Inspection/Maintenance Flexibility Amendments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-5196-5]

Inspection/Maintenance Flexibility Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice proposes revisions to 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

proposed action would create a second, less stringent enhanced I/M

performance standard that could be used in areas that can demonstrate

an ability to meet the 1990 Clean Air Act deadlines for Reasonable

Further Progress and attainment while implementing an I/M program that

falls below the originally promulgated enhanced I/M performance

standard. [[Page 20935]] Because the new low enhanced I/M performance

standard eliminates the need for the special enhanced performance

standard for El Paso, Texas, this proposed action would repeal that

special performance standard. This proposed action would also revise

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 model years 1972

through 1983, inclusive. The low enhanced performance standard contains

similar 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. This proposed action would

also change 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 repairs of primary emission control

components performed by non-technicians to apply toward the waiver cost

requirement; and removing the bar against issuing hardship exemptions

more than once per vehicle lifetime. This proposal also solicits public

comment on whether or not EPA should include revised regulatory

language in its final rulemaking which change the population cutoff for

basic I/M from 50,000 persons to 200,000 persons. Lastly, this proposal

would make clarifying amendments to the I/M requirements for areas

undergoing redesignation.

DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received no later than

May 15, 1995. A public hearing is scheduled for May 17, 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 public hearing will be held at the National Fuel and Vehicle

Emission Laboratory at 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan,

Conference Rooms C&D from 10:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m. 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 Amendments

A. Visual Inspection

B. Enhanced Performance Standards

C. Waivers

D. Redesignation

E. Population Requirements

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

A. Comments and the Public Docket

B. Public Hearing

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

B. Reporting and Record Keeping 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) 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 revise this 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 do 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 programs are hereafter referred to as low enhanced and high

enhanced performance standards, respectively.)

EPA is today proposing to establish an alternate, low enhanced I/M

performance standard for those areas that can meet the Act's

requirements for Reasonable Further Progress and attainment of either

the carbon monoxide (CO) and/or ozone ambient air quality standards

without the benefits of the high enhanced I/M performance standard.

This low enhanced performance standard is designed for areas that are

required to implement enhanced I/M but do not have a major mobile

source component to the air quality problem or can obtain adequate

emission reductions from other sources to meet the 15% VOC emission

reduction requirement and demonstrate attainment. With respect to

states in the northeast ozone transport region (OTR), EPA believes that

the low enhanced performance standard will provide needed reductions

but still offers greater flexibility. Areas within the Northeast OTR

are still subject to the enhanced I/M requirement and OTR states are

required to submit plans for their nonattainment areas. However EPA

believes that the states are in the best position to make decisions

about the emphasis placed upon individual strategies within their

borders as long as emission reduction opportunities needed for timely

attainment are not irrevocably lost. Moreover, with respect to

interstate pollution within the OTR, EPA has just oulined a phased

attainment-process among states contributing to or affected by

transport. See memorandum of March 2, 1995 from Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, entitled ``Ozone

Attainment Demonstrations'' (available in the docket for this

rulemaking). The desired outcome of that process is to reach consensus

on the additional regionwide and national emission reductions needed to

bring all areas in the OTR into attainment. EPA believes that the

interstate consultative process provides the best forum for

ascertaining and requiring those necessary additional emission

reductions. 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-and-repair program.

EPA is also proposing modifications to the requirements related to

waivers. [[Page 20936]] EPA is proposing to extend 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. This will allow states additional time to phase-in the higher

expenditures required by the Act and the I/M rule. 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.

EPA is proposing to allow states to include qualified repair cost

expenditures that occur within 60 days of the initial test toward

meeting the minimum waiver expenditure. EPA also proposes to delete

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.

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit, Natural Resource Defense Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125

(D.C. Cir. 1994), EPA is proposing today to revise the enhanced I/M

performance standard to correct the omission of a visual check on pre-

1984 vehicles in the high enhanced performance standard. EPA is

proposing to include in the high enhanced performance standard 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. According to EPA's current guidance for

estimating emission reductions from I/M programs, this change should

not significantly increase the overall emission reduction requirements

that must be met by states as they design programs to meet the enhanced

I/M performance standard.

EPA is also requesting comment on whether or not it should change

the minimum population cutoff for basic I/M programs. Currently, for

areas outside an ozone transport region, basic I/M programs are

required in moderate ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas with

1990 Census-defined population of 50,000 or more. EPA is considering

the possibility of including revised regulatory language in the final

rulemaking that would increase this minimum threshold for basic I/M

programs to 200,000 or more. If adopted, this proposed change would

mark a return to the policy in effect prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments on minimum population requirements for basic I/M and would

provide states further flexibility in meeting their Clean Air Act

goals.

At the I/M Stakeholders meetings of January 24 and 31, 1995, EPA

indicated its intent to establish additional I/M credits for the use of

remote sensing. These credits will be published in a guidance document,

similar to the one in which credits for retest-based hybrid programs.

ASM2 testing, and mechanic training and certification were published.

EPA intends to base these credits on data from the California I/M Pilot

Program in Sacramento, since this is the most comprehensive study on

remote sensing to date. The agency is interested in obtaining all

available information on remote sensing. Therefore, EPA is requesting

comments from anyone with data on the effectiveness remote sensing and

on ways it might be used to supplement I/M programs.

Finally, EPA is proposing to clarify the requirements for basic I/M

areas that are eligible for redesignation to attainment. On January 5,

1995, EPA published a final amendment to the I/M rule to address this

issue (60 FR 1738). The rule was not completely clear with regard to

EPA's intent in the event that an area that has been redesignated to

attainment experiences a violation of the standard. EPA does not

believe that a violation 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 are being proposed, as well.

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 the MOBILE

model), 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 a recommended program design. For example,

while the enhanced I/M performance standard, as required by the Act,

includes annual vehicle inspections, EPA does not require or even

recommend that state programs actually adopt annual testing. In fact,

EPA has found biennial testing to be significantly less expensive while

only marginally less effective at reducing fleet-wide vehicle

emissions. This marginal loss in benefit can be easily accommodated by

strengthening some other aspects of the program, for example, by

increasing vehicle coverage, or increasing the number or stringency of

the tests conducted on selected classes of vehicles. 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.

A. Visual Inspections

During the Fall of 1992, the National Resources Defense Council

(NRDC) filed three separate lawsuits against EPA in the Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging various

aspects of EPA's policy on committal-based State Implementation Plans

(SIP) and the I/M rule. Among other things, NRDC maintained that the

enhanced I/M performance standard had been purposely weakened to

justify a shift away from the statutory presumption of annual testing

to EPA's preferred alternative, biennial testing. NRDC maintained that

this was achieved by exempting older vehicles from the high-tech

tailpipe test known as the IM240, visual inspections, and evaporative

system checks. In responding to NRDC's claims, EPA maintained that it

set the enhanced performance standard strict enough to net significant

emission reductions while also being lenient enough to provide states

with ``continued reasonable flexibility to fashion effective,

reasonable, and fair programs for the affected consumer,'' as required

by section 182(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act.

In its May 6, 1994 ruling, the Court of Appeals found that, ``each

of the parties wins some and loses some on this issue.'' NRDC v. EPA,

22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994). Agreeing with EPA, the court found that

the Act did not require [[Page 20937]] EPA to set the most stringent

annual performance standard possible. Nevertheless, the Court also

agreed with NRDC's contention that the Act required EPA to establish an

enhanced I/M performance standard that is ``the product of two

different kinds of testing,'' including a visual and an emission test.

Since EPA's current enhanced I/M performance standard only includes one

test, a steady-state, idle-based tailpipe test, on vehicle model years

1968 through 1983 and does not require a visual inspection of those

cars, the Court found that the current standard falls short of

complying with the letter of the Act for those model years.

To correct this oversight, EPA is today proposing to amend the high

enhanced I/M performance standard to include a minimum of two

inspections per subject vehicle. Currently, the only vehicles included

in the high enhanced I/M performance standard that are not covered by

both tests are light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks from model

years 1968 through 1983. EPA therefore proposes to amend the current

high enhanced I/M performance standard to include a visual inspection

for the PCV valve on 1968 through 1971 light-duty vehicles and light-

duty trucks up to 8,500 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and a

visual inspection of the EGR valve on model year 1972 through 1983

light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. Tampering surveys have shown

that these emission control devices are tampered or inadequately

maintained. A visual check can identify such problems and emission

reductions can occur on individual cars as a result of repairs to these

devices.

B. Enhanced Performance Standards

The Court of Appeals ruling on the issue of performance standard

stringency also clarifies EPA's authority to establish any enhanced I/M

performance standard it deems reasonable, provided it incorporates the

minimally required elements set forth by Congress in the Act. By

requiring enhanced I/M, Congress gave states one mechanism to meet the

required 15% reduction of VOC emissions and demonstrate attainment.

Today, EPA is proposing to give states greater flexibility in choosing

the enhanced I/M program which will work best with the 15% VOC emission

reduction plan. States may elect to implement low enhanced I/M, or any

program between low and high enhanced I/M, if that is all they need to

meet the 15% VOC emission reduction requirement and attainment

demonstration. EPA believes it is reasonable to require lower

reductions from enhanced I/M where greater reductions are not needed to

reduce VOC emissions by 15% or for attainment.

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 already exists [40 CFR Part 51.351(e)], as evidence of this

interpretation. Today, EPA proposes to repeal Sec. 51.351(e) which

establishes the El Paso performance standard because the new low

enhanced performance standard eliminates the need for that special

enhanced performance standard.

C. Waivers

EPA also believes Section 182 (3)(C) of the Act provides

flexibility in its waiver requirement, by not specifying a deadline by

which such limits are to be fully implemented and determinative in the

granting of waivers. To get the full emission reduction potential of an

I/M program element, the statutory waiver requirement must be in full

effect at least one full inspection cycle prior to evaluation (so that

all subject vehicles will be held to that standard and found to

comply). Since compliance with the performance standard is based on a

modeling demonstration comparing the state's program to the performance

standard using an initial evaluation date of January 1, 2000 for ozone

nonattainment areas, and January 1, 2001 for carbon monoxide (CO)

nonattainment areas, EPA believes it is possible to postpone full

implementation of the enhanced I/M waiver requirements at least January

1, 1998 without jeopardizing the ability of states to meet the relevant

enhanced I/M performance standards. EPA requests comment on whether

this or a later date would be appropriate. EPA also requests comments

as to the timing of application of the CPI adjustment in relation to

the phase-in of the full waiver requirements.

Adoption of a January 1, 1998 date for full implementation of the

waiver requirement would provide states with the continued flexibility

necessary to allow for biennial testing. Furthermore, postponing full

implementation of the waiver requirement provides the short term

regulatory relief states have been requesting since passage of the Act,

while at the same time allowing states to meet the long-term Clean Air

Act goals. As mentioned previously, EPA requests comments on the need

for and implications of postponing full implementation of the waiver

requirements to a date beyond January 1, 1998. EPA hopes that states

will use any additional time to develop programs to assist vehicle

owners in fully repairing their vehicles; for example, by subsidizing

or co-funding repairs out of revenues collected in any of a number of

possible ways.

Today's proposed action would also allow motorists to apply the

cost of pre-inspection repair of primary emission control devices

toward meeting the minimum waiver expenditure requirement provided the

repairs were made within 60 days of the inspection. When repairs

correct obvious emission control problems, EPA believes it is

appropriate to credit repair costs toward minimum waiver expenditures,

provided the repairs occur shortly prior to testing.

Today's proposed action would limit the non-technician repairs that

can be applied toward waiver limits to repairs of primary emission

control components only. However, today's action also removes the

language limiting application of non-technician repairs toward waiver

expenditure requirements to pre-1980 model year vehicles. The result is

that a non-technician repair to a primary emission control component

may be applied toward the waiver expenditure requirement for any model

year vehicle. EPA does not believe there is reason to distinguish

between model years for non-technician repairs to primary emission

controls. EPA believes it is appropriate to maintain the distinction

for other types of repairs since these are not easily diagnosed or

performed the way a missing catalyst, for example, may be diagnosed and

repaired.

Today's action proposes to remove the language from the I/M rule

which limits hardship extensions to one time in the lifetime of a

vehicle. EPA believes it is in the interest of fairness to remove this

limitation, especially in the case of used car buyers who may otherwise

be deprived of the opportunity for such an extension because this

``right'' was already exercised by a previous owner. Instead, the

proposed action would allow a vehicle that has already received a time

extension and subsequently passed the applicable test standards to be

eligible for another time extension. While EPA acknowledges that there

is a potential for minuscule emission reduction losses as a result of

changing this limitation, EPA believes that any potential abuses will

be accounted for by the existing requirements that all such extensions

be tracked by the state, [[Page 20938]] that the state commit to a

maximum waiver limit as part of its SIP for modeling purposes, and that

the state commit to program modifications should the actual waiver rate

exceed that committed to in the SIP.

D. Redesignation

Today's action proposes to clarify the requirements for basic I/M

areas that are eligible for redesignation to attainment. EPA believes

these changes are necessary because the amendments to the I/M rule

addressing redesignation, which were published on January 5, 1995 (60

FR 1738), were not clear with regard to EPA's intent in the event that

an area that has been redesignated to attainment experiences a

violation of the standard. EPA does not believe that a violation of the

standard automatically requires the state to implement or upgrade an I/

M program. If a violation or other air quality problem occurs, EPA

believes that the state should have the flexibility to select the

contingency measure(s) that will most quickly correct the problem and

bring the area to attainment.

Today's proposed action also clarifies the timing of SIP

submissions and program implementation in areas that select I/M to

correct the air quality problem. SIPs must be submitted 18 months after

EPA notifies the state that a violation has occurred and programs must

be implemented 24 months after the date of notification. No particular

date is specified as to when a state must make a selection, but clearly

the selection must be made in time to submit a plan by the 18 month

point and implement by the 24 month point.

E. Population Requirements

Under current EPA regulations, 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. Today's proposal solicits

public comment on whether revised regulatory language should be

included in the final rulemaking to increase the minimum population

threshold for basic I/M programs to 200,000 or more. If adopted, this

proposed change would mark a return to the policy in effect prior to

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on minimum population requirements

for basic I/M. This potential revision is proposed to grant states

further flexibility in designing I/M programs to meet local needs, and

to allow some areas with a population of less than 200,000 and without

existing I/M programs to opt-out of I/M completely. Should public

comment favor, or at least not overwhelmingly oppose, such a revision,

EPA hereby proposes to set the urbanized area population threshold at

200,000 or more based on the 1990 Census. Under this proposed change,

any area outside an ozone transport region classified as moderate ozone

or carbon monoxide nonattainment would be required to implement a basic

I/M program if its 1990 Census-defined population was equal to or

exceeded 200,000. EPA believes that this change is authorized by the

Act because Section 182 requires implementation in all moderate ozone

nonattainment areas only of the program contained in pre-1990 guidance,

which limited basic I/M applicability to areas with a population of

200,000 or more. EPA requests comments on whether this proposed change

would have any implications on the states continued participation in

the Northeast Ozone Transport Region.

V. Discussion of Major Issues

A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments

The proposed low enhanced I/M performance standard was modeled

using MOBILE5a and national average values for vehicle age mix, mileage

accumulation, and other area and fleet related variables. Compared to a

no I/M case, the proposed low enhanced performance standard yields a

VOC emission reduction of about 9.3%, and a NOx emission reduction of

about 1.5%, assuming an evaluation date of January 1, 2000; assuming a

January 1, 2001 evaluation date, the low enhanced performance standard

produces a CO emission reduction of about 14.2% compared to the no-I/M

case. The low enhanced performance standard yields a 45% greater

reduction in VOC emissions than the basic performance standard.

Specifically, the basic performance standard programs yields a minimum

VOC reduction of 6.4% compared to the minimum 9.3% reduction from the

low enhanced standard.

The proposed low enhanced I/M performance standard would allow

ozone nonattainment states to adopt a biennial decentralized, test-and-

repair program that included idle tailpipe testing, full visual checks,

and pressure testing of the evaporative emission control system on all

gasoline powered vehicles. For areas needing to meet the Act's

requirements for CO, the proposed low enhanced I/M performance standard

can be met using a biennial, decentralized test and repair program

including two-speed tailpipe testing and full visual checks on all

gasoline powered vehicles in conjunction with a comprehensive training

or certification program for vehicle repair technicians. If these CO

areas also have an ozone requirement, pressure testing will need to be

added to the scenario. Alternatively, if test-only, IM240, purge and

pressure testing are adopted, states would be able to meet the new, low

enhanced standard while exempting large portions of either the oldest

or newest vehicles from the test.

The changes in the waiver criteria (e.g., the lower minimum

expenditure for the interim years preceding 1998) could reduce emission

reduction benefits achieved by I/M programs, depending on the degree to

which particular states lower the minimum expenditure in the short

term. If states establish lower minimum expenditures, waiver rates will

be higher than under the $450 standard. Instead of waiver rates on the

order of 3% of failed vehicles in enhanced programs, waiver rates could

be as high as 20% or more if states were to lower the minimum to $100-

$150. Prior to 1998, the first milestone that states have to meet is

the Act's 15% reduction in VOC emissions by November 15, 1996. In

states that require only a lower expenditure, the higher waiver rates

will lower benefits for this milestone. This loss in emission reduction

needs to be accounted for in calculating 15% plan benefits. As a

result, states may have to increase emission reductions from other

sources, such as stationary sources, to make up for the loss.

B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs

Only states that choose to utilize the proposed flexibility 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 approved. Each case is likely to be different, depending

upon the magnitude of the change. It is important to note that today's

proposed flexibility 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 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 [[Page 20939]] under no obligation, legal or

otherwise, to modify existing plans meeting the previously applicable

requirements as a result of today's proposal.

VII. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

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.

B. Public Hearing

If a hearing is requested, anyone wishing to present testimony

about this proposal at the public hearing (see DATES) should, if

possible, notify the contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT) at least seven days prior to the day of the hearing. The

contact person should be given an estimate of the time required for the

presentation of testimony and notification of any need for audio/visual

equipment. A sign-up sheet will be available at the registration table

the morning of the hearing to schedule those wishing to present

testimony who have not notified the contact earlier. This testimony

will be scheduled on a first-come, first-serve basis following the

previously scheduled testimony.

EPA requests that approximately 50 copies of the statement or

material to be presented be brought to the hearing for distribution to

the audience. In addition, EPA would find it helpful to receive an

advanced copy of any statement or material to be presented at the

hearing at least one week before the scheduled hearing date. This will

give EPA staff adequate time to review such material before the

hearing. Such advanced copies should be submitted to the contact person

listed.

The official records of the hearing will be kept open for 15 days

following the hearing to allow submission of rebuttal and supplementary

testimony. All such submittals should be directed to the Air Docket,

Docket No. A-95-08 (see ADDRESSES).

The hearing will be conducted informally, and technical rules of

evidence will not apply. A written transcript of the hearing will be

placed in the above docket for review. Anyone desiring to purchase a

copy of the transcript should make individual arrangements with the

court reporter recording the proceeding.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

It has been determined that these proposed amendments to the I/M

rule is a significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive

Order 12866 and are therefore 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).

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. 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 proposed/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 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 pre-

existing burden which this proposal seeks to amend.

D. Unfunded Mandates

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 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 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, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: April 18, 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]

1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 740l-7671q.

2. Section 51.351 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) 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, [[Page 20940]] 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 (NOX) 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 0.5% of 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, two-

speed 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 NOx;

(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 NOx;

(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 NOx;

(iv) Emission standards for 1994 and later light duty vehicles

meeting Tier 1 emission standards of 0.70 gpm, 15 gpm CO, and 1.4 gpm

NOX;

(v) Emission standards for 1994 and later light duty trucks under

6000 pounds GVWR and meeting Tier 1 emission standards of 0.70 gpm, 15

gpm CO, and 2.0 gpm NOX;

(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, 15 gpm CO and 2.5 gpm NOX;

(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 steady-

state tests (as described in appendix B of this subpart S); and

(viii) Maximum exhaust dilution measured as no less than 6% CO plus

carbon dioxide (CO2) on vehicles subject to a steady-state test

(as described in appendix B of this subpart S); and

(ix) Maximum exhaust dilution measured as no less than 6% CO plus

carbon dioxide (CO2) 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% emission test failure rate among pre-1981

model year vehicles.

(11) Waiver rate. A 3% waiver rate, as a percentage of failed

vehicles.

(12) Compliance rate. A 96% compliance 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 NOX shall be the same as for ozone.

(g) Alternate Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standard. An area either

not subject to or able to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 for Reasonable Further Progress in 1996 and

thereafter, and the relevant deadlines for attainment of the ambient

air quality standards for ozone and CO without an enhanced I/M program

meeting the performance standard described in paragraph (f) of this

section, may select the alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard

described below in lieu of the standard described in paragraph (f). The

program elements for this alternate low enhanced I/M performance

standard are:

(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 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% emission test failure rate among pre-1981

model year vehicles.

(11) Waiver rate. A 3% waiver rate, as a percentage of failed

vehicles.

(12) Compliance rate. A 96% compliance 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 NOX shall be the same as for ozone.

3. Section 51.360 is amended by revising the introductory text and

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7) introductory text, (a)(7)(ii),

(a)(9) and (b) to read as follows: [[Page 20941]]

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 primary emission control

components 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 repairs of primary emission control components performed by

non-technicians (e.g., owners) to apply toward 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

must 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.

* * * * *

(ii) The revision of the Consumer Price Index which is most

consistent with the Consumer Price Index for calendar year 1989 shall

be used. The first Consumer Price Index adjustment to the minimum $450

waiver expenditure shall go into effect on January 1, 1998.

* * * * *

(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.

* * * * *

4. Section 51.372 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory

text, (c)(3) and (c)(4), and paragraph (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 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 Sec. 51.372(c)) shall address all of the requirements of

this subpart. The SIP shall demonstrate that performance standards in

either 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 in

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. 95-10505 Filed 4-27-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P