Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Minnesota

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN42-01-7267; FRL-6415-2]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;

Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed approval.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve

an amendment to the carbon monoxide (CO) State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for Minnesota. Minnesota submitted this amendment to the SIP to

the EPA in four separate submittals, dated November 14, 1995, July 8,

1996, September 24, 1996, and June 30, 1999.

The submittals include revisions to the motor vehicle inspection

and maintenance (I/M) program currently in operation in the

Minneapolis/St. Paul CO nonattainment area. The revisions make changes

to the State's I/M program, including model year coverage, vehicle

waiver provisions, and other program deficiencies identified by the

EPA. The revision also contains provisions for the discontinuation of

the I/M program if EPA redesignates the area to attainment for CO.

[[Page 42889]]

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by September

7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United

States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone John

Mooney at 312-886-6043 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

A copy of these SIP revisions are available for inspection at the

following location: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102), room M1500, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460,

(202) 260-7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Mooney, Regulation Development

Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division,

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6043.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted its initial

I/M submittals to EPA in November and December of 1993. As described

below, the EPA conditionally approved Minnesota's initial submittal on

October 13, 1994 (59 FR 51860). Subsequently, Minnesota submitted to

the EPA four additional revisions to the State's I/M program. The

changes proposed since 1993 reflect actions taken by the State

Legislature pertaining to model year coverage, waiver provisions, and

other program changes required by EPA's conditional approval.

The information in this section is organized as follows:

A. What SIP amendments is EPA proposing to approve?

B. Why is EPA requiring the State to change its I/M program?

C. How has the State addressed EPA's requirements?

D. What does the State need to do to receive full approval?

E. What happens if the Minneapolis/St. Paul area is redesignated to

attainment for CO?

A. What SIP Amendments Is EPA Proposing To Approve?

The following table outlines the revisions submitted by the State

to EPA subsequent to the State's initial I/M submittal in 1993. The

State's most recent submittal identifies those provisions of their

earlier submittals that address EPA's conditional approval. In this

submittal, the State also withdraws Part 7023.1010, Subp. 35(B), Part

7023.1030, Subp. 11(B,C), and Part 7023.1055, Subp. 1 (E)(2) of the

Minnesota Rules. The State is withdrawing these provisions because they

have been superceded by recent amendments to the State I/M program. EPA

proposes to approve the relevant portions of each of these submittals

as requested by the State on June 30, 1999.

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

Date of submittal to EPA Items received

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

November 14, 1995......................... --Basic I/M performance

standard modeling.

--I/M legislation with

changes to model year

coverage.

--Response to EPA's October

13, 1994 conditional

approval (59 FR 51860).

July 8, 1996.............................. --Notification of public

hearing.

September 24, 1996........................ --Administrative materials

for the November 14, 1995,

and July 6, 1996

submittals, including proof

of public hearing.

June 30, 1999............................. --Minnesota Statute Sections

116.60 to 116.65 as amended

by the 1999 Minnesota State

Legislature.

--Letter from the Minnesota

Attorney General detailing

the prevalence of statute

over rules.

--Letter from the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency

(MPCA) requesting approval

of I/M legislation, certain

portions of Minnesota's I/M

regulation, and performance

standard modeling from

earlier submittals. This

letter also withdraws

certain obsolete sections

of the State's earlier

submittals.

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

As requested by the State, the EPA is proposing to approve: Minnesota

Statutes Sections 116.60 to 116.65; Minnesota Rules 7023.1010-7023.1105

(except Part 7023.1010, Subp. 35(B), Part 7023.1030, Subp. 11(B,C), and

Part 7023.1055, Subp. 1 (E)(2)); and technical materials showing that

the program meets EPA's basic I/M performance standard, as well as the

conditions of EPA's October 13, 1994 conditional approval.

B. Why Is EPA Requiring the State To Change Its I/M Program?

Section 187(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act requires states with

moderate CO nonattainment areas to improve existing I/M programs or

implement new ones. EPA designated the Minneapolis/St. Paul area as a

moderate CO nonattainment area on November 16, 1991 (56 FR 56694).

Therefore, the State of Minnesota was required to develop a State

Implementation Plan to meet the I/M requirements contained in the Clean

Air Act, and in the corresponding regulations for I/M, codified at 40

CFR Part 51, Subpart S.

On November 10, 1992, the State submitted its initial I/M plan to

the EPA, which it supplemented on November 12, 1993, and December 15,

1993. On October 13, 1994, the EPA published a rulemaking action

conditionally approving Minnesota's I/M plan. As part of this

rulemaking action, the EPA identified a number of deficiencies in the

State's plan and issued a conditional approval, which required that the

State submit a revised plan within one year from the conditional

approval date. A detailed discussion of EPA's rulemaking action can be

found in the final rule at 59 FR 51860 (October 13, 1994). In 1995, the

Minnesota Legislature amended its I/M program to make changes to the

vehicle model years tested in the program. In 1999, the Minnesota

Legislature amended its I/M program to address the deficiencies

identified in EPA's October 13, 1994 rulemaking action (59 FR 51860).

The State has submitted all of these changes in the series of

submittals noted above.

C. How Has the State Addressed EPA's Requirements?

EPA's conditional approval noted four specific deficiencies in

Minnesota's I/M plan. All other parts of the plan comply with EPA's

requirements. EPA's technical support documents dated June 23, 1994,

September 7, 1994, and July 19, 1999 contain a more detailed analysis

of the I/M review. The four deficiencies identified in EPA's

conditional approval and the manner in which the State has addressed

them follow:

1. The Requirement That Only Certified Automotive Repair Technicians

Perform Repairs in Order for a Vehicle To Obtain a Waiver

In its November 15, 1995 SIP submittal, the State described its

[[Page 42890]]

technician assistance program. In general, the State of Minnesota does

not require certification or licensing in order to perform automotive

repairs in the State. Minnesota offers a variety of assistance and

training programs in the State and offers a Consumer Advocacy Program

to technicians and the public as part of its I/M program. In addition,

the State publishes a number of newsletters and a technician training

curriculum specifically focused on automobile emissions. Further, the

State publishes a Repair Report that lists names and addresses of

repair facilities, average cost of repair, and the percentage of pass

and fail inspections based on the number of vehicles repaired at the

facility. All of these programs provide the public and the repair

community with the opportunity for feedback and training necessary to

improve repair effectiveness without a formal certification process.

Minnesota has demonstrated that their system, despite the lack of a

certification process, does not cause an increase in the waiver rate or

a reduction in the emission reductions achieved by the program. The

waiver rates in Minnesota remain consistent with those seen in similar

areas around the country. Overall, the program continues to meet EPA's

basic I/M performance standard, the computer model based analysis of

the emissions impact of the program. As a result, EPA believes that the

State has addressed this deficiency.

2. The Requirement That the State's Minimum Repair Cost Limit Be

Actually Spent Before a Vehicle is Eligible To Receive a Waiver

The legislation enacted during the 1999 Minnesota State

Legislature, and submitted by the State on June 30, 1999, requires

motorists to spend at least $75 in repair for vehicles manufactured

before 1981, and $200 in repair for vehicles manufactured in 1981 and

after in order to receive a waiver. Unlike prior statute, the new

legislation does not allow repair estimates to qualify for waivers.

This legislation is consistent with EPA's I/M regulations. It should be

noted that this legislation conflicts with Minnesota State Rule

7023.1055, Subp. 1(E)(2) promulgated by the MPCA. In its June 30, 1999

submittal, the State submitted a letter from the Minnesota Attorney

General which states that where a State statute is in conflict with a

State rule, the statute takes precedence. Further, the State has

formally withdrawn Rule 7023.1055, Subp. 1(E)(2) from its formal SIP

submittal. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the legislation.

3. The Requirement That Vehicles With Switched Engines Be Tested With

Emissions Standards Based on the Model Year of the Chassis Rather than

the Engine Year

The legislation enacted during the 1999 Minnesota State

Legislature, and submitted by the State on June 30, 1999, requires

vehicles to be tested based on chassis model year, rather than engine

model year. This legislation is consistent with EPA's I/M regulations.

It should be noted that this legislation conflicts with Minnesota State

Rule 7023.1010, Subp. 35(B), and Rule 7032.1030, Subp. 11(B,C). In its,

June 30, 1999 submittal, the State submitted a letter from the

Minnesota Attorney General which states that where a State statute

conflicts with a State rule, the statute takes precedence. Further, the

State has formally withdrawn Rule 7023.1010, Subp. 35(B), and Rule

7032.1030, Subp. 11(B,C) from its formal SIP submittal. Therefore, EPA

is proposing to approve the legislation.

4. The Requirement To Change the Re-inspection Procedure To Include a

Determination That an Emission Control Device is the Correct Type for

the Certified Configuration of the Vehicle Inspected

In its November 14, 1995 submittal, the MPCA fully described its

inspection procedures, noting that inspection staff perform visual

checks to ensure that emissions system for vehicles are correctly

configured. The EPA believes that this procedure is sufficient to meet

the requirements of EPA's I/M regulations and is approvable.

In 1995, the Minnesota Legislature passed a bill exempting cars

five years old and newer from the I/M testing requirement. EPA's I/M

regulations give States the flexibility to change various program

elements, including model year coverage, as long as the overall program

meets the EPA's basic I/M performance standard, which is a computer

model based analysis of the emissions impact of the program. In its

November 14, 1995, the MPCA included new I/M performance standard

computer modeling reflecting the model year changes made by the

Minnesota Legislature. The EPA has reviewed the State's computer

modeling and finds that it complies with applicable modeling guidance.

This modeling shows that the I/M program continues to meet EPA's basic

I/M performance standard, even with the five model year exemption.

Therefore, the changes made to the program are acceptable under EPA's

I/M regulations.

D. What Does the State Need To Do To Receive Full Approval?

The State has provided the necessary technical materials to meet

EPA's I/M requirements. At present, however, the State has not held a

public hearing and submitted its response to comments to the EPA as

part of its SIP submittal. The State must submit this information to

EPA to receive full approval of its I/M SIP. If the State submits this

information during the public comment period on today's action, the

State's SIP submittal will be deemed complete and the EPA will move

forward to fully approve the revision.

E. What Happens if the Minneapolis/St. Paul Area Is Redesignated to

Attainment for CO?

As noted in EPA's technical support document for the State's CO

redesignation request dated May 3, 1999, as well as in EPA's proposed

approval of the State's redesignation request, the MPCA has performed

computer photochemical modeling which shows that in the future the I/M

program will not be necessary to attain or maintain the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO. In its redesignation

request, the State also included the I/M program as a contingency

measure if the program is subsequently needed to correct a violation of

the CO NAAQS. The EPA has reviewed the modeling submitted with the

redesignation and has found that it meets EPA's technical modeling

criteria. The EPA has also reviewed the State's redesignation request

and has found that it meets the redesignation requirements in the Clean

Air Act and EPA guidance (see 64 FR 25855, May 13, 1999). As a result,

once the Minneapolis/St. Paul CO nonattainment area is redesignated to

attainment, the State may discontinue operation of its I/M program and

request its removal from the SIP. If EPA does not approve the

redesignation request for the area, I/M will remain as an applicable

requirement and EPA will work with the State to ensure that all

nonattainment control programs are implemented in accordance with the

requirements of the Act.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled

``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

[[Page 42891]]

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or

tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those

governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the

nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the

governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elective officials and other

representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide

meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded mandates.'' This rule does not create a

mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose

any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements

of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on these communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,

EPA must provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting elected and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' This rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian

tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of

E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is

determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA

has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on

children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered

by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is does not

involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety

risks.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency

to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to

notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies

that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental

jurisdictions. This direct final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small entities because plan approvals

under section 111(d) do not create any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal approval does not create any new requirements, I

certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of

the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act (Act)

preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry

into the economic reasonableness of a State action. The Act forbids EPA

to base its actions such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427

U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. 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 that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives 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 or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does

not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs

of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments

in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and

imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,

local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from

this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Carbon Monoxide.

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

Dated: July 22, 1999.

Jerri-Anne Garl,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 99-20310 Filed 8-5-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P