Inspection/Maintenance Ozone Transport Region Flexibility
Amendments
[Federal Register: October 23, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 204)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54321-54325]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 51
[FRL-5313-7]
Inspection/Maintenance Ozone Transport Region Flexibility
Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: This document proposes revisions to the motor vehicle
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) requirements by adding a special low
enhanced performance standard for qualified areas in Ozone Transport
Regions (OTR). EPA announced its intent to amend certain aspects of the
I/M Program Requirements in December 1994 and held stakeholders'
meetings on January 24, 1995 and January 31, 1995. A public hearing was
held on May 17, 1995. Many of the comments received during that
rulemaking came from OTR stakeholders who were concerned that the
proposed changes did not address metropolitan areas in the OTR that
were attainment, marginal, or moderate areas. Today's supplemental
action proposes to create an additional performance standard which
would apply to attainment, marginal and moderate areas in the OTR. The
fundamental goal is to allow those OTR qualifying areas the flexibility
to implement a broader range of I/M programs than is currently
permitted.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received no later than
November 22, 1995. No public hearing will be held unless a request is
received in writing by October 30, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in duplicate
if possible) to Public Docket No. A-95-08. It is requested that a
duplicate copy be submitted to Eugene J. Tierney at the address in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. The docket is located at
the Air Docket, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall S.W., Washington, DC
20460. The docket may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and
between 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 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 Proposal
III. Authority
IV. Background of the Proposed Amendment
V. Discussion of Major Issues
A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments
B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs
VI. Economic Costs and Benefits
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
II. Summary of Proposal
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 is proposing today to further revise this rule to provide greater
flexibility to certain Ozone Transport Region (OTR) areas.
Section 182 of the Act is prescriptive regarding the various
elements that are required as part of an enhanced I/M performance
standard. It also provides states with flexibility in meeting the
numerical performance standards for enhanced or basic I/M programs.
States in the OTR have requested additional flexibility in implementing
I/M in areas
[[Page 54322]]
which are in attainment, which are areas designated and classified as
marginal ozone areas or which are designated and classified as moderate
ozone areas under 200,000 in population. These three types of areas
would be exempt from I/M requirements but for their location in the
Ozone Transport Region. These OTR areas are included in the Act to help
achieve overall attainment and maintenance goals for the region, which
includes serious, and severe ozone nonattainment areas.
EPA is today proposing to establish an additional enhanced I/M
performance standard for qualified areas in the Northeast OTR,
hereafter referred to as the OTR low enhanced performance standard. The
emission reduction targets for this program are less than both the low
enhanced performance standard and the basic performance standard. There
are two qualifications to be eligible for the OTR low enhanced
performance standard. First, the standard would apply only in
attainment areas, marginal ozone nonattainment areas and certain
moderate ozone nonattainment areas under 200,000 in an OTR. Moderate
areas of that size that were not previously required to, or had not in
fact implemented, a basic I/M program under the pre-1990 Act could take
advantage of the OTR low enhanced performance standard. Section
182(a)(2)(B)(i) requires areas that had or were required to have I/M
programs pre-1990 to retain programs of at least that stringency in
their SIPs. Because, as explained below, EPA believes the Act requires
an enhanced I/M program to be an enhancement over otherwise applicable
I/M requirements, areas subject to basic I/M could not adopt the less
stringent OTR low enhanced program. Any moderate area with urbanized
areas having a total population of over 200,000 would also be required
to implement basic I/M under section 182(b)(4) and would thus be
ineligible for the OTR low enhanced standard. Second, the OTR lowenhanced
program must be supplemented by other measures in order to
achieve the emission reductions that would have occurred had a regular
low-enhanced I/M program been implemented (as defined by Sec. 51.351(g)
of 40 CFR). This is because the primary goal of the Act in establishing
the OTR provisions and requiring enhanced I/M in areas with a
population of 100,000 or more in the OTR was to contribute to regional
attainment and EPA believes that an area should be able to qualify for
the additional flexibility provided under the OTR low enhanced standard
only if it achieves in some other way, the additional reductions that
the otherwise applicable low-enhanced I/M program would achieve. Thus,
the total emission reductions from the I/M program plus the additional
measures would have to equal the tonnage reduction that a regular lowenhanced
program would have generated. However, since local reductions
are not the crucial factor, a state may bubble surplus reductions from
other areas not required to implement I/M in the state. For example, a
state could implement a statewide reformulated gasoline (RFG) program
(note that EPA has recently asked for comment on whether attainment
areas can opt in to the reformulated gasoline program and a decision
has not yet been made on this issue) plus an OTR low enhanced program
in subject areas or statewide and potentially achieve comparable
reductions to a regular low enhanced program because of the additional
reductions RFG would achieve in areas not otherwise required to have
RFG. Equality of emission reductions must be demonstrated over a time
period which aligns with the attainment deadlines of all OTR areas:
from 2000 through 2007. Note that an I/M program that meets an OTR low
enhanced performance standard must be implemented even if other
measures could achieve comparable emission reductions because the Act
specifically requires an enhanced I/M program in metropolitan areas
with 100,000 population in the OTR. Measures to fill the gap between
OTR low and regular low enhanced I/M may not be otherwise required by
the Clean Air Act. EPA invites comment on whether and how a state may
use credits obtained through an Open Market Trading program to satisfy
the equal reduction requirement.
The OTR low enhanced performance standard model program is composed
of the following elements: annual testing of 1968 and newer light duty
vehicles and light duty trucks, OBD checks for 1996 and newer vehicles,
remote sensing of 1968-1995 vehicles, catalyst checks on 1975 and newer
vehicles, and PCV valve checks on pre-1975 vehicles. These elements
collectively satisfy the Act's requirements that the enhanced I/M
program performance standard include certain listed features.
The emission reduction targets generated by this model program
cannot be precisely modeled at this time but EPA estimates the targets
to be less than those for the basic I/M program standard (which are
approximately 6.3 0.000000or HC, 10.8 0.000000or CO, and 0.7 0.000000or NOX). As
soon as EPA completes development of guidance on remote sensing
credits, an analysis of the emission reduction targets generated by
this model program will be placed in the docket. In that the OTR low
enhanced standard is less than basic I/M, the question arises as to how
this standard meets the requirement of the Act for ``enhanced'' I/M.
There are two important facts to consider in this regard: first,
neither the Act nor the legislative history specifies that the emission
reduction targets for enhanced I/M must be greater than basic in all
cases. EPA believes the Act provides the agency latitude in
establishing multiple performance standards to meet a wide range of
state and local needs and conditions. Second, the areas eligible to
take advantage of this performance standard were not required to nor
did they implement I/M programs prior to 1990. So, in all cases, this
standard establishes a program target that is enhanced relative to what
was present or required for the area before enactment of the 1990
Amendment or is otherwise required after the 1990 Amendments.
As is the case with all performance standard model programs, EPA
does not necessarily recommend implementation of the model program,
since it is constrained in composition by law (e.g., EPA recommends not
testing cars until they reach 4 years of age and recommends biennial
testing as more cost-effective; by contrast, the enhanced I/M
performance standards are required by the Act to reflect a model
program that includes annual testing of all vehicles). In that the
emission reduction targets for this performance standard are below the
basic level, this standard provides the broadest possible latitude in
program design. For example, some states in the OTR have existing
decentralized, safety inspection programs. Comprehensive visual checks
of emission control devices, a gas cap pressure test, the Act-mandated
OBD check, and the Act-mandated on-road testing could be added to these
programs. Many other possibilities exist for program designs that could
meet this performance standard.
While the proposed OTC low enhanced performance standard is less
demanding than the existing performance standard applicable to the
affected areas, the proposed regulatory changes will ensure that
enhanced I/M programs in these areas meet statutory criteria for EPA
approval. A state's OTR low enhanced program is required, under
Sec. 182(c)(3)(C) of the Clean Air Act, to include computerized
analyzers and on-road testing devices; computerized equipment and onroad
testing devices are required by the
[[Page 54323]]
current rule and apply to the OTR low-enhanced program. A state's OTR
low-enhanced program shall also include a regulatory framework for
waivers, if waivers are to be issued, and an enforcement system through
registration denial; the proposed amendments leave requirements in this
regard the same as for other enhanced I/M areas. As mandated by the
Act, in an OTR low enhanced program, vehicle emissions shall be tested
annually unless biennial testing will equal or exceed the reductions
that can be obtained from annual inspections. A program could combine
biennial inspections on the vehicles equipped with OBD with biennial
evaporative system checks to achieve the necessary additional
reductions. The OTR low-enhanced program shall operate on a centralized
basis, unless an alternative program with decentralized inspections
meets the same performance standard. The performance standard itself is
based on centralized inspections of OBD-equipped vehicles and on-road
remote sensing testing; EPA believes that this meets the specific
requirement that the performance standard be based on centralized
testing.
Also, today's proposal would establish quality assurance
requirements for OTR low enhanced I/M programs that are commensurate
with the emission reductions the programs are intended to achieve. In
particular, current rules require enhanced I/M programs to be evaluated
by conducting test-only IM240s on a random representative sample of the
fleet (a minimum of 0.1) to verify that the emission reductions are
occurring. EPA believes that the emission reductions from an OTR low
enhanced program are small enough that this level of effort is not
necessarily justified. Also, the routine quality assurance requirements
are also not necessarily appropriate in light of the low level of
benefits of the program.
EPA also proposes to modify the exclusion rule for counties within
MSAs in the Ozone Transport Region. The modification would allow states
to exclude counties that comprise less than 112f the population of the
MSA. Inclusion of such a small fraction of the population is not worth
the significant cost of expanding geographic coverage of the program to
include such a county.
EPA proposes that the implementation date for full testing in areas
opting for the OTR low performance standard be no later than the latest
date, by which full testing can commence and still achieve sufficient
reductions to meet the performance standard by the Act's attainment and
reasonable further progress deadlines including the end of 1999
attainment date for serious ozone nonattainment areas. This will
generally mean a start date no later than January 1, 1999, for annual
testing programs, although EPA proposes to accept field testing
commencing as late as July 1, 1999 if the full I/M reductions can be
achieved by the serious areas attainment date. Note that the
performance standard model program assumes a start date of January 1,
1999 because EPA believes Congress intended that the performance
standard be based on at least one complete annual test cycle. With the
requirement to offset the emissions difference between OTR low and
regular low enhanced, this date ensures that attainment in the region
is not impaired.
EPA's proposal would also serve to provide other flexibilities to
non-OTR states in designing quality assurance programs. The intent is
to allow alternative quality assurance procedures that are as effective
or better than those specified in the rule.
III. Authority
Authority for the action proposed 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. Background of the Proposed Amendments
The features of the enhanced I/M performance standard model program
are used to generate the minimum performance target that a state must
meet. When programmed into the most current version of EPA's mobile
source emission factor model (hereafter referred to as MOBILE5a), these
features produce a target emission factor (emissions per mile of
vehicle travel) which a state's proposed program must not exceed to be
deemed minimally acceptable for purposes of state implementation plan
(SIP) approval. This combination of features, however, does not
constitute either a required or recommended program design. The use of
the performance standard approach allows EPA to meet Congress's dual
statutory requirements that the EPA develop a performance standard
based on certain statutory features and that the standard provide
states with maximum flexibility to design I/M programs to meet local
needs.
EPA maintains that the Act in no way bars it from establishing more
than one enhanced I/M performance standard. EPA believes that precedent
exists for the adoption of multiple enhanced I/M performance standards,
tailored to the unique needs of certain areas, and points to the case
of El Paso, Texas, for which a separate, enhanced I/M performance
standard was created [57 FR 52989, Sec. 51.351 (e)]
V. Discussion of Major Issues
A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments
EPA is still in the process of evaluating the emission impact of
the OTR enhanced I/M performance standard. The evaluation process is
based on a number of inputs, including credits awarded for RSD, and is
modeled using MOBILE5a and national average values for vehicle age mix,
mileage accumulation, and other area and fleet related variables. Once
EPA finalizes RSD credits, an analysis of the emission reduction
targets generated by this model program will be placed in the docket.
The emission impact of the OTR enhanced performance standard is
expected to be neutral since the proposed change would not reduce the
total emission reductions that states must achieve. The scope of this
change is also limited to attainment areas, marginal ozone areas, and
certain moderate ozone areas below 200,000 population in the Ozone
Transport Region.
B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs
Only states that choose to utilize the proposed OTR performance
standard will be affected by today's proposal. Modifications to a
state's I/M program as a result of this rule change may require a SIP
revision, if a plan has already been submitted. Each case is likely to
be different, depending upon the magnitude of the change. It is
important to note that today's proposal in no way increases the
existing burden on states. States that currently comply, or are in the
process of complying, with the existing I/M rule would only be affected
by today's rule revisions if they so choose. Today's proposed
amendments represent opportunities for those states that can meet the
criteria set forth in today's proposal; under no circumstances are
these proposed opportunities to be construed as mandatory obligations.
VI. Economic Costs and Benefits
Today's proposed revisions provide states additional flexibility
that lessens rather than increases the potential burden on states.
Furthermore, states are under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to
modify existing plans meeting the previously applicable requirements as
a result of today's proposal.
[[Page 54324]]
VII. Public Participation
EPA desires full public participation in arriving at final
decisions in this Rulemaking action. EPA solicits comments on all
aspects of this proposal from all parties. Wherever applicable, full
supporting data and detailed analysis should also be submitted to allow
EPA to make maximum use of the comments. All comments should be
directed to the Air Docket, Docket No. A-95-08.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
A. Administrative Designation
It has been determined that this proposed amendment to the I/M rule
is not a significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive
Order 12866 and are therefore not subject to OMB review. 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) as amended. Nor does the
proposed amendment create an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or otherwise adversely affect the economy or the
environment. 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 supplemental proposed
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 proposal 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 proposed 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 proposed action does not increase the preexisting
burden which this proposal 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 proposed by this action would
impose any mandate at all 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 proposed 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: October 3, 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 proposed to be amended to read as
follows:
PART 51--[AMENDED]
The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Section 51.350 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and
adding (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.350 Applicability.
* * * *
(b) Extent of area coverage. (1) In an ozone transport region, the
program shall cover all counties within subject MSAs or subject
portions of MSAs, as defined by OMB in 1990, except largely rural
counties having a population density of less than 200 persons per
square mile based on the 1990 Census and counties with less than 112f
the population in the MSA may be excluded provided that at least 5012f
the MSA population is included in the program. This provision does not
preclude the voluntary inclusion of portions of an excluded county.
Non-urbanized islands not connected to the mainland by roads, bridges,
or tunnels may be excluded without regard to population.
* * * *
(5) Notwithstanding the limitation in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, in an ozone transport region, states which opt for a program
which only meets the performance standard described in Sec. 51.351(h)
of this part, may apply a geographic bubble covering areas in the state
not otherwise subject to an I/M requirement to achieve emission
reductions from other measures equal to or greater than what would have
been achieved if the low enhanced performance standard were met in the
subject I/M areas. Emissions reductions from non-I/M measures shall not
be counted towards the OTR low enhanced performance standard.
* * * *
Section 51.351 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.351 Enhanced I/M performance standards.
* * * *
(h) Ozone Transport Region Low-Enhanced Performance Standard. An
attainment area, marginal ozone area, or moderate ozone area with a
1980 Census population of less than 200,000 in the urbanized area, in
an ozone transport region, that is required to implement enhanced I/M
under section 184(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, but was not previously
required to or did not in fact implement basic I/M under the Clean Air
Act as enacted prior to 1990 and is not subject to the requirements for
basic I/M programs in this subpart, may select the performance standard
described below in lieu of the standard described in paragraph (f) or
(g) of this section as long as the difference in emission reductions
between the program described in paragraph (g) and this paragraph are
made up with other measures, as provided in Sec. 51.350(b)(5).
Offsetting measures shall not include those otherwise required by the
Clean Air Act in the areas from which credit is bubbled. The program
elements for this
[[Page 54325]]
alternate OTR enhanced I/M performance standard are:
(1) Network type. Centralized testing.
(2) Start date. January 1, 1999.
(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. Remote sensing measurements on
1968-1995 vehicles; on-board diagnostic system checks on 1996 and newer
vehicles.
(7) Emission standards. For remote sensing measurements, a carbon
monoxide standard of 7.5(with at least two separate readings above
this level to establish a failure).
(8) Emission control device inspections. Visual inspection of the
catalytic converter on 1975 and newer vehicles and visual inspection of
the positive crankcase ventilation valve on 1968-1974 vehicles.
(9) Waiver rate. A 3waiver rate, as a percentage of failed
vehicles.
(10) Compliance rate. A 96
ompliance rate.
(11) Evaluation dates. Enhanced I/M program areas subject to the
provisions of this paragraph shall be shown to obtain the same or lower
VOC and NOXemission levels as the model program described in this
paragraph by January 1, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2007. Equality of
substituted emission reductions to the benefits of the low enhanced
performance standard must be demonstrated for the same evaluation
dates.
4. Section 51.353 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.353 Network type and program evaluation.
* * * *
(c) * * *
(5) Areas that qualify for and choose to implement an OTR low
enhanced I/M program, as established in Sec. 51.351(h), that achieves
less emission reduction credit than the basic performance standard for
one or more pollutants are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. The reports required under
Sec. 51.366 of this part shall be sufficient in these areas to satisfy
the requirements of Clean Air Act for program reporting.
* * * *
Section 51.364 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to
read as follows:
Sec. 51.364 Enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors.
* * * *
(e) Alternative quality assurance procedures or frequencies that
achieve equivalent or better results may be approved by the
Administrator. Statistical process control shall be used whenever
possible to demonstrate the efficacy of alternatives.
(f) Areas that qualify for and choose to implement an OTR low
enhanced I/M program, as established in Sec. 51.351(h) of this part,
that achieves less emission reduction credit than the basic performance
standard for one or more pollutants are not required to meet the
oversight specifications of this section.
Section 51.373 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 51.373 Implementation deadlines.
* * * *
(f) Areas that choose to implement an enhanced I/M program only
meeting the requirements of Sec. 51.351(h) of this subpart shall fully
implement the program no later than July 1, 1999. The availability and
use of this late start date does not relieve the area of the obligation
to meet the requirements of Sec. 51.351(h)(11).
[FR Doc. 95-26202 Filed 10-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081106071046im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}