[Federal Register: January 30, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 20)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4842-4847]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30ja03-26]
[[Page 4842]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MO 168-1168; FRL-7444-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the EPA, are announcing a proposal to approve a revision
to the state implementation plan (SIP) for the inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program operating in the Missouri portion of the St.
Louis, Missouri, nonattainment area. Missouri has made several
amendments to the I/M rule to improve performance of the program and
has requested that the SIP be revised. The effect of this action would
be to ensure Federal enforceability of the state air program rules and
to maintain consistency between the state-adopted rules and the
approved SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to Leland Daniels,
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Copies of documents relative to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the above-listed
Region 7 location. Interested persons wanting to examine these document
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leland Daniels at (913) 551-7651.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:
What is a SIP?
What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
What are the criteria for SIP approval?
What does Federal approval of a state regulation mean to me?
What is being addressed in this document?
Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
What action is EPA taking?
What Is a SIP?
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop
air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state
air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards
established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under
section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria
pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.
What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?
In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion in the SIP. We must provide public
notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed
Federal action on the state submission. If relevant adverse comments
are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action
by us.
All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52, entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we
have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.
What Are the Criteria for SIP Approval?
In order to be approved into a SIP, the submittal must meet the
requirements of section 110. In addition to the procedural requirements
mentioned above, the plan must provide for the attainment, maintenance,
and enforcement of the national ambient air quality standards.
The CAA has additional requirements for the approval of SIPs for
ozone nonattainment areas. It requires the adoption of either a
``basic'' or an ``enhanced'' I/M program depending on the severity of
the ozone problem and the population of the area. Section 182(a)(2)(B)
directed us to publish guidance for state I/M programs. We promulgated
I/M regulations and subsequent amendments, codified in 40 CFR part 51,
subpart S.
What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me?
Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we
are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens
are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in
section 304 of the CAA.
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
On May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31480), we took final action to approve
Missouri's SIP for the I/M program in the St. Louis nonattainment area
(St. Louis City, and the counties of St. Louis, St. Charles, Jefferson,
and Franklin) and incorporated by reference the state I/M rule, 10 CSR
(Code of State Regulations) 10-5.380. Although Missouri's program
contains most of the features of an enhanced program, we approved the
program with regard to compliance with the basic I/M requirements in
Section 182(b)(4) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 40 CFR part 51,
subpart S, because those are the I/M requirements currently applicable
to the St. Louis area.\1\ On April 5, 2000, the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) began implementation of the I/M program. On
February 4, 2002, the program began using the final, lower test levels,
[[Page 4843]]
commonly known as cutpoints, to determine if a vehicle passed or failed
the inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As discussed in a final rulemaking being published today in
the Rules Section of the Federal Register, we are reclassifying the
area to ``serious'' nonattainment in response to an order in Sierra
Club and Missouri Coalition for the Environment v. Environmental
Protection Agency, 311 F. 3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002). In that rule, EPA
is establishing a schedule to require Missouri and Illinois to
submit SIPs to meet the ``serious'' area requirements within one
year from today. As a result, Missouri would be required to meet the
I/M requirements in section 182(c)(3) by that deadline. However, in
another proposed rule also published today, EPA is proposing to
redesignate the St. Louis area to attainment. If the area is
redesignated before the serious area requirements come due, Missouri
would not be required to meet these requirements. In any event, the
revisions which are the subject of this proposal are properly
reviewed against the section 182(b)(4) requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MDNR has made several submissions concerning the I/M SIP. The
content of those being considered here are discussed below.
The legal authority for the I/M program was amended in 1999 by
Senate Bill 019. Amendments which affected the design of the I/M
program include the following: requires the MDNR and the Missouri
Highway Patrol to enter into an interagency agreement covering all
aspects of the administration and enforcement of Section 307.366,
Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMo); establishes criteria and procedures
for a contract for the construction and operation of the I/M program;
provides the residents of Franklin County the option of a biennial
motor vehicle registration. For the purpose of registration, for
vehicles sold by a licensed motor vehicle dealer, any inspection and
approval within 120 days preceding the date of the sale is considered
timely. Costs for repair work may only be included toward reaching the
waiver amount if the repairs are performed by a recognized repair
technician. It deleted the $5.00 fee reduction for any person required
to wait for up to 15 minutes before the inspection begins. Penalties
for longer wait times were retained. The I/M amendments contained in
the October 25, 2000, submittal reflected these statutory changes.
On October 25, 2000, we received a request from Roger Randolph,
Director of the Air Pollution Control Program, MDNR, to amend the I/M
SIP and incorporate changes made to the I/M rule (10 CSR 10-5.380) by
the Missouri Air Conservation Commission. These changes removed a fee
reduction (otherwise known as a wait time penalty) of $5.00 whenever
someone had to wait up to 15 minutes for a test; incorporated a
transition program from January 1 through April 4, 2000; and provided
another test option for residents of Franklin County.
On June 19, 2002, we received a letter from MDNR that contained
their plan for incorporating the On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) test into
the I/M program and a commitment to do so. This was in response to our
amendment of the Federal I/M rule that changed the implementation date
for use of the OBD test from January 1, 2001, to January 1, 2002, and
provide options for other implementation dates.
On December 13, 2002, we received a request from MDNR to approve a
revision to the I/M SIP and incorporate amendments made to the I/M
rule. In addition to restructuring the rule, a number of amendments
were made to: clarify the meaning of vehicles primarily operated in the
area (section 1); clarify existing definitions and include new
definitions (section 2); clarify fleet vehicle testing requirements,
set fee payment methods, station and clean screening testing
procedures, emission test standards and waiver requirements (section
3); clarify the vehicle test report requirement for vehicles that fail
the OBD test, the clean screening test report requirements and the
fleet vehicle reporting requirements (section 4); clarify the test
methods for the OBD and the visual test methods; exempt hybrid electric
vehicles from tailpipe test methods; include clean screening test
methods as valid test methods (section 5), and delete the transition
period. The submittal also included a list of nonregulatory provisions
that will be updated early in 2003.
The following sections address whether the elements of the state's
submittal comply with the applicable elements in the Federal rule. Only
those elements affected by changes in the state rule are reviewed. Our
decision for approval is based solely on the State's ability to meet
the I/M requirements for a basic program.
Applicability (40 CFR 51.350)
As required in the I/M rule, any area classified as a moderate
ozone nonattainment area and not required to implement an enhanced I/M
program shall implement a basic I/M program in any 1990 census-defined,
urbanized area within the nonattainment area with a population of
200,000 or more.
The legal authority for the I/M program is contained in the
Missouri Revised Statutes (RSMo), sections 643.300-643.355 and section
307.366. The implementing regulations are in Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-
5.380. In 1999 the legal authority for the I/M program was amended by
Senate Bill 019. The amendments required MDNR and the Missouri Highway
Patrol to enter into an interagency agreement covering all aspects of
the administration and enforcement of Section 307.366, RSMo;
established criteria and procedures for a contract for the construction
and operation of the I/M program; and provided the residents of
Franklin County the option of a biennial motor vehicle registration.
For the purpose of registration, for vehicles sold by a licensed motor
vehicle dealer, any inspection and approval within 120 days preceding
the date of the sale is considered timely. Costs for repair work may
only be included toward reaching the waiver amount if the repairs are
performed by a recognized repair technician. It deleted the $5.00 fee
reduction for any person who is required to wait for up to 15 minutes
before the inspection begins.
The legal authority and regulations necessary to establish the
program boundaries for the areas required by EPA's rule to be included
in a basic I/M program continue. Thus, this portion of the SIP
continues to be approvable.
Adequate Tools and Resources (40 CFR 51.354)
The Federal regulation requires Missouri to provide a description
of the resources to be used in the program. The state must provide a
detailed budget plan that describes the source of funds for personnel,
program administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment.
In addition, the SIP must include public education and assistance and
funding for other necessary functions.
These amendments do not alter the detailed budget, fee amounts,
source of funds for personnel, program administration, program
enforcement, and purchase of equipment contained in the I/M SIP. The
amendment does allow fees to be paid by cash, check or credit card.
Thus, this portion of the SIP continues to be approvable.
Test Frequency and Convenience (40 CFR 51.355)
The I/M performance standard assumes an annual test frequency;
however, other schedules may be approved if the performance standard is
achieved. The Missouri legislation provides the legal authority to
implement a biennial program. In 1999, the statutory authority was
revised by Senate Bill 019 and it provided the residents of Franklin
County the option of a biennial motor vehicle registration. Enforcement
is accomplished through registration denial. Missouri did demonstrate
that it met the performance standard. This portion of the SIP continues
to meet the Federal requirements.
Although not required for a basic program, enhanced I/M programs
shall be designed in such a way as to provide convenient service to
motorists required to have their vehicles tested. To meet the enhanced
requirements, the state must show that the network of stations is
sufficient to ensure short waiting times, short driving distances, and
regular testing hours. The State has assured consumer convenience by
both State law, rule and contract provisions regarding station
location, accessibility, and operation; equipment availability
[[Page 4844]]
and reliability, and wait time penalties. Although the shortest wait
time penalty was deleted (the one for waits of up to 15 minutes), the
wait time penalties for waits longer than 30 and 60 minutes remain.
Since the beginning of the program, the average wait time is 12
minutes. Therefore, this portion of the SIP meets the test frequency
and convenience requirements for an enhanced I/M program which exceed
the requirements for a basic program.
Vehicle Coverage (40 CFR 51.356)
The performance standards for enhanced I/M programs assumes
coverage of all 1968 and later model year light-duty vehicles (LDV) and
light-duty trucks (LDT) up to 8500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) and includes vehicles operating on all fuel types. The standard
for basic I/M programs does not include light duty trucks. Other levels
of coverage may be approved if the necessary emission reductions are
achieved.
Missouri's I/M statute requires coverage of all 1971 and newer LDVs
and LDTs up to 8500 pounds GVWR which are domiciled or primarily
operated in the area. As of the date of the original I/M SIP submittal
(November 1999), 1.3 million vehicles are in the nonattainment area.
The Missouri I/M regulation provides the regulatory authority to
implement and enforce the vehicle coverage.
In section 1, the June 17, 2002, amendments added a definition of
those vehicles that are primarily operated in the geographic area. In
section 2, it also established a definition of a hybrid electric
vehicle and specified in subsection 5(F) that they are not subject to
tailpipe emission tests but are subject to other test methods.
In section 2, a number of definitions were clarified or added.
These include compliance cycle, control chart, diagnostic trouble code,
emission inspection, hybrid electric vehicle, malfunction indicator
lamp, on-board diagnostics, OBD test, qualifying repair, readiness
flag, and recognized labor costs.
The amendment established a compliance cycle for both privately-
and publicly-owned vehicles. For privately-owned vehicles, the
compliance cycle begins 60 days prior to the expiration of the
vehicle's registration. For publicly-owned vehicles, the compliance
cycle begins on January 1 of each even-numbered year. All applicable
vehicles are to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards set
in the rule during the compliance cycle. Federal fleets and federal
employee vehicles are to comply with the December 1999 Interim Guidance
for Federal Facility Compliance with Clean Air Act Section 118(c) and
118(d) and Applicable Provisions of State Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Programs.
Missouri has revised its regulations to require Federal facilities
operating vehicles in the I/M program area to report certification of
compliance to the state. These requirements appear to be different than
those for other non-Federal groups of Missouri registered vehicles.
However, at this time we are not requiring states to implement 40 CFR
51.356(a)(4) dealing with Federal installations within I/M areas. The
Department of Justice has recommended to us that this Federal
regulation be revised since it appears to grant states authority to
regulate Federal installations in circumstances where the Federal
government has not waived sovereign immunity. It would not be
appropriate to require compliance with this regulation if it is not
authorized. We will be revising this provision in the future and will
review state I/M SIPs with respect to this issue when this new rule is
final. Therefore, for these reasons, we are neither proposing approval
nor disapproval of the specific requirements which apply to Federal
facilities at this time.
The amendments did not alter the level of coverage. Thus the level
of coverage remains approvable as it meets the requirements for an
enhanced I/M program which exceed the requirements for a basic program.
In addition, Missouri has legal authority to implement fleet-testing
requirements and to implement requirements for special exemptions. As
noted above we are neither proposing approval nor disapproval of the
requirements which apply to Federal facilities. Therefore, this portion
of the SIP is approvable as it meets the requirements for a basic and
an enhanced I/M program.
Test Procedures and Standards (40 CFR 51.357)
The Federal rule requires Missouri to establish written test
procedures and pass/fail standards that are followed for each model
year and vehicle type included in the program.
The October 25, 2000, submittal did provide for the use of the idle
test and set emission limits for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons
during the transition period (see motorist compliance enforcement
below). This test and the emission limits are applicable to automobile
dealers and used vehicle purchasers. This submittal did not alter the
program's test procedures and standards for the I/M program which
started on April 5, 2000. This portion of the SIP continues to be
approvable.
Although the submittal of December 13, 2002, retained the test
methods contained in the previously approved SIP, two significant
changes were made. First, the December 13, 2002, submittal took
advantage of the flexibility included in our April 5, 2001, rulemaking
concerning the integration of OBD testing in the I/M program. Second,
the submittal added a hybrid method as one of the clean screening
methods (see on-road testing below). In addition, per our guidance, it
exempted hybrid electric vehicles from tailpipe test methods but
subjected them to the evaporative system pressure test, OBD test, anti-
tampering test, and clean screening.
The original, Federally-approved SIP committed to begin OBD testing
beginning January 1, 2001. The December 13, 2002, submittal revises the
original OBD start date commitment by introducing a two-year phase-in
period for the OBD test starting January 1, 2003, and ending December
31, 2004. During the two-year phase-in period, the OBD test would be
used as a ``clean screen'' test. Then starting January 1, 2005, the OBD
test would be used to pass or fail the 1996 and newer model year
vehicles.
During the phase-in period if a model year 1996 or newer, OBD-
equipped vehicle passes its initial OBD test, the owner will be issued
a passing compliance certificate and allowed to register the vehicle
without further testing. If the vehicle fails its initial OBD
inspection, it will then receive a ``second-chance'' IM240 test. Only
if the vehicle fails both tests during this two-year period phase-in
period will it be required to be repaired. Once the vehicle has been
repaired, it must be submitted for a retest. According to the December
13, 2002, submittal, vehicles submitted for a retest will receive both
an OBD test and an IM240 test, the latter of which must be passed for
the vehicle to pass its retest. The December 13, 2002, submittal's
requirement that the IM240 test be the deciding test for the retest is
inconsistent with the April 5, 2001, Federal rule which requires only
the OBD test be used for the retest.
Although the Missouri regulation is not consistent with our
requirements for the OBD test during the 2003-2004 phase-in period, the
Federal I/M rule (see 40 CFR 51.372) provides additional flexibility
with regard to as-of-yet unimplemented I/M program elements
[[Page 4845]]
for basic I/M areas \2\ that qualify for redesignation to attainment.
Under this additional flexibility, an as-of-yet unimplemented I/M
program element may be converted into a contingency measure as part of
the area's approved maintenance plan (which, in turn, forms a part of
the area's approved redesignation request). We believe that the St.
Louis nonattainment area is eligible for redesignation and, in a
separate rulemaking, are proposing to find that the area has attained
the 1-hour ozone standard and to redesignate the area from
nonattainment to attainment for that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As noted previously, the St. Louis area is still being
evaluated as a basic area, since the enhanced area requirements have
not yet come due.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other elements needed for the I/M program and redesignation request
to be approved include legal authority for the as-of-yet unimplemented
I/M program element(s), a request to place the as-of-yet unimplemented
I/M upgrade into the contingency measures portion of the maintenance
plan upon redesignation, a commitment to adopt (or consider adopting)
the regulations needed to implement the deferred I/M program element(s)
including an enforceable schedule for adoption and implementation of
those I/M program element(s). See 40 CFR 51.372(c).
The legal authority for the program is discussed above (see
Applicability). Missouri has legal authority to implement and operate
an I/M program as required including OBD.
Section 6.1 of the maintenance plan, contingency measures, contains
a request that the OBD test measures in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 82 be
placed in the contingency measures portion of the SIP, upon
redesignation of the area to attainment. This requirement is fulfilled.
Section 6.1 of the maintenance plan also contains a commitment that
MDNR will adopt or consider adopting regulations to implement EPA's OBD
testing requirement to correct a violation of the ozone standard. This
requirement is fulfilled.
Section 6.1 of the maintenance plan also contains an enforceable
schedule for development, proposal, adoption, submission, and
implementation of the OBD testing requirements. This requirement is
fulfilled.
The criteria for full approval also requires that basic areas
continuing operation of I/M programs as part of the maintenance plan
without implemented upgrades shall be assumed to be 80 percent as
effective as an implemented, upgraded version of the same I/M program.
The presumption that Missouri's I/M program is 80 percent as effective
is not applicable. We are not discounting the effectiveness of
Missouri's program as they are not taking any credit for emissions
reduction benefits for OBD testing during the 2003-2004 time period in
the MOBILE modeling efforts done for the emission inventories in the
maintenance plan.
For the reasons set forth above, this portion of the SIP is
approvable only if the St. Louis nonattainment area is redesignated.
This portion of the SIP is not approvable if the area is not
redesignated. For the reasons listed above we are not discounting the
effectiveness of the Missouri program by 20 percent.
Test Equipment (40 CFR 51.358)
As required by Federal rule, the original state submittal contained
the written technical specifications for all test equipment to be used
in the program. The specifications required the use of computerized
test systems. The specifications also included performance features and
functional characteristics of the computerized test systems that meet
the applicable Federal I/M regulations and were approvable.
Additional language was added to the regulatory amendment to
clarify the performance features of the emission test equipment, the
functional characteristic of computerized test systems, and that the
evaporative system pressure test equipment, the single-speed and two-
speed idle test equipment, the transient emission test equipment, and
the OBD test equipment must meet standards specified by EPA. This
portion of the SIP continues to be approvable.
Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection (40 CFR 51.360)
The Federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver,
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements, that
permits a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test
standards. For enhanced I/M programs, an expenditure of at least $450
in repairs, adjusted annually to reflect the change in the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) as compared with the CPI for 1989, is required to
qualify for a waiver. For the basic program the minimum expenditure is
$75 for pre-1981 vehicles and $200 for 1981 and newer vehicles.
As required, the Missouri statute provides legislative authority to
issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits, and administer and enforce
the waiver system. Previously, the dollar amounts were set by statutes.
This amendment increased the amount that must be spent on qualifying
repairs and added a requirement that measured tailpipe emissions must
show a reduction upon reinspection. The waiver amount for pre-1981
model year vehicles is set at $200 and the amount for 1981 and all
subsequent model year vehicles is $450. After January 1, 2005, 1996 and
newer model year vehicles will not be eligible for a waiver. The state
statute allows these amounts to be adjusted for inflation after January
1, 2001, to be consistent with an enhanced I/M program. Waivers will be
issued for vehicles that do not pass the emission inspection and meet
the waiver criteria. The repair record must show that the repair
expenditures were not covered by either a recall or manufacturer
warranty and that parts costs and labor costs of recognized technicians
total the minimum applicable amount for the model year of the vehicle.
However, because Missouri is subject to the basic program requirements,
they are only required to meet or exceed the basic I/M requirements of
a minimum of $75 for pre-1981 vehicles and $200 for 1981 and newer
vehicles.
Missouri regulations include provisions that address waiver
criteria and procedures, including cost limits, tampering and warranty-
related repairs, quality control, and administration. Parts and labor
costs for qualifying emission repairs count toward the waiver amount if
the repairs were performed or supervised by a recognized repair
technician. The SIP sets a waiver rate and describes corrective action
that will be taken if the actual waiver rate exceeds the commitment in
the SIP. The SIP meets this portion of the regulation and is
acceptable.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement (40 CFR 51.361)
The Federal regulation requires that compliance will be ensured
through the denial of motor vehicle registration in enhanced I/M
programs unless an exception for use of an existing alternative is
approved. A basic I/M area may use an alternative enforcement mechanism
if it demonstrates that the alternative will be as effective as
registration denial. To register a vehicle subject to the I/M
requirements, the Missouri Department of Revenue by rule, 12 CSR 10-
23.170, requires an owner to present an original, current certificate
of emissions inspection no older than 60 days. Senate Bill 019 in 1999
provided that for the purpose of registration, for vehicles sold by a
licensed motor vehicle dealer, any inspection and approval within 120
[[Page 4846]]
days preceding the date of the sale is considered timely. Thus the
enforcement method used is registration denial.
The December 13, 2002, submittal did not alter Missouri's SIP
commitment to a compliance rate of 96 percent which was used in the
performance standard modeling demonstration and continues to be
approvable. This submittal did not alter the registration denial
enforcement process, the identification of agencies responsible for
performing each applicable activity, and a plan for testing fleet
vehicles. Therefore, this portion of the SIP is approvable.
Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification (40 CFR 51.367)
The Federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally
trained and licensed or certified to perform inspections. The training,
licensing or certification requirements previously approved were
retained. In addition, four hours of continuing education per year is
required. This portion of the SIP continues to be approvable.
On-Road Testing (40 CFR 51.371)
On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas and is an option
for basic areas. The on-road testing program shall provide information
about the emission performance of in-use vehicles. The use of either
remote sensing devices (RSD) or roadside pullovers where tailpipe
emission testing is done can be used to meet the Federal regulations.
For enhanced areas, the on-road testing program must test 0.5 percent
of the vehicles or 20,000 vehicles, whichever is less. A motorist that
has passed an emissions test and is found to be a high emitter as a
result of an on-road test shall be notified that the vehicle is
required to pass an out-of-cycle emissions test.
To improve motorist convenience and reduce the number of test lanes
needed in the St. Louis area, approximately 40 percent of the vehicles
are excused from some I/M testing that would otherwise be required.
This is accomplished by exempting the two newest model year vehicles
(roughly 11 to 15 percent of all vehicles) and using RSD to test and
identify another 25 to 29 percent of the vehicles, those that are low
emitting vehicles. This is known as clean screening.
In subsection (3)(J) and (K), the rule specifies the clean
screening emission inspection requirements (test methods and
procedures) and the inspection standards. The rule includes a hybrid
test method (see (3)(J)(B)) for clean screening that does not meet our
guidance. This hybrid test method excuses vehicles from further I/M
testing if the vehicle is a known low emitter and has passed one RSD
test.
The original SIP committed to a minimum of 0.5 percent of the fleet
receiving a RSD test each year. The original contract contained a
description of the program and methods of collecting, analyzing, and
reporting data. Enabling authority to enforce off-cycle inspection and
repair requirements is not contained in Missouri's legislation. As
stated above, the on-road testing requirements are optional for basic
programs. Therefore, this is not relevant to the EPA's proposed action
with respect to the current I/M requirement applicable to St. Louis.
Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical
support document which is part of this document, the revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.
What Action Is EPA Taking?
Our review of the material submitted indicates that the state has
revised the I/M program in accordance with the requirements of the CAA
and the Federal rule except for one. The state's use of the IM240 test
during the phase-in period to test model year 1996 and newer vehicles
is inconsistent with the Federal rule (see Test Procedures and
Standards above). As discussed above, since this SIP revision was made
in conjunction with a request to redesignate the St. Louis area to
attainment, and as provided for in the Federal I/M rule, we are
proposing to approve the Missouri SIP revision for the St. Louis I/M
program and incorporate by reference the state I/M rule, 10 CSR 10-
5.380, which was submitted on December 13, 2002, if the area is
redesignated to attainment. If the area is not redesignated, we are
proposing to disapprove this SIP revision. We are neither proposing to
approve nor disapprove the specific requirements which apply to Federal
facilities at this time. We are soliciting comments on this proposed
action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any
comments.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Public Law 104-4).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus
[[Page 4847]]
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission
for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable
law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a
SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA.
Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: January 13, 2003.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 03-1772 Filed 1-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P