[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41002-41004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20179]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[LA-33-1-7343; FRL-5866-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation 
Plans (SIP); Louisiana: Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and 
Maintenance (I/M) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed conditional approval, and proposed 
disapproval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA previously published a Federal Register (FR) notice 
proposing conditional approval of the Louisiana I/M SIP. The notice was 
published on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31388). The approval was conditioned 
on the State obtaining reauthorization and continuous operating 
authority for the I/M program, and program start-up on January 1, 1999. 
The State failed to obtain the necessary legislation during the 1997 
regular Legislative Session. Consequently, EPA believes that 
conditional approval is no longer appropriate. Therefore, EPA is 
withdrawing its proposed conditional approval. At the same time, EPA is 
proposing disapproval of the revision to the I/M SIP submitted by the 
State of Louisiana on August 18, 1995 and May 30, 1996. This action is 
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) as amended in 
1990. The EPA is proposing a disapproval because the State has not 
obtained the legislative authority needed for reauthorization

[[Page 41003]]

and continuous implementation of the program. The EPA cannot approve a 
SIP, under the Clean Air Act, which lacks continuing legislative 
authority.

DATES: This withdrawal is made on July 31, 1997. Comments on the 
proposed disapproval must be received on or before September 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed action should be addressed 
to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA 
Regional Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to this 
action are available for public inspection during normal business hours 
at the following locations. Persons interested in examining these 
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at 
least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Compliance 
Division, 7290 Bluebonnet, 2nd Floor, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Capital Regional Office, 
11720 Airline Highway, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On August 18, 1995, and in a later submittal, the State of 
Louisiana submitted plans for an I/M program in response to the 
requirements of the Act and to Federal I/M rules promulgated on 
November 5, 1992 (40 CFR 51.350, et seq.). Serious ozone nonattainment 
areas are required by the Act to implement enhanced vehicle I/M 
programs. The Louisiana plan would put a vehicle I/M program in place 
in the six parish Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area starting January 
1999. The plan was not submitted under the National Highway System 
Designation Act, which amended the Clean Air Act I/M requirement in 
certain respects. An I/M program is not needed to provide the 
reductions necessary to support a demonstration of the Baton Rouge 15% 
Rate-of-Progress Plan or the Post-1996 Rate of Progress/Attainment 
Demonstration Plan. A proposed conditional approval of this plan was 
published in the Federal Register on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31388). The 
plan was proposed for approval with the conditions that the program 
start in January 1999, and that the State obtain legislative authority 
for continuous program operation. The State statute had required 
program reauthorization in 1997 and in odd-numbered years thereafter.

II. Analysis of Legislative Authority

    Under 40 CFR 51.372(a)(6) of the Federal I/M rule, the SIP 
submittal must include legal authority for the I/M program until such 
time as it is no longer necessary. Legal authority in the revised 
Louisiana SIP is limited to reauthorization by the State Legislature in 
odd-numbered years starting in 1997. The EPA considered this a major 
deficiency in the SIP, and made correcting this deficiency one 
condition toward full approval of the SIP. The Clean Air Act section 
110(a)(2)(E) requires that all SIPS, to be approvable, must include 
adequate authority under State law to implement the plan.
    The State Legislature held a regular session from April 1, 1997, 
through June 23, 1997. Neither of the two bills relating to I/M were 
enacted. The Legislature recessed without providing the necessary legal 
authority for program reauthorization or continuous program operation, 
and will not meet in regular session until the spring of 1999. A fee 
bill to fund program development also was not acted upon. Consequently, 
the State will not have legal authority to implement the I/M program 
after 1997.

III. Rulemaking Action

    The EPA is withdrawing the proposed conditional approval appearing 
at 62 FR 31388, June 9, 1997, since Louisiana failed to enact 
continuing legislative authority during the 1997 session. Louisiana 
could not comply with the proposed condition in the notice.
    The EPA also proposes to disapprove the Louisiana I/M SIP under 
sections 110(k) and 182 of the Act since the State did not obtain 
reauthorization and continuous legislative authority for I/M program 
operation. A disapproval is being proposed because the State's I/M SIP 
does not meet all the requirements of the Act and the federal I/M 
rules.
    Today's rulemaking action withdraws the previous proposed 
conditional approval, and proposes to disapprove the State's I/M SIP 
until such time as the State corrects the major deficiency relating to 
legislative authority.
    Under section 179(a)(2), if the EPA Administrator takes final 
disapproval action on a submission under section 110(k) for an area 
designated nonattainment based on the submission's failure to meet one 
or more of the elements required by the Act, the Administrator must 
apply one of the sanctions set forth in section 179(b) of the Act 
(unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 months of such 
disapproval). Section 179(b) provides two sanctions available to the 
Administrator: revocation of highway funding and the imposition of 
emission offset requirements. The 18-month period referred to in 
section 179(a) will begin on the effective date established in the 
final disapproval action. If the deficiency is not corrected within six 
months of the imposition of the first sanction, the second sanction 
will also apply. This sanctions process is set forth in 40 CFR 52.31. 
Today's action serves only to propose disapproval of the State's 
revision, and does not constitute final agency action. Thus, the 
sanctions process described above does not commence with today's 
action.
    Also, 40 CFR 51.448(b) of the federal transportation conformity 
rules currently state that if the EPA disapproves a submitted control 
strategy implementation plan revision which initiates the sanction 
process under section 179 of the Act, the conformity status of the 
transportation plan and transportation improvement program shall lapse 
120 days after the EPA's final disapproval without a protective 
finding, and no new project-level conformity determinations may be 
made. Furthermore, no new transportation plan, Transportation 
Improvement Program, or projects may be found to conform, until another 
control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the same Clean 
Air Act requirements is submitted, found complete, and conformity to 
this submission is determined.
    The timeframe for the conformity lapse, which, as discussed above, 
is 120 days after the effective date of EPA's final disapproval action, 
could be changed by a revision to EPA's conformity rule. On July 9, 
1996, EPA published (61 FR 36112) a proposed rule which would modify 
the Transportation Conformity rule. A key provision contained in the 
proposal was a change in the penalty that occurs 120 days after a final 
disapproval action. Instead of a lapse, a less punitive conformity 
freeze was proposed to occur in 120 days. In EPA's proposed conformity 
rule revision, the more restrictive lapse would be imposed 2 years 
after a final disapproval action. Therefore, if the conformity rule is 
finalized as proposed, the conformity lapse will take place 2 years 
from the effective date of the final disapproval action, and a freeze 
would be imposed in the period between 120 days and 2 years following 
the effective date of this

[[Page 41004]]

action. Louisiana will ultimately be subject to the provisions 
contained in EPA's final conformity rule.
    Nothing in today's 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.
    The Regional Administrators' decision to approve or disapprove the 
SIP revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Act, as amended, and EPA 
regulations in 40 CFR part 51.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 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. See 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.
    The EPA's proposed disapproval of the State request under section 
110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act 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 does not impose any new Federal requirements.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    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. 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 not a 
``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the APA as amended.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995, 
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact 
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local or 
tribal governments in 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. 
This Federal action imposes no new requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

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

    Dated: July 21, 1997.
Lynda F. Carroll,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-20179 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P