[Federal Register: December 15, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 240)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69637-69640]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15de03-24]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[Region II Docket No. NJ65-269, FRL-7599-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey;
Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for New Jersey's enhanced inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program. New Jersey has made several amendments to
its I/M rules to comply with EPA regulations and to improve performance
of the program and has requested that the SIP be revised to include
these changes. Chief among the amendments EPA is proposing to approve
is New Jersey's On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) program. EPA is proposing to
approve New Jersey's latest I/M rule changes. The intended effect of
this action is to maintain consistency between the State-adopted rules
and the federally approved SIP.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2004. Public
comments on this action are requested and will be considered before
taking final action.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. NJ65-269, by email to Werner.Raymond@epa.gov, online at http://www.regulations.gov,
which is an alternative method for submitting electronic comments to
EPA; mailed to Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866; or by hand delivery or courier to
the same address.
Copies of the state submittal(s) are available at the following
address for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch,
290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, and
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air
Quality Planning, 401 East State Street, CN027, Trenton, New Jersey
08625.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reema Persaud, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249, persaud.reema@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail
address or other contact information in the body of your comment and
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be
identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact
you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any
identifying or contact information
[[Page 69638]]
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is made available to the public. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
If you send an electronic mail (e-mail) comment to the EPA e-mail address for this rulemaking, Werner.Raymond@epa.gov, your e-mail
address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment
that is made available to the public. Regulations.gov is an alternative
method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. In contrast to EPA's
e-mail system, Regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
mean EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
Table of Contents
1. Background
2. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
A. What are the OBD requirements and how does New Jersey's I/M
program address them?
B. What are the additional I/M changes being incorporated?
3. Summary of Conclusions and Proposed Action
4. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
1. Background
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires certain states to implement an
enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program to detect gasoline-
fueled motor vehicles which exhibit excessive emissions of certain air
pollutants. The enhanced I/M program is intended to help states meet
federal health-based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
ozone and carbon monoxide by requiring vehicles with excess emissions
to have their emissions control systems repaired. New Jersey is
required to have an enhanced I/M program pursuant to the CAA, and
consequently has adopted, and has been implementing an enhanced I/M
program statewide since December 13, 1999. In the January 22, 2002
Federal Register (67 FR 2811), EPA fully approved New Jersey's enhanced
I/M program, including the State's performance standard modeling, as
meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA. Additional information
on EPA's final approval of New Jersey's enhanced I/M program can be
found in EPA's January 22, 2002 final approval notice.
On April 5, 2001, EPA's revised I/M program requirements rule was
published in the Federal Register (Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and
Maintenance Program Requirements Incorporating the On-Board Diagnostics
Check; Final Rule (66 FR 18156)). The revised I/M rule requires that
electronic checks of the On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) system of
applicable 1996-and-newer motor vehicles be conducted as part of
states' motor vehicle I/M programs. OBD is part of the sophisticated
vehicle powertrain management system and is designed to detect engine
and transmission problems that might cause the vehicle emissions to
exceed allowable limits. The OBD system is also designed to fully
evaluate the vehicle emissions control system. If the OBD system
detects a problem that may cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times
the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) standards, then the Malfunction
Indicator Light (MIL) is illuminated. By turning on the MIL, the OBD
system notifies the vehicle operator that an emission-related fault has
been detected, and the vehicle should be repaired as soon as possible
thus reducing the harmful emissions contributed by that vehicle.
This revised OBD I/M rule applies only to those areas required to
implement an I/M program under the CAA. This rule established a
deadline of January 1, 2002 for states to begin performing OBD checks
on 1996-and-newer model OBD-equipped vehicles, and to require repairs
to be performed on those vehicles with malfunctions identified by the
OBD check.
The revised I/M rule also provided several options to states to
delay implementation of OBD testing, under certain circumstances. An
extension of the deadline for states to begin conducting mandatory OBD
checks is permissible provided the state making the request can show
just cause to EPA for a delay and that the revised implementation date
represents ``the best the state can reasonably do.'' EPA's final rule
identifies factors that may serve as a possible justification for
states considering making a request to the EPA to delay implementation
of OBD I/M program checks beyond the January 2002 deadline. Potential
factors justifying such a delay request that are listed in EPA's rule
include: contractual impediments, hardware or software deficiencies,
data management software deficiencies, the need for additional training
for the testing and repair industries, and the need for public
education or outreach.
On April 24, 2002, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision to formally
request an extension of the OBD I/M test deadline, per EPA's I/M
requirement rule. New Jersey's SIP revision lists many of the same
factors that are listed in EPA's I/M rule in order to justify the
State's request for extension of the OBD testing deadline. These
include the hybrid nature of the inspection network in New Jersey of
both centralized and decentralized inspection facilities. The hybrid
network system makes the software upgrades and programmatic changes
more complicated. It requires the modification of two distinct software
applications while assuring compatibility with a common vehicle
inspection database (VID). All upgrades are required to conform with
State specifications and pass stringent acceptance testing protocols
before installation in testing facilities. Based on these and other
reasons listed by New Jersey, EPA believes that the State's delayed
implementation is justified.
2. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
The EPA is proposing approval of several submittals by the State of
New Jersey pertaining to its enhanced I/M SIP. The content of those SIP
submittals is described below and summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.--Summary of Submittals Relevant to Today's Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Content
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 22, 2002................................. Request to delay
implementation of OBD
testing.
February, 10, 2003............................. (1) Implementation of
On-board Diagnostic
Inspections and
Schedule.
(2) Continuation of
``Initial'' Standards
for the ASM5015
Exhaust Emission Test.
(3) Removal of the
Requirements for
``Final'' Standards
for the ASM5015
Exhaust emission test.
(4) Removal of the
requirements for the
evaporative pressure
and purge tests.
May 28, 2003................................... (1) Requirements for
issuance of temporary
inspection decals.
(2) Exemption of
gasoline-fueled school
buses.
(3) Allowance of an on-
road inspection to
substitute for a
biennial Inspection.
[[Page 69639]]
August 4, 2003................................. NJMVC \1\ adopted
regulations for OBD
inspections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (NJMVC) formerly New Jersey
Department of Motor Vehicles.
A. What Are the OBD Requirements and How Does New Jersey's Program
Address Them?
The OBD program requires scan tool equipment to read the vehicle's
built-in computer sensors in model year 1996 and newer vehicles. The
OBD-I/M check consists of two types of examination: A visual check of
the dashboard display function and status and an electronic examination
of the OBD computer itself. The failure criteria for OBD testing is any
Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC) or combination of DTCs that results in
the Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) to be commanded on. A DTC is a
code that indicates an emission control system or component which may
cause emissions to increase to 1.5 times the limit due to malfunction.
New Jersey has incorporated this OBD component into the I/M program.
If the OBD scan reveals DTCs that have not commanded the MIL on,
the motorist should be advised of the issue, but the vehicle should not
be failed unless other non-DTC-based failure criteria has been met.
Vehicles may fail inspection if the vehicle connector is missing,
tampered with or otherwise inoperable, if the MIL is commanded on and
is not visually illuminated, and if the MIL is commanded on for 1 or
more DTCs as defined in Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE) J2012
guidance document.
Vehicles are rejected from testing if the scan of the OBD system
reveals a ``not ready'' code for any OBD component. The States have the
flexibility to permit model year 1996 to 2000 vehicles with 2 or fewer
unset readiness codes, and model year 2001 and newer with 1 unset
readiness code to complete OBD-I/M inspection without being rejected.
Vehicles would still fail if the MIL was commanded on or if other
failure criteria were met, or be rejected if 3 or more unset readiness
codes were encountered. If the MIL is not commanded to be illuminated
the vehicle shall pass the OBD inspection even if DTCs are present.
There are several reasons why a vehicle may arrive for testing
without the required readiness codes set. These reasons include the
following: (1) Failure to operate the vehicle under the conditions
necessary to evaluate the monitors in question; (2) a recent resetting
of the OBD system due to battery disconnection or replacement, or
routine maintenance immediately prior to testing; (3) a unique,
vehicle-specific OBD system failure; (4) an as-of-yet undefined system
design anomaly; or (5) a fraudulent attempt to avoid I/M program
requirements by clearing OBD codes just prior to OBD-I/M testing. Once
the cause for rejection has been corrected, the vehicle must return for
reinspection. New Jersey has incorporated these OBD program factors
into its I/M program.
The EPA believes that for an OBD-I/M test program to be most
effective, whether centralized or decentralized, it should be designed
to allow for: (1) Real-time data link connection to a centralized
testing database; (2) quality-controlled input of vehicle and owner
identification information; and (3) automated generation of test
reports. New Jersey has incorporated these OBD program elements into
its I/M program.
New Jersey has structured its On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) program to
be implemented as outlined by EPA. New Jersey outlined the procedure
for its OBD inspection program at N.J.A.C. 7:27B-5.7. The State
requires that the procedures required to implement the OBD program
should be performed in accordance with the procedures set forth by EPA.
For this reason, and as detailed above, EPA is proposing that New
Jersey's OBD program meets federal requirements and is approvable.
New Jersey has gone through the phase-in period of Beta testing,
and all the systems have been updated with the appropriate software and
hardware. The inspectors at both centralized and decentralized
inspection facilities have been trained and licensed to operate the OBD
scan tools and recognize the basis for failure or rejection. New Jersey
has also taken steps to limit potential inspection fraud at centralized
and decentralized inspection stations. A motor vehicle emission
inspector license may be suspended or revoked if any fraudulent vehicle
emission inspection is conducted. Also, no person licensed as an
emission inspector shall own or be employed by any motor vehicle repair
facility while employed by a centralized inspection facility. An
emission inspector may be employed by a private inspection facility
only if the facility is licensed by the Division in accordance with
N.J.A.C 13:20-44.
B. What Are the Additional I/M Changes Being Incorporated?
In addition to the OBD programs, this proposal addresses a number
of submissions from the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) concerning revisions to the I/M SIP for New Jersey.
The State believes following the proposed revisions are necessary to
enhance New Jersey's I/M program, and these elements of the program are
approvable by EPA. The content of those submissions is described below.
The State requested a revision to its SIP to exempt new cars from
inspection for four years, as opposed to two years, and to include a
change in the minimum cost expenditure value for the issuance of a
waiver, from $200 to $450. Subsequent to the first inspection, the
inspection cycle is biennial (every two years). The EPA approved the
State's new motor vehicle four-year exemption SIP revision on February
18, 2003 (68 FR 7704). New Jersey conducted I/M performance standard
modeling using MOBILE6 to model emissions related to a 4 year exemption
from inspection of new vehicles. The modeling also included other
program details reflective of the State's current I/M program, for
example, the removal of evaporative purge and pressure tests, and
modifications listed below. The results of the MOBILE6 modeling
indicated that the emission levels were still below the levels of
emissions when EPA defaults are assumed.
The April 2002 submittal requested the exemption from dynamometer
testing any motor vehicle ``with a chassis height that has been
modified so as to make its operation on a dynamometer either
impractical or hazardous, as will be determined by the discretion of
the Director of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission (NJMVC).''
On February 10, 2003, a letter was transmitted by New Jersey
requesting approval of the following revisions. A request was made for
the end date of ``initial'' emission standards for ASM5015 exhaust
emission tests to be eliminated in order to allow for continued use of
these standards, and for the ``final'' emission standards for
[[Page 69640]]
the ASM5015 exhaust emission test to be removed. EPA received a request
for the removal of all references to the evaporative pressure and purge
test, while retaining the evaporative fuel cap leak test.
On May 28, 2003, EPA received a request from New Jersey to allow
the substitution of an on-road inspection certification for the
biennial inspection. The on-road inspection must comply with the
testing that is required for the motor vehicle as part of a regular
inspection, and must be within the two-month period prior to its
regularly scheduled biennial inspection.
This letter also requested the exemption of OBD-eligible gasoline-
fueled and bi-fueled school buses from I/M enhanced inspection
purposes. All school buses must meet the Department emission standards
and be inspected biannually using a 2,500 RPM test, not with an ASM5015
test, (see 34 N.J.R. 829(a) February 19, 2002). The school buses will
be inspected under the MVC School Bus Inspection Unit regulation in
accordance with N.J.S.A. 39:3B-18 et seq. The State also requested that
leasing companies and out-of-state dealerships be allowed to issue
temporary inspection decals, which would permit the motorist to present
the vehicle at the exit of any centralized inspection facility and be
issued a valid inspection decal.
In addition to restructuring the rule, amendments were made to:
clarify the meaning of vehicles primarily operated in the area; clarify
existing definitions and include new definitions; clarify fleet vehicle
testing requirements, set fee payment methods, station testing
procedures, emission test standards and waiver requirements; clarify
the vehicle test report requirement for vehicles that fail the OBD
test, reinspection, the clean screening test report requirements and
the fleet vehicle reporting requirements; clarify the issuance of
inspection certificates of approval or rejection; clarify the test
methods for the OBD and the visual test methods, and clarify licensing
of inspection agents and definitions of fraud. All of the factors of
New Jersey's I/M program detailed above are approvable by the EPA.
3. Summary of Conclusions and Proposed Action
EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New Jersey
has revised the I/M program in accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), and all of EPA's technical requirements for an
approvable OBD program. The CAA gives States the discretion in program
planning to implement programs of the State's choosing as long as
necessary emission reductions are met. EPA is approving the proposed
actions and revisions in addition to adding the OBD program described
earlier, because New Jersey has successfully demonstrated through
performance standard modeling that these modifications would not
adversely affect emission reductions that the State is counting on from
the program. The performance standard modeling, which reflects the
State's enhanced I/M program as it is currently implemented, shows that
the State's program meets the low enhanced performance standard. EPA's
authority to approve New Jersey's enhanced I/M program is set forth at
section 110 and 182 of the CAA.
4. 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus 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 Clean Air Act. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 25, 2003.
Jane M. Kenny,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 03-30887 Filed 12-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P