|
 |
|
Inspection/Maintenance Flexibility Amendments
[Federal Register: September 18, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 180)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48029-48037]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[FRL-5294-9]
Inspection/Maintenance Flexibility Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Today's action revises the motor vehicle Inspection/
Maintenance (I/M) Program Requirements. EPA announced its intent to
amend the I/M Program Requirements in December 1994 and held
stakeholders' meetings on January 24, 1995 and January 31, 1995. This
action creates an additional, less stringent enhanced I/M performance
standard which allows areas that can meet the 1990 Clean Air Act
requirements for Reasonable Further Progress and attainment to
implement an I/M program that falls below the originally promulgated
enhanced I/M performance standard. Because the new low enhanced I/M
performance standard eliminates the need for the special enhanced
performance standard for El Paso, Texas, today's action repeals that
special performance standard. This action also revises the high
enhanced I/M performance standard to include a visual inspection of the
positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve on all light-duty vehicles
and light-duty trucks from model years 1968 to 1971, inclusive, and of
the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) valve on all light-duty vehicles
and light-duty trucks from
[[Page 48030]]
model years 1972 through 1983, inclusive. The low enhanced performance
standard contains similar testing requirements, which are necessary to
ensure full compliance with the Clean Air Act's requirement that all
federal performance standards for enhanced I/M programs be based upon a
model program that includes, at a minimum, two inspections per subject
vehicle: an emission inspection and a visual inspection. Today's action
also changes the waiver cost requirements by extending the deadline for
implementing the minimum expenditure to qualify for a waiver specified
in the Clean Air Act; allowing the application of pre-inspection
repairs toward meeting the waiver expenditure requirements under
limited circumstances; allowing the cost of primary emission control
components replaced by family or friends to apply toward the waiver
cost requirement; and removing the bar against issuing hardship
exemptions more than once per vehicle lifetime. EPA is also including
revised regulatory language to change the population cutoff for basic
I/M from 50,000 persons to 200,000 persons. Lastly, this rule makes
clarifying amendments to the I/M requirements for areas undergoing
redesignation. EPA will soon publish a separate Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking proposing an additional performance standard for
attainment and moderate (with less than 200,000 population) ozone
nonattainment areas not otherwise required to implement basic I/M
programs in the Ozone Transport Region. That proposed standard is based
on minimum statutory requirements for these particular areas and would
afford them flexibility beyond that provided by this final action.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will take effect on October 18, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in
Public Docket No. A-95-08. The docket is located at the Air Docket,
Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall SW., Washington, DC 20460. The
docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on weekdays. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene J. Tierney, Office of Mobile
Sources, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth
Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (313) 668-4456.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Table of Contents
II. Summary of Rule
III. Authority
IV. Public Participation
A. Low Enhanced Performance Standard
B. Extended Deadline for Implementing the $450 Waiver
C. Population Requirements for Basic I/M
D. Test-and-Repair Discount and Program Equivalency
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
II. Summary of Rule
Under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act), 42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published
in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (40 CFR part 51, subpart S)
rules related to plans for Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/
M) programs (hereafter referred to as the I/M rule, see 57 FR 52950).
EPA published a notice of proposed rule making proposing changes to the
I/M rule in the Federal Register on April 28, l995 (60 FR 20934). EPA
today takes final action to revise the 1992 I/M rule to provide greater
flexibility to states required to implement I/M programs.
Section 182 of the Act was prescriptive regarding the various
elements that are required as part of an enhanced I/M performance
standard. It also required that EPA provide states with flexibility in
meeting the requirement for enhanced or basic I/M programs. States have
requested additional flexibility in two areas: the timing of the Act's
mandated minimum expenditure required to qualify for a waiver and a
lower performance standard for areas that may not need an enhanced I/M
program as effective as the one EPA adopted in 1992 to meet the Act's
Reasonable Further Progress and attainment demonstration requirements.
(These two standards are referred as the low enhanced and high enhanced
performance standards, respectively.)
EPA is establishing an alternate, low enhanced I/M performance
standard. This standard is designed for nonattainment areas that are
required to implement enhanced I/M but which can obtain adequate
emission reductions from other sources to meet emission reduction
requirements, without the stringency of the high enhanced I/M
performance standard. EPA will approve an enhanced I/M SIP meeting the
low performance standard provided EPA has approved or is simultaneously
approving the state's 1996 15VOC reasonable further progress SIP and
provided that the state's ozone or CO attainment SIP and its post-1996
VOC reasonable further progress SIPs have not been disapproved.
The low enhanced performance standard meets the Act's requirement
that it be based on centralized, annual testing of light duty cars and
trucks, and checks for tampering and exhaust emissions. Nevertheless,
this standard can be met with a comprehensive decentralized, test-andrepair
program.
EPA's opinion that states should have the flexibility to implement
only the low enhanced I/M program if more is not needed to meet their
air quality goals makes common sense for areas whose emissions affect
only themselves. With respect to states in the Northeast Ozone
Transport Region, however, there is the additional issue of the effect
of one area's emissions on downwind areas' air quality, even if the
first area's emissions result in achievement of all local goals for
clean air. EPA believes that making the low enhanced performance
standard available even within the OTR will result in needed reductions
on both local and regional scales, while offering useful flexibility
especially with respect to areas that themselves have no air quality
problem. OTR states are required to submit attainment plans for their
nonattainment areas, and these plans must address both local and
transported emissions. In fact, EPA now believes that the low
performance standard that EPA proposed and is finalizing today offers
insufficient flexibility, in that it would require states to create
all-new networks of emission testing stations in many cities currently
without them, cities with no air quality problem of their own. EPA
believes that the affected states will likely be able to find more
cost-effective and publicly preferred ways to provide for region-wide
attainment. However, EPA did not propose any more flexible policy for
these areas, and cannot take final action at this time to provide more
flexibility. Therefore, EPA will soon publish a Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, which offers additional flexibility by proposing
to establish a lower enhanced performance standard for qualified areas
in the OTR. The Supplemental Notice will also explain the legal basis
for this additional flexibility. The standard will allow attainment
areas and marginal and moderate (with less than 200,000 population)
ozone areas in the OTR, not otherwise required to implement basic I/M
programs, to implement enhanced
[[Page 48031]]
programs which meet the requirements of the statute without
establishing extensive emission test networks.
EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on April 28,
1995 describing these and other proposed amendments to the I/M rule.
Proposed changes in the waiver requirements, population cutoff for
basic programs and requirements for basic areas which have been
redesignated to attainment were designed to offer greater flexibility
to the states in the implementation of their I/M programs. The NPRM
also proposed the inclusion of visual checks as part of the test
procedure for all vehicles subject to enhanced I/M. Readers should
refer to the NPRM for a complete description of the background and
rationale for the proposed amendments, which will not be restated here.
After receiving and considering public comment on the NPRM, EPA is
today finalizing each of the proposed amendments as follows.
(1) EPA is establishing the alternative low enhanced performance
standard.
(2) EPA is extending the deadline for the full implementation of
the minimum expenditure required to be eligible for a waiver for both
basic and enhanced I/M programs until January 1998. In the interim, a
state can establish any minimum expenditure it chooses, as long as it
accounts for the higher waiver rates that will occur between now and
1998 in its emission inventory forecasts in the Reasonable Further
Progress plan.
(3) EPA is allowing states to include qualified repair cost
expenditures that occur within 60 days of the initial test toward
meeting the minimum waiver expenditure.
(4) Additionally, EPA is allowing the cost of specified emission
control components replaced by persons other than recognized repair
technicians to apply towards the waiver cost limit.
(5) EPA is deleting language from the November 5, 1992 I/M rule
barring motorists from qualifying for more than one hardship exemption
during the lifetime of a vehicle.
(6) EPA is adding a visual inspection of the positive crankcase
ventilation (PCV) valve on all light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks of model year 1968 through 1971, inclusive, and of the exhaust
gas recirculation (EGR) valve on all light-duty vehicles and light-duty
trucks of model year 1972 through 1983, inclusive to the high enhanced
performance standard.
(7) In the proposed rule of April 28, 1995, EPA requested comment
on whether or not it should change the minimum population cutoff for
basic I/M programs. Based on the public comment received, EPA is
revising the regulatory language in this rulemaking to increase the
minimum threshold for basic I/M programs to 200,000 or more.
(8) Finally, EPA is clarifying the requirements for basic I/M areas
that are eligible for redesignation to attainment. Consistent with
EPA's original intent, EPA does not believe that a violation of the
standard in an area that has been redesignated automatically requires
the implementation or upgrade of an I/M program. EPA believes that, in
the event of a violation, a state should have the flexibility to select
whichever contingency measures are best suited to correcting the
problem to bring the area to attainment as quickly as possible. The
rule would continue to require, however, that such an upgraded basic I/
M program be among the contingency measures from which the state will
choose. Changes to remove extraneous language related to the
requirements for an implementation schedule will also go into effect.
III. Authority
Authority for the action in this notice is granted to EPA by
section 182 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.).
IV. Public Participation
This section discusses the content of the most significant of the
flexibility amendments, the submissions to the docket received during
the comment period and EPA's response to those comments. Submissions
were received from approximately 60 commenters including state
governments and agencies, industry, environmental organizations and
other organizations. Copies of the original comments can be obtained in
their entirety for a reasonable copying fee from the docket for this
rule. The docket also includes a complete Response to Comments document
for this rule. Substantial comments were received on each of the
amendments and were fully addressed in that document.
A. Low Enhanced Performance Standard
- Summary of Proposal
EPA proposed to establish an alternate, less stringent I/M
performance standard called the low enhanced performance standard. This
low enhanced standard is designed for areas which are required to
implement enhanced programs but which do not have a major mobile source
component to the air quality problem, or which can obtain adequate
reductions from other sources to meet the 15VOC reduction requirement
and demonstrate attainment.
The low enhanced standard differs from the original standard, now
referred to as the high enhanced performance standard, in that it
allows for idle testing. Although the standard is based on an annual,
test-only network this can also be met with a biennial, test-and-repair
network.
- Summary of Comments
Commenters generally supported the notion of flexibility and the
proposed low enhanced option, although most believe that it does not
offer enough flexibility. The thrust of these comments was that the
proposed flexibility will not be a viable option for most areas because
credit discounts for test-and-repair networks and other mandated
requirements preclude most states from implementing programs which they
believe to be equivalent to required programs. One comment asked for
clarification of an apparent inconsistency between the summary and the
proposed rule: whether the low enhanced standard can be applied if
attainment goals are met for either CO and/or ozone or both CO and
ozone.
Several commenters strongly opposed the proposed low enhanced
standard, claiming that it is inconsistent with Clean Air Act section
182(c)(3)(C)(vi), which mandates EPA to require centralized networks
unless states can demonstrate equivalency of decentralized networks.
They argue that these programs will be less effective and will result
in failure to meet attainment goals. Comments were also made that EPA
is mandated to establish ``a'' performance standard and that to
establish more than one is contrary to law.
- Response to Comments
EPA has designed this flexibility specifically for those areas
which either do not have a major mobile source component to their air
pollution problem or which do not require I/M programs which achieve
substantial reductions in automotive emissions to achieve air quality
goals. To lower the standard any further and make it available to more
enhanced I/M areas by granting inappropriately large credits to testand
-repair programs would undermine the goals of I/M and the Clean Air
Act. While the Act requires certain program parameters to ensure
programs are both effective and enforceable, EPA is mandated to ensure
that these programs meet their intended goals. EPA maintains that it
offers the states flexibility to do so by making a case-by-case
assessment of program
[[Page 48032]]
effectiveness and assigning credits accordingly. EPA is, in fact, in
the process of doing this with two test-and-repair states. EPA believes
that to allow more credit for test-and-repair networks than is
scientifically justified by the available data or make vital
requirements optional would lead to failed programs and attainment
goals. EPA supports its credit assessment for test-and-repair networks
later in this document.
EPA believes that the low enhanced performance standard is
consistent with the Act's requirement that a program be based on a
centralized network unless the state demonstrates that a decentralized
program is equally effective. EPA believes that low enhanced programs
that opt for the decentralized network can make such a demonstration
with the MOBILE5a model and a comprehensive program which includes
annual testing of heavy duty vehicles, pressure testing, and full antitampering
programs. EPA also maintains that the Act in no way bars it
from establishing multiple performance standards. This is not a new
interpretation, but rather one which EPA took in the case of El Paso
which was subject to an alternate standard under the original I/M rule.
To clarify the apparent inconsistency between the summary and the
rule: low enhanced I/M may be implemented only in those states that can
meet all of the 1990 Clean Air Act requirements for Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) for ozone and attainment for both ozone and carbon
monoxide, if the area is required to implement enhanced I/M for both
pollutants. If an area is required to implement enhanced I/M for only
one pollutant (regardless of a requirement to implement basic I/M for
the other pollutant), then low enhanced may be implemented if RFP and
attainment requirements are met for that pollutant.
B. Extended Deadline for Implementing the $450 Waiver
- Summary of Proposal
The original I/M rule requires that for enhanced programs, states
must implement the $450 minimum expenditure to qualify for a waiver
when the I/M program starts in 1995.
EPA proposed to postpone full implementation of the enhanced I/M
waiver requirement until January 1, 1998, to allow states time to reach
the long-term goals of the Clean Air Act. This action aims to provide
the short term regulatory relief states have been requesting and would
give states additional time to develop programs to assist low-income
vehicle owners to repair their vehicles.
Some states are in the process of developing programs to mitigate
the impact of I/M-related repair costs on low-income motorists. Such
efforts have generally involved either granting low-income motorists
time extensions of up to one full test cycle (per the November 5, 1992
rule), repair subsidy programs for individuals on some form of public
assistance, or scrappage programs for low value, high emitting
vehicles. Repair subsidy and scrappage based efforts tend to vary most
in the area of funding mechanism. In some programs, mitigation efforts
are funded by way of late fees collected from motorists who have missed
their scheduled testing deadline; in others, revenue is generated by
allowing new car buyers to pay a on-time ``mitigation fee'' which
exempts them from the first scheduled inspection. EPA is willing to
work with states that wish to develop other creative ways to deal with
the issue of repair costs for low-income motorists.
- Summary of Comments
Comments were divided on the issue of whether EPA should extend the
deadline for implementing the $450 waiver. Most of the parties
unsatisfied by EPA's proposal argued that a CPI (Consumer Price Index)
adjustment of the $450 waiver expenditure would increase the repair
cost minimum to between $600-650 when the full waiver requirement would
be implemented in 1998, leading to public acceptance problems. With
respect to this issue, two parties made the following recommendations:
The EPA was urged to allow states to maintain their current minimum
waiver amounts until 1998, at which time the phase-in would begin. Once
$450 was applied as the limit during 1998, the minimum waiver amount
would be adjusted annually based on the CPI with 1998 as the base year.
Another commenter asked for revision of the rule language to clearly
state that the often-referenced CPI-adjusted $450 amount would be
likely to exceed $600 in 1998. One comment claimed that lost credit
would occur from extending the waiver and this would have to be made up
elsewhere. Another commenter queried why EPA was still interested in
identifying high emitters through enhanced test programs when the
amendment would mean that individuals would not be required to make all
the necessary repairs.
The general thrust of comments supporting the rule focused on the
additional flexibility this amendment would give states to phase in the
$450 minimum expenditure waiver and implement hardship waiver programs.
One comment suggested that the additional time would allow states to
work on building public acceptance of the program and improve
technician training. Another comment supported the extension of the
deadline but suggested that CPI adjustments be applied only to the full
minimum expenditure waiver amount no sooner than one full test cycle
following final implementation.
- Response to Comments
For emissions-related repairs not covered by warranty, the Clean
Air Act very clearly requires a minimum expenditure of $450 for
vehicles to qualify for a waiver. It is also very clear that the waiver
limit is to be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index,
with a base year of 1989. As the preamble to the original I/M rule
states, (page 52964, Federal Register), EPA will annually notify states
of the adjusted amount.
It is not the EPA's intention that states begin the phase-in in
- EPA maintains that states have more than enough flexibility to
begin the phase-in now to maintain a minimal increment by 1998. EPA
believes that the enhanced I/M program should be fully implemented by
1998, including the CPI adjusted $450 waiver, to enable areas to
achieve the reductions contemplated by the program prior to the
attainment deadline for serious areas (i.e., 11/15/99). Should areas
need reductions between now and 1998 to meet reasonable further
progress requirements, they would have to achieve them from other
programs should they choose to delay full implementation of the $450
waiver amount.
EPA believes that the extension of the waiver deadline will give
states the opportunity to improve technician training so that by 1998
the majority of vehicles would be repaired for well below the CPIadjusted
$450 minimum waiver amount. The additional time will also give
states ample opportunity to set up hardship programs for low-income
vehicle owners and scrappage programs for vehicles that are not
economical to repair.
To clarify the apparent misunderstanding regarding the proposed
amendment's effect on repairs: I/M programs will continue as scheduled,
motorists will still be required to repair their vehicles, and real
emissions reductions will be achieved. However, the minimum waiver
amount will depend on the cost limit prescribed by the state's phase-in
[[Page 48033]]
program and the levels of emissions reductions will depend upon what
waiver rates result.
C. Population Requirements for Basic I/M
- Summary of Proposal
EPA requested comment on whether it should change the minimum
population cut-off for basic I/M programs. Currently, basic I/M
programs are required in moderate ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment
areas with a 1990 Census-defined population of 50,000 or
more. EPA considered raising this threshold to 200,000 or more.
- Summary of Comments
The majority of responses to the proposed amendment were generally
supportive. Some commenters indicated that the issue did not affect
them since they were in the OTR (Ozone Transport Region) and therefore
required enhanced testing regardless of whether or not the population
cut-off was increased. Many of the commenters who supported the change
did so with a proviso: that the rule be applied only to areas that were
not currently included in I/M and that were in moderate attainment
areas. Two parties indicated that the proposed amendment should only
apply if an area can demonstrate that the absence of I/M would not
impact downwind areas. A few supported the change because they viewed
it as added flexibility for the states.
Commenters opposed to the amendment suggested that EPA had not
offered a reasonable explanation for this change and that areas with
less than 200,000 people deserved clean air protection. They argued
that the amendment would only serve to encourage states to opt-out of
OTR to avoid compliance.
- Response to Comments
EPA proposed this amendment to grant states further flexibility in
designing I/M programs to meet local needs. Areas under 200,000
population which are still in nonattainment are required to achieve
whatever ozone reductions are needed to meet reasonable further
progress or attainment requirements. While exempted from the mandatory
basis I/M requirement under this amendment, such areas would have to
achieve those reductions from other programs, or implement an I/M
program, at the state's discretion.
EPA concludes that the 200,000 population cut-off for basic
programs is authorized by the Act because sections 182(a)(2)(B)(i) and
182(b)(4) require implementation only of an I/M program no less
stringent than that required under pre-1990 EPA I/M guidance. EPA's
pre-1990 I/M guidance required implementation of basic I/M programs
only in urbanized areas of 200,000 population. It is true that some
moderate areas would not be required to implement I/M programs if their
population were under 200,000, despite the fact that section 182(b)(4)
requires a basic I/M program in all moderate areas. However, the basic
program that is required is a program that applies only to areas of
200,000 or more population. The issue of whether Congress meant to
expand the geographic scope of basic I/M programs by requiring them in
all moderate areas was presented to the court in litigation on the 1992
I/M rules. The court ruled that the statutory language ``does not, in
our view, compel the conclusion that Congress sought silently to alter
any preexisting exclusions for basic I/M programs, particularly when
Congress explicitly incorporated the preexisting guidance by
reference.'' Further, the court concluded that ``the requirement that
states submit implementation plans for those moderate areas not covered
in the previous statute does not by its term affect the scope of I/M
programs within those areas''. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125, 1141-2. Consequently, EPA believes that although
basic I/M programs are required for all moderate areas, they need only
be implemented in urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more
within such moderate areas.
Basic I/M is prescribed to solve local problems. Questions arising
from the transport of ozone and CO downwind across state boundaries may
be answered by referring to section 184 of the Clean Air Act.
As to the effects on OTR areas, states will not be encouraged to
opt out to avoid compliance. Rather, the SNPRM discussed previously
outlines the OTR-low enhanced performance standard which gives states
more flexibility and incentive to remain in the OTR.
D. Test-and-Repair Discount and Program Equivalency
- Summary of the Issue
Although today's action does not address the credit allowances for
test-and-repair networks and the question of equivalency with test-only
networks, the issue has become a point of contention as some states
seek more flexibility in program design. A notable quantity of the
comments received on today's rulemaking dealt expressly with this
issue.
- Summary of Comments
Commenters in support of the default discount stressed that SIP
credits must be based on real quantifiable emissions reductions and
that they supported the default discount and would also support data
that showed an even greater discount for a test-and-repair network.
Another commenter strongly supported the default discount, adding that
the undisputed performance disadvantage of ``test-and repair'' systems
should persuade EPA to keep the current credit structure. Another group
commented that their independent data analysis of two states, one with
a test-only system and one with a test-and-repair system, showed
conclusively that the test-and-repair system was achieving
significantly less emission reductions than the test-only system and
that the default discount used by the EPA accurately reflected the loss
of emission reductions for the test-and-repair system.
Commenters opposed to the default discount claimed that test-only
I/M does not work as well as EPA claims and that test-and-repair
programs are unfairly discounted by their comparison to an inflated
estimate of test-only effectiveness. Some commenters added that past
performance has shown that test-and-repair could be as effective as
test-only and should be credited accordingly. The California I/M Review
Committee was frequently cited along with studies by Georgia Tech, and
others as scientific evidence that the audit data upon which EPA
studies were based was somehow flawed.
- Response to Comments
It should first be noted that in the original I/M rule EPA had
proposed granting ``provisional equivalency'' to test-and-repair
programs for purposes of initial SIP submission and approval, requiring
program evaluation to assure that programs meet the performance
standard. Comments by state agencies and others at that time were
compelling and strongly against provisional equivalency. They argued
that because both state and EPA evidence showed that test-and-repair
programs were inferior to test-only programs, in terms of emissions
reductions, it would be inadequate and probably illegal for EPA to
grant them full credit. They suggested that to grant provisional
equivalency without proven success would be irresponsible and would
allow ineffective and costly programs to continue while air quality
improvement would suffer. EPA acknowledged these
[[Page 48034]]
comments and eliminated provisional equivalency from the final I/M
rule. Nevertheless, EPA included provisions in the final rule allowing
states to make demonstrations based on local data that test-and-repair
was more effective than the national default credits.
EPA's default discount for test-and-repair services is based on the
best data from a broad set of indicators and across many programs.
Cited studies have not shown evidence that would cause EPA to revoke
the default discount. The most comprehensive study of test-and-repair
effectiveness was conducted by the California I/M Review Committee in
the early 1990s and showed that despite aggressive enforcement, the use
of advanced technology, and a huge outlay of government oversight, the
program still did not achieve more than half of what a test-only
program could achieve. While EPA continues to believe that the default
discount is appropriate as a national estimate when there is no local
data to prove another level, EPA is willing to consider local data to
determine whether it supports a higher or lower credit. EPA believes
the I/M rule allows it to give prospective credit based on a
retrospective analysis of such local data. EPA is working with Utah and
Virginia at this time to analyze local data in an attempt to establish
program specific credits.
EPA received only minor comment on all other proposals in the NPRM
for this rule. A summary of those comments and of EPA's response may be
found in the Response to Comments document included in the docket for
this rule.
Based upon the public comment received and a reasoned analysis, EPA
is proceeding with the adoption of each of the proposed amendments with
no substantive changes.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
It has been determined that these amendments to the I/M rule are a
significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866
and are therefore subject to OMB review.
However, it does not create an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or otherwise adversely affect the economy or the
environment. Any impacts associated with these revisions do not
constitute additional burdens when compared to the existing I/M
requirements published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (57
FR 52950). It is not inconsistent with nor does it interfere with
actions by other agencies. It does not alter budgetary impacts of
entitlements or other programs, and it does not raise any new or
unusual legal or policy issues.
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
There are no information requirements in this final rule which
require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities and, therefore, is not subject to the requirement of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. A small entity may include a small
government entity or jurisdiction. A small government jurisdiction is
defined as ``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than 50,000.'' This certification is based on the fact that the I/
M areas impacted by the rulemaking do not meet the definition of a
small government jurisdiction, that is, ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than 50,000.'' Furthermore, the
impact created by the action does not increase the pre-existing burden
which this final rule seeks to amend.
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more.
Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly impacted by the rule.
To the extent that the rules being promulgated by this action would
impose any mandate as defined in Section 101 of the Unfunded Mandates
Act upon the state, local, or tribal governments, or the private
sector, as explained above, this rule is not estimated to impose costs
in excess of $100 million. Therefore, EPA has not prepared a statement
with respect to budgetary impacts. As noted above, this rule offers
opportunities to states that would enable them to lower economic
burdens from those resulting from the currently existing I/M rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Transportation.
Dated: September 6, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 51 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as follows:
- The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 740l-7671q.
2. Section 51.350 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(6),
(a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9) and (b)(4) and by removing and reserving
paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.350 Applicability.
- * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) Any area classified as moderate ozone nonattainment, and not
required to implement enhanced I/M under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, shall implement basic I/M in any 1990 Census-defined urbanized
area with a population of 200,000 or more.
(5) [Reserved]
(6) If the boundaries of a moderate ozone nonattainment area are
changed pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A)(i)-(ii) of the Clean Air Act,
such that the area includes additional urbanized areas with a
population of 200,000 or more, then a basic I/M program shall be
implemented in these additional urbanized areas.
(7) If the boundaries of a serious or worse ozone nonattainment
area or of a moderate or serious CO nonattainment area with a design
value greater than 12.7 ppm are changed any time after enactment
pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A) such that the area includes additional
urbanized areas, then an enhanced I/M program shall be implemented in
the newly included 1990 Census-defined urbanized areas, if the 1980
Census-defined urban area population is 200,000 or more.
(8) If a marginal ozone nonattainment area, not required to
implement enhanced I/M under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is
reclassified to moderate, a basic I/M program shall be implemented in
the 1990 Census-defined urbanized area(s) with a
[[Page 48035]]
population of 200,000 or more. If the area is reclassified to serious
or worse, an enhanced I/M program shall be implemented in the 1990
Census-defined urbanized area, if the 1980 Census-defined urban area
population is 200,000 or more.
(9) If a moderate ozone or CO nonattainment area is reclassified to
serious or worse, an enhanced I/M program shall be implemented in the
1990 Census-defined urbanized area, if the 1980 Census-defined
population is 200,000 or more.
(b) * * *
(4) In a multi-state urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or
more that is required under paragraph (a) of this section to implement
I/M, any state with a portion of the area having a 1990 Census-defined
population of 50,000 or more shall implement an I/M program. The other
coverage requirements in paragraph (b) of this section shall apply in
multi-state areas as well.
- * * * *
- Section 51.351 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)
introductory text, and (b), by removing and reserving paragraph (e) and
by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.351 Enhanced I/M performance standards.
(a) Enhanced I/M programs shall be designed and implemented to meet
or exceed a minimum performance standard, which is expressed as
emission levels in area-wide average grams per mile (gpm), achieved
from highway mobile sources as a result of the program. The emission
levels achieved by the state's program design shall be calculated using
the most current version, at the time of submittal, of the EPA mobile
source emission factor model or an alternative model approved by the
Administrator, and shall meet the minimum performance standard both in
operation and for SIP approval. Areas shall meet the performance
standard for the pollutants which cause them to be subject to enhanced
I/M requirements. In the case of ozone nonattainment areas subject to
enhanced I/M and subject areas in the Ozone Transport Region, the
performance standard must be met for both oxides of nitrogen (NO<INF>X)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section.
- * * * *
(b) On-road testing. The performance standard shall include on-road
testing of at least 0.512f the subject vehicle population, or 20,000
vehicles whichever is less, as a supplement to the periodic inspection
required in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section. Specific
requirements are listed in Sec. 51.371 of this subpart.
(e) [Reserved].
- * * * *
(f) High Enhanced Performance Standard. Except as provided in
paragraph (g) of this section, the model program elements for the
enhanced I/M performance standard shall be as follows:
(1) Network type. Centralized testing.
(2) Start date. For areas with existing I/M programs, 1983. For
areas newly subject, 1995.
(3) Test frequency. Annual testing.
(4) Model year coverage. Testing of 1968 and later vehicles.
(5) Vehicle type coverage. Light duty vehicles, and light duty
trucks, rated up to 8,500 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR).
(6) Exhaust emission test type. Transient mass-emission testing on
1986 and later model year vehicles using the IM240 driving cycle, twospeed
testing (as described in appendix B of this subpart S) of 1981-
1985 vehicles, and idle testing (as described in appendix B of this
subpart S) of pre-1981 vehicles is assumed.
(7) Emission standards. (i) Emission standards for 1986 through
1993 model year light duty vehicles, and 1994 and 1995 light-duty
vehicles not meeting Tier 1 emission standards, of 0.80 gpm
hydrocarbons (HC), 20 gpm CO, and 2.0 gpm NO<INF>X;
(ii) Emission standards for 1986 through 1993 light duty trucks
less than 6000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and 1994 and
1995 trucks not meeting Tier 1 emission standards, of 1.2 gpm HC, 20
gpm CO, and 3.5 gpm NO<INF>X;
(iii) Emission standards for 1986 through 1993 light duty trucks
greater than 6000 pounds GVWR, and 1994 and 1995 trucks not meeting the
Tier 1 emission standards, of 1.2 gpm HC, 20 gpm CO, and 3.5 gpm
NO<INF>X;
(iv) Emission standards for 1994 and later light duty vehicles
meeting Tier 1 emission standards of 0.70 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO, and 1.4
gpm NO<INF>X;
(v) Emission standards for 1994 and later light duty trucks under
6000 pounds GVWR and meeting Tier 1 emission standards of 0.70 gpm HC,
15 gpm CO, and 2.0 gpm NO<INF>X;
(vi) Emission standards for 1994 and later light duty trucks
greater than 6000 pounds GVWR and meeting Tier 1 emission standards of
0.80 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO and 2.5 gpm NO<INF>X;
(vii) Emission standards for 1981-1985 model year vehicles of 1.2
CO, and 220 gpm HC for the idle, two-speed tests and loaded steadystate
tests (as described in appendix B of this subpart S); and
(viii) Maximum exhaust dilution measured as no less than 6CO plus
carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2) on vehicles subject to a steady-state test
(as described in appendix B of this subpart S); and
(viii) Maximum exhaust dilution measured as no less than 6CO plus
carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2) on vehicles subject to a steady-state test
(as described in appendix B of this subpart S).
(8) Emission control device inspections. (i) Visual inspection of
the catalyst and fuel inlet restrictor on all 1984 and later model year
vehicles.
(ii) Visual inspection of the positive crankcase ventilation valve
on 1968 through 1971 model years, inclusive, and of the exhaust gas
recirculation valve on 1972 through 1983 model year vehicles,
inclusive.
(9) Evaporative system function checks. Evaporative system
integrity (pressure) test on 1983 and later model year vehicles and an
evaporative system transient purge test on 1986 and later model year
vehicles.
(10) Stringency. A 20 2.121996e-313mission test failure rate among pre-1981
model year vehicles.
(11) Waiver rate. A 3waiver rate, as a percentage of failed
vehicles.
(12) Compliance rate. A 96
ompliance rate.
(13) Evaluation date. Enhanced I/M program areas shall be shown to
obtain the same or lower emission levels as the model program described
in this paragraph by 2000 for ozone nonattainment areas and 2001 for CO
nonattainment areas, and for severe and extreme ozone nonattainment
areas, on each applicable milestone and attainment deadline,
thereafter. Milestones for NO<INF>X shall be the same as for ozone.
(g) Alternate Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standard. An enhanced I/
M area which is either not subject to or has an approved State
Implementation Plan pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 for Reasonable Further Progress in 1996, and does
not have a disapproved plan for Reasonable Further Progress for the
period after 1996 or a disapproved plan for attainment of the air
quality standards for ozone or CO, may select the alternate low
enhanced I/M performance standard described below in lieu of the
standard described in paragraph (f) of this section. The model program
elements for this alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard are:
(1) Network type. Centralized testing.
[[Page 48036]]
(2) Start date. For areas with existing I/M programs, 1983. For
areas newly subject, 1995.
(3) Test frequency. Annual testing.
(4) Model year coverage. Testing of 1968 and newer vehicles.
(5) Vehicle type coverage. Light duty vehicles, and light duty
trucks, rated up to 8,500 pounds GVWR.
(6) Exhaust emission test type. Idle testing of all covered
vehicles (as described in Appendix B of Subpart S).
(7) Emission standards. Those specified in 40 CFR Part 85, Subpart
W.
(8) Emission control device inspections. Visual inspection of the
positive crankcase ventilation valve on all 1968 through 1971 model
year vehicles, inclusive, and of the exhaust gas recirculation valve on
all 1972 and newer model year vehicles.
(9) Evaporative system function checks. None.
(10) Stringency. A 20 2.121996e-313mission test failure rate among pre-1981
model year vehicles.
(11) Waiver rate. A 3waiver rate, as a percentage of failed
vehicles.
(12) Compliance rate. A 96
ompliance rate.
(13) Evaluation date. Enhanced I/M program areas subject to the
provisions of this paragraph shall be shown to obtain the same or lower
emission levels as the model program described in this paragraph by
2000 for ozone nonattainment areas and 2001 for CO nonattainment areas,
and for severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, on each
applicable milestone and attainment deadline, thereafter. Milestones
for NO<INF>x shall be the same as for ozone.
4. Section 51.360 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7) introductory text, (a)(9) and
(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.360 Waivers and compliance via diagnostic inspection.
The program may allow the issuance of a waiver, which is a form of
compliance with the program requirements that allows a motorist to
comply without meeting the applicable test standards, as long as the
prescribed criteria described below are met.
(a) * * *
(1) Waivers shall be issued only after a vehicle has failed a
retest performed after all qualifying repairs have been completed.
Qualifying repairs include repairs of the emission control components,
listed in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, performed within 60 days of
the test date.
- * * * *
(5) General repairs shall be performed by a recognized repair
technician (i.e., one professionally engaged in vehicle repair,
employed by a going concern whose purpose is vehicle repair, or
possessing nationally recognized certification for emission-related
diagnosis and repair) in order to qualify for a waiver. I/M programs
may allow the cost of parts (not labor) utilized by non-technicians
(e.g., owners) to apply toward the waiver limit. The waiver would apply
to the cost of parts for the repair or replacement of the following
list of emission control components: oxygen sensor, catalytic
converter, thermal reactor, EGR valve, fuel filler cap, evaporative
canister, PCV valve, air pump, distributor, ignition wires, coil, and
spark plugs. The cost of any hoses, gaskets, belts, clamps, brackets or
other accessories directly associated with these components may also be
applied to the waiver limit.
(6) In basic programs, a minimum of $75 for pre-81 vehicles and
$200 for 1981 and newer vehicles shall be spent in order to qualify for
a waiver. These model year cutoffs and the associated dollar limits
shall be in full effect no later than January 1, 1998. Prior to January
1, 1998, states may adopt any minimum expenditure commensurate with the
waiver rate committed to for the purposes of modeling compliance with
the basic I/M performance standard.
(7) Beginning on January 1, 1998, enhanced I/M programs shall
require the motorist to make an expenditure of at least $450 in repairs
to qualify for a waiver. The I/M program shall provide that the $450
minimum expenditure shall be adjusted in January of each year by the
percentage, if any, by which the Consumer Price Index for the preceding
calendar year differs from the Consumer Price Index of 1989. Prior to
January 1, 1998, states may adopt any minimum expenditure commensurate
with the waiver rate committed to for the purposes of modeling
compliance with the relevant enhanced I/M performance standard.
- * * * *
(9) A time extension, not to exceed the period of the inspection
frequency, may be granted to obtain needed repairs on a vehicle in the
case of economic hardship when waiver requirements have not been met.
After having received a time extension, a vehicle must fully pass the
applicable test standards before becoming eligible for another time
extension. The extension for a vehicle shall be tracked and reported by
the program.
(b) Compliance via diagnostic inspection. Vehicles subject to a
transient IM240 emission test at the cutpoints established in
Secs. 51.351 (f)(7) and (g)(7) of this subpart may be issued a
certificate of compliance without meeting the prescribed emission
cutpoints, if, after failing a retest on emissions, a complete,
documented physical and functional diagnosis and inspection performed
by the I/M agency or a contractor to the I/M agency show that no
additional emission-related repairs are needed. Any such exemption
policy and procedures shall be subject to approval by the
Administrator.
- * * * *
- Section 51.372 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)
introductory text, (c)(3), (c)(4), and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.372 State implementation plan submissions.
- * * * *
(c) Redesignation requests. Any nonattainment area that EPA
determines would otherwise qualify for redesignation from nonattainment
to attainment shall receive full approval of a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submittal under Sections 182(a)(2)(B) or 182(b)(4) if the
submittal contains the following elements:
- * * * *
(3) A contingency measure consisting of a commitment by the
Governor or the Governor's designee to adopt or consider adopting
regulations to implement an I/M program to correct a violation of the
ozone or CO standard or other air quality problem, in accordance with
the provisions of the maintenance plan.
(4) A contingency commitment that includes an enforceable schedule
for adoption and implementation of the I/M program, and appropriate
milestones. The schedule shall include the date for submission of a SIP
meeting all of the requirements of this subpart. Schedule milestones
shall be listed in months from the date EPA notifies the state that it
is in violation of the ozone or CO standard or any earlier date
specified in the state plan. Unless the state, in accordance with the
provisions of the maintenance plan, chooses not to implement I/M, it
must submit a SIP revision containing an I/M program no more than 18
months after notification by EPA.
- * * * *
(e) SIP submittals to correct violations. SIP submissions required
pursuant to a violation of the ambient ozone or CO standard (as
discussed in paragraph (c) of this section) shall address all of the
requirements of this subpart. The SIP shall demonstrate that
performance standards in either
[[Page 48037]]
Sec. 51.351 or Sec. 51.352 shall be met using an evaluation date
(rounded to the nearest January for carbon monoxide and July for
hydrocarbons) seven years after the date EPA notifies the state that it
is in violation of the ozone or CO standard or any earlier date
specified in the state plan. Emission standards for vehicles subject to
an IM240 test may be phased in during the program but full standards
must be in effect for at least one complete test cycle before the end
of the 5-year period. All other requirements shall take effect within
24 months of the date EPA notifies the state that it is in violation of
the ozone or CO standard or any earlier date specified in the state
plan. The phase-in allowances of Sec. 51.373(c) of this subpart shall
not apply.
[FR Doc. 95-23106 Filed 9-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
|
