[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 212 (Thursday, October 31, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56183-56194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27882]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MD037-3008, MD037-3009; FRL-5642-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Maryland; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Conditional Approval.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing conditional approval of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland.
This revision establishes and requires the implementation of an
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in the
counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Carroll, Cecil, Charles,
Frederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George's, Queen Anne's,
and Washington, and the City of Baltimore. The intended effect of this
action is to propose conditional approval of the Maryland enhanced
motor vehicle I/M program. EPA is proposing conditional approval
because Maryland's SIP revision is deficient in
[[Page 56184]]
some manner with respect to requirements of the CAA and EPA's I/M
program regulations. EPA regards the following deficiencies of the
Maryland program as those most significantly affecting its operation:
lack of legal authority, performance standard remodeling, and finalized
program regulations. EPA expects that Maryland will work quickly to
remedy these items. EPA also cites below other flaws of the program.
While these areas are less significant to the program's immediate
success, they still need to be corrected so as to achieve the program's
full air quality potential. This action is taken under Section 110 of
the 1990 Clean Air Act (the Act, or CAA).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 2, 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 of the documents relevant to this action are available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air,
Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 and
the Maryland Department of the Environmental, 2500 Broening Highway,
Baltimore, Maryland 21224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine L. Magliocchetti @ 215-566-
2174, at the EPA Region III address above, or via e-mail at
magliocchetti.catherine@epamail.epa.gov. While information may be
requested via e-mail, comments must be submitted in writing to the
Region III office.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Motor vehicles are significant contributors of volatile organic
compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NOX)
emissions. An important control measure to reduce these emissions is
the implementation of a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program. Despite being subject to the most rigorous vehicle pollution
control program in the world, cars and trucks still create toxic
contaminants, about half of the ozone air pollution and nearly all of
the carbon monoxide air pollution in United States cities. Of all
highway vehicles, passenger cars and light-duty trucks emit most of the
vehicle-related carbon monoxide and ozone-forming hydrocarbons. They
also emit substantial amounts of nitrogen oxides and air toxics.
Although the U.S. has made progress in reducing emissions of these
pollutants, total fleet emissions remain high. This is because the
number of vehicle miles traveled on U.S. roads has doubled in the last
20 years to 2 trillion miles per year, offsetting much of the
technological progress in vehicle emission control over the same two
decades. Projections indicate that the steady growth in vehicle travel
will continue. Ongoing efforts to reduce emissions from individual
vehicles will be necessary to achieve our air quality goals.
Today's cars are absolutely dependent on properly functioning
emission controls to keep pollution levels low. Minor malfunctions in
the emission control system can increase emissions significantly, and
the average car on the road emits three to four times the new car
standard. Major malfunctions in the emission control system can cause
emissions to skyrocket. As a result, 10 to 30 percent of cars are
causing the majority of the vehicle-related pollution problem.
Unfortunately, it is rarely obvious which cars fall into this category,
as the emissions themselves may not be noticeable and emission control
malfunctions do not necessarily affect vehicle driveability.
Effective I/M programs, however, can identify these problem cars
and assure their repair. I/M programs ensure that cars are properly
maintained during customer use. I/M produces emission reduction results
soon after the program is put in place.
The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act) requires that most
polluted cities adopt either ``basic'' or ``enhanced'' I/M programs,
depending on the severity of the problem and the population of the
area. The moderate ozone nonattainment areas, plus marginal ozone areas
with existing or previously required I/M programs, fall under the
``basic'' I/M requirements. Enhanced programs are required in serious,
severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas with urbanized
populations of 200,000 or more; CO areas that exceed a 12.7 parts per
million (ppm) design value 1 with urbanized populations of 200,000
or more; and all metropolitan statistical areas with a population of
100,000 or more in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The air quality design value is estimated using EPA
guidance. Generally, the fourth highest monitored value with 3
complete years of data is selected as the ozone design value because
the standard allows one exceedance for each year. The highest of the
second high monitored values with 2 complete years of data is
selected as the carbon monoxide design value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Basic'' and ``enhanced'' I/M programs both achieve their
objectives by identifying vehicles that have high emissions as a result
of one or more malfunctions, and requiring them to be repaired. An
``enhanced'' program covers more of the vehicles in operation, employs
inspection methods that are better at finding high emitting vehicles,
and has additional features to better assure that all vehicles are
tested properly and effectively repaired.
The Act requires states to make changes to improve existing I/M
programs or to implement new ones for certain nonattainment areas.
Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed EPA to publish updated
guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of
the Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. The
Act further requires each area required to have an I/M program to
incorporate this guidance into the SIP. Based on these requirements,
EPA promulgated I/M regulations on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950,
codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.350-51.373), herein
referred to as the November 1992 I/M Rule. Flexibility amendments to
this rule, which provided for a low enhanced I/M performance standard
were published on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48029) and additional I/M
flexibility amendments for qualified areas in the OTR were published on
July 25, 1996 (61 FR 39031).
Under sections 182(c)(3), 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1) of the Act, any
area having a 1980 Bureau of Census-defined urbanized area population
of 200,000 or more and that is either: (1) designated as serious or
worse ozone nonattainment or (2) moderate or serious CO nonattainment
areas with a design value greater than 12.7 ppm, shall implement
enhanced I/M in the 1990 Census-defined urbanized area. The Act also
established the ozone transport region (OTR) in the northeastern United
States which includes the States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey,
Maryland, Delaware, and Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia.
Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act require the
implementation of enhanced I/M programs in all metropolitan statistical
areas (MSAs) located in the OTR that have a population of 100,000 or
more people.
The I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for
basic and enhanced I/M programs as
[[Page 56185]]
well as requirements for the following: Network type and program
evaluation; adequate tools and resources; test frequency and
convenience; vehicle coverage; test procedures and standards; test
equipment; quality control; waivers and compliance via diagnostic
inspection; motorist compliance enforcement; motorist compliance
enforcement program oversight; quality assurance; enforcement against
contractors, stations and inspectors; data collection; data analysis
and reporting; inspector training and licensing or certification;
public information and consumer protection; improving repair
effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road testing; SIP
revisions; and implementation deadlines. The performance standard for
enhanced I/M programs is based on a high-technology transient test,
known as IM240, for new technology vehicles (i.e, those with closed-
loop control and, especially, fuel injected engines), including a
transient loaded exhaust short test incorporating hydrocarbons (HC), CO
and NOx cutpoints, an evaporative system integrity (pressure) test and
an evaporative system performance (purge) test.
Under the November 1992 I/M Rule enhanced I/M programs were
required to initially begin phased-in implementation by January 1,
1995, with final full implementation slated for January 1, 1996. Due to
recent EPA rule changes, and the flexibility afforded by the National
Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995 (NHA), EPA believes, as
explained below, that all states should be afforded extra time to begin
full implementation of their enhanced I/M programs.
II. Background
The State of Maryland is part of the OTR and contains the following
MSAs or parts thereof with populations of 100,000 or more: Baltimore;
Washington, DC; Hagerstown; and the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton
Consolidated MSA. Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act
require all states in the OTR region which contain MSAs or parts
thereof with populations of 100,000 or more, to submit a SIP revision
for an enhanced I/M program.
On July 11, 1995 the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
submitted to EPA a SIP revision for an enhanced I/M program. This SIP
revision included a copy of the final enhanced I/M regulations, the
Maryland Transportation Article at Title 23, Subtitle 2 (herein
referred to as Subtitle 2 of the Maryland Transportation Article); the
Maryland I/M Request for Proposals (RFP); the Maryland I/M legislation,
and supporting documents. On March 27, 1996, MDE submitted an amendment
to this SIP revision, in response to changes to the federal program
requirements resulting from new federal legislation governing enhanced
I/M programs, and EPA rule changes to the program. Maryland originally
had submitted fully adopted state regulations in the July 11, 1995
revision. Parts of the Maryland I/M regulations were reproposed by
Maryland because of the flexibility afforded from the federal and state
legislative changes, and Maryland's amendment to the SIP revision
contains proposed regulatory changes to Maryland's program. As a
condition of this rulemaking, Maryland will need to fully adopt and
submit final regulations to EPA.
EPA's summary of the requirements of the federal I/M rule as found
in 40 CFR 51.350 through 51.373, and EPA's analysis of Maryland's
submittal are outlined below. A more detailed analysis of Maryland's
submittal is contained in a Technical Support Document (TSD) dated
September 3, 1996 which is available from the Region III office, listed
in the ADDRESSES section. Parties desiring additional details on the
federal I/M regulation are referred to the November 5, 1992 Federal
Register document (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR 51.350 through 51.373, as
well as the I/M Flexibility Amendments in the September 18, 1995
Federal Register document (60 FR 48029) and the additional I/M
flexibility amendments for qualified areas in the OTR, published on
July 25, 1996 at (61 FR 39031).
III. EPA's Analysis of Maryland Enhanced I/M Program
As discussed above, sections 182(c)(3), 184(b)(1)(A), 187(a)(6) and
187(b)(1) of the Act require that States adopt and implement
regulations for an enhanced I/M program in certain areas. Based upon
EPA's review of Maryland's submittal, EPA believes Maryland has not
complied with all aspects of the Act and the I/M rule. For certain
sections of the I/M rule and/or of the Act, which are identified below
and with which Maryland has not yet fully complied, EPA proposes to
conditionally approve the SIP revision if EPA receives a commitment
from Maryland to correct said deficiencies. Before EPA can continue
with the rulemaking process, Maryland must make a commitment within 30
days of October 31, 1996 to correct these deficiencies by a date
certain within 1 year of EPA's conditional approval. If Maryland does
not make this commitment, EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove
the Maryland I/M SIP revision. In addition, Maryland must correct these
deficiencies by the date specified in the commitment, or the
conditional approval will convert to a disapproval under the Act
section 110(k)(4).
Applicability--40 CFR 51.350
Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.350(a)
require all states in the OTR which contain MSAs or parts thereof with
populations of 100,000 or more to implement an enhanced I/M program.
The State of Maryland is part of the OTR and contains the following
MSAs or parts thereof with populations of 100,000 or more: Baltimore;
Washington, DC; Hagerstown; and the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton
Consolidated MSA. The Baltimore; Washington, DC; and Philadelphia areas
are also classified as serious or worse nonattainment areas and are
also required to implement an enhanced I/M program as per section
182(c)(3) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.350(2).
Under the requirements of the Act, the following 14 jurisdictions
in Maryland (which are located in the above listed MSAs) are subject to
the enhanced I/M program requirements: Anne Arundel, Baltimore,
Carroll, Calvert, Cecil, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard,
Montgomery, Prince George's, Queen Anne's, and Washington counties, and
the City of Baltimore.
The Maryland I/M legislative authority (Subtitle 2 of the Maryland
Transportation Article) provides the legal authority to establish the
geographic boundaries of the program. The program boundaries listed in
Appendix C of the SIP revision are the inclusive zipcode listings for
all of the jurisdictions listed above, and meet the federal I/M
requirements under Sec. 51.350.
The federal I/M regulation requires that the state program shall
not sunset until it is no longer necessary. EPA interprets the federal
regulation as stating that a SIP which does not sunset prior to the
attainment deadline for each applicable area satisfies this
requirement.
Maryland's legislative authority for this program states in section
23-208 that unless changed by Act of the legislature the program shall
sunset on December 31, 2001, which is before Baltimore's severe
nonattainment deadline of November 15, 2005. However, section 23-202 of
the legislative authority apparently
[[Page 56186]]
supersedes section 23-208, stating that this program shall remain in
effect for as long as required by federal law. EPA needs confirmation
from the State Attorney General's Office that section 23-202 applies to
Maryland's program, and whether section 23-202 constitutes an Act of
the legislature extending the sunset date in section 23-208. Therefore,
EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP based upon a
commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to either provide such an
opinion from the State Attorney General's Office that clearly says that
Maryland's interpretation of the sunset date is no earlier than
November 15, 2005; or in the absence of such an opinion, to commit to
provide EPA with new legislative authority that allows for such an
extended sunset date of the program. Maryland's commitment must provide
for either, (a) the opinion, or (b) the authority, to be provided to
EPA by a date certain within 1 year of the final conditional ruling. If
Maryland fails to make the commitment, EPA proposes in the alternative
to disapprove this SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the
date specified, EPA proposes to convert this rulemaking to a
disapproval at that time by letter.
Enhanced I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.351
In accordance with the Act and with the I/M rule, the enhanced I/M
program must be designed and implemented to meet or exceed a minimum
performance standard, which is expressed as emission levels in area
wide average grams per mile (gpm) for certain pollutants. The
performance standard shall be established using local characteristics,
such as vehicle mix and local fuel controls, and the following modeling
I/M program parameters: network type, start date, test frequency, model
year coverage, vehicle type coverage, exhaust emission test type,
emission standards, emission control device, evaporative system
function checks, stringency, waiver rate, compliance rate and
evaluation date. The emission levels achieved by the state's program
design shall be calculated using the most current version, at the time
of submittal, of the EPA mobile source emission factor model. Areas
shall meet the performance standard for the pollutants which cause them
to be subject to enhanced I/M requirements. In the case of ozone
nonattainment areas, the performance standard must be met for both
NOX and HC. The Maryland submittal must meet the enhanced I/M
performance standard for HC and NOX in all subject I/M areas.
The Maryland submittal includes a modeling demonstration of the
performance standard that uses the following program design parameters.
EPA here notes that not all of Maryland's parameter assumptions are
acceptable, and as a condition of this rulemaking Maryland must remodel
its program and demonstrate compliance with the I/M performance
standard:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Maryland's program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network type................. Centralized, test-only.
Start date................... 1984 (existing program); 1989 and 1997
(new pressure and purge testing
elements).
Test frequency............... Biennial (i.e. every two years).
Model year/vehicle type 1968 and newer model year (1968 +) light
coverage. duty gasoline vehicles (LDGV); light
duty gasoline trucks 1 & 2 (LDGT1,
LDGT2); heavy duty gasoline vehicles up
to 26,000 lbs gross vehicle weight
(HDGV).
Exhaust emissions test type.. IM240, transient test type for all model
year vehicles in program.
Emission standards........... 0.8 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO, 2.0 gpm NOX up
until January 1, 1999; 0.6 gpm HC, 15
gpm CO and 1.5 gpm NOX after December
31, 1998. [Also, transient standards can
be found in the Maryland I/M
regulations; June 10, 1994 edition of
the Maryland Bulletin.]
Emission control device Pressure and purge check on all model
visual inspection. year vehicles.
Evaporative system function Pressure decay test 1968 +
checks. vehicles.
Purge test 1984 + vehicles.
Stringency rate pre-1981 40%.
vehicle failure).
Waiver rate.................. 3%.
Compliance rate.............. 100%.
Evaluation dates............. July 1999, July 2002, July 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Maryland used inappropriate assumptions in modeling the
program, Maryland's modeling demonstration was not performed correctly,
and submittal of a proper modeling demonstration by Maryland is a
condition for full approval of the SIP revision. Therefore, Maryland
must remodel the program using valid assumptions and verify for EPA
that the I/M program in Maryland meets or exceeds the model I/M program
performance standard. This demonstration must prove that the Maryland
program design will meet the minimum enhanced I/M performance standard,
expressed in gpm, for HC, and NOx, for the years 2002 and 2005 for
all areas of Maryland covered by the program. These evaluation years
represent a change from the originally required dates of 1999, 2002 and
2005. EPA believes that new modeling of the program should not include
a 1999 evaluation year, due to changes in program implementation
schedules as per the National Highway Systems Designations Act of 1995.
Other program assumptions should be carefully verified by Maryland when
this demostration is made to EPA. A more detailed discussion of the
program design parameters can be found in the Technical Support
Document (TSD), dated September 3, 1996, compiled by EPA in evaluating
Maryland's program. Maryland should refer to the TSD for further
instructions on remodeling of the program as designed.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based on receiving within 30 days of the publication of this document,
Maryland's commitment to submit to EPA by a date certain, within 1 year
of the final conditional rulemaking, a modeling demonstration of the
program using the appropriate assumptions and methodology (which are
further discussed in more detail in the TSD). If Maryland fails to make
the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP.
If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the date specified, EPA
proposes to convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by
letter.
Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353
The enhanced program must include an ongoing evaluation to quantify
the emission reduction benefits of the
[[Page 56187]]
program, and to determine if the program is meeting the requirements of
the Act and the federal I/M regulation. The SIP shall include details
on the program evaluation and shall include a schedule for submittal of
biennial evaluation reports, data from a state monitored or
administered mass emission test of at least 0.1% of the vehicles
subject to inspection each year, description of the sampling
methodology, the data collection and analysis system and the legal
authority enabling the evaluation program. In addition to these
requirements, the state should also be prepared, in accordance with
this section of the I/M rule, to provide in the biennial report, the
results of undercover surveys of inspector effectiveness related to
identifying vehicles in need of repair. Also, the state should be
prepared in its biennial reports to provide local fleet emission
factors in assessing the actual effectiveness of the I/M program.
The submittal includes an ongoing program evaluation that meets the
federal I/M regulation requirements. EPA believes that Maryland has the
authority to implement this portion of the program under its general
authority for the program.
Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354
The federal regulation requires the state to demonstrate that
adequate funding of the program is available. A portion of the test fee
or separately assessed per vehicle fee shall be collected, placed in a
dedicated fund and used to finance the program. Alternative funding
approaches are acceptable if demonstrated that the funding can be
maintained. Reliance on funding from the state or local General Fund is
not acceptable unless doing otherwise would be a violation of the
state's constitution. The SIP shall include a detailed budget plan
which describes the source of funds for personnel, program
administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP
shall also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality
assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement,
public education and assistance and other necessary functions.
The July 1995 SIP revision documented sufficient funds, equipment
and personnel have been appropriated to meet program operation
requirements for 1995 and 1996. However, no update on the program's
financial figures were provided with the SIP revision amendment made in
March 1996. In the 1995 submittal, a test fee of $17 was set by
Maryland and the contractor to cover the operation costs of the
program, and approximately $6 from each fee which was to cover
Maryland's administrative costs for quality control and assurance.
Since the test fee was capped at $14 by a change in the program's
enabling legislation, the quality control budget for this program
appears to have been cut by one half. Therefore, as a condition of this
rulemaking, Maryland should commit to providing updated budget
information to EPA for the years 1997 and 1998, including a detailed
explanation of the number of personnel dedicated to quality assurance,
data analysis, program administration, and enforcement. Further,
Maryland should give its budget allotment for the equipment resources
that will be needed to run an effective quality assurance program,
including facilities and computer costs required for data analysis,
processing and reporting.
EPA understands that Maryland has made certain provisions to
account for changes cited above in the program's budget structure and
test fee, and EPA is merely requesting an update of the program's
budgetary documentation in order to satisfy this condition.
Maryland's submittal has not provided the necessary documentation
for this section to show that Maryland meets the adequate tools and
resources requirements set forth in the federal I/M regulations and is
therefore, not approvable.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to obtain and/or
demonstrate to EPA that adequate funding and tools exist to execute the
I/M program in accordance with this section of the I/M rule, by a date
certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA
proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to
meet the condition by the date specified, EPA proposes to convert this
rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by letter.
Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355
The enhanced I/M performance standard assumes an annual test
frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the performance
standard is achieved. The SIP shall describe the test year selection
scheme, how the test frequency is integrated into the enforcement
process and shall include the legal authority, regulations or contract
provisions to implement and enforce the test frequency. The program
shall be designed to provide convenient service to the motorist by
ensuring short wait times, short driving distances and regular testing
hours.
The Maryland enhanced I/M regulation provides for a biennial test
frequency. Maryland's Transportation Article and Maryland's I/M
regulation provide the legal authority to implement and enforce the
biennial test frequency. The Maryland I/M Request for Proposals (RFP),
and the Maryland I/M contractors's bid response provide sufficient
evidence that convenient services will be provided to the motorist.
The Maryland submittal meets the test frequency and convenience
requirements of the federal I/M regulations and is approvable.
Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356
The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs assumes coverage
of all 1968 and later model year light duty vehicles and light duty
trucks up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, and includes vehicles operating on all
fuel types. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary
emission reductions are achieved. Vehicles registered or required to be
registered within the I/M program area boundaries and fleets primarily
operated within the I/M program area boundaries and belonging to the
covered model years and vehicle classes comprise the subject vehicles.
Fleets may be officially inspected outside of the normal I/M program
test facilities, if such alternatives are approved by the program
administration, but shall be subject to the same test requirements
using the same quality control standards as non-fleet vehicles and
shall be inspected in independent, test-only facilities, according to
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.353(a). Vehicles which are operated on
Federal installations located within an I/M program area shall be
tested, regardless of whether the vehicles are registered in the State
or local I/M area.
The federal I/M regulation requires that the SIP shall include the
legal authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle
coverage requirement, a detailed description of the number and types of
vehicles to be covered by the program and a plan for how those vehicles
are to be identified including vehicles that are routinely operated in
the area but may not be registered in the area, and a description of
any special exemptions including the percentage and number of vehicles
to be impacted by the exemption.
The Maryland enhanced I/M program requires coverage of all 1977 and
newer
[[Page 56188]]
LDGV, LDGT1 and LDGT2, and HDGV up to 26,000 pounds GVWR which are
registered or required to be registered in the I/M program area. As of
the date of the SIP submittal, 1.4 million vehicles per year (2.8
million biennially) will be subject to enhanced I/M testing. Maryland's
regulation does not currently include vehicles operating on all fuel
types but Maryland commits to adding the required testing of these
vehicles once EPA promulgates regulations on alternative fueled vehicle
I/M testing. Subtitle 2 of the Transportation Article and the Maryland
I/M regulation provide the legal authority to implement and enforce the
vehicle coverage.
Maryland's program provides for fleet self-testing for the first
year of the program, using the same testing requirements and the same
quality control standards as the contractor-run component. Maryland's
plan for testing fleet vehicles is acceptable and meets the
requirements of the federal I/M regulation. Maryland's regulation
requires vehicles which are operated on Federal installations located
within an I/M program area to be tested, regardless of whether the
vehicles are registered in the State or local I/M area, and is
approvable.
Maryland's regulation provides for special exemptions for fire,
rescue, and ambulance equipment owned or leased by State or local
governments, and for rescue squad, voluntary fire department or
ambulance company vehicles registered as emergency vehicles. Also
exempted are motorcycles, gasoline trucks greater than 26,000 lbs,
Class E and F trucks and tractors, Class H school vehicles, Class L
historic vehicles, Class N street rods, Class P passenger buses, diesel
and electric vehicles, all model year 1976 and older model years, and
military tactical vehicles. These exemptions are acceptable under this
section of the I/M requirements.
The SIP revision does not include a full description of the State's
plan for how subject vehicles will be identified. Also, Maryland does
not describe the mechanism for identification of vehicles that are
routinely operated in the program area but that may not be registered
in the area. The SIP does not provide an estimate of the number of
unregistered vehicles operating in the program area. Maryland should
ensure that all elements of this section of the I/M rule are addressed
for SIP purposes, and for the purpose of implementing an effective
program.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to provide an
explanation of how all subject vehicles in the program will be
identified, and cure all of the deficiencies related to this section of
the I/M rule as explained above, by a date certain within 1 year. If
Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative
to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the
date specified, EPA proposes to convert this rulemaking to a
disapproval at that time by letter.
Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR 51.357
Written test procedures and pass/fail standards shall be
established and followed for each model year and vehicle type included
in the program. Test procedures and standards are detailed in 40 CFR
51.357 and in the EPA document entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test
Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and
Equipment Specifications'', EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-93-1, dated April 1994. The
federal I/M regulation also requires vehicles that have been altered
from their original certified configuration (i.e. engine or fuel
switching) to be tested in the same manner as other subject vehicles.
Maryland regulations and Section VII of the RFP provide written
test procedures for transient emission and evaporative system purge and
pressure testing in accordance with the requirements of the I/M rule.
However, proposed changes to Maryland regulations will prohibit the
invasive testing procedures previously recommended by EPA and
originally adopted by Maryland. The proposed non-invasive gas-cap only
check does not have written procedures given in the SIP revision
amendment. EPA notes that Maryland was unable to provide written
procedures for this element in the March submittal since this test is
different from the pressure test originally slated for Maryland's
program. EPA also understands that Maryland did not have gas-cap test
procedures avaiable at the time of the March 1996 submittal, as a
result of legislative changes at Maryland and federal level. However,
Maryland should now be able to quickly encorporate testing procedures
for this element into its program, and provide these specifications as
part of its SIP revision to EPA. EPA cautions Maryland however, that
this type of pressure check does not achieve the emission reduction
credit of that in EPA's pressure test regulations. Maryland anticipates
non-invasive purge and pressure procedures will be developed in the
future, and commits to adopting non-invasive purge procedures when they
become available.
The Maryland regulation provides for two sets of permanent emission
standards for the transient test, one set which applies from 1997
through 1998; and a second set of more stringent standards that will
apply in calendar year 1999 and later. The schedule for implementation
of the permanent standards is approvable and should be used in the
performance standard modeling demonstration.
Maryland regulations do not meet the requirements of the I/M rule
on several counts. Maryland must include by regulation, a provision to
prohibit against prior repair or adjustment to vehicles at the testing
facilities at the time the inspection is being performed. Maryland
should also include as part of its SIP revision, all applicable state
regulations that address testing of vehicles with switched engines and
regulations that address vehicles with no certified engine
configuration.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to amend
Maryland's regulation to prohibit repair or adjustment at testing
facilities and cure all of the deficiencies related to this section of
the I/M rule as explained above, by a date certain within 1 year. If
Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative
to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the
date specified, EPA proposes to convert this rulemaking to a
disapproval at that time by letter. Under this commitment, Maryland
must adopt pressure test procedures beyond the gas-cap check if
Maryland is to take credit for pressure testing in its modeling
demonstration of the performance standard.
EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP based on
Maryland's commitment to amend its regulations at the time when non-
invasive procedures become available from EPA. Maryland need not submit
a commitment to adopt purge procedures, since one is already contained
in the SIP revision amendment.
Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358
Computerized test systems are required for performing any
measurement on subject vehicles. The federal I/M regulation requires
that the SIP submittal include written technical specifications for all
test equipment used in the program. The specifications shall describe
the emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment,
[[Page 56189]]
the required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and
procedures.
Maryland's submittal contains the written technical specifications
for all emission test equipment to be used in the program. The
specifications require the use of computerized test systems. The
specifications also include performance features and functional
characteristics of the computerized test systems which meet the federal
I/M regulations and are approvable. EPA believes that Maryland has
adequately addressed the requirement to update emission test equipment,
in order to accommodate new technology vehicles and changes to the
program, through the annual reporting requirement found in Maryland's
SIP revision.
Maryland's program is deficient with respect to the gas-cap check
referenced in COMAR 11.14.08.12, which does not have written
specifications as required by the I/M rule, and therefore must be made
a condition of this rulemaking. EPA again notes that Maryland was
unable to provide specifications for this element in the March
submittal since this test is different from the pressure test
originally slated for Maryland's program. EPA also understands that
Maryland did not have gas-cap test specifications available at the time
of the March 1996 submittal, as a result of legislative changes at the
state and federal level. However, Maryland should now be able to
quickly incorporate testing specifications for this element into its
program, and provide these specifications as part of its SIP revision
to EPA.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to incorporate
written gas-cap check testing procedures into Maryland's regulations,
by a date certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the
commitment EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If
Maryland fails to meet the condition by the date specified, EPA
proposes to convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by
letter.
Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359
Quality control measures shall insure that emission measurement
equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection,
calibration records, and control charts are accurately created,
recorded and maintained.
Maryland's submittal contains the State's regulations, the RFP and
the contractor's bid response, which together describe and establish
quality control measures for the emission measurement equipment, record
keeping requirements and measures to maintain the security of all
documents used to establish compliance with the inspection
requirements. Maryland believes, and EPA agrees that the unique
identification number given on each vehicle inspection report (VIR) is
an adequate measure that Maryland uses to maintain counterfeit
resistant compliance documents. Further, the VIRs issued to each lane
inspector are accounted for on a numbered basis, and lane inspectors
are responsible for the number of compliance documents issued while on
duty.
Maryland's SIP revision meets all of this section's requirements,
and is approvable with respect to those r.
Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360
The federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver,
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. For
enhanced I/M programs, an expenditure of at least $450 in repairs,
adjusted annually to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) as compared to the CPI for 1989, is required in order to qualify
for a waiver. Waivers can only be issued after a vehicle has failed a
retest performed after all qualifying repairs have been made. Any
available warranty coverage must be used to obtain repairs before
expenditures can be counted toward the cost limit. Tampering related
repairs shall not be applied toward the cost limit. Repairs must be
appropriate to the cause of the test failure. The federal regulation
allows for compliance via a diagnostic inspection after failing a
retest on emissions and requires quality control of waiver issuance.
The SIP must set a maximum waiver rate and must describe corrective
action that would be taken if the waiver rate exceeds that committed to
in the SIP.
Subtitle 2 of Maryland's Transportation Article, and the Maryland
I/M regulation provide the necessary authority to issue waivers, set
and adjust cost limits, administer and enforce the waiver system, and
set a $450 cost limit and allow for an annual adjustment of the cost
limit to reflect the change in the CPI as compared to the CPI in 1989.
The Maryland regulation, the RFP, and the contractor's bid response
include provisions that address waiver criteria and procedures,
including cost limits, tampering and warranty related repairs, quality
control and administration. These provisions meet the federal I/M
regulations requirements and are approvable. In cases of economic
hardship, time extensions are allowed under the program, but the length
of the extension may not exceed one test cycle. Maryland has set a
maximum waiver rate of 3% for both pre-1981 and 1981 and later vehicles
and has Stated that corrective action will be taken if the waiver rate
exceeds 3%. Maryland should use this waiver rate in the performance
standard modeling demonstration.
The Maryland SIP revision does not specify the criteria that it
will use to determine economic hardship, and it is unclear to EPA if
Maryland intends to grant full waivers from compliance with the program
as a result of economic hardship, or if Maryland only intends to issue
time extensions for the purpose of compliance with the program.
Therefore, as a condition of approval, Maryland should provide further
documentation for this area, and fully explain the criteria that
Maryland will use to issue these exemptions or extensions.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to fully document
this aspect of the program and establish, if necessary, criteria for
granting hardship exemptions by regulation or procedures manual and
cure all of the deficiencies related to this section of the I/M rule as
explained above, by a date certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to
make the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the
SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the date specified, EPA
proposes to convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by
letter.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361
The federal regulation requires that compliance shall be ensured
through the denial of motor vehicle registration in enhanced I/M
programs unless an exception for use of an existing alternative is
approved. The SIP shall provide information concerning the enforcement
process, legal authority to implement and enforce the program, and a
commitment to a compliance rate to be used for modeling purposes and to
be maintained in practice.
Title 23, Subtitle 2, of the Maryland Transportation Article and
the Maryland I/M regulation provide the legal authority to implement a
registration denial system. Maryland's program will use a registration
suspension mechanism, followed by registration denial if the vehicle is
not in compliance with the inspection requirement on the subsequent
registration renewal period.
[[Page 56190]]
As a condition of this approval, Maryland needs to provide EPA with
a description of the compliance enforcement program for those vehicles
routinely operated in, but not necessarily registered in the program
area. The Maryland SIP revision does state that MVA routinely
identifies such vehicles, but more information is needed as to how this
targeting and enforcement takes place in Maryland. Maryland needs to
track and limit the use of out-of-state exemptions as well. An
explanation as to the handling of out-of-state vehicles should be
provided to EPA as a condition of this rulemaking. Further, Maryland
needs to describe the mechanism for encouraging the enforcement of
vehicle transfer requirements when vehicle owners move into the I/M
area. For the purposes of remodeling the program's demonstration of
meeting the I/M performance standard, Maryland will need to either use
the default value of 96% for the compliance rate (as documented in the
July 1995 SIP revision submitted to EPA), or provide further
documentation to EPA that proves Maryland's subsequent claim of 100%
compliance is more appropriate for modeling purposes. Maryland's
modeling demonstration should include an assessment of noncompliance
due to loopholes, counterfeiting and unregistered vehicles in the area,
as well as the number of vehicles operating in the area without valid
registrations. Maryland should include estimates of compliance losses
and the impact of fixes to the compliance enforcement program based
upon a detailed analysis of actual program data. Maryland must also
commit to a minimum enforcement level to be used in modeling and
maintained in operation of the program. Maryland needs to supply EPA
with documentation that motorists are routinely cited for noncompliance
with the registration requirement of Maryland's law.
Under Maryland's regulation, those motorists who choose not to
comply with the inspection requirement will have their vehicle
registrations suspended. The I/M rule requires that penalties for
noncompliance with the program be mandatory and meaningful.
Noncompliance with the Maryland program subjects a motorist to up to
$500 in penalties. While EPA does consider this penalty meaningful when
compared to the minimum waiver expenditure of $450 in 1998, Maryland
should adjust the penalty for noncompliance to a higher rate in later
years, when the waiver limit is adjusted to include the CPI increase.
In this way, noncompliance with the program will continue to be at
least as costly as compliance with the program. Further, EPA
understands that in lieu of a court appearance for a registration
suspension, a motorist may plead guilty and pay $250 plus court costs,
and accept a misdemeanor conviction under State law. EPA needs
clarification from Maryland as to whether a motorist's vehicle is
impounded when a motorist is cited for driving with a suspended
registration. Maryland should clarify if this is the case, and if so,
EPA considers the $250 fine coupled with seizure of the vehicle as an
adequate and meaningful measure for the purposes of this section.
Also per the I/M rule, Maryland is required to have an external,
readily visible means of determining a vehicle's compliance with the
registration requirement. While Maryland does not provide such
information in its SIP revision, EPA recognizes that such an element is
present in Maryland's registration process. EPA expects that Maryland
will continue the practice of issuing month/year stickers to affix to a
vehicle's license plate for the purpose of externally identifying
complying vehicles. Maryland will need to keep this practice instituted
for as long as the I/M program is operational in order for this program
to remain approvable. Should Maryland discontinue or change this
practice, Maryland will need to notify EPA as to the replacement
enforcement mechanism that will be used for this requirement, or EPA
may find that Maryland has failed to implement the program.
Maryland also needs to supply EPA with proof that all types of
fraud are prevented at the time of vehicle registration, especially
through manipulation of registration or titling requirements. All
exemption-triggering elements to a vehicle's registration should be
confirmed through physical examination of the vehicle. Maryland does
require valid documentation to prove address changes into or out of the
I/M program areas, however, there is no evidence in the SIP revision
that Maryland visually verifies exemption-triggering registration
status for vehicles. This is an important facit of the program
implementation, and Maryland will need to submit a commitment to
correct this provision for the purposes of compliance with this
section.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to demonstrate
that an acceptable enforcement compliance program exists in accordance
with this section of the I/M rule and cure all of the deficiencies
related to this section of the I/M rule as explained above, by a date
certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA
proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to
meet the condition by the date specified, EPA proposes to convert this
rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by letter.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362
The federal I/M regulation requires that the enforcement program
shall be audited regularly and shall follow effective program
management practices, including adjustments to improve operation when
necessary. The SIP shall include quality control and quality assurance
procedures to be used to insure the effective overall performance of
the enforcement system. An information management system shall be
established which will characterize, evaluate and enforce the program.
The Maryland SIP does not describe how the enforcement program
oversight is quality controlled and quality assured. The SIP revision
does not include the procedures document that will detail the specifics
of the implementation of the oversight program. Maryland should include
a description of the program's information management activities, as
well as the written procedures for the activities of enforcement
personnel involved in monitoring the program, and the procedures used
for auditing the enforcement personnel. The penalties associated with
testing stations' missing program documents should also be included in
Maryland's quality assurance program, and should reflect the ``street
value'' of such items (i.e. test fee plus the minimum waiver
expenditure).
Maryland needs to specify how and when periodic auditing and
analysis of the testing database will occur. Comparison of the testing
and enforcement database needs to be done to determine program
effectiveness and to trigger additional enforcement activities if
irregularities are found in the system. Compliance of the in-use fleet
should be assessed through parking lot surveys and road-side pullovers.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to demonstrate
that an acceptable enforcement compliance oversight program exists in
accordance with this section of the I/M rule and cure all of
[[Page 56191]]
the deficiencies related to this section of the I/M rule as explained
above, by a date certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the
commitment EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If
Maryland fails to meet the condition by the date specified, EPA
proposes to convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by
letter.
Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363
An ongoing quality assurance program shall be implemented to
discover, correct and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the program.
The program shall include covert and overt performance audits of the
inspectors, audits of station and inspector records, equipment audits,
and formal training of all State I/M enforcement officials and
auditors. A description of the quality assurance program which includes
written procedure manuals on the above discussed items must be
submitted as part of the SIP.
The Maryland submittal commits to establishing separate procedures
for conducting overt and covert audits. These audits results should be
recorded and retained in station and inspector files. As a condition of
this rulemaking, Maryland should provide EPA with this documentation.
Performance audits of inspectors will consist of both covert and overt
audits. Maryland does not specify in the SIP revision the minimum
number of covert vehicles that will be employed to conduct covert
auditing.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to establish
acceptable auditing procedures in accordance with this section of the
I/M rule and cure all of the deficiencies related to this section of
the I/M rule as explained above, by a date certain within 1 year. If
Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative
to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the
date specified, EPA proposes to convert this rulemaking to a
disapproval at that time by letter.
Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364
Enforcement against licensed stations, contractors and inspectors
shall include swift, sure, effective, and consistent penalties for
violation of program requirements. The federal I/M regulation requires
the establishment of minimum penalties for violations of program rules
and procedures which can be imposed against stations, contractors and
inspectors. The legal authority for establishing and imposing
penalties, civil fines, license suspensions and revocations must be
included in the SIP. State quality assurance officials shall have the
authority to temporarily suspend station and/or inspector licenses
immediately upon finding a violation that directly affects emission
reduction benefits, unless constitutionally prohibited. An official
opinion explaining any state constitutional impediments to immediate
suspension authority must be included in the submittal. The SIP shall
describe the administrative and judicial procedures and
responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which
agencies, courts and jurisdictions are involved, who will prosecute and
adjudicate cases and the resources and sources of those resources which
will support this function.
Maryland does not provide a penalty schedule for enforcement
against Maryland's contractor, stations and inspectors. The program
does not give descriptions of the administrative and judicial
procedures and responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process.
There is no listing of the responsible agencies, courts, and
jurisdictions involved in the enforcement procedures, nor are the
prosecuting and adjudicating parties identified. No funding allocations
are described in the SIP revision for this section. Maryland should
ensure that penalties against the contractor and individual inspectors
conform with Sec. 51.364 of the I/M rule. These penalties should
include suspensions, retainage of pay, and retraining of inspectors who
exhibit improper conduct. The oversight agency should have the
authority to impose penalties against the contractor, even if the
contractor had no direct knowledge of the inspector's violation.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to provide for an
acceptable penalty schedule in accordance with this section of the I/M
rule and cure all of the deficiencies related to this section of the I/
M rule as explained above, by a date certain within 1 year. If Maryland
fails to make the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative to
disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the date
specified, EPA proposes to convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at
that time by letter.
Data Collection--40 CFR 51.365
Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation
and enforcement of an I/M program. The federal I/M regulation requires
data to be gathered on each individual test conducted and on the
results of the quality control checks of test equipment required under
40 CFR Sec. 51.359. Maryland's regulation and RFP require the
collection of data on each individual test conducted and describe the
type of data to be collected. The type of test data collected meets the
federal I/M regulation requirements and is approvable.
The submittal also commits to gather and report the results of the
quality control checks required under 40 CFR 51.359 and is approvable.
Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR 51.366
Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring
and evaluation of the program by the state and EPA. The federal I/M
regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide
information and statistics and summarize activities performed for each
of the following programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control
and enforcement. These reports are to be submitted by July and shall
provide statistics for the period of January to December of the
previous year. A biennial report shall be submitted to EPA which
addresses changes in program design, regulations, legal authority,
program procedures and any weaknesses in the program found during the
two year period and how these problems will be or were corrected.
The Maryland I/M SIP provides for the analysis and reporting of
data for the testing program, quality assurance program, quality
control program and the enforcement program. The type of data to be
analyzed and reported on meets the federal I/M regulation requirements
and is approvable. Maryland commits to submit annual reports on these
programs to EPA by July of the subsequent year. A commitment to submit
a biennial report to EPA which addresses reporting requirements set
forth in 40 CFR 51.366(e) is also included in the SIP.
Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR 51.367
The federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally
trained and licensed or certified to perform inspections.
The Maryland I/M regulation requires all inspectors to receive
formal training, and be certified by the MVA. Maryland's I/M
regulation, the RFP and the contractors' proposal include a description
of and the information covered in the training program, a description
of the required written and hands-on tests and a description of the
[[Page 56192]]
certification process. However, recertification of inspectors is not
required by Maryland regulation. As a condition of this rulemaking,
Maryland must ensure that inspectors are required to be recertified at
least every two years.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to ensure by
State regulation that recertification of inspectors is required at
least every 2 years and cure all of the deficiencies related to this
section of the I/M rule as explained above, by a date certain within 1
year. If Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA proposes in the
alternative to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the
condition by the date specified, EPA proposes to convert this
rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by letter.
Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR 51.368
The federal I/M regulation requires the SIP to include public
information and consumer protection programs.
Maryland must provide for the protection of whistle blowers and
needs to document how it intends to follow up on complaints by the
public or others involved in the program.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to provide for
the protection of whistle blowers in the program and to provide a plan
for how public complaints are handled by the State of Maryland, by a
date certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the commitment
EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland
fails to meet the condition by the date specified, EPA proposes to
convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by letter.
Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369
Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The
federal regulation requires states to take steps to ensure that the
capability exists in the repair industry to repair vehicles. The SIP
must include a description of the technical assistance program to be
implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria to be used in
meeting the performance monitoring requirements required in the federal
regulation and a description of the repair technician training
resources available in the community.
The Maryland SIP revision requires the implementation of a
technical assistance program which includes a hot line service to
assist repair technicians and a method of regularly informing the
repair facilities of changes in the program, training courses, and
common repair problems. A repair facility performance monitoring
program is also included in Maryland's I/M regulation, the RFP, and the
I/M contractors' proposal which includes providing the motorist whose
vehicle fails the test a summary of local repair facilities
performances, provides regular feedback to each facility on their
repair performance and requires the submittal of a completed repair
form at the time of retest. The performance monitoring program design
meets the criteria described in the federal regulation and is
approvable. Maryland's regulation provides for the establishment and
implementation of a repair technician training program which, at a
minimum, covers the four types of training described in 40 CFR 51.369
of the federal regulation.
The repair effectiveness program described in the SIP meets the
federal regulation and is approvable.
Compliance With Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370
The federal regulation requires the states to establish methods to
ensure that vehicles that are subject to enhanced I/M and are included
in a emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to
completing the emission test and/or renewing the vehicle registration.
Under Maryland's regulation, owners are required to comply with
emission related recalls before completing the emission test and
renewing the vehicle registration. The SIP includes procedures to be
used to incorporate national database recall information into
Maryland's inspection database and quality control methods to insure
recall repairs are properly documented and tracked. The submittal
includes a commitment to submit an annual report to EPA which includes
the recall related information as required in 40 CFR 51.370(c).
Maryland has complied with all elements of this section, and it is
approvable.
On-road Testing--40 CFR 51.371
On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas. The use of
either remote sensing devices (RSD) or roadside pullovers including
tailpipe emission testing can be used to meet the federal regulations.
The program must include on-road testing of 0.5% of the subject fleet
or 20,000 vehicles, whichever is less, in the nonattainment area or the
I/M program area. Motorists that have passed an emission test and are
found to be high emitters as a result of an on-road test shall be
required to pass an out-of-cycle test.
Legal authority to implement the on-road testing program and
enforce off-cycle inspection and repair requirements is contained in
Title 23, Subtitle 2, of the Maryland Transportation Article and
Maryland's I/M regulation. The SIP submittal requires the use of RSD to
test 20,000 vehicles per year in the I/M program area and will be
implemented by the contractor. A description of the program which
includes test limits and criteria, resource allocations, and methods of
collecting, analyzing and reporting the results of the testing are
detailed in the submittal. The on-road testing program described in the
SIP meets federal requirements and is approvable.
State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR
51.372 through 52.373
The Maryland submittal included the State's final I/M regulations,
legislative authority to implement the program, a final RFP, portions
of the contractor's proposal, the signed contract between the State and
the contractor, and a detailed discussion on each of the required
program design elements. The start date for implementation of full-
stringency cutpoints will be June 1, 1997. These cutpoints will be
further tightened by the State in calendar year 1999 and beyond.
Onboard diagnostic (OBD) checks will be required for 1994 vehicle model
years and later, which are equipped with OBD equipment.
While Maryland did not resubmit I/M program design changes under
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA), some
elements of that legislation do affect the manner in which EPA is
ruling on Maryland's SIP revision. The NHSDA directed EPA to grant
interim approval for a period of 18 months to approvable I/M submittals
under this Act. The NHSDA also directs EPA and the states to review the
interim program results at the end of 18 months, and to make a
determination as to the effectiveness of the interim program. Following
this demonstration, EPA will adjust any credit claims made by the state
in its good faith effort to reflect the emissions reductions actually
measured by the state during the program evaluation period. The NHSDA
is clear that the interim approval shall last for only 18 months, and
that the program evaluation is due to EPA at the end of that period.
Therefore, EPA believes Congress intended for these programs to start-
up as soon as possible, which EPA believes should be on or before
[[Page 56193]]
November 15, 1997, so that at least 6 months of operational program
data can be collected to evaluate the interim program. EPA believes
that in setting such a strict timetable for program evaluations under
the NHSDA, that Congress recognized and attempted to mitigate any
further delay with the start-up of this program. For the purposes of
this program, ``start-up'' is defined as a fully operational program
which has begun regular, mandatory inspections and repairs, using the
final test strategy and covering each of a state's required areas.
EPA believes that for equity reasons even states that ultimately
decided not to take advantage of the NHSDA should be able to start
their programs in the same time frame. Because of the recent enactment
of the NHSDA, many states, including Maryland, delayed implementation
of their programs while analyzing the provisions of the NHSDA and
determining whether or not to take advantage of its provisions. EPA
believes that states such as Maryland that ultimately decided not to
make a submission under the NHSDA should not be penalized in relation
to states that did make such a submission with respect to start date
requirements. These states should also start their programs as soon as
currently possible in light of the delays occasioned by the NHSDA.
Maryland has indicated that it intends to start its program by June 1,
1997. Therefore, as with submissions under the NHSDA, EPA proposes that
if Maryland fails to start its program as soon as possible, or by
November 15, 1997 at the latest, the proposed approval will convert to
a disapproval at that time after a finding letter is sent to Maryland.
Maryland has not adequately completed a modeling demonstration
showing that the program design meets the performance standard, and
Maryland must provide evidence of adequate funding and resources to
implement the program in the years 1997 and 1998. As explained above in
previous sections of this discussion, as a condition of this
rulemaking, Maryland will need to sufficiently meet the requirements of
the I/M rule for these two areas. As a further condition, Maryland will
need to fully adopt and submit to EPA, final regulations for the
program.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to adopt and
submit final regulations to EPA and cure all of the deficiencies
related to this section of the I/M rule as explained above, by a date
certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA
proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to
meet the condition by the date specified, EPA proposes to convert this
rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by letter.
EPA's review of the material indicates that with the conditions
described above, Maryland has adopted an enhanced I/M program in
accordance with the requirements of the Act. EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the Maryland SIP revision and the addendum to the
revision for an enhanced I/M program, which were submitted on July 11,
1995 and March 27, 1996, respectively, subject to the conditions
described above. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document or on other relevant matters. These comments
will be considered before taking 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 document.
Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this revision to the
Maryland SIP for an enhanced I/M program based on certain
contingencies. The conditions for approvability of this SIP revision
are explained in detail under each applicable section of the I/M rule
discussion found above.
EPA proposes to conditionally approve this SIP if Maryland commits
within 30 days of this proposal to correct the deficiencies identified
in this document by a date certain within 1 year of the final
conditional ruling. If Maryland corrects the deficiencies by that date,
and submits a new SIP revision, EPA will conduct rulemaking to fully
approve the revision. Each of the conditions must be fulfilled by
Maryland and submitted to EPA as an amendment to Maryland's I/M SIP
revision. If such commitment is not made with 30 days, EPA proposes in
the alternative to disapprove the SIP revision. If Maryland does make a
timely commitment, but the conditions are not met by the specified date
within 1 year, EPA proposes that this rulemaking will convert to a
final disapproval. EPA will notify Maryland by letter that the
conditions have not been met and that the conditional approval has
converted to a disapproval. Furthermore, EPA proposes that Maryland's
program must start no later than November 15, 1997. EPA also proposes
that if Maryland fails to start its program as defined in this document
and on this schedule, the conditional approval will convert to a
disapproval after a finding letter is sent to Maryland.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act
do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that
Maryland is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act,
preparation of a 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.
7410(a)(2).
If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under
section 110(k), based on Maryland's failure to meet the commitment, it
will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small
entities. Federal disapproval of Maryland's submittal would not affect
its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal
would not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies
that should this approval convert to a disapproval, this disapproval
action would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities because it would not remove existing requirements nor
would it substitute a new federal requirement.
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to the 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
[[Page 56194]]
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action proposed/promulgated
does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action
approves requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
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 a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the Maryland
enhanced I/M SIP revision will be based on whether it meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air
Act, as amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.
If Maryland fails to meet any of the conditions of this approval
action, the EPA Regional Administrator would directly make a finding,
by letter, that the conditional approval had converted to a disapproval
and the clock for imposition of sanctions under section 179(a) of the
Act would start as of the date of the letter. Subsequently, a document
would be published in the Federal Register announcing that the SIP
revision has been disapproved.
The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the Maryland
I/M SIP revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA
regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q
Dated: October 16, 1996.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 96-27882 Filed 10-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
