.

NSR: On February 4, 1994,

Pennsylvania submitted its final NSR

regulations to EPA. On February 28,

1994, EPA determined that the

submittal was complete. That submittal

is the subject of a separate rulemaking

action, currently being prepared by EP.

I/M: Under the November 28, 1995

National Highway System Designation

Act, Pennsylvania submitted an OTR

low-enhanced program on March 22,

1996. On September 13, 1996, Regional

Administrator W. Michael McCabe

signed a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, proposing conditional

interim approval of Pennsylvania’s

enhanced I/M SIP.

EPA’s Evaluation of Pennsylvania’s

Redesignation Request and

Maintenance Plan for the Reading Area

Criterion 1: The area must meet the

ozone NAAQS.

EPA’s Evaluation: The area has met

the ozone standard since 1991,

considering data for the three-year

period 1989–1991. The area continues

to meet the ozone standard.

Criterion 2: The area must meet

applicable requirements of section 110

and Part D.

EPA’s Evaluation: EPA’s

redesignation policy requires an area to

meet all requirements in section 110

and Part D of the Clean Air Act that

were due prior to the state’s submittal

of the redesignation request.

Pennsylvania submitted the

redesignation request for the Reading

area on 11/12/93. Therefore, all section

110 and Part D requirements that were

due before 11/12/93, other than those

required under sections 176 and 184,

are applicable requirements for the

purposes of evaluating the redesignation

request for the Reading area. As

explained above, EPA is proposing, in

this notice, to modify its previous policy

regarding whether the requirements of

section 184 of the Act are applicable

requirements for the purposes of

evaluating a redesignation request.

Status of Moderate Area

Requirements—Sections 173 and 182

RACT: Under section 182 RACT is

required for sources of VOC and NOX

with the potential to emit 100 TPY or

more. As stated above, Pennsylvania

submitted a ‘‘generic’’ RACT rule to

EPA as a SIP revision on February 4,

1994. This rule applies to NOX sources

and non-CTG VOC sources. This generic

RACT rule does not contain any specific
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 198 / Thursday, October 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 53177

emission limitation. All VOC and NOX

sources are required to submit case-bycase RACT proposals to Pennsylvania,

which, in turn, submits its RACT

determinations to EPA as SIP revisions.

Pennsylvania is in the process of

submitting the case-by-case RACT

determinations to EPA for approval into

the Pennsylvania SIP.

In order for the Reading area to meet

this criterion, Pennsylvania must submit

complete and approvable RACT

determinations for all applicable

sources (all VOC and NOX sources with

the potential to emit 100 TPY or more

in the Reading area) to EPA as SIP

revisions, and EPA must approve these

RACT determinations into the SIP

before, or at the same time as, EPA

completes final rulemaking on the

redesignation request. Pennsylvania is

in the process of submitting the required

RACTs to EPA as SIP revisions.

NSR: On February 4, 1994,

Pennsylvania submitted its final NSR

regulations to EPA. EPA determined

that the submittal was complete on

February 28, 1994, but has not

completed rulemaking on the NSR SIP.

However, according to EPA’s October

14, 1994 policy memorandum from

Mary D. Nichols, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation,

entitled Part D New Source Review (Part

D NSR) Requirements for Areas

Requesting Redesignation to

Attainment, areas may be redesignated

to attainment without a fully approved

part D NSR program, as long as the area

does not rely on NSR for maintenance.

The Reading redesignation request does

not rely on NSR for maintenance.

I/M: Under section 182, moderate

areas are required to adopt and

implement a basic I/M program.

However, according to EPA’s September

17, 1993 policy memorandum from

Michael H. Shapiro, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation,

entitled State Implementation Plan (SIP)

Requirements for Areas Submitting

Requests for Redesignation to

Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) on or after

November 15, 1992, areas may be

redesignated to attainment without a

fully adopted I/M program, as long as

(1) the area does not rely on I/M for

maintenance, (2) the area has legislative

authority for a basic I/M program, (3)

basic I/M is included in the

maintenance plan as a contingency

measure, and (4) the maintenance plan

includes an enforceable schedule and

commitment for adopting a basic I/M

program upon a specific and

appropriate trigger.

As stated above, Pennsylvania

submitted an OTR low-enhanced

program on March 22, 1996, under the

National Highway Act. On September

13, 1996, Regional Administrator W.

Michael McCabe signed a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, proposing

conditional interim approval of

Pennsylvania’s enhanced I/M SIP. This

submittal contains legislative authority

for an OTR low-enhanced I/M program,

as well as a schedule for

implementation of the program.

Pursuant to the so called I/M

redesignation rule, EPA’s January 5,

1995 Federal Register action,

Inspection/Maintenance Program

Requirements—Provisions for

Redesignation (60 FR 1735),

Pennsylvania’s list of contingency

measures for the Reading area must

include basic I/M, in the event that the

enhanced I/M requirement under

section 184 is not implemented. The

contingency plan must also contain a

schedule for implementation of a basic

I/M program that complies with 40 CFR

51.372(c)(4). This schedule must be

triggered when Pennsylvania chooses to

implement basic I/M as a contingency

measure.

Base Year Emission Inventories: On

November 12, 1992, Pennsylvania

submitted 1990 VOC, NOX, and carbon

monoxide (CO) base year inventories for

all areas in the Commonwealth. With

the redesignation request, Pennsylvania

submitted summary updates to its 1990

base year inventories for the Reading

area, which supersede Pennsylvania’s

1992 submittal. The 1990 base year

emissions summaries included in the

redesignation request are different from

those in the 1990 base year inventories

submitted by Pennsylvania on

November 12, 1992.

Pennsylvania must submit adequate

technical justification to support the

changes in the inventories, including

sample calculations for point, area, and

mobile sources, and mobile source

emissions modeling sample runs.

Criterion 3: The area must have a fully

approved SIP under section 110(k) of

the Act.

EPA’s Evaluation: In order to meet

this criterion, all applicable SIP

elements must be approved into

Pennsylvania’s SIP for the Reading area.

All applicable requirements, other than

RACT and the 1990 VOC, NOX, and CO

base year inventories, have been

approved into the Pennsylvania SIP.

RACT: As stated above, in EPA’s

evaluation of criterion 2, Pennsylvania

must submit complete and approvable

RACT determinations for all applicable

sources (all NOX and non-CTG VOC

sources with the potential to emit 100

TPY or more in the Reading area) to

EPA as SIP revisions, and EPA must

approve these RACT determinations

into the SIP before, or at the same time

as, EPA completes final rulemaking on

the redesignation request. As stated

above, Pennsylvania is in the process of

submitting RACT SIP revisions for

applicable NOX and VOC sources, and

must complete these submissions for

final approval of this redesignation

request.

1990 Base Year Emission Inventories:

As stated above, in EPA’s evaluation of

criterion 2, Pennsylvania must provide

adequate technical justification to

support the 1990 VOC, NOX, and CO

base year inventories for Reading,

submitted on November 12, 1992, and

updated on November 12, 1993.

Other Moderate Area Requirements:

SIP revisions for VOC RACT Fix-ups,

VOC RACT Catch-ups (excluding nonCTG VOC RACT), and emission

statements have been approved into the

Pennsylvania SIP. As stated above, in

EPA’s evaluation of criterion 2, basic I/

M and NSR are no longer applicable for

redesignation purposes. Furthermore,

EPA has previously interpreted the

transportation and general conformity

requirements as not being applicable for

purposes of evaluating redesignation

requests (60 FR 62748; December 7,

1995). Finally, because Pennsylvania

submitted the Reading redesignation

request prior to the due date for the 15%

plan, attainment demonstration, and

contingency measure requirements,

these requirements are not applicable

for the purpose of evaluating this

redesignation request. Moreover,

pursuant to EPA’s May 10, 1995 waiver

policy, EPA’s July 19, 1995 action (60

FR 37015) waived these requirements

for the Reading area.

Criterion 4: The area must show that

its experienced improvement in air

quality is due to permanent and

enforceable measures.

EPA’s Evaluation: The redesignation

request has shown that, through fully

adopted and implemented, permanent

and enforceable state and federal

measures, the area’s air quality has

improved.

Criterion 5: The area must have a fully

approved maintenance plan under

section 175A of the Act, including

contingency measures.

EPA’s Evaluation: The submitted

maintenance plan has several

deficiencies.

(1) The maintenance plan must show

continued maintenance of the standard

for at least ten years after the area is

redesignated. To that end, EPA requires

states to include emission inventories in

their maintenance plans for a year that
53178 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 198 / Thursday, October 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

is 10 years after the state anticipates

EPA will approve their redesignation

request. Furthermore, EPA requires that

states project emissions for an interim

year, between the year the area is

redesignated and the end year (10 years

after redesignation). Pennsylvania must

project emissions out to at least 2007.

The maintenance plan that

Pennsylvania submitted on November

12, 1993, and amended on January 13,

1994 and, again, on May 12, 1995

projects maintenance up to the year

2004, and includes interim year

emission projection for 1996. However,

on September 27, 1996, Pennsylvania

supplemented the Reading maintenance

plan with preliminary inventories for

2007. Pennsylvania must submit

adequate technical support to justify

these new inventories. Additionally,

Pennsylvania can no longer use 1996 as

the interim year, because EPA will not

complete final rulemaking on this

redesignation request and maintenance

plan until 1997. However, Pennsylvania

can use the 2004 inventories, which

have already been submitted, as the

interim year inventories.

(2) More technical support is needed

in order for EPA to evaluate the

projected emissions inventories, for

2004 and 2007, submitted with the

maintenance plan. The maintenance

plan must show that only credible

measures (fully adopted and SIP

approved state measures, and certain

federal measures) are used to

demonstrate maintenance. Mobile

source emissions modeling must be

provided in order to determine if those

inventories were projected correctly,

taking emission reduction credit only

for measures that are fully adopted and

approved into the SIP. In addition,

Pennsylvania must provide growth

factors (not surrogates), sample

calculations for point, area, and mobile

sources.

(3) The contingency measure

provided in the maintenance plan is

inadequate. The maintenance plan must

provide for contingency measures to

promptly correct any violation of the

ozone NAAQS that occurs after the area

is redesignated. The plan must contain

a list of measures to be adopted and a

schedule and procedures for adoption

and implementation. The plan must also

identify specific triggers used to

determine when the contingency

measures need to be implemented.

Pennsylvania is in the process of

revising the maintenance plan for the

Reading area to meet this criterion.

EPA’s Evaluation of Pennsylvania’s

1990 Base Year Inventory for the

Reading Area

On November 12, 1992, Pennsylvania

submitted the 1990 base year

inventories for VOC, NOX and CO for all

areas in the Commonwealth, including

the Reading area. Pennsylvania

amended these inventories for the

Reading area when it submitted its

redesignation request and maintenance

plan for the area, on November 12, 1993.

However, only summaries of the

updated inventory were submitted with

the redesignation request.

The 1990 base year emissions

summaries included in the

redesignation request are different from

those in the 1990 base year inventory

submitted by Pennsylvania on

November 12, 1992. Pennsylvania must

submit adequate technical justification

to support the changes in the

inventories, including sample

calculations for point, area, and mobile

sources, and mobile source emissions

modeling sample runs.

A more detailed evaluation of

Pennsylvania’s redesignation request,

maintenance plan, and 1990 base year

emission inventories for the Reading

area can be found in the Technical

Support Document (TSD) prepared by

EPA for this rulemaking action. The

TSD and other materials related to this

action are available for public

inspection at the EPA Regional office

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

notice.

EPA is soliciting public comments on

the issues discussed in this notice or on

other relevant matters. These comments

will be considered before taking final

action. Interested parties may

participate in the Federal rulemaking

procedure by submitting written

comments to the EPA Regional office

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this

notice.

Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve

Pennsylvania’s request for redesignation

of the Reading area, and the

accompanying maintenance plan, which

was originally submitted on November

12, 1993, and amended on January 13,

1994 and May 12, 1995, contingent

upon Pennsylvania’s correction of all

deficiencies contained in the request

and maintenance plan. EPA is also

proposing to approve the 1990 base year

VOC, NOX, and CO inventories for the

Reading ozone nonattainment area,

which were originally submitted on

November 12, 1992, and revised on

November 12, 1993, contingent upon

Pennsylvania’s correction of all

deficiencies contained in those

inventories. At the same time, EPA is

proposing to disapprove the

redesignation request, maintenance

plan, and 1990 base year emission

inventories for the Reading area if

Pennsylvania does not correct the

deficiencies. In addition, for purposes of

satisfying the I/M redesignation rule of

January 1995, EPA is proposing

approval of Pennsylvania’s legislative

authority to adopt and implement an I/

M program. Finally, EPA is proposing to

change its policy on redesignation

requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas in the Ozone Transport Region

(OTR). The policy change makes

redesignation requirements for areas in

the OTR consistent with requirements

for areas outside the OTR by

interpreting requirements under section

184 of the Clean Air Act as not being

applicable for the purpose of

redesignation.

In order to correct the deficiencies

that exist in the redesignation request,

maintenance plan, and 1990 base year

emission inventories, Pennsylvania

must submit the following to EPA:

(1) Adequate technical support to

justify the projected emission

inventories (2007 and 2004), including

growth factors (not surrogates), sample

calculations for point, area, and mobile

sources, and mobile source emissions

modeling sample runs;

(2) Complete and approvable RACT

SIP revisions for all applicable sources

(all VOC and NOX sources with the

potential to emit 100 TPY or more in the

Reading area);

(3) A declaration that all required

RACTs have been submitted;

(4) SIP revisions to the Reading area

maintenance plan so that it provides

adequate contingency measures. The

plan must contain a list of measures to

be adopted and a schedule and

procedures for adoption and

implementation. The plan must also

identify specific triggers used to

determine when the contingency

measures need to be implemented and

a schedule for implementation of the

contingencies in the event that they are

implemented. The list of contingency

measures must include basic I/M, in the

event that enhanced I/M requirement

under section 184 is not implemented.

The plan must contain a schedule for

implementation of a basic I/M program

that complies with 40 CFR 51.372(c)(4).

This schedule will be triggered when

Pennsylvania chooses to implement

basic I/M as a contingency measure; and

(5) Technical support to justify the

1990 base year emission inventories

submitted in the redesignation request.

This support must include sample
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 198 / Thursday, October 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 53179

calculations for point, area, and mobile

sources, a list of all point sources, and

mobile source emissions modeling.

As stated above, the Regional

Administrator is to sign a final

rulemaking action on the Reading

redesignation request and maintenance

plan by March 3, 1997, according to an

agreement between EPA and the Clean

Air Council. The revisions listed above

must be submitted to EPA in enough

time for EPA to evaluate their adequacy

and, where necessary, complete separate

rulemaking actions on the submittals

before March 1997. Therefore, EPA has

determined that Pennsylvania needs to

submit the required revisions by

February 3, 1997, in time for EPA to

take final action by March 3, 1997.

Pennsylvania is in the process of

addressing all of the deficiencies listed

above. EPA believes that Pennsylvania

will be able to meet the February 3,

1997 deadline stated above. In addition,

EPA believes that it will be able to

complete rulemaking on Pennsylvania’s

submittals, as long as Pennsylvania

works closely with EPA to develop the

required revisions.

If EPA were to take final action to

disapprove the maintenance plan, the

Reading area will no longer be able to

demonstrate conformity to the

submitted maintenance plan pursuant to

the transportation conformity

requirements in 40 CFR Part 51, section

51.448(i). Since the submitted

maintenance plan budget will no longer

apply for transportation conformity

purposes, the build/no-build and lessthan-90 tests will apply.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing 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.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

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 this proposed Federal SIP

approval does not impose any new

requirements, the Regional

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. 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

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).

EPA’s proposed disapproval of the

State request under Section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not

affect any existing requirements

applicable to small entities. Any preexisting federal requirements remain in

place after this disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the state submittal does

not affect its state-enforceability.

Moreover, EPA’s proposed disapproval

of the submittal does not impose any

new Federal requirements. Therefore,

EPA certifies that this proposed

disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not remove existing requirements and

impose any new Federal requirements.

Redesignation of an area to attainment

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA

does not impose any new requirements

on small entities. Redesignation is an

action that affects the status of a

geographical area and does not impose

any regulatory requirements on sources.

The Regional Administrator certifies

that, in the event that EPA approves

Pennsylvania’s redesignation request for

the Reading area, the approval will not

affect a substantial number of small

entities.

In the event that EPA denies

Pennsylvania’s redesignation request

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA,

this denial would not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small

entities nor does it impose new

requirements. The area would retain its

current designation status and would

continue to be subject to the same

statutory requirements. To the extent

that the area must adopt regulations,

based on its nonattainment status, EPA

will review the effect of those actions on

small entities at the time the State

submits those regulations. Therefore,

the Regional Administrator certifies that

the disapproval of the redesignation

request will not affect a substantial

number of small entities.

C. 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

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 this

proposed approval action 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

proposes to approve pre-existing

requirements under State or local law,

and imposes no new Federal

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

EPA has also determined that the

proposed alternative disapproval action

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. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

The Regional Administrator’s

decision to approve or disapprove

Pennsylvania’s redesignation request for

the Reading ozone nonattainment area,

the associated maintenance plan, and

the 1990 VOC, NOx, and CO base year
53180 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 198 / Thursday, October 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

inventories for the area will be based on

whether they meet the requirements of

section 110(a)(2)(A)–(K) and part D of

the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA

regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon Monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: September 30, 1996.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 96–25894 Filed 10–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[UT–NHA–01; FRL–5629–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah:

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

Program for Utah County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing interim

approval of a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of

Utah. This revision establishes and

requires the implementation of an

improved inspection and maintenance

(I/M) program in the Provo-Orem

Metropolitan Statistical Area (Utah

County) which claims ‘‘full credit’’ for

a test-and-repair network. The intended

effect of this action is to propose interim

approval of an I/M program proposed by

the State, based upon the State/County’s

good faith estimate, which asserts that

the State/County’s network design

credits are appropriate and the revision

is otherwise in compliance with the

Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is

being taken under section 348 of the

National Highway System Designation

Act of 1995 (NHSDA) and section 110

of the CAA.

EPA proposes that the State/County’s

program must start no later than

November 15, 1997. EPA also proposes

that if the State/County fails to start its

program as defined in this notice on this

schedule, the approval granted under

the provisions of the NHSDA will

convert to a disapproval after a finding

letter is sent to the State.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before November 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Richard R. Long, Director, Air Programs,

USEPA Region VIII (P2–A), 999 18th

Street—Suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202–2466. Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the above address.

Interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott P. Lee, at (303) 312–6736 or via email at lee.scott@epamail.epa.gov.

While information may be requested via

e-mail, comments must be submitted in

writing to the EPA Region VIII address

above.

I. Background

A. Impact of the National Highway

System Designation Act on the Design

and Implementation of Inspection and

Maintenance Programs Under the Clean

Air Act

The National Highway System

Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA)

establishes two key changes to the I/M

rule requirements previously developed

by EPA. Under the NHSDA, EPA cannot

require states to adopt or implement

centralized, test-only IM240 enhanced

vehicle inspection and maintenance

programs as a means of compliance with

section 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. Also

under the NHSDA, EPA cannot

disapprove a State SIP revision, nor

apply an automatic discount to a State

SIP revision under section 182, 184 or

187 of the CAA, because the I/M

program in such plan revision is

decentralized, or a test-and-repair

program. Accordingly, the so-called

‘‘50% credit discount’’ that was

established by the EPA’s I/M Program

Requirements Final Rule, (published

November 5, 1992, and herein referred

to as the I/M Rule) has been effectively

replaced with a presumptive

equivalency criteria, which places the

emission reductions credits for

decentralized networks on par with

credit assumptions for centralized

networks, based upon a state’s good

faith estimate of reductions as provided

by the NHSDA and explained below in

this section.

EPA’s I/M Rule established many

other criteria for states unrelated to

network design or test type to use in

designing I/M programs. All other

elements of the I/M Rule, and the

statutory requirements established in

the CAA continue to be required of

those states submitting I/M SIP

revisions under the NHSDA, and the

NHSDA specifically requires that these

submittals must otherwise comply in all

respects with the I/M Rule and the CAA.

The NHSDA also requires states to

swiftly develop, submit, and begin

implementation of these I/M programs,

since the anticipated start-up dates

developed under the CAA and EPA’s

rules have already been delayed. In

requiring states to submit these plans

within 120 days of the NHSDA passage,

and in allowing these states to submit

proposed regulations for this plan

(which can be finalized and submitted

to EPA during the interim period) it is

clear that Congress intended for states to

begin testing vehicles as soon as

practicable, now that the decentralized

credit issue has been clarified and

directly addressed by the NHSDA.

Submission criteria described under

the NHSDA allows for a State to submit

proposed regulations for this interim

program, provided that the State has all

of the statutory authority necessary to

carry out the program. Also, in

proposing the interim credits for this

program, states are required to make

good faith estimates regarding the

performance of their I/M program. Since

these estimates are expected to be

difficult to quantify, the state need only

provide that the proposed credits

claimed for the submission have a basis

in fact. A good faith estimate of a State’s

program may be an estimate that is

based on any of the following: the

performance of any previous I/M

program; the results of remote sensing

or other roadside testing techniques;

fleet and vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

profiles; demographic studies; or other

evidence which has relevance to the

effectiveness or emissions reducing

capabilities of an I/M program.

This action is being taken under the

authority of both the NHSDA and

section 110 of the CAA. Section 348 of

the NHSDA expressly directs EPA to

issue this interim approval. At that time,

the Conference Report on section 348 of

the NHSDA states that it is expected

that the proposed credits claimed by the

State in its submittal, and the emissions

reductions demonstrated through the

program data may not match exactly.

Therefore, the Conference Report

suggests that EPA use the program data

to appropriately adjust these credits on

a program basis as demonstrated by the

program data.

B. Interim Approvals Under the NHSDA

The NHSDA directs EPA to grant

interim approval for a period of 18

months to approvable I/M submittals

under this Act. This Act also directs

EPA and the states to review the interim

program results at the end of 18 months,

and to make a determination as to the

effectiveness of the interim program.

Following this demonstration, EPA will

adjust any credit claims made by the

state in its good faith effort to reflect the