[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42916-42918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20576]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[GA-34-2-9716; FRL-5865-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Georgia; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting interim approval of a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by Georgia. This revision establishes and 
requires the implementation of an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) program in 13 metro Atlanta counties. This action 
approves the State's enhanced I/M program for an 18 month interim 
period based upon the State's good faith estimate of the program's 
performance. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) and section 348 of the National Highway Systems 
Designation Act (NHSDA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following locations:

Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia, 
30303
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection 
Division, Air Protection Branch, 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120, 
Atlanta, Georgia, 30354
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102) U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Franco, by telephone at: (404) 
562-9039, or via e-mail at: Franco.B<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a2c7cce2c7d2c3cfc3cbce8cc7d2c38cc5cdd4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfbab19fbaafbeb2beb6b3f1baafbef1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>. The mailing 
address is U.S. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia, 
30303.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

[[Page 42917]]

I/M program, submitted to satisfy the applicable requirements of both 
the CAA and the NHSDA. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the 
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) on March 27, 1996. A 
lack of Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) test method specifications 
was the reason for the conditional approval.
    The NHSDA directs EPA to grant interim approval for a period of 18 
months to approvable I/M submittals under this Act. The NHSDA also 
directs EPA and the states to review the interim program results at the 
end of that 18-month period, 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 emissions reductions actually measured by the 
State during the program evaluation period. The NHSDA is clear that the 
interim approval shall last for only 18 months, and that the program 
evaluation is due to EPA at the end of that period. Therefore, EPA 
believes Congress intended for these programs to begin as soon as 
possible, which EPA believes should be on or before November 15, 1997, 
so that, assuming a twelve month planning period before program 
implementation, at least six months of operational program data can be 
collected to evaluate the interim programs. EPA believes that in 
setting such a strict timetable for program evaluations under the 
NHSDA, Congress recognized and attempted to mitigate any further delay 
with the start-up of this program. If the State fails to start its 
program according to this schedule, this interim approval granted under 
the provisions of the NHSDA will convert to a disapproval after a 
finding letter is sent to the State. Unlike the other specified 
conditions of this rulemaking, which are explicit conditions under 
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA and which will trigger an automatic 
disapproval should the State fail to meet its commitments, the start 
date provision will only trigger a disapproval upon EPA's notification 
to the State by letter that the start date has been missed. This letter 
will not only notify the State that this rulemaking action has been 
converted to a disapproval, but also that the sanctions clock 
associated with this disapproval has been triggered as a result of this 
failure. Because the start date condition is not imposed pursuant to a 
commitment to correct a deficient SIP under 110(k)(4), EPA does not 
believe it is necessary to have the SIP approval convert to a 
disapproval automatically if the start date is missed. EPA is imposing 
the start date condition under its general SIP approval authority of 
section 110(k)(3), which does not require automatic conversion.
    On January 31, 1997, the Georgia EPD submitted necessary ASM 
specifications that were the reason for the condition in the December 
13, 1996, notice. These specifications were largely based upon EPA's 
specifications for the ASM test. Therefore, the condition noted in the 
December 13, 1996, proposal has been met and is removed. Georgia has 
also begun its implementation of the I/M program as scheduled and has 
met all milestones to date. Georgia has also committed to meet the 
ECOS/EPA/STAPPA evaluation workgroup protocol which will meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.353(c)(3).
    As per the NHSDA requirements, this interim rulemaking will expire 
on February 11, 1999. A full approval of Georgia's final I/M SIP 
revision is still necessary under section 110 and under section 182, 
184 or 187 of the CAA. After EPA reviews Georgia's submitted program 
evaluation and regulations, final rulemaking on the State's full SIP 
revision will occur.
    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, at 61 FR 65496-65504 and will not be 
restated here.

II. Final Rulemaking Action

    EPA had initially proposed to grant conditional interim approval to 
the Georgia enhanced I/M SIP revision due to the lack of the ASM 
specification. However, Georgia has since submitted the required ASM 
specifications, thereby meeting the requirements of the condition. EPA 
notes the State has demonstrated its good faith efforts by meeting its 
I/M program implementation schedule to date.
    Under the terms of EPA's December 13, 1996, proposed interim 
conditional approval rulemaking, Georgia was required to make 
commitments (within 30 days) to remedy one major deficiency with the I/
M program SIP (as specified in the NPR), within twelve months of final 
interim approval. On January 10, 1997, Georgia submitted a letter from 
Ronald Methier, Chief of the Air Protection Branch, Georgia 
Environmental Protection Division, to EPA committing to satisfy the ASM 
condition cited in the NPR, by certain dates specified in the letter. 
Subsequently, on January 31, 1997, the Georgia EPD submitted the 
required ASM specifications. Since the condition has been met by EPA's 
receipt of the ASM specifications, and since no comments were received 
concerning the December 13, 1996, proposal, EPA is granting final 
interim approval to the Georgia I/M SIP under section 110 of the CAA. 
As discussed in detail later in this notice, this approval is being 
granted on an interim basis, for an 18-month period under authority of 
the NHSDA.

III. Further Requirements for Permanent I/M SIP Approval

    This approval is being granted on an interim basis for a period of 
18 months, under the authority of section 348 of the NHSDA of 1995. At 
the end of this period, the approval will lapse. At that time, EPA must 
take final rulemaking action upon the SIP, under the authority of 
section 110 of the CAA. Final approval of the State's plan will be 
granted based upon the following criteria:
    (1) EPA's review of the Georgia program evaluation confirms that 
the appropriate amount of program credit was claimed by the State and 
achieved with the interim program.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866

    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.

C. SIP Approval Actions

    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 impose any new requirements, I certify that it does 
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,

[[Page 42918]]

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) and 
7410(k)(3).

D. 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.

E. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added 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 not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

F. 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 October 10, 1997. 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: July 12, 1997.
John H. Hankinson, Jr.,
Regional Administrator.

    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. 7401-7671q.

Subpart L--Georgia

    2. Section 52.570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(50) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (50) Georgia Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance submitted to EPA 
by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources on March 27, 1996.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Chapter 391-3-20  Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance program 
effective on September 24, 1996.
    (ii) Other material. None.

[FR Doc. 97-20576 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>