[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9460-9467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4825]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO 064-1064; FRL-6236-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri; St. Louis Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve revisions to the air pollution
control State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state of
Missouri. The revised SIP pertains to the St. Louis vehicle I/M
program. These revisions require the implementation of an enhanced
motor vehicle I/M program in the St. Louis metropolitan area, i.e.,
Jefferson, St. Louis, and St. Charles counties and St. Louis City. This
proposal is being published to meet the EPA's statutory obligation
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 1999.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Wayne Leidwanger at the
Region VII address. Copies of the state submittal are available at the
following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101;
and the Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan Walker, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913) 551-7494.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What Is the Statutory Requirement?
The CAA, as amended in 1990, requires that certain ozone
nonattainment areas adopt either ``basic'' or ``enhanced'' I/M
programs, depending on the severity of the problem and the population
of the area. An I/M program is a way to check whether the emission
control system on a vehicle is working correctly and to repair those
that are not. All new passenger cars and trucks sold in the United
States must meet stringent pollution standards, but they can only
retain this low pollution profile if the emission controls and the
engine are functioning properly. I/M is designed to ensure that
vehicles stay clean in actual customer use. Through periodic vehicle
checks and required repairs for vehicles which fail the test, I/M
encourages proper vehicle maintenance and discourages tampering with
emission control devices.
Since the CAA's inception in 1970, Congress has directed the EPA to
set national ambient air quality standards for the six most common air
pollutants, one of which includes ozone. The CAA requires these
standards to be set at levels that protect public health and welfare
with an adequate margin of safety and without consideration of cost.
These standards provide information to the American people about
whether the air in their community is healthful. Also, the standards
present state and local governments with the targets they must meet to
achieve clean air. St. Louis is currently designated as a nonattainment
area with respect to ozone, i.e., an area which has not achieved the
air quality standard for ozone.
Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, e.g., St. Louis, fall under the
``basic'' I/M requirements. However, moderate areas such as St. Louis
have the option of implementing an enhanced I/M program. The state of
Missouri chose to implement an ``enhanced'' I/M program in St. Louis as
part of its overall plan for achieving emission reductions to attain
the one-hour ozone standard.
II. What Are the I/M requirements?
Missouri has developed its I/M program not only to meet the
requirements of section 182(b)(4) of the CAA but also to meet the
reasonable further progress requirements of section 182. Section
182(b)(1) of the CAA requires states, with nonattainment areas
classified as moderate and above for ozone, to develop a plan to reduce
area-wide volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from a 1990
baseline by 15 percent. However, the Act prohibits credit toward the 15
percent reduction for correcting deficiencies in previously established
basic I/M programs. Missouri decided to pursue an enhanced I/M program
to help the state meet the 15 percent plan requirements.
[[Page 9461]]
Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed the EPA to publish updated
guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of
the EPA's audits and investigations of these programs. Based on these
requirements, the EPA promulgated I/M regulations on November 5, 1992
(57 FR 52950), codified in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.350-
51.373.
The Federal I/M rule establishes minimum performance standards for
basic and enhanced I/M programs. The I/M regulations include 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; and on-
road testing.
The performance standard for basic I/M programs remains the same as
it has been since the initial I/M policy was established in 1978,
pursuant to the 1977 CAA Amendments.
Although Missouri has submitted an enhanced I/M program, the EPA is
proposing at this time to act on the submittal with regard to
compliance with the basic I/M requirements in section 182(b)(4) and 40
CFR part 51, subpart S, because those are the I/M requirements
applicable to St. Louis. However, in order to assure the state develops
an enhanced program for the other purposes mentioned above, the EPA's
review also includes an analysis of the submission as it relates to
requirements for enhanced I/M, because this will impact the credits
which Missouri is projecting in its 15 percent rate-of-progress plan
(ROPP).
III. What Is the Background on Missouri's Program?
On January 1, 1984, the state of Missouri implemented a basic motor
vehicle I/M program in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The St. Louis
program is currently decentralized and is jointly administered by the
Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR).
The EPA audited the St. Louis, Missouri, I/M program in 1985, 1987,
and 1992. The audits found that the St. Louis I/M program experienced a
significant shortfall in achieving the minimum required VOC emission
reductions necessary for an acceptable basic I/M program. The I/M
program is an important strategy toward achieving healthful air quality
in St. Louis. To maximize progress toward that goal, the state of
Missouri and the EPA believed the most effective approach would be to
implement a centralized, test-only program that includes high-tech
testing.
As discussed in the EPA's I/M rule, states such as Missouri were
required to submit a SIP including a schedule, analysis, description,
legal authority, and adequate evidence of funding and resources for
program implementation discussed in Sec. 51.372 (a)(1)-(a)(8). The SIP
must correct any deficiencies in the current programs.
Missouri could not adopt corrections to program deficiencies
without additional legal authority. Therefore, on May 13, 1994, the
MDNR received legislative authority to correct the deficiencies in the
current basic I/M program and to implement a more cost-effective,
enhanced I/M program (Senate Bill 590). The Missouri Air Conservation
Commission (MACC) adopted the plan to implement enhanced I/M program
requirements in the St. Louis nonattainment area, and the state
submitted this SIP on September 1, 1994.
Supplemental information was submitted by Missouri on May 25, 1995,
with the 15 percent ROPP. On June 29, 1995, Missouri submitted
additional documentation for the I/M SIP, and a permanent I/M rule was
adopted by the MACC on July 27, 1995. However, during the 1995
legislative session, the Missouri legislature voted to delete I/M
funding for operation of the centralized I/M program. Lack of I/M
funding severely hindered Missouri's ability to develop several key
aspects of the program. Consequently, on March 18, 1996, the EPA
proposed to disapprove Missouri's I/M SIP submission, because the
state's SIP did not meet the minimum requirement outlined in the EPA's
I/M rule and no funding was available to implement the program. (See 61
FR 10962.)
During the 1997 legislative session, the Missouri legislators
restored the funding for the I/M program. Therefore, on August 5, 1997,
the MDNR submitted to EPA Region VII a SIP revision for St. Louis,
Missouri's enhanced I/M program. The submittal included a letter from
David Shorr, former Director of the MDNR, to Dennis Grams, Regional
Administrator, requesting to amend the previous SIP to include the
revisions. This revision provides a demonstration of adequate tools and
resources, the primary reason for the proposed disapproval, and
addresses other deficiencies outlined in the aforementioned disapproval
notice. Additionally, on October 26, 1998, the state released a Request
for Proposal (RFP) with the goal of attracting potential bidders to
develop a contract to help Missouri meet the necessary I/M program
requirements to supplement the SIP revision. On January 29, 1999, the
state submitted the RFP as a supplement to the 1997 SIP.
Because the 1997 SIP and subsequent submittal address the most
critical deficiencies in the original 1994 submittal, the EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve this SIP revision as set forth
below.
IV. What Are the Regulatory Requirements and How Does the State's
Plan Meet Those Requirements?
As discussed above, sections 182(b)(4), 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 a basic or an enhanced I/M program in certain
areas. The following sections of this document summarize the
requirements of the Federal I/M regulations and address whether the
elements of the state's submittal comply with the Federal rule. The
specific requirements for I/M plan submissions are in 40 CFR part 51,
subpart S, and a list of required elements are in 40 CFR 51.372. The
EPA's decision for approval is solely based on the state's ability to
meet the basic I/M requirements applicable to St. Louis, although the
EPA has also reviewed the submittal for compliance with the
requirements for an enhanced program, because the state ultimately
wants to implement an enhanced program for emission reduction credit.
Applicability--40 CFR 51.350
The EPA requires that the state demonstrate that (1) the program
covers all portions of the nonattainment area required to have an I/M
program and (2) the state submittal contains adequate legal authority.
Senate Bill 590 effective August 28, 1994, and Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-
5.380 establish the program boundaries for Missouri's enhanced I/M
program. Three counties in Missouri (Jefferson, St. Charles, and St.
Louis) and St. Louis City are required to implement basic I/M programs
in the St. Louis nonattainment area. Thus, this portion of the SIP is
approvable.
[[Page 9462]]
I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.351 and 51.352
Section 51.351 contains the performance standard for enhanced I/M
programs, and Sec. 51.352 contains the performance standard for basic
I/M programs. In accord with the Federal I/M rule, Missouri's I/M
program is designed and will be implemented to meet the minimum basic
performance standard which is expressed as emission levels in area-wide
average grams per mile for certain pollutants. The emission levels
adopted by the state were properly modeled using MOBILE5a.
However, the state has made several recent changes to the design of
the program. For example, based on the RFP, Missouri is expected to
exempt up to 40 percent of the fleet using a combination of clean-
screening techniques, such as remote sensing, vehicle emission
profiling, and model year exemptions. Missouri must submit a mobile
source calculation which includes the latest design parameters and
revise its regulation to reflect the clean-screening component and
other exemptions before the EPA can conclude that the state program
meets the performance standard. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to
approve this portion of the SIP with final approval contingent on the
state revising the MOBILE model to reflect the remote sensing devices
(RSD) component, verifying that the program still meets applicable
performance standards, and submitting a revised regulation reflecting
the clean-screening component. The aforementioned provisions must be
submitted as a SIP revision before the EPA takes final action on this
proposal.
Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353
As required by Federal regulation, enhanced I/M programs must be
operated in a centralized, test-only format, unless the state can
demonstrate that a decentralized program is equally as effective in
achieving the enhanced performance standards. In addition, enhanced
programs shall include an ongoing evaluation to quantify the emission
reduction benefits of the program and to determine if the program is
meeting the requirement of the CAA.
Basic programs can be centralized, decentralized, or hybrid at the
state's discretion but must demonstrate that the program meets or
exceeds the emission reductions as described in Sec. 51.352.
Missouri has the legal authority (Senate Bill 590) to implement a
centralized, test-only network to meet the Federal requirements. In
addition, the program exceeds emission reduction requirements for basic
programs. Therefore, this portion of the SIP is approvable with regard
to the basic program.
Missouri provides a discussion in the SIP and the RFP pertaining to
program evaluation. The SIP shows the random evaluation program will
monitor 0.1 percent of 1971 and later model year vehicles. Vehicles
selected for the program evaluation will be chosen to reflect the mixed
fleet in the area. The SIP includes a discussion regarding program
evaluation and includes a schedule for submittal of biennial evaluation
reports from state-monitored or administered mass emission tests of at
least 0.1 percent of the vehicles subject to inspection each year.
Therefore, this portion of the SIP is approvable.
Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354
As required by Federal regulation, Missouri's SIP includes a
detailed budget plan that describes the source of funds for personnel,
program administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment.
The SIP also details the number of personnel dedicated to the quality
assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement,
public education and assistance, and other necessary functions. The
description of funding and resources is adequate for purposes of
Sec. 51.354. Section 51.372 requires the state to demonstrate that
adequate funding is available to meet the requirements described in
this section. The SIP does meet the Federal requirements for evidence
of adequate tools and resources under Secs. 51.372 and 51.354.
Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355
The basic and enhanced I/M performance standards assume an annual
test frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the
performance standard is achieved. Missouri's enhanced I/M regulation
provides for a biennial test frequency which still meets Federal
requirements. The Missouri legislation provides the legal authority to
implement the biennial program, and the state I/M regulation provides
for enforcement of the biennial test frequency.
The Missouri submittal meets the test frequency requirements for
the basic program.
Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356
The performance standards for enhanced I/M programs assume coverage
of all 1968 and later model year light-duty vehicles (LDV) and light-
duty trucks (LDT) up to 8500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
and includes vehicles operating on all fuel types. The performance
standard for basic programs covers the same vehicles with the exception
of LDTs. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary
emission reductions are achieved. Missouri's submittal includes:
1. Legal authority necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle
coverage requirement.
2. A detailed description of the number and types of vehicles to be
covered by the program.
3. A plan for how those vehicles are identified, including vehicles
that are routinely operated in the area but may not be registered in
the area.
4. A description of any special exemptions, including the
percentage and number of vehicles to be affected by the exemption.
Missouri's enhanced I/M legislation requires coverage of all 1971
and newer LDVs and LDTs up to 8500 pounds GVWR registered or required
to be registered in the I/M program area. As of the date of the
submittal, approximately 1,361,000 vehicles will be subject to enhanced
I/M testing. The Missouri I/M regulation provides the regulatory
authority to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage. Missouri will
implement a clean-screen component as a means to cover up to
approximately 40 percent of the vehicle fleet as described in the RFP.
As discussed previously in this section, Missouri is allowed to use a
level of coverage different from the prescribed I/M rule provided the
program continues to achieve the necessary emission reductions.
Missouri is authorized in its enabling legislation to impose fleet-
testing requirements and requirements for special exemptions by Federal
I/M requirements. Fleet testing will be conducted at official, test-
only stations. Some fleets may opt to have I/M testing equipment
installed at the fleet-testing facility that will be operated and
maintained by the contractor at the fleet owner's expense (and
connected to the on-line data system). Fleet programs are required to
undergo the same testing requirements and quality assurance procedures
as other subject vehicles. The state's plan for testing fleet vehicles
is acceptable and meets the requirements of the Federal I/M regulation.
[[Page 9463]]
We note that the state may ultimately need to revise its program in
light of the EPA's developing policy document with regard to Federal
fleets. However, the EPA believes that this issue does not affect the
current approvability of the program. The EPA is not requiring states
to implement 40 CFR 51.356(a)(4) dealing with Federal installations
within I/M areas at this time. The Department of Justice has
recommended to the EPA that this regulation be revised since it appears
to grant states authority to regulate Federal installations in
circumstances where the Federal government has not waived sovereign
immunity. It would not be appropriate to require compliance with this
regulation if it is not constitutionally authorized. The EPA will be
revising this provision in the future and will review state I/M SIPs
with respect to this issue when this new rule is final.
The state regulation includes some special exemptions for a portion
of the vehicle fleet which are detailed in the technical support
document.
This level of coverage appears to be approvable because the overall
program design meets the performance standards. However, the clean-
screening program is not reflected in the previous SIP and could change
the number of exemptions plus the level of coverage. Thus, the SIP will
only meet the requirements of this section when Missouri accounts for
the clean-screening exemptions. Missouri will be required to submit a
revised vehicle coverage element before the EPA takes final action on
this proposal.
Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR 51.357
The Federal rule requires Missouri to have written test procedures
and pass/fail standards to 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-400-F-92-001,
dated July 20, 1998.
The state's I/M regulation, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.380, includes
a description of the test procedures for a transient, idle,
evaporative-system purge; evaporative-system pressure testing; and for
a visual emission control device inspection. These test procedures
conform to the EPA-approved test procedures and are approvable.
The state regulation provides for start-up standards during the
first two years of program implementation. However, details of how the
program start-up will be accomplished are not included, and the SIP
submittal indicates they will be provided by the contractor. The RFP
provides the structure for the contractor to provide the necessary
details when their bids are submitted. The EPA expects the details to
be provided in the signed contract. Therefore, the EPA proposes to
approve this portion of the SIP if the state submits satisfactory
details of the program start-up, consistent with the parameters in the
RFP, prior to final action on this proposal.
Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358
As required by Federal law, the state submittal contains the
written technical specifications for all 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 that meet
the applicable Federal I/M regulations and are approvable. The SIP
meets the requirements of this section.
Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359
In accord with the Federal requirements, the state submittal
addresses the quality control provisions outlined in the I/M rule. The
state will require the contractor to develop procedures, a
specifications manual, and state-approved regulations that describe and
establish quality control measures for the emission measurement
equipment. Also, the contractor will be required to comply with the
recordkeeping requirements and quality control measures. The state will
be required to maintain the security of all documents used to establish
compliance with the inspection requirements.
The contractor will also develop a procedures manual to help the
station operator, lane operator, waiver inspector, and computer
operator by outlining their responsibilities.
This portion of the submittal complies with the quality control
requirements set forth in the Federal I/M regulation and is approvable.
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 allow
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards.
Basic I/M programs must require a minimum expenditure of $75 for pre-
1981 vehicles; $200 for 1981 and later vehicles shall be spent in order
to qualify for a waiver. 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 with the CPI for 1989, is
required to qualify for a waiver.
As required, Senate Bill 590 provides legislative authority to
issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits, and administer and enforce
the waiver system. The Missouri legislation sets a $75 waiver cost
limit for 1980 and older model year vehicles, a $200 waiver cost limit
for 1981 through 1996 model year vehicles, and $450 waiver cost limits
for 1997 and newer model year vehicles. The state statute allows these
amounts to be adjusted after December 2000 to be consistent with
applicable EPA requirements for an enhanced I/M program. Thus, the
state regulations do not currently include an annual adjustment of the
cost limit to reflect the change in the CPI as compared with the CPI in
1989. However, because Missouri elected to opt up to an enhanced
program, they are only required to meet or exceed the basic I/M
requirements. The program, as outlined, meets the Federal requirement
for the basic program; therefore, this portion is approvable.
The state submitted a revision to the SIP submittal regarding the
waiver requirements on November 13, 1997. Missouri regulations 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 requirements for a
basic program. The state regulation requires repairs for 1981 and newer
model year vehicles to be performed by a recognized repair technician.
The state regulation does allow for compliance via diagnostic
inspection and the policies and procedures outlined in the submittal to
meet Federal I/M regulations (for enhanced I/M areas only). The SIP
sets a maximum waiver rate and describes corrective action that would
be taken if the waiver rate exceeds that committed to in the SIP. The
SIP meets this portion of the regulation and is acceptable.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361
The Federal regulation requires that compliance will 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. Senate Bill 590 provides the legal authority to operate a
registration denial system. The Missouri SIP commits to a compliance
rate of 96 percent which was used in the
[[Page 9464]]
performance standard modeling demonstration and is approvable. The
submittal includes detailed information concerning the registration
denial enforcement process, the identification of agencies responsible
for performing each applicable activity, and a plan for testing fleet
vehicles. In addition, the SIP commits to an enforcement level to be
used for modeling purposes. Therefore, this portion of the SIP is
approvable.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362
In accord with Federal regulation, Missouri's SIP includes
regulations, procedure manuals, supporting documents describing how the
enforcement program oversight will be quality-controlled and quality-
assured, and the establishment of an information management system.
Senate Bill 590 provides authority to enforce against persons who
misrepresent themselves as an official emission inspection station;
anyone who knowingly manufactures, conveys, or possesses any
counterfeit documents; and anyone who knowingly operates a motor
vehicle without displaying a valid emission inspection sticker.
However, the state submittal lacks details of how the information
management system will be implemented. As indicated in the SIP,
requirements of this section depend on participation from the Missouri
Department of Revenue (MDOR) and the assigned contractor. The state has
a Memorandum of Understanding with MDOR and an RFP outlining the duties
of the contractor to meet the requirements of this section. Several
aspects of the section will be negotiated between the MDOR and the
contractor.
The SIP, however, lacks written procedures for personnel engaged in
I/M document handling and processing, such as registration clerks or
personnel involved in sticker dispensing and waiver processing, as well
as written procedures for the auditing of their performance.
Additionally, the SIP needs to include procedures for follow-up
validity checks on out-of-area or exemption-triggering registration
changes. Also, the SIP must include procedures for:
1. Disciplining, retraining, or removing enforcement personnel who
deviate from established requirements.
2. Defranchising, revoking, or otherwise discontinuing the activity
of the entity issuing registrations (in the case of non-government
entities that process registrations).
The RFP provides sufficient details necessary for the EPA to
propose approval of the section. Full approval is contingent on the
state submitting additional detail as described above prior to final
action on this proposal.
Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363
According to the Federal I/M rule, an ongoing quality assurance
program must be implemented to discover, correct, and prevent fraud,
waste, and abuse in the program. The Missouri submittal includes a
quality assurance program that includes regulations and procedures
describing methods for reviewing inspector records, performing
equipment audits, and providing formal training to all state
enforcement officials. Performance audits of inspectors will consist of
both covert and overt audits. Senate Bill 590 provides authority to
conduct audits of the inspection stations and requires the stations to
furnish reports and forms that MDNR deems necessary to evaluate the
program adequately.
The SIP states the contractor will be responsible for portions of
the oversight and enforcement provisions. For example, the contractor
is to be responsible for developing the interactive software that would
allow real-time access to all test station information. In addition,
the state needs to ensure that there are a sufficient number of covert
vehicles to allow frequent rotation to prevent detection by station
personnel.
The SIP and the RFP detail the quality assurance program and
procedures. Many of the specific details regarding how the state will
meet the aforementioned requirement are expected to be provided by the
contractor. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of
the SIP. Full approval is contingent on the state revising its SIP to
address the previously discussed items for this program element prior
to final action on this proposal.
Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364
As required by Federal regulation, the Missouri submittal includes
the legal authority to establish and to impose penalties against
stations, contractors, and inspectors. The state I/M regulation,
legislation, and RFP include penalty provisions for stations,
contractors, and inspectors. Enforcement against registered stations or
contractors and inspectors will include swift, sure, effective, and
consistent penalties for violation of program requirements. The state
submittal establishes minimum penalties for violations of program rules
and procedures that can be imposed against stations, contractors, and
inspectors. These penalties will be administered through the contract.
The state I/M regulation gives the state auditor the authority to
temporarily suspend station and inspector registrations immediately
upon finding a violation. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve
this portion of the SIP provided the state submits a signed contract
containing the penalty provisions described in the SIP submitted prior
to final action on this proposal.
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, as required under 40 CFR 51.359. The SIP outlines many
functions to be carried out by the contractor. The EPA is proposing to
approve this portion of the SIP provided the state submits the signed
contract as a SIP revision prior to final action on this proposal.
Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR 51.366
Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring
and evaluating the program by the state and the 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 will
provide statistics during January to December of the previous year. A
biennial report must be submitted to the EPA that 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. Missouri outlines the
requirement for the contractors that appear to meet all of these
Federal requirements. The SIP also commits to address all the items
listed in Sec. 51.366.
The RFP details the functions the contractor is expected to
fulfill. Thus, the EPA expects the state will meet the requirements of
this section when the contract is signed. As noted earlier, procedures
for data collection, analysis, and reporting are critical and must be
in place prior to start-up. Therefore, the EPA believes that in order
to fully approve this element, the state must submit a contract
detailing these
[[Page 9465]]
provisions consistent with the RFP prior to final action on this
proposal.
Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR 51.366
The Federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally
trained and registered to perform inspections. The narrative in the
submittal states that all inspectors are to receive formal training, be
registered by MDNR or the operating contractor, and renew the
registration every two years. As required in the I/M rule, Missouri
provides a description of the training program and commits to require
the contractor to develop a program that meets the requirements
outlined in this section of the rule.
The RFP, however, details the functions the contractor is expected
to fulfill, such as developing and maintaining a procedural training
manual. In addition, the contractor is responsible for administering a
certification test requiring inspectors to receive a minimum score of
80 percent. The RFP states that the contractor will prepare and submit
the training manuals and other training program details after the
contract is awarded. Thus, the EPA expects the state will meet the
requirements of this section. The EPA cannot fully approve this portion
of the SIP until the state and the contractor fulfill the
aforementioned requirements. The state must address this provision
prior to the EPA taking final action on the SIP.
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. State legislation
requires Missouri to provide a public information program which
educates the public on I/M, state, and Federal regulations; air quality
and the role of motor vehicles in the air pollution problem; and other
items as described in the Federal rule.
The RFP requires the contractor, in conjunction with the state, to
develop a public information program. Besides educating the public
about I/M, the state provides assistance to the motorist in obtaining
warranty-covered repairs. However, the state needs to provide a
consumer protection program to include provisions for a challenge
mechanism, protection of whistle-blowers, and assistance to the
motorist in obtaining warranty-covered repairs. With the exception of
the aforementioned consumer protection requirements, the public
information requirement is adequate and does meet Federal requirements.
Since the consumer protection program contained in the SIP is not
complete, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of the SIP
contingent on the state fully meeting the aforementioned requirements
prior to final action on this proposal.
Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369
Effective repair work is 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
lacks 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 RFP provides a discussion of the repair effectiveness program.
Many of the functions will be fulfilled by the contractor. As described
in the RFP, the selected contractor will establish a hotline to assist
repair technicians and track the performance of repair facilities. In
addition, the contractor will establish a toll-free hotline that will
supply information on wait times, station locations, and general
inspection and waiver information. The EPA expects the state will meet
the requirements of this section once the contract is issued. However,
the EPA cannot fully approve this portion of the SIP until the state
and the selected contractor fulfill the aforementioned requirements.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of the SIP
contingent on the state submitting a signed contract prior to final
action on this rulemaking.
Compliance with Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370
The CAA and Federal regulations require states to establish methods
to ensure that vehicles subject to I/M programs are included in an
emission-related recall program. Vehicle owners must receive the
required repairs before completing the emission test or renewing the
vehicle registration.
The Missouri regulation provides the legal authority to require
owners to comply with emission-related recalls before completing the
emission test or renewing the vehicle registration. The submittal
includes a commitment to submit an annual report to the EPA that
includes the information as required in 40 CFR 51.370(c). Missouri
state inspection or registration database and quality control methods
will help ensure recall repairs are properly documented and tracked.
Therefore, this portion of the SIP is approvable.
On-Road Testing--40 CFR 51.371
On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas only. The use of
either RSD or roadside pullovers, including tailpipe emission testing,
can be used to meet the Federal regulations. Enabling authority to
implement the on-road testing program and enforce off-cycle inspection
and repair requirements are contained in Missouri's legislation.
The on-road testing requirements are optional for basic programs.
Therefore, this item is not relevant to the EPA's proposed action with
respect to the basic I/M requirement.
State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR
51.372-373
The Federal regulation requires enhanced I/M programs to be
implemented in accord with 40 CFR 51.372-51.373. The Missouri submittal
included the final state I/M regulation, an RFP detailing program
elements, and legislative authority to implement the program. The SIP
lacks the contractor's proposal, the signed contract between the state
and the contractor, and procedural documents. These latter documents
must be submitted prior to final approval.
Section 51.372 requires states to demonstrate that adequate funding
of the program is available. Section 51.372(a)(8) requires that the SIP
contain evidence of adequate funding and resources to implement and
continue operation of all aspects of the program. Funding needs to be
available to accommodate personnel and equipment resources necessary to
operate the program.
The SIP indicates capital improvements of land, buildings, and
inspection equipment are expected to be funded through a combination of
revenue bonds and Federal funds. Currently, Missouri has proved that
these funding sources are or will be available.
The test fee or separately assessed per vehicle fee is to be
collected, placed in a dedicated fund, and used to finance the program.
Adequate funding will be available to begin and operate the program.
Overall, Missouri's SIP has a detailed plan demonstrating that
there are adequate funding sources available to carry out program
requirements. The SIP has a detailed description of the equipment to be
used to facilitate program implementation.
[[Page 9466]]
Finally, although the SIP lacks a definitive start date, the RFP
indicates that the program should begin by April 2000. The EPA expects
that commitment to an actual start date, consistent with the schedule
in the RFP, will be established when the contract is signed and that
the state will submit the actual start date with the other submissions
identified in this document. Based on the description in the SIP
submittal of the activities which must be accomplished prior to program
start-up, the EPA believes that the projected start date of April 2000
would be as expeditious as practicable and that the program is not
deficient because of the projected start date. (It is EPA policy that
once the start date in the regulations has passed, SIPs are approvable
if programs start as expeditiously as practicable.) Nevertheless, given
that corrections to the basic program should have been implemented by
January 1, 1994, the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this SIP
pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act to ensure expeditious
implementation. The EPA's conditional approval of the SIP would last
until April 30, 2000. If the state does not begin implementation of the
program by this date, the conditional approval would convert to a
disapproval after a findings letter is sent to the state. This is an
implied condition under the EPA's general approval authority of
110(k)(3), not an explicit condition due to regulatory deficiency under
110(k)(4). Therefore, it will not automatically convert to a
disapproval but will only convert after the EPA transmits a findings
letter to the state indicating that the program has not started.
The EPA is also considering an alternative, in which the EPA would
grant full approval of this SIP (provided the state corrects all of the
previously identified deficiencies prior to final rulemaking). Under
this approach, the state would still be obligated to start up the
program by the date specified in the contract which the EPA believes
should be no later than April 30, 2000. If the state then fails to
begin the program by that date, the EPA would issue a finding under
section 179(a)(4) of the Act that the state had failed to implement
this SIP element and possibly also a SIP call to correct the SIP under
110(k)(5). The EPA solicits comments on this approach as an alternative
to conditional approval.
In the case of either a finding that the condition had not been met
or that the state had failed to implement the SIP, under section
179(a)(2) the EPA must apply one of the sanctions set forth in section
179(b) within 18 months of such finding. Section 179(b) provides two
sanctions available to the Administrator: imposition of emission offset
requirements and limitations on highway funding. In the EPA's August 4,
1994, final sanctions rule (see 59 FR 39832), the sequence of mandatory
sanctions for findings and disapprovals made pursuant to section 179 of
the CAA was finalized. This rulemaking states that the emission offset
sanction applies in an area 18 months from the date when the EPA makes
a finding under section 179(a) with regard to that area. Furthermore,
the highway funding restrictions apply in an area six months following
application of the offset sanction. This nondiscretionary process for
imposing and lifting sanctions is set forth at 40 CFR 52.31.
V. What Is the EPA's Conclusion and Proposed Action?
The EPA's review of the material indicates that the state has
adopted the substance of an adequate I/M program in accordance with the
requirements of the Act. The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve
the Missouri SIP revision for the St. Louis I/M program which was
submitted on August 5, 1997, with the single condition that the program
must begin operation by April 30, 2000, and provided the state submits
no later than November 1999 a revised SIP, including a signed contract,
which addresses the following items:
1. Start date for testing vehicles.
2. Details of the start-up for the first two years (Sec. 51.357).
3. Enforcement provisions against contractors, stations, and
inspectors (Sec. 51.364).
4. Provisions for data collection (Sec. 51.365), analysis, and
reporting (Sec. 51.366).
5. Inspector training, certification, and licensing requirements
(Sec. 51.366).
6. Revised emission reduction estimates and vehicle coverage taking
into account the clean-screening provisions (Secs. 51.351, 51.352, and
51.356).
7. Revised regulations reflecting the clean-screening provisions
(Secs. 51.351 and 51.352).
8. Procedures for program oversight including document handling and
processing, audits, registration changes, disciplinary actions, and
enforcement action involving non-government entities (Sec. 51.362).
9. Corrections to the quality assurance program to address real-
time access to test station information and sufficient covert vehicles
(Sec. 51.363).
10. Consumer protection program (Sec. 51.368).
11. Technical assistance program including performance monitoring
requirements and repair technician training resources (Sec. 51.369).
The EPA believes that allowing the state until November 1999 to
address these remaining deficiencies provides adequate time for the
state to adopt and submit a revised SIP. If the revisions address the
issues outlined in this document without significant deviation from the
descriptions of the program in the RFP and as described in this
document and the technical support document, the EPA is proposing to
proceed with final conditional approval of the I/M program. The EPA may
repropose action on a portion of the I/M program if the state makes a
submission which deviates significantly from these parameters or
provides significant new data not previously made publicly available,
to the extent necessary to ensure adequate public notice and
opportunity for comment. Finally, if the state fails to make a complete
submission by November, the EPA will not take final action on this
proposal but rather will proceed with a proposed disapproval of the I/M
SIP. The EPA solicits comments on this proposed action.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.''
B. E.O. 12875
Under E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, the
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 the EPA consults with
those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875
requires the EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of
the EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected state,
local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of
any written communications from the governments, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875
requires the 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
[[Page 9467]]
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 1(a) of E.O. 12875
do not apply to this rule.
C. E.O. 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 the
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 an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866,
and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that
would have a disproportionate effect on children.
D. E.O. 13084
Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, the EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by
statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA consults with those
governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires the
EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the 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, E.O. 13084 requires the 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 generally requires an agency to
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This 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 CAA do not create any new requirements, but
simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not 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 CAA,
preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry
into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids the
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).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, the
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 the EPA to establish
a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual 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 preexisting 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 17, 1999.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator, Region VII.
[FR Doc. 99-4825 Filed 2-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
