[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69589-69594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33476]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[NH036-7163; A-1-FRL-6203-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program;
Restructuring OTR Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the New Hampshire
State Implementation Plan (SIP), which was submitted to EPA for
approval on September 4, 1998 by the Department of Environmental
Protection (DES). This submittal was supplemented by a letter dated
November 20, 1998 describing additional information about the New
Hampshire I/M program, and requesting further flexibility from
requirements applicable to the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) in light of
the current air quality status of the area. The SIP revision includes
New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, Part Saf-C 3220 ``Official
Motor Vehicle Inspection Requirements'' and Part Saf-C 5800 ``Roadside
Diesel Opacity Inspection'' and additional supporting material
including authorizing legislation, administrative items, and a
description of the program being implemented. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
DATES: 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, JFK Federal Bldg., Boston, MA 02203.
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 Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental
Services, 64 North Main Street, Caller Box 2033, Concord, NH 03302-
2033.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, (617) 918-1045.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 4, 1998, New Hampshire
submitted a revision to its State
[[Page 69590]]
Implementation Plan (SIP) for vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M).
This submittal was supplemented by a letter dated November 20, 1998
providing additional information about the New Hampshire I/M program,
and requesting further flexibility from requirements applicable to the
OTR in light of the current air quality status of the area. The SIP
revision includes New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules, Part Saf-
C 3220 ``Official Motor Vehicle Inspection Requirements'' and Part Saf-
C 5800 ``Roadside Diesel Opacity Inspection'' and additional supporting
material including authorizing legislation, administrative items, and a
description of the program being implemented. This action is being
taken under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
I. Clean Air Act Requirements
Section 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires certain areas in the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR) to adopt and implement an inspection and
maintenance program meeting EPA's enhanced I/M performance standard.
EPA's I/M rule was established on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950). EPA
made significant revisions to the I/M rule on September 18, 1995 (60 FR
48035) and on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 39036). New Hampshire is affected by
requirements of the Act related to I/M in certain areas of the State.
Specifically, under EPA's I/M rule, enhanced I/M programs would be
required in the Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, New Hampshire ozone
nonattainment area, and the New Hampshire portion of the Boston-
Worcester-Lawrence ozone nonattainment area. This program was initially
submitted to fulfill New Hampshire's obligations to implement I/M
pursuant to these requirements. Because of EPA's parallel notice in
this Federal Register proposing that the 1-hour standard no longer
applies in New Hampshire, the State would only be required to submit an
I/M program because of its location in the OTR, as explained more fully
below.
By this action, EPA proposes to approve New Hampshire's submittal.
EPA has reviewed the State submittal against the requirements of the
Act and EPA's final I/M rule. The present version of the SIP submission
does not meet all of the requirements of EPA's final rule for enhanced
I/M. The program does, however, contribute to air quality improvement.
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve the program for several reasons.
First, New Hampshire has achieved all of its Clean Air Act control plan
requirements for overall emission reductions without I/M. That is, the
State has submitted an acceptable 15 percent VOC reduction plan, a 9
percent rate of progress plan, an attainment demonstration, and based
on 1996-1998 data in AIRS, has achieved attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard without the implementation of a vehicle I/M program. In
addition, New Hampshire and all areas nearby, including Maine, Eastern
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island appear to have attained the 1 hour
ozone standard based on 1996-1998 data, as discussed elsewhere in the
Federal Register. Additionally, New Hampshire does not contribute to
nonattainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in any areas in the OTR (or
elsewhere) where that standard continues to be violated based on
evidence submitted by the State separately as part of their ozone
attainment demonstration. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the State
should not need to meet all the requirements for enhanced I/M in the
OTR. Section 176A of the Clean Air Act states that the ``Administrator
* * * may remove any State * * * from the [OTR] whenever the
Administrator has reason to believe that control of emissions in that
State * * * pursuant to [the Act requirements for the OTR] will not
significantly contribute to attainment of the standard in the region.''
Implicit in EPA's authority to remove a State from the OTR entirely is
the authority to eliminate or ``restructure'' specific control
requirements for States that remain in the OTR, provided the State
demonstrates that the control of emissions from such requirement will
not significantly contribute to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard
anywhere in the OTR.
We propose the State has met the test of section 176A and it has
requested further flexibility in meeting the Clean Air Act requirements
for I/M in the OTR. EPA believes that New Hampshire's continued
participation in the OTR is beneficial, and that EPA's approval of this
I/M program will improve air quality. Therefore, in light of the above,
EPA is proposing to approve this I/M program as strengthening the SIP
despite the fact that it does not meet all requirements for enhanced I/
M in the OTR. Further, EPA did finalize the NOX SIP call for
22 States and the District of Columbia by notice dated October 27, 1998
(63 FR 57356). New Hampshire was not included among those States, but
EPA intends to conduct modeling to determine whether a SIP revision
under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) should be required from New Hampshire
in the future. Currently, EPA does not have evidence that emissions
from sources in New Hampshire significantly contribute to 1-hour
nonattainment downwind, but if EPA determines that sources in New
Hampshire significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment, today's
action will be revisited. EPA concludes that an enhanced I/M program is
not required in New Hampshire because control of emissions from an I/M
program would not contribute significantly to attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard in any area of the OTR. A summary of EPA's analysis of
the State's I/M program is provided below.
II. I/M Regulation General SIP Submittal Requirements
On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), EPA published a final regulation
establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to sections 182, 184, and
187 of the Act. EPA made significant revisions to the I/M rule on
September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48035) and on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 39036).
The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S, and
requires States subject to the I/M requirement to submit an I/M SIP
revision that includes all necessary legal authority and the items
specified in 40 CFR 51.350 through 51.373.
III. State Submittal
On September 4, 1998, and on November 20, 1998, the State of New
Hampshire submitted an I/M SIP revision for the entire State. A public
hearing for the September 4, 1998 submittal was held on August 24,
1998.
The I/M SIP submittal provides for the implementation of I/M in the
entire State of New Hampshire beginning on January 1, 1999. New
Hampshire will be implementing an annual, test and repair I/M program
which the State has designed to meet the requirements of EPA's
performance standard and most other requirements contained in the
federal I/M rule. Testing will be overseen by the Department of Safety
(DOS) and implemented by individual garages in the existing safety
inspection network. Aspects of the New Hampshire I/M program include:
anti-tampering testing of 1980 and later light duty vehicles and
trucks, enforcement by the existing windshield safety inspection
stickers, requirements for testing convenience, quality assurance, data
collection, no cost waivers, reporting, test equipment and test
procedure specifications, public information and consumer protection,
inspector training and certification, penalties against inspectors
which perform faulty inspections, and emission recall enforcement. An
analysis of the New
[[Page 69591]]
Hampshire program, and New Hampshire's demonstration of how the I/M
program meets many of the federal I/M SIP requirements, is provided
below.
A. Applicability.
The New Hampshire I/M regulations and authorizing legislation
specify that the I/M program be implemented statewide.
B. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard
The I/M program was designed, in part, to meet the enhanced I/M
performance standard for ozone precursors causing air quality problems
in New Hampshire. New Hampshire's program was designed to meet the
performance standard for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX), under 40 CFR 51.351(h) of the I/M rule.
The State submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA computer
model, MOBILE5b, showing that the enhanced performance standard will be
met. The State's demonstration shows that it expects to achieve the
reductions required by that section of the rule, and will utilize
additional benefits from reformulated gasoline to ensure that the total
reduction attributed to I/M meets federal I/M requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Certain areas in New Hampshire are currently classified as
serious ozone nonattainment areas for the 1-hour standard. As such,
they are not clearly eligible for the OTR low enhanced I/M standard
in Sec. 51.351(h). As discussed above, in a separate Federal
Register, EPA is proposing that the 1-hour ozone standard no longer
applies in New Hampshire based on clean air quality measured from
1996-1998. After this occurs, New Hampshire will only be subject to
CAA enhanced I/M requirements by virtue of its inclusion in the OTR.
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve this program because the emission
reductions that would be achieved by a fully enhanced I/M program
are not required in this OTR area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Network Type and Program Evaluation
New Hampshire has chosen to implement a test and repair I/M network
program design. The State has assumed conservative assumptions for
credit claims relative to its network design in its demonstration that
it meets the performance standard. EPA believes that a further
demonstration is not necessary. Furthermore, EPA's OTR low enhanced
rule does not require that the State perform additional program
evaluations beyond the data reporting requirements of the I/M rule in
the future.
D. Adequate Tools and Resources
The State's SIP outlines the level of resources dedicated to the I/
M program, and includes descriptions of the funding expended and the
personnel utilized within DOS to implement the program. The SIP also
describes the role of DOS State Police enforcement personnel to be
utilized in enforcing the program, and outlines plans for 6 more
officers to be hired as part of the State Police Traffic Enforcement
Unit, further bolstering the program's enforcement and oversight. DES
will also play a role in implementing and analyzing the program.
Finally, DOS intends to raise the ``per test fee'' collected for each
inspection sticker sold to inspection stations, with the additional
funds going to the State Highway fund, which the DOS Commissioner is
authorized to spend on the I/M program implementation as needed.
The State has described both current and future plans to ensure
that adequate funding is provided to implement the program. While the
State has described in significant detail the plans it has to ensure an
effective program, the State has not dedicated funding to this effort.
While EPA is approving this I/M program as strengthening the SIP, it
does not meet EPA enhanced I/M rule requirements.
E. Test Frequency and Convenience
The New Hampshire SIP revision requires annual inspections for all
subject motor vehicles that are not older than 1980. The inspections
will be conducted in concert with the existing schedule for the annual
safety inspection program. Short waiting times and short driving
distances are not an issue since this will be part of the State's
existing safety inspection network, with longstanding stations
scattered throughout the state prepared to test all subject vehicles.
F. Vehicle Coverage
New Hampshire's I/M program covers all 1980 and newer model year
gasoline powered light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, registered,
or required to be registered, within the State. Based on discussions
with the State, EPA evaluated the effect of the fact that antique
vehicles are exempt and determined that such exemptions would not
prevent the program from achieving the performance standard. Legal
authority for the vehicle coverage requirement is contained in the New
Hampshire I/M rule and the July 1998 authorizing legislation. EPA
proposes to approve the submission as a strengthening of the SIP based
on the DES's submittal, although it has not met all EPA rule
requirements.
G. Test Procedures and Standards
The New Hampshire I/M SIP revision obligates the State to perform
anti-tampering checks of the nature described in the plan submission.
The State will be requiring these checks for 1980 and later model year
vehicles in the area. The following anti-tampering checks will be
performed: (1) check for the presence of the catalytic converter; (2)
check for air pump disablements; (3) check for PCV system disablements;
(4) check for evaporative system disablements; and (5) check for the
presence, and proper fit of the gas cap. In addition, the State of New
Hampshire will be requiring OBD2 system checks in accordance with EPA
rules, beginning in 2001. EPA proposes approval of the anti-tampering
testing program, but the State has not developed or submitted OBD2
rules at this time.
H. Test Equipment
In its September 4, 1998 submittal, New Hampshire's I/M SIP
revision describes procedures to follow to test vehicles. These
procedures are articulated in more detail in the Safety Inspection
Manual, and Saf-c 3200. The OBD2 testing program has not been fully
described or submitted.
The SIP does not include a ``real time'' data link, but instead
ensures that every vehicle which leaves a station leaves with either a
passing sticker or failing sticker. All those that are issued failing
stickers are later followed up by State Police actually physically
inspecting the failed vehicle to ensure that proper repairs were
performed. This will prevent vehicle owners from presenting themselves
for multiple initial tests, one of the primary reasons for a real time
data link. While a real time data link would still be helpful in
collecting data, the State intends to collect the necessary data.
I. Quality Control
The New Hampshire I/M SIP narrative and Saf-c 3200 outline the
quality control procedures. However, since no test equipment is
utilized, it is minimal. Efforts to ensure that documents related to
the inspection remain secure are already in place and enforced by the
State Police and by DOS as part of the existing safety inspection
program.
J. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection
Since New Hampshire is implementing largely an anti-tampering
program, it will not be issuing any waivers whatsoever, and this is
approvable.
[[Page 69592]]
K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement
The State of New Hampshire has chosen to use a program of
windshield sticker based enforcement, based on its current safety
inspection program. Any vehicle driven without a valid sticker will
ultimately be caught by law enforcement officials, and failure to
comply at this point would result in registration being suspended, and
could result in a warrant for arrest being issued. The motorist
compliance enforcement program will be implemented primarily by the New
Hampshire Department of Safety (DOS). The enforcement strategy is
described in New Hampshire's September 4, 1998 submittal. The
enforcement strategy is designed to ensure a high rate of compliance
rate for all vehicles within a short time of the compliance deadline.
As described in the September 4, 1998 submittal, this will be
accomplished by a increased surveillance by law enforcement officials
to identify uninspected and unregistered vehicles. New Hampshire
estimates that over 99.5% of the vehicles in the State are registered.
Those vehicles operated without a valid safety inspection sticker are
fined, and put on notice that their registration will be suspended if
they do not comply. Those that still fail to comply may be issued a
bench warrant for arrest. In addition to the current enforcement
effort, DOS intends to secure additional funding for 6 new enforcement
officials dedicated to enforcement of the inspection requirement.
Funding of these officers will help ensure an even more effective
mechanism for enforcement of the inspection requirement. New Hampshire
does have a penalty system whose purpose is to deter noncompliance, but
the penalties imposed may not be a sufficient incentive to deter
noncompliance if a vehicle owner expects that significant repairs will
be required upon inspection.
This program is not viewed as intrusive to the general public, and
it is not likely that New Hampshire citizens will take additional steps
to avoid this I/M program. EPA is comfortable that, in light of the
type of vehicle ``testing'' being proposed, New Hampshire's program
will be enforced in a manner commensurate with the type of program
implemented, and emission reductions expected. However, this section of
the State's program does not meet Clean Air Act requirements to have
the program based on vehicle registration. Further, the State did not
make a demonstration that this ``pre-existing'' enforcement mechanism
would be more effective than registration denial would be, nor has it
committed to ensuring the continued effectiveness of sticker based
enforcement mechanism. EPA believes that a registration based program
would be more effective than sticker based enforcement since by the
State's own estimation, there is over a 99.5% compliance rate with the
vehicle registration requirement. Nevertheless, for reasons outlined
elsewhere in this notice, EPA believes that this program should be
approved because it will strengthen the SIP, despite the fact that it
does not meet the requirements for enhanced I/M under the Clean Air
Act. The legal authority to implement and enforce the program is
included in the New Hampshire State law and in DOS rules.
L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight
The New Hampshire I/M SIP revision provides for regular auditing of
its enforcement program and adherence to effective management
practices, including adjustments to improve the program when necessary.
According to the September 4, 1998 submittal from the DES, these
program oversight and information management activities include direct
enforcement of the inspection requirement by State Police. State Police
routinely conduct overt audits of the 2,500 inspection stations in the
State, and will reinstate their practice of initiating covert audits.
Any vehicle which leaves a inspection station with a reject sticker is
followed-up by the State Police physically inspecting each failed
vehicle to ensure proper repairs were performed. As stated earlier, the
State will be dedicating additional resources to this inspection
effort, and will provide additional training to officers stressing the
increased importance of these emission checks. The State's efforts for
the motorist compliance enforcement program are acceptable for the
purposes of strengthening the SIP.
M. Quality Assurance
The September 4, 1998 submittal from New Hampshire includes a
description of the quality assurance program. The program will include
operation and progress reports and overt and covert audits of emission
inspection facilities which are conducted by State Police and
Department of Safety officers. These officers are auditing to ensure
both the certified inspectors and the stations are following
established inspection requirements as codified under the
administrative rule Saf-c 3200. Included in these audits will be
documentation checks, and a check to determine if stickers and
reporting documents are secure. The State intends to further develop
audit procedures to implement the OBD2 testing program, and the State
envisions that further training will be required.
N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors
The New Hampshire I/M SIP revision describes specific sanctions
available in its enforcement against stations and inspectors which fail
to give proper inspections. An inspector can be given a criminal
violation and is disciplined administratively. Upon being given a
hearing, the inspector may be given ``6 points'' on their driving
record, which is the same penalty as for driving while intoxicated.
Further, inspection stations can have their privilege to inspect cars
suspended or revoked. While this section of the State's program may be
appropriate for the type of program the State is implementing for the
purpose of strengthening the SIP, it does not meet all I/M rule
requirements.
O. Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting
The New Hampshire I/M SIP provides for collecting test data to link
specific test results to specific vehicles, I/M program registrants,
test sites, and inspectors. The SIP lists the specific types of test
data and quality control data which will be collected, which include:
date of inspection, station identification number, technician name,
customer name, vehicle ID and license plate number, vehicle make,
model, model year and mileage, pass/fail determination, reason for
failure, inspection sticker number, and repairs performed. As outlined
above and described in the September 4, 1998 submittal, the data will
be used to generate reports concerning test data, quality assurance,
quality control, enforcement, as well as determine the emission
benefits of the program.
P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification
The September 4, 1998 submittal describes the training and the
testing that is required of each inspector, prior to being certified to
perform these tests. The DOS has committed to perform additional
training for inspectors in advance of OBD2 testing being implemented.
Q. Improving Repair Effectiveness
In the September 4, 1998 submittal, the State committed to perform
additional training regarding the new anti-tampering checks that have
been added to the safety inspection program.
[[Page 69593]]
However, the State maintains that mechanics will not need training
helping them repair these tampered vehicles because the type of repairs
that this anti-tampering will identify are relatively routine. The DES
does intend to provide additional OBD2 training in the future.
R. Compliance with Recall Notices
The revised New Hampshire I/M SIP will ensure that vehicles subject
to its I/M program, that are included in either a voluntary emission
recall or a remedial plan determination pursuant to the CAA, have had
the appropriate repairs made prior to the inspection. Vehicles that
have received recall notices will be followed up by New Hampshire law
enforcement in ``the same way (that) vehicles that fail the inspection
* * * are followed up * * *'' This means that all vehicles which
receive a recall notice will be followed-up by a law enforcement
official to ensure that appropriate repairs are performed.
S. On-Road Testing
New Hampshire has stated that it is performing a study to determine
the effectiveness of remote sensing for NOx to determine whether or not
to add it as part of its vehicle testing program. That study was called
for as part of the State's enabling legislation for I/M. While the
State hopes to move forward with an on-road testing program in the
future, it does not have the authority to do so now.
T. Concluding Statement
A more detailed analysis of the State's submittal is contained in
the EPA's technical support document prepared for this action. The TSD
is available from the EPA New England Regional office listed above. The
criteria used to review the submitted SIP revision are based on the
requirements set forth in Section 182 of the CAA and in the federal I/M
regulations. The New Hampshire regulations and accompanying materials
contained in the SIP represent an acceptable I/M plan for the purpose
of strengthening the New Hampshire SIP.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted by New
Hampshire on September 4, 1998 and on November 20, 1998 as a revision
to the SIP. The SIP revision proposes approval of the State's I/M
program. While the I/M program does not meet all of the requirements of
the enhanced I/M rule, EPA has determined, based on the State's showing
that additional reductions from a fully enhanced I/M program will not
significantly contribute to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard
anywhere in the OTR, that the requirements for an enhanced I/M program
are not required in New Hampshire. Therefore, EPA is approving the New
Hampshire I/M program as strengthening the SIP.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
proposal or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this action.
V. Administrative Requirements
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 that does not already exist as a matter of State law. EPA
is simply approving a state regulation under the Clean Air Act.
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'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and does not
involve an action that addresses environmental 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 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
[[Page 69594]]
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 proposed rule
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply
approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore,
because the Federal SIP approval 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. Moreover, due to the nature
of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation
of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the
economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co.
v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. Section 7410(a)(2).
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 the proposed approval action does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 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.
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.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator, OAR.
[FR Doc. 98-33476 Filed 12-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P