Minor Amendments to Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-5610-4]

Minor Amendments to Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule changes a provision of the federal vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M) rules relating to motorist compliance

enforcement mechanisms for pre-existing programs. The current rule

limits the use of pre-existing enforcement mechanisms, other than

denial of vehicle registration, to those geographic areas previously

subject to the I/M program. This rule change allows states to employ

such effective pre-existing enforcement mechanisms as sticker

enforcement in any area in the state adopting an I/M program. This

amendment is consistent with the relevant requirements of the Clean Air

Act. These changes will not result in any change in health and

environmental benefits.

DATES: This rule will take effect November 22, 1996 unless EPA receives

adverse comments on a parallel proposal of this action, published

elsewhere in this Federal Register, by October 23, 1996. Should EPA

receive such comments, EPA will publish a subsequent document in the

Federal Register withdrawing this direct final rule prior to the

effective date. Anyone wishing to submit comments on the parallel

proposal should do so at this time.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in the

Public Docket No. A-91-75. The docket is located at the Air Docket,

Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall SW, Washington, DC 20460. The docket

may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and between 1:30 p.m.

until 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying docket material. Electronic copies of the preamble and the

regulatory text of this rulemaking are available on the Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network

Bulletin Board System (TTN BBS) and the Office of Mobile Sources' World

Wide Web cite, http://ww.epa.gov/OMSWWW/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leila Cook, Office of Mobile Sources,

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann

Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (313) 741-7820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by the minor amendment to the I/M

rule are those which adopt, approve, or fund I/M programs. Regulated

categories and entities include:

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

Category Examples of regulated entities

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

Local government.................... Local air quality agencies.

State government.................... State air quality agencies

responsible for I/M programs.

Federal............................. EPA.

government..........................

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

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a

guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this

action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware

that could potentially be regulated by this I/M amendment. Other types

of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To

determine whether your organization is regulated by this action, you

should carefully examine the applicability criteria of 40 CFR 51.361 of

the I/M rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 relating to motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)

programs (hereafter referred to as the I/M rule; see 57 FR 52950). EPA

here amends those rules to broaden the geographic area in which pre-

existing enforcement mechanisms can be employed.

Section 182(c)(3) of the Act establishes the statutory requirements

for enhanced I/M programs. Subsection (c)(3)(C)(iv) requires the use of

vehicle registration denial enforcement mechanisms except in certain

cases. The statute allows the use of alternative enforcement mechanisms

that are demonstrated to be more effective than vehicle registration

denial for any program in operation before enactment of the 1990

amendments of the Act.

In the 1992 I/M rules, EPA interpreted this statutory requirement

to allow the use of pre-existing alternative enforcement mechanisms

only in the same geographic area where the prior program had been

implemented using that alternative 40 CFR 51.361. That regulation did

not provide for the use of alternative enforcement mechanisms in

[[Page 49681]]

any areas within a state that had not previously had an I/M program,

even where an effective alternative enforcement mechanism was in place

elsewhere in the state. In addition, the 1992 I/M rule required pre-

existing alternative enforcement mechanisms to have been approved into

the SIP.

Based on experience implementing the I/M rule, EPA now believes

that the provisions limiting the geographic scope of pre-existing

enforcement mechanisms should be altered. EPA is amending 40 CFR 51.361

to allow, anywhere within a state, the use of more effective pre-

existing enforcement mechanisms that the state had previously used in

only some portion of the state. In states where a pre-existing

enforcement mechanism can be demonstrated to be more effective than

registration denial, it would be incongruous to allow the use of that

mechanism only in those areas that had previously employed the

mechanism, but require areas within the state newly implementing I/M to

use a registration denial system that had already been demonstrated to

be less effective within the state.

EPA believes that the amendment to section 51.361 is consistent

with the Act. The statute does not impose a geographic limitation on

the scope of applicability of pre-existing enforcement mechanisms. The

statute merely requires that the I/M program have been in place prior

to the 1990 amendments to the Act, and that the enforcement mechanism

be demonstrated to be more effective than registration denial. EPA

believes that where this demonstration can be made, expansion of the

program, including the pre-existing enforcement mechanism, to other

areas within the state is appropriate and consistent with the statute.

Further, EPA is removing the requirement in Sec. 51.361 that pre-

existing enforcement mechanisms have been approved into the SIP. The

statute requires only that such mechanism have been in operation prior

to the 1990 amendments to the Act, and says nothing about SIP approval.

Where a state can demonstrate that its pre-existing enforcement

mechanism is more effective than registration denial, EPA believes it

would be inconsistent with the statute to require use of the less

effective registration denial system merely because the program

previously in operation had not been approved into the SIP.

Administrative Requirements

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this action 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 this

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. This rule affects only the enforcement

mechanism states may include in their I/M programs. Furthermore, the

impact created by this action does not increase the pre-existing burden

which this proposal seeks to amend.

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 requirements in 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 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.

Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the

General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's

Federal Register. The rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

Executive Order 12866

It has been determined that this amendment to the I/M rule is not a

significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866

and has been waived from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

There are no information requirements in this final rule which

requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Effective Date

This rule will take effect on November 22, 1996, unless EPA

receives adverse comment on a parallel document proposing these same

changes published elsewhere in this Federal Register. EPA is using the

direct final rulemaking procedure in this case because EPA believes

that these amendments are noncontroversial and does not anticipate

receiving any adverse comment. Should EPA receive any such comments,

EPA will publish a subsequent document in the Federal Register

withdrawing this direct final rule prior to the effective date. EPA

will then publish another final rule responding to the comments

received and taking final action on the parallel proposal. Anyone

wishing to comment on the parallel proposal should do so at this time.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,

Volatile organic compounds.

[[Page 49682]]

Dated: September 10, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 51 of Title 40 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

2. Section 51.361 is amended by revising the introductory text and

paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as follows:

Sec. 51.361 Motorist compliance enforcement.

Compliance shall be ensured through the denial of motor vehicle

registration in enhanced I/M programs unless an exception for use of an

existing alternative is approved. An enhanced I/M area may use an

existing alternative if it demonstrates that the alternative has been

more effective than registration denial. An enforcement mechanism may

be considered an ``existing alternative'' only in states that, for some

area in the state, had an I/M program with that mechanism in operation

prior to passage of the 1990 Amendments to the Act. A basic I/M area

may use an alternative enforcement mechanism if it demonstrates that

the alternative will be as effective as registration denial. Two other

types of enforcement programs may qualify for enhanced I/M programs if

demonstrated to have been more effective than enforcement of the

registration requirement in the past: Sticker-based enforcement

programs and computer-matching programs. States that did not adopt an

I/M program for any area of the state before November 15, 1990, may not

use an enforcement alternative in connection with an enhanced I/M

program required to be adopted after that date.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) For enhanced I/M programs, the area in question shall have had

an operating I/M program using the alternative mechanism prior to

enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. While modifications

to improve compliance may be made to the program that was in effect at

the time of enactment, the expected change in effectiveness cannot be

considered in determining acceptability;

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96-23652 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M