[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22518-22524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10814]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AZ 47-1-6945a FRL-5191-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona--State
Implementation Plan Revision, Maricopa Nonattainment Area; Basic and
Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program for Carbon Monoxide and
Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is giving full approval through a direct final action on
revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for
carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone. The SIP revision provides for the
adoption and implementation of both basic and enhanced motor vehicle
inspection/maintenance (I/M) programs meeting all requirements of EPA
regulations, published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (I/M
Regulations), concerning motor vehicle I/M programs. On November 14,
1994, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted
a SIP revision to implement both a basic and enhanced PI/M program
meeting EPA's I/M regulations.
This direct final approval action will incorporate these rules into
the federally approved SIP. The intended effect of approving this SIP
revision is to regulate emissions of CO and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval
of these revisions into the Arizona SIP under provisions of the CAA
regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and
secondary NAAQS and plan requirements for nonattainment areas.
DATES: This action is effective on July 7, 1995, unless adverse or
critical comments are received by June 7, 1995. If the effective date
is delayed, a timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: A docket has been established and contains material relevant
to this action. A copy of the docket is available for public inspection
at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the
submitted SIP revisions are available for inspection at the following
locations:
Mobile Sources Section (A-2-1), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), ANR 443, 401 ``M''
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanne Johnson, Mobile Sources
Section (A-2-1), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Telephone: (415) 744-1225.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Motor vehicles are a major contributor of VOCs, CO, and oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) emissions. The motor vehicle I/M program is an
effective means of reducing these emissions. Despite improvements in
emission control technology in past years, mobile sources in urban
areas continue to remain responsible for roughly half of the emissions
of VOC causing ozone, and most of the emissions of CO. They also emit
substantial amounts of NOX and air toxics. This is because the
number of vehicle miles traveled has doubled in the last 20 years to
20 x 1012 (20 trillion) miles per year, offsetting much of the
technological progress in vehicle emission control over the same
period. Projections indicate that the steady growth in vehicle miles
will continue.
Under the Act, the U.S. EPA is pursuing a three-point strategy to
achieve emission reductions from motor vehicles. The development and
commercialization of cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels represent the
first two elements of the strategy. These developments will take many
years before cleaner vehicles and fuels dominate the fleet and
favorably impact the environment. This notice addresses the third
element of the strategy, I/M, which is aimed at the reduction of
emissions from the existing fleet by ensuring that vehicles are
maintained to meet the emission standards established by EPA. Properly
functioning emission controls are necessary to keep pollution levels
low. The driving public is often unable to detect a malfunction of the
emission control system. While some minor malfunctions can increase
emissions significantly, they do not affect drivability and may go
unnoticed for a long period of time. Effective I/M programs can
identify excessive emissions and assure repairs. The EPA projects that
sophisticated I/M programs such Arizona's will identify emission
related problems and prompt the vehicle owner to obtain timely repairs,
thus reducing emissions.
The Act directed EPA to establish a minimum performance standard
for enhanced I/M programs. The standard is based on the performance
achievable by annual inspections in a centralized test program. States
have flexibility to design their own programs if they can show that
their program is as effective as the model program used in the
performance standard. The more effective the program the more credit a
State will get towards the emission reduction requirement. An effective
program will help to offset growth in vehicle use and allow for
industrial and or commercial growth. EPA and the States have learned a
great deal about what makes an I/M program effective since the Clean
Air Act of 1977 first required I/M programs for polluted areas. There
are three major keys to an effective program:
1. Given the advanced state of current vehicle design and
anticipated technology changes, the ability to accurately fail
problem vehicles and pass clean ones requires improved test
equipment and test procedures;
2. Comprehensive quality control and aggressive enforcement is
essential to assuring the testing is done properly;
3. Skillful diagnostics and capable mechanics are important to
assure that failed cars are fixed properly.
These three factors are missing in most older I/M programs.
Specifically, the idle and 2500 RPM/idle short tests and anti-tamper
inspections used in current I/M programs are not as effective in
identifying and reducing in-use emissions from the types of vehicles in
the current and future fleet. Also, covert audits by EPA and State
agencies typically discover improper inspection and testing 50 percent
of the time in test-and-repair stations. Experience has shown that
quality control at high- [[Page 22519]] volume test-only stations, such
as Arizona's I/M program, is usually much better. And, finally,
diagnostics and mechanics training are often poor or nonexistent.
EPA's I/M regulations, dated November 5, 1992, established a high-
tech emission test for high-tech cars. This I/M test, known as the
IM240 test, is so effective that biennial test programs yield almost
the same emission reduction benefits as annual programs. The test can
also accurately measure NOX emissions where NOX is important
to address an ozone problem. Adding the ``pressure and purge'' tests
increases the benefit even more by reducing problems associated with
evaporative emissions losses. The pressure test is designed to find
leaks in the fuel system, and the purge test evaluates the
functionality of the vapor control system.
II. Background
On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone and CO
nonattainment areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1977, that included Maricopa County. 43 FR 8970, 40 CFR
81.305. Generally, the states containing these designated
``nonattainment areas'' had to submit revised SIPs by January 1, 1979.
The 1979 SIP revisions were to provide for attainment of the NAAQS by
December 31, 1982, however an extension until 1987 was available under
section 172 if the state could demonstrate as part of its 1979 SIP
revision that attainment by the end of 1982 was not possible, despite
the implementation of all reasonably available control measures.
Arizona submitted Maricopa County's initial nonatttainment area plan
for CO in 1979 and 1980. On October 30, 1980, the State submitted a
request to EPA to extend the CO attainment date in Maricopa County to
December 31, 1987. EPA proposed to approve the extension request on
February 5, 1982 (47 FR 5439). On May 5, 1982 (47 FR 19826), EPA took
final action to approve the 1979 SIP revision.
On August 10, 1987, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona ordered EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan1
(FIP) under section 110(c) of the Act for CO.2 The Maricopa
Association of Governments developed a plan for the CO nonattainment
portions of Maricopa County. The plan claimed credit both implicitly
and explicitly, for the Arizona vehicle I/M program as expanded through
1987. EPA proposed approval of the improvements to the State's I/M
program as adopted by the Arizona State Legislature in 1985, 1986, and
1987. (51 FR 14818 (April 26, 1988).) In that notice EPA stated that if
the Arizona legislature adopted a loaded-mode test requirement, EPA
would approve the I/M program through a direct final rulemaking
process. Revisions to the Arizona I/M program were adopted and EPA
approved the I/M program.
\1\The proposed FIP for Maricopa County consisted of a motor
vehicle winter time oxygenated fuels program and an employee-based
trip reduction program.
\2\The court order was the result of a citizen suit brought
against EPA on April 8, 1985, by the Arizona Center for Law in
Public Interest (ACLPI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 21, 1994, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ), acting as the governor's designee, submitted a SIP revision to
implement a motor vehicle basic I/M program meeting EPA's I/M
regulations. On July 13, 1994, EPA found that the SIP submittal
conformed to the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix
V.\3\ EPA is today taking final action to approve this program.
\3\EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Act, Arizona is required to implement only a basic
vehicle I/M program (182(b)(4)). To aid the State in meeting federal
requirements for the portion of its ozone SIP pertaining to the
Maricopa County nonattainment area, Arizona ``opted-up'' to an enhanced
vehicle I/M\4\ program to reduce by 15% emissions of VOCs which
contribute to ozone pollution by 1996 from baseline levels established
in 1990, net of growth. This rule was adopted as part of Maricopa's
effort to achieve the NAAQS for ozone and CO.
\4\Meeting EPA performance standards for two levels of I/M
programs: basic and enhanced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Requirements for I/M Programs
A. Applicability of Basic and Enhanced I/M Programs
As amended in 1990, the Clean Air 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.\5\
\5\November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 182(b)(4) of the Act, basic I/M programs are required
in all moderate ozone nonattainment areas. Under sections 182(c)(3) and
187(b)(1), areas designated as serious and worse ozone nonattainment
areas with 1980 populations of 200,000 or more and CO nonattainment
areas with design classifications above 12.7 ppm and populations of
200,000 or more, in addition to metropolitan statistical areas with
populations of 100,000 or more in the northeast ozone transport region,
are required to meet EPA regulations for ``enhanced'' I/M programs.
The I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for
basic and enhanced I/M programs as well as requirements for the
following: Network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and
resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test
procedures and standard; 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.
B. I/M Program in Arizona
1. Arizona SIP
The State of Arizona submitted a basic I/M SIP revision on June 21,
1994 to improve their I/M program for Arizona's ozone and CO
nonattainment areas. In that submittal, Arizona's air quality
regulations took effect only until January 1, 1995. On November 14,
1994, Arizona submitted a full SIP for both basic and enhanced motor
vehicle I/M programs. Therefore, the November 14, 1994 SIP submission
superseded the June 21, 1994 SIP revision and the EPA is recognizing
the November 14, 1994 as the full SIP submission. A public hearing on
the November 14, 1994 submittal was held by the State on November 10,
1994.
a. Reason for Adopting Enhanced I/M. The Arizona legislature
adopted rules to implement enhanced I/M to meet federal requirements
for the portion of its ozone SIP pertaining to the Maricopa County
nonattainment area. Because of requirements for reasonable further
progress, and rapid growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) projected
for Area [[Page 22520]] A,\6\ the State moved forward and put an
enhanced I/M program in place that began January 3, 1995.\7\ The new
upgrades are efficient, enforceable, and did not require expensive
modifications to the program. H.B. 2001 established a biennial,
transient loaded (IM240) emission test for gasoline powered vehicles
model years 1981 or newer with a gross vehicle weight of up to 8,500
pounds. A purge and pressure check is also required, eliminating
Arizona's current tampering check. Gasoline powered vehicles model
years 1967-1974 are required to pass a loaded emission test.
Motorcycles and or constant four-wheel drive vehicles are required to
take and pass an idle emissions test. A snap idle test for diesel
powered vehicles was also required as of January 1, 1995. Arizona's
enhanced I/M program is in Area A and the basic I/M program is
implemented in Area B.\8\ Area A vehicles are subject to biennial tests
where registration expiration date will come every other year, and area
B vehicles are subject to annual testing where registration expiration
will come every year.
\6\Area A means a CO nonattainment area in a county with a
population of one million two hundred thousand or more persons as
determined by the most recent U.S. decennial census.
\7\Act 1 of the sixth special session of the 1993 legislature,
more commonly known as HB 2001, gave ADEQ the statutory authority
necessary to implement an enhanced vehicle emissions program, and
contains the primary authority for most of the rule.
\8\Arizona defines Area ``B'' as a CO nonattainment area in a
county with a population in excess of four hundred thousand but
fewer than one million two hundred thousand persons as determined by
the most recent U.S. decennial census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Background
ADEQ's centralized Vehicle Emission Inspection (VEI) program began
January 1976.\9\ Major improvements to Arizona's VEI program over the
years included: (1) H.B. 2014 enacted in 1988 provided the I/M program
under which vehicles must be tested in the loaded-mode condition,\10\
as well as in the idle mode, to determine pass/fail status; (2) S.B.
1176 enacted in 1989 increased the number of vehicles subject to the I/
M program by removing the exemption for vehicles manufactured in or
before the 1966 model year; (3) S.B. 1430 enacted in 1992 made several
changes to Arizona's VEI program; (4) H.B. 2001 enacted 1993 gave ADEQ
authority to implement an enhanced vehicle program; (5) finally, in
1994 H.B. 2575 made a number of corrections to H.B. 2001.
\9\Arizona law, ARS 49-404 gives the Director of ADEQ Director
authority to adopt rules related to air quality for SIP purposes.
\10\Effective January 1, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. EPA Evaluation of State Submittal
1. Applicability Section 51.350
EPA's I/M regulations require I/M SIP submittals to describe the
applicable areas in detail and to include the legal authority or rules
necessary to establish program boundaries. The Maricopa County ozone
nonattainment area and CO nonattainment area are both classified as
moderate. Pima County is not classified for CO and is in attainment for
the ozone NAAQS.
The legal authority and areas required to implement basic I/M are
described in the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Secs. 49-542.A and 49-
541.17 and Arizona Administrative Code (AAC) R18-2-1003.A and R18-2-
1001.48. Arizona's authority to implement enhanced I/M was amended by
H.B. 2001, 1993 Sixth Special Legislative Session and is found in AAC
R18-2-1001 and R18-2-1003, Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 10, Motor
Vehicles: Inspection and Maintenance. Arizona's centralized I/M program
was implemented August 1, 1988. The geographic coverage of the program
complies with the requirements of the EPA I/M regulation for basic I/M
areas and is approvable.
2.a. Basic I/M Performance Standard Section 51.352
EPA's I/M regulations outline the method States are to follow to
arrive at a minimum performance standard. The performance standard sets
an emission reduction target that the program must meet in order for
the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also demonstrate that the
program will meet the performance standard in actual operation, with
provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met.
The performance standard for which the ADEQ must be able to
demonstrate compliance was established using the MOBILE5a model inputs
and local characteristics outlined in Sec. 51.352. Arizona's modeling
and accompanying documentation indicates that the state program meets
the EPA performance standard for hydrocarbons (HC) and for CO, i.e.,
that the emission factors resulting from modeling the state's program
are at or below the EPA performance standard.
2.b. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard Section 51.351
The EPA MOBILE5a input file used to model the enhanced performance
standard reflects EPA-specified inputs tailored to the characteristics
of the local area. Arizona's beginning date of January 1, 1995 used
appropriate inputs and meets EPA's performance standard for the
enhanced I/M program. EPA has allowed the assumption of one full cycle
of testing for summer 1996 ozone modeling.\11\
\11\Regarding any potential increase in NOX, ADEQ on April
8, 1994 submitted a petition for exemption to NOX reasonable
available control technology (RACT) requirements for major sources
within the Maricopa County ozone nonattainment area. EPA proposed to
approve ADEQ's request on November 1, 1994 (59 FR 54540). NOX
testing is not required for basic areas opting-up to an enhanced I/M
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Network Type and Evaluation Section 51.353
EPA's I/M rule requires SIPs to include a description of the
network to be employed, the required legal authority, and a description
of the evaluation schedule and protocol, sampling methodology, the data
collection and analysis system, the resources and personnel for
evaluation, and related details of the evaluation program.
Through a contractual agreement, Arizona operates a centralized
program, consisting of eleven inspection stations with 48 testing
lanes. The ADEQ compiles data (including the enhanced I/M data
requirements) supporting modelling assumptions and modelled program
evaluation and effectiveness including failure rate, compliance rate,
the number of certificates issued, and other similar matters.
The SIP adequately describes these features and is approvable.
4. Adequate Tools and Resources Section 51.354
Section 51.354 requires States to demonstrate that the appropriate
administrative, budgetary, personnel, and equipment resources have been
allocated for the I/M program and discusses how the performance
standard will be met. Arizona's submittal, Appendix 1, ARS Secs. 49-544
and 49-545, describes the personnel, equipment and funding resources to
be used for program operation and maintaining all required program
functions. Section 49-544 insures future dedicated funding and provides
for sufficient staff to carry out program duties. Appendix 1, ARS
Secs. 49-545.A authorizes a contract with an independent contractor,
Gordon Darby. Subsection B of that section specifies that the
contractor may not be in the business of maintaining or repairing motor
vehicles. [[Page 22521]]
5. Test Frequency and Convenience Section 51.355
The I/M regulations require the SIP to describe in detail the test
schedule of the program. If the testing is not performed on an annual
basis, the description is to include the test year selection scheme. In
addition, the SIP should include the legal authority necessary to
implement and enforce the test frequency requirement and explain how
the test frequency will be integrated with the enforcement process.
Arizona's program is based upon an annual and biennial test
frequency and legal authority for enforcing such frequency is in
Appendix 1, ARS Sec. 49-542 and AAC R18-2-1005. Those provisions state
that applicable vehicles may not be registered nor re-registered
without undergoing emissions inspection. Appendix 1, AAC R18-2-1006
requires that the contractor test any subject vehicle presented for
inspection, except for vehicles exhibiting unsafe conditions or
carrying explosives or other hazardous materials.
6. Vehicle Coverage Section 51.356
SIPs are to include 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. The SIP should also include a
description of any special exemptions granted by the program, an
estimate of the percentage and number of subject vehicles which will be
exempted. Exempted vehicles should be accounted for in the emission
reduction analysis. The SIP should also include the legal authority or
rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage
requirement.
Requirements for vehicles subject to the Arizona I/M program are
presented in Appendix 1. ARS Sec. 49-542 and AAC R18-2-1003 describe
vehicular coverage by test methods, categories of model year, fuel
type, result summary for 1993, and displays tests performed
differentiated by those categories. Vehicles exempted from testing are
described in ARS Sec. 49-542 and AAC R18-2-1003.B. Modeling conducted
in response to Sec. 51.352 took into account exempted vehicles. ARS
Sec. 49-542 and AAC R18-2-1003, -1017 and -1019 (Appendix 1) provide
for fleet vehicles, including federally-owned vehicles, that are
subject to the same testing and quality control requirements as are
non-fleet vehicles. ARS Sec. 49-542 and AAC R18-21023 (Appendix 1)
provide the requirements for vehicles registered in the program area
and operated outside the area.
The Arizona I/M program exempts the following vehicles from the
program:
a. Vehicles manufactured in or before the 1966 model year.
b. Vehicles leased to a person residing outside Areas A and B by a
leasing company whose place of business is in Area A or B.
c. Vehicles being sold between motor vehicle dealers.
d. Electrically-powered vehicles.
e. Prorate vehicles.
f. Golf carts.
g. Vehicles with engine displacements of less than 90 cubic
centimeters.
h. New vehicles originally registered at the time of initial retail
sale and titling in the state.
i. Vehicles being registered at the time of change of name of ownership
except when the change in registration is accompanied by required fees
for the year following expiration of the prior registration or the
change results from the sale by a dealership whose place of business is
located in area A or area B.
j. Vehicles for which a current certificate of exemption or Director's
certificate has been issued.
The Arizona SIP submittal provides an estimate of the number of
vehicles exempted due to vehicle age, fuel type, and engine type. These
exempted vehicles are accounted for in the compliance area which was
used in the MOBILE5a modeling process to demonstrate compliance with
the performance standard.
7. Test Procedures and Standards Section 51.357
The I/M rule requires SIPs to include a description of each test
procedure used, the legal authority or rule describing and establishing
the test procedures, and the test standards. The EPA Checklist\12\
lists the criteria that State I/M programs must satisfy in order to be
approvable. The Arizona I/M program satisfies the criteria of the
Checklist. AAC R18-2-1006 provides detailed test procedures and pass/
fail standards for all applicable classes of vehicles. Procedures and
standards correspond to EPA requirements for short tests. Initial tests
are performed without prior repair at the test facility, as the
contractor is prohibited from being in the business of repairing
vehicles.
\12\Checklist for Completing the Inspection/Maintenance SIP,
published March 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements for reinspection of failed vehicles are described in
AAC R18-2-1013. R18-2-1029 requires that all vehicles must have all
emission control devices that were installed by the vehicle
manufacturer. AAC R18-2-1001.42 requires vehicles with ``switched''
engines to meet standards applicable to the year of vehicle
manufacture.
8. Test Equipment Section 51.358
The I/M rule requires SIPs to include written technical
specifications for all test equipment used in the program. The
specifications should describe the emissions analysis process, the
necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance
of testing criteria and procedures. Arizona's SIP provides detailed
requirements for test equipment, automation to the highest degree
commercially available to minimize the potential for intentional fraud
and/or human error, security, accuracy, recording of test data and
quality assurance. Also, Arizona's rules require the contractor to
provide the necessary computerized test equipment capable of testing
all subject vehicles, including test systems that are connected by a
real-time data link to a host computer that prevents unauthorized
multiple initial tests on the same vehicle.
9. Quality Control Section 51.359
The I/M rule requires SIPs to include a description of quality
control and recordkeeping procedures. The submittal should include the
procedures manual, rule, ordinance, or law establishing the procedures
of quality control and recordkeeping.
Arizona's rules, Appendix 1, AAC R18-2-1025 through -1028 provide
all the required quality control elements of basic and enhanced I/M
programs. Protection of analyzer bench and electrical components is
assured through the enclosure of such equipment in lockable steel
cabinets.
10. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection Section 51.360
Section 51.360 outlines the standards that State SIP submittals
must satisfy before owners of vehicles can be issued waivers or
temporary extensions. A waiver or temporary extension allows motorists
to renew vehicle registration. These requirements include: A maximum
waiver rate used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the
modeling analysis; a commitment by the State to take corrective action
if the waiver rate exceeds that which was committed to in the SIP or a
commitment to revise the SIP and emission reductions claimed;
description of waiver criteria and procedures, including cost limits,
quality assurance methods and administration; and the necessary legal
[[Page 22522]] authority to issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits
and carry out any other functions necessary to administer the waiver
system.
Section 51.360 established the minimum repair expenditures (both
for basic and enhanced I/M programs) that vehicle owners must incur in
order to qualify for a waiver. In basic I/M programs, owners must
expend a minimum of $75 for pre-1981 and at least $200 for 1981 and
newer vehicles. For enhanced I/M programs, vehicle owners at a minimum
must expend $450 in repairs to qualify for a waiver.
Arizona's rules provide that waivers may only be issued after
failing a retest and after qualifying repairs are made, including
performance of a low-emission tune-up. Those provisions exclude costs
of repair of tampering from applicability to a waiver cost limit, and
inspection and review of receipts. Owners of all failing vehicles
receive a brochure describing possible eligibility of warranty
coverage. Waiver limits prescribed in ARS Sec. 49-542.L and R18-3-
1010.E for Area A (enhanced I/M program) and R18-2-1010.F for Area B
(basic I/M program) differ from those prescribed in EPA's I/M
regulation, but are not overall less stringent. For Area B, 1967-74
model year vehicles are subject to a lower $50 limit, yet 1975-80 model
year vehicles are subject to a $200 limit, exceeding EPA's minimum
standard. Arizona's $350 limit for 1981 and newer vehicles is also more
stringent than EPA's minimum $200 limit for Area B. Waiver limits for
Area A exceed the EPA I/M program guidelines for vehicles not subject
to the enhanced test procedure. Arizona has provided for vehicle repair
grants in R18-2-1014.
11. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Section 51.361
Under Sec. 51.361, SIP submittals must include a description of the
enforcement process; a determination of the current compliance rate
that includes at a minimum an estimate of compliance loss due to
loopholes; legal authority for enforcement; and a commitment to an
enforcement level to be used for modeling purposes and to be main Area
B documents.
Appendix 1, ARS Sec. 49-542.D and AAC R18-2-1007 require that no
affected motorist can obtain a vehicle registration without
demonstrating that the vehicle has completed a vehicle emissions
inspection. The State will be able to verify emissions compliance by
checking an up-to-date computer database produced directly from
contractor testing data rather than relying on a document. A1050X may
not be used for Area A registration purposes. AAC R18-2-1017, -1019
address inspection procedures for fleets, including governmental
vehicles. Appendix 2 addresses the assumed level of enforcement for
modeling purposes and ARS 49-542.E provides for the registering officer
to issue an air quality compliance sticker to be placed on the subject
vehicle.
12. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight Section 51.362
The I/M SIP submittals are to include a description of enforcement
program oversight and information management activities. The
enforcement program must be audited regularly and follow effective
program management practices. Arizona's law, ARS 49-542.D sets out the
requirement for registration enforcement of I/M requirements for
subject vehicles. Subsection J.2 of that section defines a list of
readily exempted vehicles, including vehicle age, engine displacement,
mode of power, and type of registration. The Motor Vehicle Division
(MVD) of the Arizona Department of Transportation has the authority for
vehicle registration. In the case of Maricopa County, MVD has delegated
the authority for processing registrations to the Maricopa County
Assessor; however, MVD retains responsibility for the registration
program and for the registration database. The requirement for
inspection of a vehicle is determined in the MVD database by zip code
of the physical address of the vehicle registration and by other
parameters relating to exemptions listed in ARS 49-542.H.
MVD, the Maricopa County Assessor, and ADEQ maintain written
procedures governing the issuance and auditing of compliance-related
documents, including waivers and validations tabs, as appropriate. All
compliance documents, certificates of waiver, and validation tabs are
individually numbered and kept according to the respective agencies'
security procedures. AAC R18-2-1023 provides procedures for processing
exemptions for vehicles not available within the State at time of
registration or re-registration. That rule also requires inspection by
an out of state I/M program, if the subject vehicle is being operated
in a program area.
ADEQ and registering agencies have developed procedures to address
vehicles physically registered in zip codes which straddle I/M program
boundaries. Under that process, emissions applicability is determined
by motorist submittal of a ``Code 52'' application, which provides
verifiable information that the physical registration address is
outside the I/M program boundary. The ``Code 52'' process is conducted
by ADEQ in Maricopa County and by MVD in Pima County. Arizona law
enforcement agencies and MVD are authorized under statute to enforce
the sticker-based registration and I/M requirements. MVD and Maricopa
County routinely make their databases available to ADEQ for compliance
and enforcement purposes.
13. Quality Assurance Section 51.363
The I/M rule requires States to operate on-going quality assurance
programs aimed at discovering, correcting, and preventing fraud, waste
and abuse. The quality assurance officer should also assess whether
correct operating procedures are being followed and that testing
equipment provides accurate measurements. SIP submittals must include a
description of the quality assurance program, written procedures
manuals covering covert and overt audits, records audits, and equipment
audits. Quality assurance procedures can be found in AAC R18-2-1025 and
-1026. Performance audits are based upon written procedures, with audit
results recorded and retained in station and inspector files. Records
are of sufficient detail to support administrative or civil hearings.
Both the testing contractor and ADEQ conduct routine covert audits
and exchange audit findings. Covert audits are performed at least once
per year per licensed inspector employed by the independent contractor.
Covert vehicles are procured through rental or through cooperative
agreement with the Department of Public Safety to obtain undercover
vehicles. A tampering defect or emissions-related failure condition is
introduced and a driver not directly affiliated with the program is
selected. ADEQ monitors the contractor's response to failed covert
audits, including training, disciplinary actions or dismissal. ADEQ
performs remote observation of inspections, including covert actions
designed to detect fraud or collusion between inspectors and either
repair facilities or dealers. Overt audits are performed at least twice
per year for each inspection lane. In the event that an inspector fails
any of the requirements in AAC R18-2-1025, the inspector's license may
be suspended or revoked.
14. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations & Inspectors Section
51.364
I/M programs are to include enforcement mechanisms that allow for
the imposition of penalties against licensed stations, contractors or
[[Page 22523]] inspectors that violate program requirements. SIP
submittals must describe the legal authority for imposing penalties,
civil fines, license suspension, and revocations. ARS, Section 49-548
prohibits improper representation of a facility as an official testing
site, or false issuance of certificates of inspection by fleets. ARS
49-549 prohibits production and use of false I/M certificates. ARS 49-
550 provides civil penalties for violations of I/M requirements. ADEQ
has submitted, under separate cover, dated, August 2, 1994, an opinion
by the Attorney General related to the applicability of that statute to
the deadlines for license suspension contained in 40 CFR 51.364.
15. Data Collection Section 51.365
EPA's I/M rule outlines the test data and quality control data that
must be collected for the management, evaluation, and enforcement of an
I/M program. I/M programs must gather test data on individual vehicles,
as well as quality control data on test equipment. The Arizona I/M
program contains data gathering provisions that meet all of the
criteria of the EPA Checklist. AAC R18-2-1011 describes the data
collected during an inspection which forms the basis for issuance of a
``Vehicle Inspection Report.'' Arizona is currently collecting all data
required for both basic and enhanced I/M programs.
15. Data Analysis and Reporting Section 51.366
SIP submittals are to include information on how States will
incorporate data analysis and reporting into their I/M programs.
Reports should provide information regarding the types of program
activities performed and their final outcomes, including summary
statistics and effectiveness evaluations of the enforcement mechanism,
the quality assurance system, the quality control program, and the
testing element. Arizona has committed to provide test, quality control
and enforcement reports as specified in this section and applicable to
I/M programs. The contract with the independent contractor reflects
requirements to collect data necessary for ADEQ to make these
submittals.
16. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification Section 51.367
All inspectors involved in I/M programs must receive formal
training and be licensed or certified to perform inspections. SIP
submittals must include a description of the training program, the
written and practical examinations and the licensing or certification
process. Lane inspectors are employed and trained by the independent
contractor. AAC R18-2-1016 authorizes ADEQ to license vehicle
inspectors and provides minimum standards for licensure. ADEQ is
authorized to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew any inspector license.
The contract between ADEQ and the independent contractor allows ADEQ to
require training of inspectors consistent with the requirements of 40
CFR 51.363. ADEQ monitors the training program conducted by the
contractor and performs on-site overt audits to verify inspector
proficiency, consistent with EPA's I/M rule.
17. Public Information and Consumer Protection Section 51.368
SIP submittals must include a plan for informing the public on an
ongoing basis, throughout the life of the I/M program, of the air
quality program, the requirements of federal and state law, the role of
motor vehicles in the air quality problem, and the need for and
benefits of an inspection program. In addition, the submittal must
describe procedures and mechanisms to protect the public from fraud and
abuse by inspectors, mechanics, and others involved in the I/M program.
ADEQ, in conjunction with its independent contractor, conducts a
public awareness program which complies with the requirements of 40 CFR
51.368. Information on the air quality problem, the role of motor
vehicles, and I/M requirements is contained in a brochure mailed with
registration or re-registration documentation to all affected
motorists. The independent contractor produces a ``Repair Industry
Performance Report'' which identifies by repair site, the number of
vehicles undergoing repairs and the overall pass rate of vehicles
repaired at that facility.
18. Improving Repair Effectiveness Section 51.369
The State of Arizona provides the technical assistance requirements
of both EPA's basic and enhanced I/M rule. ADEQ provides newsletters
and special purpose mailings to inform the repair industry of program
changes, common problems, and opportunities for training. In addition,
ADEQ provides newsletters published by the Coalition for Safer, Cleaner
Vehicles to repair industry personnel in the Maricopa nonattainment
area. ADEQ employs referee technicians at each ADEQ-operated waiver
facility who provide diagnostic assistance to the repair industry.
The State currently provides repair technician training which
focuses on causes of emissions failures in computer controlled closed-
loop vehicles, effective diagnoses and repair. The training also
provides information on Arizona's I/M program. ADEQ provides these
courses on an as-needed basis, with a minimum of two courses in Phoenix
and one course in Tucson each month. Technicians are tested at the
conclusion of the course, and successful candidates are either
certified as a trained technician or licensed as a fleet technician. In
order to retain certification or licensure, technicians must take and
pass the examination annually.
19. Compliance With Recall Notices Section 51.370
The I/M rule requires States to establish methods to ensure that
vehicles subject to enhanced I/M and that are included in either a
``Voluntary Emissions Recall'' as defined at 40 CFR 85.1902(d), or in a
remedial plan determination made pursuant to section 207(c) of the Act,
receive the required repairs. Arizona has committed to comply with
section 51.370 when the Agency provides the State with manufacturer
recall and unresolved vehicle recall data.
20. On-Road Testing Section 51.371
Because Arizona is ``opting-up'' to an enhanced I/M program, the
State is not required to implement this section. However, Arizona's
regulation, AAC R18-2-1015 requires the State to begin on-road testing
in January 1995 in Area A only. A minimum of six remote sensing units
will be used throughout the nonattainment area. Arizona's SIP submittal
states that this measure provides an incremental benefit over the
existing I/M and anti-tampering program by increasing compliance with
the I/M program and reducing the incidence of vehicle tampering. AAC
R18-2-1015 also includes: That a vehicle shall not have a waiver on
record; an emissions test that is required pursuant to a remote sensing
identification shall be performed at a state station pursuant to R18-2-
1006 and shall not require payment of any test fee unless the test can
be used for the purpose of complying with registration or re-
registration requirements; failure of an emissions test that is
required pursuant to a remote sensing identification shall require the
vehicle to be repaired or to receive a waiver from any emission
standards not complied with within 30 days of the test to avoid
suspension of registration; and one reinspection shall also be free as
provided in R18-2-1012(D). A full description of Arizona's remote
sensing [[Page 22524]] is in their request for proposal (RFP) located
in the docket.
21. State Implementation Plan Submissions Section 51.372 and
Implementation Deadlines Section 51.373
Arizona is currently implementing an annual basic I/M and an
enhanced I/M program. The November 1994 I/M SIP submittal is fully
approvable and includes all elements meeting EPA's I/M regulations
(e.g., an analysis of the emission level targets meeting both basic and
enhanced I/M performance standard, passage of enabling statutory and
legal authority, and regulations).
V. EPA Analysis of the Arizona I/M Program Submittal
A complete EPA analysis of the program submittal is detailed in the
Agency's technical support document (TSD) which is available in the
docket. A copy of the TSD can be obtained by contacting the person
listed in the ADDRESSES portion of this notice. The TSD summarizes the
requirements of the federal I/M regulations and addresses whether the
elements of the State's submittal comply with the federal rule.
Interested parties are encouraged to examine the TSD for additional
detailed information about the Arizona I/M program.
VI. EPA Action
In determining the approvability of an I/M SIP submittal, EPA must
evaluate the SIP for consistency with the requirements of CAA and EPA
regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR
part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans).
EPA has evaluated the submitted SIP and has determined that it is
consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,
Arizona's SIP revision, Basic and Enhanced I/M Vehicle Emissions
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program Implemented in Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas of Arizona is being approved under section
110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and
Part D.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation
plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall
be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
EPA is publishing this notice without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective July 7, 1995, unless, within 30 days of its publication,
adverse or critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent notice that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the separate proposed
rule.
The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that
this action will be effective July 7, 1995.
VII. Regulatory Process
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 population of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301(a) 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 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 CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state
action.
The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.
Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2). The OMB has exempted this action from
review under Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of Arizona was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: April 5, 1995.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart D--Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(75) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(75) Program elements submitted on November 14, 1994, by the
Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
(1) Basic and Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Vehicle Emissions
Program. Adopted on September 15, 1994.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-10814 Filed 5-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
