[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69559-69561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33473]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[ME060-7009; A-1-FRL-6203-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Maine; Interim Final Determination That Maine has Avoided the
Deficiencies of its I/M SIP Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Interim final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA has published
rulemaking actions proposing to determine that the one hour ozone
standard no longer applies in Maine and other nearby areas, and
proposing approval of the State of Maine's motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program, under section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Additionally, EPA is proposing to lift the requirement that
Maine submit an enhanced I/M program consistent with specific Clean Air
Act requirements for the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Based on these
proposed actions, EPA is making an interim final determination, by this
action, that the State is more likely than not no longer subject to the
requirements prompting the original disapproval of the Maine enhanced
I/M SIP revision. This action will defer the application of the offset
sanction that is otherwise applicable beginning December 6, 1998, and
defers the future application of the highway sanction. Although this
action is effective upon publication, EPA will take comment on this
interim final determination as well
[[Page 69560]]
as EPA's action proposing approval of the State's submittal and a
determination that the one-hour ozone standard no longer applies in
Maine and other nearby areas. EPA will publish a final notice taking
into consideration any comments received on EPA's proposed actions and
this interim final action.
DATES: Effective December 17, 1998. Written comments must be received
on or before January 19, 1999. Public comments on this document are
requested and will be considered before taking final action on this SIP
revision.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director,
Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAA), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston,
MA 02114-2023. Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical
support document are available for public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment, at the Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street,
11th floor, Boston, MA and the Bureau of Air Quality Control,
Department of Environmental Protection, State House-Station No. 17,
Augusta, ME 04333.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, (617) 918-1045.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 19, 1998, Maine submitted a
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for an I/M program.
This submittal requested further flexibility from requirements
applicable to the OTR in light of the current air quality status of the
area. The SIP revision includes sections of the ``Maine Safety
Inspection Manual,'' and additional supporting material including
detailed authorizing legislation (L.D. 2223, ``An Act to Reduce Air
Pollution from Motor Vehicles and to Meet Requirements of the Federal
Clean Air Act''), administrative items, and a description of the
program being implemented. This action is being taken under section 110
of the Clean Air Act.
I. Background
On November 3, 1994, EPA conditionally approved in the Federal
Register (59 FR 55045) an I/M SIP submitted by the State. By means of a
June 6, 1997 letter, EPA notified Maine that the conditional approval
of the Maine enhanced I/M SIP revision had been converted to a
disapproval. The letter triggered the 18-month time clock for the
mandatory application of sanctions under section 179(a) of the CAA.
Therefore, the Act's offset sanction applies beginning December 6,
1998. To remedy that failure, on November 19, 1998, the State of Maine
submitted an I/M SIP revision to EPA, requesting approval action under
the CAA.
The purpose of this SIP revision was to remedy deficiencies
identified by EPA in its June 6, 1997 letter. Maine's submittal
requested further flexibility under the CAA to implement an I/M program
that does not meet all the specific requirements for an enhanced I/M
program in the OTR.
II. EPA's Current Rulemaking Actions
In the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, EPA is
proposing approval of the State's I/M SIP revision to strengthen its
SIP, as well as an action proposing to determine that the 1-hour ozone
standard no longer applies in Maine and certain other nearby areas.
Additionally, EPA has proposed to remove the detailed CAA requirements
for an enhanced I/M program in the OTR for Maine based on the State's
demonstration that reductions from an I/M program will not
significantly contribute to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in
any area in the OTR.
EPA believes that, as a result of today's related rulemaking
actions, it is more likely than not that Maine is no longer subject to
the requirement to have an enhanced I/M program which triggered the
sanctions clock in Maine. This interim determination will not halt or
reset the sanctions deadline, but will continue to defer the
implementation of sanctions until EPA's proposal is finalized or the
State's I/M program is disapproved. Disapproval will result in
sanctions being imposed, as previously scheduled.
Today EPA is also providing the public with an opportunity to
comment on this interim final determination. If, based on any comments
received by EPA upon this interim final determination action and any
comments on EPA's proposed finding with respect to Maine's air quality
and proposed approval of the State's I/M SIP revision, EPA determines
that those actions are inappropriate and the SIP revision is not
approvable and, therefore, this final action was also inappropriate,
EPA will take further action to disapprove the State's I/M SIP
revision. If EPA's proposed approval of the Maine I/M SIP revision is
disapproved, then sanctions would be applied as required under section
179(a) of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.31.
III. EPA Action
Based on the proposed actions determining that the 1-hour ozone
standard no longer applies in Maine and removing the I/M requirement in
Maine set forth elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA believes
that it is more likely than not that the State is no longer subject to
the I/M requirement that prompted the original disapproval of the Maine
I/M SIP for which the June 6, 1997 disapproval finding was issued.
Therefore, EPA concludes that sanctions should be stayed until EPA
takes final action on those proposals and the Maine I/M SIP.
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.
IV. Administrative Requirements
Because EPA has preliminarily determined that Maine is no longer
subject to enhanced I/M requirements and therefore that the November
19, 1998 Maine I/M SIP revision is approvable, relief from sanctions
should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking
the good cause exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
in not providing an opportunity for comment before this action takes
effect.1 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The EPA believes that notice-
and-comment rulemaking before the effective date of this action is
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The EPA has reviewed
the State's November 19, 1998 I/M SIP revision. Through this interim
final determination action, the Agency believes that it is more likely
than not that the State is no longer subject to the requirement for
which the sanctions clock was started.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As previously noted, however, by this action EPA is
providing the public with a chance to comment on EPA's determination
after the effective date and EPA will consider any comments received
in determining whether to reverse such action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, it is not in the public interest to apply sanctions when
the State is most likely no longer subject to the requirement that
triggered the sanctions clock. Moreover, it would be impracticable to
go through notice-and-comment rulemaking on a finding that the State is
no longer subject to that requirement prior to the date sanctions would
take effect. Therefore, EPA believes that it is necessary to use the
interim final rulemaking process to defer sanctions while EPA completes
its rulemaking process. In addition, EPA is invoking the good cause
exception to the 30-day advance notice requirement
[[Page 69561]]
of the APA because the purpose of this notice is to relieve a
restriction. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875
do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not
economically significant under E.O. 12866 and does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. This rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not create any new
requirements. Therefore, because this rule does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under sections 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 this 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 imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective upon publication.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 9, 1998.
John DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 98-33473 Filed 12-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P