# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 61 Fed. Reg. 53174 1996

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon May 24 17:58:34 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

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

testing on 0.1% ofthe 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/MPerformance 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 ofthe 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, 51.362Motorist 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 RecallNotices, 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 forrevision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light ofspecific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 etseq.,EPA must prepare

aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. Sections 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule willnot have a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include smallbusinesses, smallnot-for-profit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction

over populations ofless than 50,000.

EPA's disapproval ofthe District's request under Section 110 and subchapter I,part D ofthe CAA does not affect any existingrequirements applicable to small entities. Any preexisting federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal disapproval ofthe state submittal does not affect its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval ofthe 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 ofsmall entities because it does not remove existing requirements and impose any new Federal requirements.

Under Section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare abudgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final that includes aFederal 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, EPAmust select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives ofthe 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 aFederal 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) ofthe Administrative Procedures Act (APA) as amended bythe Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other required information
to theU.S. Senate, theU.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General ofthe General Accounting Office prior to publication ofthe rule in today's Federal Register. This rule [is/ is not] a "major rule" as defined by section 804(2) ofthe 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 aJuly 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 itmeets therequirements of section 110(a)(2) (A)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFRPart51.

List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority:42U.S.C. 7401 7671q. Dated:September 19, 1996. Michael M.McCabe, RegionalAdministrator, RegionII. [FR Doc. 96 25983 Filed 10 9 96;8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



### 40CFR Part 52 [PA036-4016, PA036-4017; FRL-5633-6] 

### Approvaland Promulgation ofAir QualityImplementation Plans; Pennsylvania; Redesignation Request, Maintenance Plan, and Emissions Inventory forthe Reading Ozone Nonattainment Area; PolicyChange for Ozone Redesignations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA isproposing to approve

aredesignation request forthe Reading

ozone nonattainment area, and State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, contingent upon Pennsylvania's correction ofall deficiencies contained in therequest and SIP revision. The revisions consist ofa 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, ifPennsylvania does not correct the deficiencies. In addition, for the purposes of redesignation, EPA isproposing 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 ofthe Clean AirAct. Furthermore, EPAis 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 OTRconsistent with 

### 53174

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 53174 1996

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

requirements for areas outside the OTR by interpreting meeting the requirements under section 184 ofthe Clean Air Act as not being a prerequisite for the purpose ofredesignation. The policy does not affect duplicate requirements under other sections ofthe Act. DATES: Comments mustbe 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 ofthe documents relevant
to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours atthe Air,Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 and the Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental 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 IIIoffice address listed above, or via e-mail at pino.maria@epamail.epa.gov. While information maybe requested via email, comments must be submitted in writing to the above Region III address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 12, 1993, the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania 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 SIPrevision. 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 aspart ofthe SIP revision submittal, alongwith the maintenance plan. Background

The Reading area, which includes Berks County, is designated nonattainment for ozone and is classified as moderate (56 FR56694). 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 (thePittsburgh area) had attained the ozone standard, and (2) waiving the Clean Air Act requirements for a 15% plan, an attainment demonstration, and contingency

measures forthese areas (60 FR37015). 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 ofthese requirements for areas that show, through air quality monitoring data, that they meet the ozone standard. Subsequently, alawsuit was filed against EPA on the application ofthis 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 anotice regarding itwas published in the FederalRegister on May 29, 1996 (61 FR26903). By agreement with the petitioners, the Regional Administrator is to sign a Notice ofProposed 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) ofthe 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 ofsection 110 and Part D. 3. The area must have a fully approved SIP under section l10(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 ofthe Act, including contingency measures. Policy Change forRedesignationsSection 184Requirements

All areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR),both attainment and nonattainment, are subject to additional control requirements under section 184 for the purpose ofreducing interstate transport ofemissions that may contribute to downwind ozone nonattainment. The section 184 requirements arereasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources ofvolatile organic compounds (VOCs) with thepotential to emit 50 tonsper year (TPY)or more, RACT for sources of oxides ofNitrogen (NOx)with the potential to emit 100 TPY ormore, Part Dnew source review (NSR)formajor

sources ofVOC and NOx, enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M), Stage IIvapor recovery or a comparable measure, and any measures that are mandated by EPAunder section 184(c) based on apetition by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). To date, onlythe OTCLow Emission Vehicle program (or acceptable equivalent)has been required under section 184(c) [60 FR4712; December 19, 1994]. Some ofthe section 184requirements duplicate requirements under other sections ofthe Act forcertain classifications ofnonattainment areas. For example, as a moderate nonattainment area, Reading is also subject to VOCRACT under section 182(b)(2) for sources with the potential
to emit 100 TPYor more, Part DNSR for major sources ofNOx and NOx RACT for sources with the potential to emit 100 TPYor more under section 182(f), and Part DNSRfor major sources ofVOC under sections 173 and 182(b)(5). Reading is also subject to basic I/Mfor moderate areas under section 182(b)(4). The EPAbelieves that, forpurposes ofredesignation, it is appropriate to consider the section 184 requirements separately from the requirements under other sections because the express purpose ofthe section 184 requirements is different. Section 184requirements areregionwiderequirements intended for the control ofinterstate transport ofozone 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 ofModerate Area Requirements-Sections 173 and 182.")

Although this redesignation request

was submitted after the due date for several ofthe section 184requirements, including NSRfor sources ofboth VOCs and NO., RACT for sources ofVOCs with thepotential to emit between 50 and 100 TPY, and enhanced I/M, EPA believes itisreasonable and appropriate to interpret the section 184 requirements as notbeing applicable requirements for purposes ofevaluating

aredesignation request. The rationale is based on two factors. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions for the section 184requirements continues
to apply to areas in the OTR after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to adopt NSR, RACT, and I/Meven after redesignation and would risk sanctions 

## 53175

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 53175 1996

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

for failure to do so. While redesignation ofan area to attainment enables the area to avoid further compliance with the requirements ofsection 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 areregion-wide requirements and do not apply to Reading by virtue ofthe area's designation and classification. Rather, the section 184 measures are required in Reading because Reading is located in the OTR. The purpose ofthese 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 ofa 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 ofsection 107(d)(3)(E) concerning the applicable requirements for purposes ofreviewing an ozone redesignation request. Under this new policy, for the reasonsjust discussed, EPA believes that the ozone redesignation requests for areas in the OTR maybe approved notwithstanding the lack offully approved section 184 requirements. Based on this interpretation, EPA isproceeding to propose approval ofthe 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 allofthese section 184 measures in the Reading area. It should be noted that Pennsylvania has submitted its NSR and I/Mprograms 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 afterredesignation to attainment. Primarily for this reason, EPAhas previously interpreted the conformity requirements asnot being applicable requirements for purposes ofevaluating 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 of9.5 parts per million (ppm)or greater. The oxygenated fuels program mustbe 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 ofa 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 arequirement linked specifically with the notclassified areas' designation, classification and design value. In this
case, for purposes ofevaluating a redesignation request, EPA interpreted the oxygenated fuels program as not being an applicable requirement for the not-classified areas because the State would stillbe obligated to adopt and implement the oxygenated fuels program in the areas afterredesignation (dueto 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 ofa moderate CO area (60 FR62741; December 7, 1995).

Status ofOTR Requirements-Section 184

RA CT:Under section 184, and excluding the requirements ofsection 182, RACT is required for VOC sources with thepotential 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 acontrol 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 thatthe 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 ofNOx sources and operation and maintenance requirements for several NOx source categories. All other VOC and NOx sources arerequired 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 ofa separate rulemaking action, currently being prepared byEP.

IM: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 ofProposed Rulemaking, proposing conditional interim approval ofPennsylvania's enhanced I/M SIP.
EPA'sEvaluation ofPennsylvania's Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan forthe Reading Area

Criterion1:The area must meet the

ozone NAAQS.

EPA 'sEvaluation:The areahas met the ozone standard since 1991, consideringdata for the three-year period 1989-1991. The areacontinues
to meet the ozone standard.

Criterion2:The area must meet applicable requirements ofsection 110 and Part D.

EPA 'sEvaluation:EPA's redesignation policy requires an area to meet all requirements in section 110 and Part Dofthe Clean Air Act that

were due prior to the state's submittal oftheredesignation request. Pennsylvania submitted the redesignation request forthe Reading

area on 11/12/93. Therefore, all section 110 and Part Drequirements that were duebefore 11/12/93, other than those required under sections 176 and 184,

are applicable requirements for the purposes ofevaluating the redesignation request for the Reading area. As explained above, EPAis proposing, in this notice, to modify its previous policy regarding whether the requirements of section 184 ofthe Act are applicable requirements for the purposes of evaluating a redesignation request.

Statusof ModerateArea Requirements-Sections173and 182

RA CT:Under section 182 RACT is required for sources ofVOC and NOx with thepotential to emit 100 TPYor

more. As stated above, Pennsylvania submitted a "generic" RACT rule to EPA as a SIP revision on February 4, 1994. Thisrule applies to NOx sources and non-CTGVOC sources. This generic RACT rule does notcontain any specific 

### 53176

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 53176 1996

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

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 theprocess of submittingthe 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 ofsubmitting 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, buthas not completed rulemaking on the NSR SIP. However, accordingto EPA's October 14, 1994 policy memorandum from Mary D.Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, entitled PartDNew SourceReview (Part DNSR) RequirementsforAreas RequestingRedesignationto Attainment,areas may be redesignated to attainment without a fully approved part DNSRprogram, as longas the area does not rely on NSRfor 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, accordingto EPA's September 17, 1993 policy memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, entitled StateImplementationPlan(SIP) Requirements forA reasSubmitting RequestsforRedesignationto Attainmentofthe Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)NationalAmbientAir QualityStandard(NAA QS)on orafter November15, 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 OTRlow-enhanced program on March 22, 1996, under the National Highway Act. On September 13, 1996, Regional Administrator W. Michael McCabe signed aNotice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing conditional interim approval of Pennsylvania's enhanced I/MSIP. This submittal contains legislative authority for an OTRlow-enhanced I/Mprogram,

aswell as a schedule for implementation ofthe 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 ofcontingency

measures forthe Reading area must include basic I/M, in the event that the enhanced I/Mrequirement under section 184 is not implemented. The contingency plan must also contain a schedule for implementation ofa basic I/M program that complies with 40CFR 51.372(c)(4). This schedule must be triggered when Pennsylvania chooses to implement basic I/M as a contingency

measure.

Base YearEmissionInventories: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 baseyear emissions summaries included in the redesignation request are different from those in the 1990 baseyear inventories submitted by Pennsylvania on November 12, 1992.

Pennsylvania must submit adequate technicaljustification to support the changes in the inventories, including sample calculations for point, area, and mobile sources, and mobile source emissions modeling sample runs. Criterion3: The area must have a fully approved SIP under section I10(k) of the Act.

EPA 'sEvaluation:In orderto 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.

RA CT:As stated above, in EPA's evaluation ofcriterion 2, Pennsylvania
must submitcomplete and approvable RACT determinations for all applicable

sources (all NOx and non-CTG VOC

sources with the potential to emit 100 TPYor more in the Reading area) to EPA as SIP revisions, and EPAmust 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 theprocess of submitting RACT SIP revisions for applicable NOx and VOC sources, and
must complete these submissions for final approval ofthis redesignation request. 1990Base YearEm issionInventories: As stated above, in EPA's evaluation of criterion 2, Pennsylvania must provide adequate technicaljustification 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 ModerateAreaRequirements: SIP revisions for VOC RACT Fix-ups, VOCRACT Catch-ups (excluding nonCTGVOC RACT), and emission
statements have been approved into the Pennsylvania SIP. As stated above, in EPA's evaluation ofcriterion 2, basicI/ M and NSR are no longer applicable for redesignation purposes. Furthermore, EPA haspreviously interpreted the transportation and general conformity requirements as notbeing applicable for purposes ofevaluating 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, theserequirements are not applicable for the purpose ofevaluating 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.

Criterion4:The area must show that its experienced improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable measures.

EPA 'sEvaluation: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.

Criterion5:The area musthave a fully approved maintenance plan under section 175A ofthe Act, including contingency measures.

EPA 'sEvaluation:The submitted maintenance plan has several deficiencies.

(1) The maintenance plan must show continued maintenance ofthe standard for at least ten years afterthe area is redesignated. To that end, EPA requires states to include emission inventories in theirmaintenance plans for a year that 

### 53177

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 53177 1996

### 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, EPArequires that
states project emissions for an interim year, between the year the area is redesignated and the end year (10 years afterredesignation). 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 theyear 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 tojustify 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 mustbe provided in order to determine ifthose 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 ofthe

ozone NAAQS that occurs after the area is redesignated. The plan must contain

alist ofmeasures 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 theprocess of revising the maintenance plan for the Reading area to meet this criterion. EPA's Evaluation ofPennsylvania's 1990 Base YearInventory forthe 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 ofthe updated inventory were submitted with the redesignation request.

The 1990base 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 technicaljustification
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 baseyear 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 forpublic inspection atthe EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section ofthis notice.

EPA is solicitingpublic 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 submittingwritten
comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section ofthis notice. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's request for redesignation ofthe 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 ofall deficiencies contained in therequest 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 ofall 

### deficiencies contained in those inventories. Atthe same time,EPAis proposing todisapprove the redesignation request, maintenance plan, and 1990base year emission inventories forthe Reading area if Pennsylvania does not correct the deficiencies. In addition, forpurposes of satisfying theI/Mredesignation rule of January 1995, EPA isproposing approval ofPennsylvania's legislative authority to adopt and implement an I/ M program. Finally,EPA isproposing to change itspolicy on redesignation requirements for ozone nonattainment

areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Thepolicychange makes redesignation requirements for areas in the OTR consistent with requirements for areas outside the OTRby interpretingrequirements under section 184 ofthe Clean AirAct as notbeing applicable forthepurpose of redesignation.

In orderto correct thedeficiencies thatexist in theredesignation request, maintenance plan, and 1990 base year emission inventories, Pennsylvania must submit thefollowing toEPA:

(1)Adequate technical support to justify theprojected emission inventories (2007 and 2004), including growth factors (not surrogates), sample calculations forpoint, area, and mobile sources, and mobile source emissions modeling sample runs;

(2) Complete and approvable RACT SIPrevisions for all applicable sources (allVOC andNOx sources with the potential to emit 100 TPY ormore in the Reading area);

(3)A declaration that all required RACTs havebeen submitted;

(4)SIPrevisions totheReading area maintenance plan so that itprovides adequate contingency measures. The plan must contain a listofmeasures to be adopted and a schedule and procedures for adoption and implementation. Theplan must also identify specific triggers used to determine when the contingency

measures need tobe implemented and

a schedule forimplementation ofthe contingencies in the eventthat they are implemented. Thelistofcontingency

measures mustinclude basic I/M, in the event thatenhanced I/Mrequirement under section 184 is notimplemented. Theplan must contain a schedule for implementation ofabasic I/Mprogram thatcomplies with 40 CFR51.372(c)(4). This schedule will betriggered when Pennsylvania chooses to implement basic I/M as acontingency measure; and (5) Technical support tojustify the 1990 base yearemission inventories submitted in theredesignation request. This support must include sample 

## 53178

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 53178 1996

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

calculations for point, area, and mobile
sources, alist ofall 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 byMarch 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, EPAhas determined that Pennsylvania needs to submit the required revisions by February 3, 1997, in time forEPA to take final action byMarch 3, 1997.

Pennsylvania is in the process of addressing all ofthe 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 willbe able to complete rulemaking on Pennsylvania's submittals, as long as Pennsylvania works closely with EPAto develop the required revisions.

IfEPA 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 CFRPart 51, section 51.448(i). Since the submitted maintenance planbudget 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 forrevision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light ofspecific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order12866

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 aJuly 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review. B. RegulatoryFlexibilityAct
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 etseq.,EPA must prepare

aregulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPAmay certify that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, smallnot-for-profit enterprises, and government entities withjurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000. SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.Therefore, because thisproposed 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 oftheFederal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation ofa flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofstate action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

EPA's proposed disapproval ofthe State request under Section 110 and subchapter I, part D ofthe CAA does not affect any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any preexisting federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal disapproval ofthe state submittal does
not affect its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's proposed disapproval ofthe 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 ofsmall entities because it does
not remove existing requirements and impose any new Federal requirements.

Redesignation ofan area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe CAA does not impose any new requirements

on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status ofa geographical area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on sources. The Regional Administrator certifies that, in the event thatEPA approves Pennsylvania's redesignation request for the Reading area, the approval will not affect a substantial number ofsmall entities.

In the event that EPA denies Pennsylvania's redesignation request under section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe 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 willreview the effect ofthose actions on small entities at the time the State submits those regulations. Therefore, the Regional Administrator certifies that the disapproval oftheredesignation request will not affect a substantial number of small entities.

C. UnfundedMandates

Under Section 202 ofthe Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare abudgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed orfinal rule that includes a Federal mandate that mayresult 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 oftherule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that maybe significantly oruniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that this proposed approval action does not include aFederal mandate that may result in estimated costs of$100 million

or more to either State, local, ortribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. ThisFederal 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, orto the private sector, result from this action.

EPA has also determined that the proposed alternative disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that mayresult in estimated costs of$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to theprivate sector. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,or tribal governments, orto the private sector, result from this action.

The Regional Administrator's decision to approve ordisapprove Pennsylvania's redesignation request for the Reading ozone nonattainment area, the associated maintenance plan, and the 1990 VOC, NO., and CO base year 

### 53179

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 53179 1996

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

inventories for the area will be based on whether theymeet therequirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) andpart Dof the Clean AirAct, as amended, and EPA regulations in40 CFRPart 51.
ListofSubjects in40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

Authority: 42U.S.C. 7401 7671q. Dated: September 30, 1996. 

### W. MichaelMcCabe, Regional Administrator, RegionIII. 

### [FRDoc. 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 ofAir QualityImplementation Plans; Utah: Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for Utah County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed interim rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposinginterim approval ofa State Implementation Plan (SIP)revision submitted by the State of Utah. This revision establishes and requires the implementation ofan improved inspection and maintenance (I/M)program in theProvo-Orem Metropolitan Statistical Area (Utah County) which claims "full credit" for

atest-and-repair network. The intended effect ofthis action istopropose interim approval ofan I/Mprogram proposed by the State, based upon the State/County's good faith estimate, which asserts that the State/County's networkdesign credits are appropriate and therevision is otherwise in compliance with the Clean AirAct (CAA). This action is beingtaken under section 348 ofthe National Highway System Designation Act of1995 (NHSDA)and section 110 oftheCAA.

EPA proposes that the State/County's program must start no later than November 15, 1997. EPA alsoproposes that ifthe State/County fails to start its program asdefined in this notice on this schedule, the approval granted under theprovisions oftheNHSDA will convert to adisapproval after a finding letter is sent to the State. DATES: Comments mustbereceived on
orbefore November 12, 1996. ADDRESSES: Comments may bemailed to Richard R.Long, Director,Air Programs, USEPA Region VIII (P2-A), 999 18th Street-Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466. Copies ofthe documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours atthe above address. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office
atleast 24 hours before the visiting day. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott P. Lee, at (303) 312-6736 or via email atlee.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. ImpactoftheNationalHighway System DesignationAct on theDesign andImplementationofInspectionand MaintenanceProgramsUnderthe Clean AirAct

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 ameans ofcompliance with section 182, 184 or 187 ofthe CAA. Also under the NHSDA, EPA cannot disapprove a State SIP revision, nor apply an automatic discount to aState SIP revision under section 182, 184 or 187 ofthe CAA, because the I/M program in such plan revision is decentralized, or atest-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 apresumptive 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 ofreductions 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/Mprograms. All other elements ofthe I/M Rule, and the statutory requirements established in the CAA continue to be required of those states submittingI/M SIP revisions under the NHSDA, and the NHSDA specifically requires that these submittals must otherwise comply in all respects with theI/M Rule and the CAA.

The NHSDA also requires states to swiftly develop, submit, and begin implementation ofthese I/Mprograms, 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 ofthe 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 ofthe statutory authority necessary to carry out theprogram. Also, in proposing the interim credits for this program, states arerequired to make good faith estimates regarding the performance oftheirI/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 ofa State's program maybe an estimate that is based on any ofthe following: the performance ofany previous I/M program; theresults ofremote sensing

or otherroadside testing techniques; fleet and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) profiles; demographic studies; or other evidence which has relevance to the effectiveness or emissions reducing capabilities ofan I/Mprogram.

This action is being taken under the authority ofboth the NHSDA and section 110 ofthe 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 datamay not match exactly. Therefore, the Conference Report suggests that EPA use the program data
to appropriately adjust these credits on
aprogram basis as demonstrated by the program data.

B. InterimApprovals UndertheNHSDA

The NHSDA directs EPA to grant interim approval for aperiod 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 atthe end of 18 months, and to make adetermination as to the effectiveness ofthe interim program. Following this demonstration, EPA will adjust any credit claims made by the
state in its good faith effort to reflect the 

## 53180

HeinOnline -- 61 Fed. Reg. 53180 1996