Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Missouri; St. Louis Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 064-1064; FRL-6236-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri; St. Louis Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve revisions to the air pollution

control State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state of

Missouri. The revised SIP pertains to the St. Louis vehicle I/M

program. These revisions require the implementation of an enhanced

motor vehicle I/M program in the St. Louis metropolitan area, i.e.,

Jefferson, St. Louis, and St. Charles counties and St. Louis City. This

proposal is being published to meet the EPA's statutory obligation

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 1999.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Wayne Leidwanger at the

Region VII address. Copies of the state submittal are available at the

following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101;

and the Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan Walker, Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913) 551-7494.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Is the Statutory Requirement?

The CAA, as amended in 1990, requires that certain ozone

nonattainment areas adopt either ``basic'' or ``enhanced'' I/M

programs, depending on the severity of the problem and the population

of the area. An I/M program is a way to check whether the emission

control system on a vehicle is working correctly and to repair those

that are not. All new passenger cars and trucks sold in the United

States must meet stringent pollution standards, but they can only

retain this low pollution profile if the emission controls and the

engine are functioning properly. I/M is designed to ensure that

vehicles stay clean in actual customer use. Through periodic vehicle

checks and required repairs for vehicles which fail the test, I/M

encourages proper vehicle maintenance and discourages tampering with

emission control devices.

Since the CAA's inception in 1970, Congress has directed the EPA to

set national ambient air quality standards for the six most common air

pollutants, one of which includes ozone. The CAA requires these

standards to be set at levels that protect public health and welfare

with an adequate margin of safety and without consideration of cost.

These standards provide information to the American people about

whether the air in their community is healthful. Also, the standards

present state and local governments with the targets they must meet to

achieve clean air. St. Louis is currently designated as a nonattainment

area with respect to ozone, i.e., an area which has not achieved the

air quality standard for ozone.

Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, e.g., St. Louis, fall under the

``basic'' I/M requirements. However, moderate areas such as St. Louis

have the option of implementing an enhanced I/M program. The state of

Missouri chose to implement an ``enhanced'' I/M program in St. Louis as

part of its overall plan for achieving emission reductions to attain

the one-hour ozone standard.

II. What Are the I/M requirements?

Missouri has developed its I/M program not only to meet the

requirements of section 182(b)(4) of the CAA but also to meet the

reasonable further progress requirements of section 182. Section

182(b)(1) of the CAA requires states, with nonattainment areas

classified as moderate and above for ozone, to develop a plan to reduce

area-wide volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from a 1990

baseline by 15 percent. However, the Act prohibits credit toward the 15

percent reduction for correcting deficiencies in previously established

basic I/M programs. Missouri decided to pursue an enhanced I/M program

to help the state meet the 15 percent plan requirements.

[[Page 9461]]

Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed the EPA to publish updated

guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of

the EPA's audits and investigations of these programs. Based on these

requirements, the EPA promulgated I/M regulations on November 5, 1992

(57 FR 52950), codified in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.350-

51.373.

The Federal I/M rule establishes minimum performance standards for

basic and enhanced I/M programs. The I/M regulations include the

following: network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and

resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test

procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and

compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement;

motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance;

enforcement against contractors, stations, and inspectors; data

collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and

licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection;

improving repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; and on-

road testing.

The performance standard for basic I/M programs remains the same as

it has been since the initial I/M policy was established in 1978,

pursuant to the 1977 CAA Amendments.

Although Missouri has submitted an enhanced I/M program, the EPA is

proposing at this time to act on the submittal with regard to

compliance with the basic I/M requirements in section 182(b)(4) and 40

CFR part 51, subpart S, because those are the I/M requirements

applicable to St. Louis. However, in order to assure the state develops

an enhanced program for the other purposes mentioned above, the EPA's

review also includes an analysis of the submission as it relates to

requirements for enhanced I/M, because this will impact the credits

which Missouri is projecting in its 15 percent rate-of-progress plan

(ROPP).

III. What Is the Background on Missouri's Program?

On January 1, 1984, the state of Missouri implemented a basic motor

vehicle I/M program in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The St. Louis

program is currently decentralized and is jointly administered by the

Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Missouri Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR).

The EPA audited the St. Louis, Missouri, I/M program in 1985, 1987,

and 1992. The audits found that the St. Louis I/M program experienced a

significant shortfall in achieving the minimum required VOC emission

reductions necessary for an acceptable basic I/M program. The I/M

program is an important strategy toward achieving healthful air quality

in St. Louis. To maximize progress toward that goal, the state of

Missouri and the EPA believed the most effective approach would be to

implement a centralized, test-only program that includes high-tech

testing.

As discussed in the EPA's I/M rule, states such as Missouri were

required to submit a SIP including a schedule, analysis, description,

legal authority, and adequate evidence of funding and resources for

program implementation discussed in Sec. 51.372 (a)(1)-(a)(8). The SIP

must correct any deficiencies in the current programs.

Missouri could not adopt corrections to program deficiencies

without additional legal authority. Therefore, on May 13, 1994, the

MDNR received legislative authority to correct the deficiencies in the

current basic I/M program and to implement a more cost-effective,

enhanced I/M program (Senate Bill 590). The Missouri Air Conservation

Commission (MACC) adopted the plan to implement enhanced I/M program

requirements in the St. Louis nonattainment area, and the state

submitted this SIP on September 1, 1994.

Supplemental information was submitted by Missouri on May 25, 1995,

with the 15 percent ROPP. On June 29, 1995, Missouri submitted

additional documentation for the I/M SIP, and a permanent I/M rule was

adopted by the MACC on July 27, 1995. However, during the 1995

legislative session, the Missouri legislature voted to delete I/M

funding for operation of the centralized I/M program. Lack of I/M

funding severely hindered Missouri's ability to develop several key

aspects of the program. Consequently, on March 18, 1996, the EPA

proposed to disapprove Missouri's I/M SIP submission, because the

state's SIP did not meet the minimum requirement outlined in the EPA's

I/M rule and no funding was available to implement the program. (See 61

FR 10962.)

During the 1997 legislative session, the Missouri legislators

restored the funding for the I/M program. Therefore, on August 5, 1997,

the MDNR submitted to EPA Region VII a SIP revision for St. Louis,

Missouri's enhanced I/M program. The submittal included a letter from

David Shorr, former Director of the MDNR, to Dennis Grams, Regional

Administrator, requesting to amend the previous SIP to include the

revisions. This revision provides a demonstration of adequate tools and

resources, the primary reason for the proposed disapproval, and

addresses other deficiencies outlined in the aforementioned disapproval

notice. Additionally, on October 26, 1998, the state released a Request

for Proposal (RFP) with the goal of attracting potential bidders to

develop a contract to help Missouri meet the necessary I/M program

requirements to supplement the SIP revision. On January 29, 1999, the

state submitted the RFP as a supplement to the 1997 SIP.

Because the 1997 SIP and subsequent submittal address the most

critical deficiencies in the original 1994 submittal, the EPA is

proposing to conditionally approve this SIP revision as set forth

below.

IV. What Are the Regulatory Requirements and How Does the State's

Plan Meet Those Requirements?

As discussed above, sections 182(b)(4), 182(c)(3), 184(b)(1)(A),

187(a)(6), and 187(b)(1) of the Act require that states adopt and

implement regulations for a basic or an enhanced I/M program in certain

areas. The following sections of this document summarize the

requirements of the Federal I/M regulations and address whether the

elements of the state's submittal comply with the Federal rule. The

specific requirements for I/M plan submissions are in 40 CFR part 51,

subpart S, and a list of required elements are in 40 CFR 51.372. The

EPA's decision for approval is solely based on the state's ability to

meet the basic I/M requirements applicable to St. Louis, although the

EPA has also reviewed the submittal for compliance with the

requirements for an enhanced program, because the state ultimately

wants to implement an enhanced program for emission reduction credit.

Applicability--40 CFR 51.350

The EPA requires that the state demonstrate that (1) the program

covers all portions of the nonattainment area required to have an I/M

program and (2) the state submittal contains adequate legal authority.

Senate Bill 590 effective August 28, 1994, and Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-

5.380 establish the program boundaries for Missouri's enhanced I/M

program. Three counties in Missouri (Jefferson, St. Charles, and St.

Louis) and St. Louis City are required to implement basic I/M programs

in the St. Louis nonattainment area. Thus, this portion of the SIP is

approvable.

[[Page 9462]]

I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.351 and 51.352

Section 51.351 contains the performance standard for enhanced I/M

programs, and Sec. 51.352 contains the performance standard for basic

I/M programs. In accord with the Federal I/M rule, Missouri's I/M

program is designed and will be implemented to meet the minimum basic

performance standard which is expressed as emission levels in area-wide

average grams per mile for certain pollutants. The emission levels

adopted by the state were properly modeled using MOBILE5a.

However, the state has made several recent changes to the design of

the program. For example, based on the RFP, Missouri is expected to

exempt up to 40 percent of the fleet using a combination of clean-

screening techniques, such as remote sensing, vehicle emission

profiling, and model year exemptions. Missouri must submit a mobile

source calculation which includes the latest design parameters and

revise its regulation to reflect the clean-screening component and

other exemptions before the EPA can conclude that the state program

meets the performance standard. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to

approve this portion of the SIP with final approval contingent on the

state revising the MOBILE model to reflect the remote sensing devices

(RSD) component, verifying that the program still meets applicable

performance standards, and submitting a revised regulation reflecting

the clean-screening component. The aforementioned provisions must be

submitted as a SIP revision before the EPA takes final action on this

proposal.

Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353

As required by Federal regulation, enhanced I/M programs must be

operated in a centralized, test-only format, unless the state can

demonstrate that a decentralized program is equally as effective in

achieving the enhanced performance standards. In addition, enhanced

programs shall include an ongoing evaluation to quantify the emission

reduction benefits of the program and to determine if the program is

meeting the requirement of the CAA.

Basic programs can be centralized, decentralized, or hybrid at the

state's discretion but must demonstrate that the program meets or

exceeds the emission reductions as described in Sec. 51.352.

Missouri has the legal authority (Senate Bill 590) to implement a

centralized, test-only network to meet the Federal requirements. In

addition, the program exceeds emission reduction requirements for basic

programs. Therefore, this portion of the SIP is approvable with regard

to the basic program.

Missouri provides a discussion in the SIP and the RFP pertaining to

program evaluation. The SIP shows the random evaluation program will

monitor 0.1 percent of 1971 and later model year vehicles. Vehicles

selected for the program evaluation will be chosen to reflect the mixed

fleet in the area. The SIP includes a discussion regarding program

evaluation and includes a schedule for submittal of biennial evaluation

reports from state-monitored or administered mass emission tests of at

least 0.1 percent of the vehicles subject to inspection each year.

Therefore, this portion of the SIP is approvable.

Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354

As required by Federal regulation, Missouri's SIP includes a

detailed budget plan that describes the source of funds for personnel,

program administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment.

The SIP also details the number of personnel dedicated to the quality

assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement,

public education and assistance, and other necessary functions. The

description of funding and resources is adequate for purposes of

Sec. 51.354. Section 51.372 requires the state to demonstrate that

adequate funding is available to meet the requirements described in

this section. The SIP does meet the Federal requirements for evidence

of adequate tools and resources under Secs. 51.372 and 51.354.

Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355

The basic and enhanced I/M performance standards assume an annual

test frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the

performance standard is achieved. Missouri's enhanced I/M regulation

provides for a biennial test frequency which still meets Federal

requirements. The Missouri legislation provides the legal authority to

implement the biennial program, and the state I/M regulation provides

for enforcement of the biennial test frequency.

The Missouri submittal meets the test frequency requirements for

the basic program.

Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356

The performance standards for enhanced I/M programs assume coverage

of all 1968 and later model year light-duty vehicles (LDV) and light-

duty trucks (LDT) up to 8500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)

and includes vehicles operating on all fuel types. The performance

standard for basic programs covers the same vehicles with the exception

of LDTs. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary

emission reductions are achieved. Missouri's submittal includes:

1. Legal authority necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle

coverage requirement.

2. A detailed description of the number and types of vehicles to be

covered by the program.

3. A plan for how those vehicles are identified, including vehicles

that are routinely operated in the area but may not be registered in

the area.

4. A description of any special exemptions, including the

percentage and number of vehicles to be affected by the exemption.

Missouri's enhanced I/M legislation requires coverage of all 1971

and newer LDVs and LDTs up to 8500 pounds GVWR registered or required

to be registered in the I/M program area. As of the date of the

submittal, approximately 1,361,000 vehicles will be subject to enhanced

I/M testing. The Missouri I/M regulation provides the regulatory

authority to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage. Missouri will

implement a clean-screen component as a means to cover up to

approximately 40 percent of the vehicle fleet as described in the RFP.

As discussed previously in this section, Missouri is allowed to use a

level of coverage different from the prescribed I/M rule provided the

program continues to achieve the necessary emission reductions.

Missouri is authorized in its enabling legislation to impose fleet-

testing requirements and requirements for special exemptions by Federal

I/M requirements. Fleet testing will be conducted at official, test-

only stations. Some fleets may opt to have I/M testing equipment

installed at the fleet-testing facility that will be operated and

maintained by the contractor at the fleet owner's expense (and

connected to the on-line data system). Fleet programs are required to

undergo the same testing requirements and quality assurance procedures

as other subject vehicles. The state's plan for testing fleet vehicles

is acceptable and meets the requirements of the Federal I/M regulation.

[[Page 9463]]

We note that the state may ultimately need to revise its program in

light of the EPA's developing policy document with regard to Federal

fleets. However, the EPA believes that this issue does not affect the

current approvability of the program. The EPA is not requiring states

to implement 40 CFR 51.356(a)(4) dealing with Federal installations

within I/M areas at this time. The Department of Justice has

recommended to the EPA that this regulation be revised since it appears

to grant states authority to regulate Federal installations in

circumstances where the Federal government has not waived sovereign

immunity. It would not be appropriate to require compliance with this

regulation if it is not constitutionally authorized. The EPA will be

revising this provision in the future and will review state I/M SIPs

with respect to this issue when this new rule is final.

The state regulation includes some special exemptions for a portion

of the vehicle fleet which are detailed in the technical support

document.

This level of coverage appears to be approvable because the overall

program design meets the performance standards. However, the clean-

screening program is not reflected in the previous SIP and could change

the number of exemptions plus the level of coverage. Thus, the SIP will

only meet the requirements of this section when Missouri accounts for

the clean-screening exemptions. Missouri will be required to submit a

revised vehicle coverage element before the EPA takes final action on

this proposal.

Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR 51.357

The Federal rule requires Missouri to have written test procedures

and pass/fail standards to be established and followed for each model

year and vehicle type included in the program. Test procedures and

standards are detailed in 40 CFR 51.357 and in the EPA document

entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality

Control Requirements, and Equipment Specifications,'' EPA-400-F-92-001,

dated July 20, 1998.

The state's I/M regulation, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.380, includes

a description of the test procedures for a transient, idle,

evaporative-system purge; evaporative-system pressure testing; and for

a visual emission control device inspection. These test procedures

conform to the EPA-approved test procedures and are approvable.

The state regulation provides for start-up standards during the

first two years of program implementation. However, details of how the

program start-up will be accomplished are not included, and the SIP

submittal indicates they will be provided by the contractor. The RFP

provides the structure for the contractor to provide the necessary

details when their bids are submitted. The EPA expects the details to

be provided in the signed contract. Therefore, the EPA proposes to

approve this portion of the SIP if the state submits satisfactory

details of the program start-up, consistent with the parameters in the

RFP, prior to final action on this proposal.

Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358

As required by Federal law, the state submittal contains the

written technical specifications for all test equipment to be used in

the program. The specifications require the use of computerized test

systems. The specifications also include performance features and

functional characteristics of the computerized test systems that meet

the applicable Federal I/M regulations and are approvable. The SIP

meets the requirements of this section.

Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359

In accord with the Federal requirements, the state submittal

addresses the quality control provisions outlined in the I/M rule. The

state will require the contractor to develop procedures, a

specifications manual, and state-approved regulations that describe and

establish quality control measures for the emission measurement

equipment. Also, the contractor will be required to comply with the

recordkeeping requirements and quality control measures. The state will

be required to maintain the security of all documents used to establish

compliance with the inspection requirements.

The contractor will also develop a procedures manual to help the

station operator, lane operator, waiver inspector, and computer

operator by outlining their responsibilities.

This portion of the submittal complies with the quality control

requirements set forth in the Federal I/M regulation and is approvable.

Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360

The Federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver,

which is a form of compliance with the program requirements, that allow

a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards.

Basic I/M programs must require a minimum expenditure of $75 for pre-

1981 vehicles; $200 for 1981 and later vehicles shall be spent in order

to qualify for a waiver. For enhanced I/M programs, an expenditure of

at least $450 in repairs, adjusted annually to reflect the change in

the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as compared with the CPI for 1989, is

required to qualify for a waiver.

As required, Senate Bill 590 provides legislative authority to

issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits, and administer and enforce

the waiver system. The Missouri legislation sets a $75 waiver cost

limit for 1980 and older model year vehicles, a $200 waiver cost limit

for 1981 through 1996 model year vehicles, and $450 waiver cost limits

for 1997 and newer model year vehicles. The state statute allows these

amounts to be adjusted after December 2000 to be consistent with

applicable EPA requirements for an enhanced I/M program. Thus, the

state regulations do not currently include an annual adjustment of the

cost limit to reflect the change in the CPI as compared with the CPI in

1989. However, because Missouri elected to opt up to an enhanced

program, they are only required to meet or exceed the basic I/M

requirements. The program, as outlined, meets the Federal requirement

for the basic program; therefore, this portion is approvable.

The state submitted a revision to the SIP submittal regarding the

waiver requirements on November 13, 1997. Missouri regulations include

provisions that address waiver criteria and procedures, including cost

limits, tampering and warranty-related repairs, quality control, and

administration. These provisions meet the Federal requirements for a

basic program. The state regulation requires repairs for 1981 and newer

model year vehicles to be performed by a recognized repair technician.

The state regulation does allow for compliance via diagnostic

inspection and the policies and procedures outlined in the submittal to

meet Federal I/M regulations (for enhanced I/M areas only). The SIP

sets a maximum waiver rate and describes corrective action that would

be taken if the waiver rate exceeds that committed to in the SIP. The

SIP meets this portion of the regulation and is acceptable.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361

The Federal regulation requires that compliance will 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. Senate Bill 590 provides the legal authority to operate a

registration denial system. The Missouri SIP commits to a compliance

rate of 96 percent which was used in the

[[Page 9464]]

performance standard modeling demonstration and is approvable. The

submittal includes detailed information concerning the registration

denial enforcement process, the identification of agencies responsible

for performing each applicable activity, and a plan for testing fleet

vehicles. In addition, the SIP commits to an enforcement level to be

used for modeling purposes. Therefore, this portion of the SIP is

approvable.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362

In accord with Federal regulation, Missouri's SIP includes

regulations, procedure manuals, supporting documents describing how the

enforcement program oversight will be quality-controlled and quality-

assured, and the establishment of an information management system.

Senate Bill 590 provides authority to enforce against persons who

misrepresent themselves as an official emission inspection station;

anyone who knowingly manufactures, conveys, or possesses any

counterfeit documents; and anyone who knowingly operates a motor

vehicle without displaying a valid emission inspection sticker.

However, the state submittal lacks details of how the information

management system will be implemented. As indicated in the SIP,

requirements of this section depend on participation from the Missouri

Department of Revenue (MDOR) and the assigned contractor. The state has

a Memorandum of Understanding with MDOR and an RFP outlining the duties

of the contractor to meet the requirements of this section. Several

aspects of the section will be negotiated between the MDOR and the

contractor.

The SIP, however, lacks written procedures for personnel engaged in

I/M document handling and processing, such as registration clerks or

personnel involved in sticker dispensing and waiver processing, as well

as written procedures for the auditing of their performance.

Additionally, the SIP needs to include procedures for follow-up

validity checks on out-of-area or exemption-triggering registration

changes. Also, the SIP must include procedures for:

1. Disciplining, retraining, or removing enforcement personnel who

deviate from established requirements.

2. Defranchising, revoking, or otherwise discontinuing the activity

of the entity issuing registrations (in the case of non-government

entities that process registrations).

The RFP provides sufficient details necessary for the EPA to

propose approval of the section. Full approval is contingent on the

state submitting additional detail as described above prior to final

action on this proposal.

Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363

According to the Federal I/M rule, an ongoing quality assurance

program must be implemented to discover, correct, and prevent fraud,

waste, and abuse in the program. The Missouri submittal includes a

quality assurance program that includes regulations and procedures

describing methods for reviewing inspector records, performing

equipment audits, and providing formal training to all state

enforcement officials. Performance audits of inspectors will consist of

both covert and overt audits. Senate Bill 590 provides authority to

conduct audits of the inspection stations and requires the stations to

furnish reports and forms that MDNR deems necessary to evaluate the

program adequately.

The SIP states the contractor will be responsible for portions of

the oversight and enforcement provisions. For example, the contractor

is to be responsible for developing the interactive software that would

allow real-time access to all test station information. In addition,

the state needs to ensure that there are a sufficient number of covert

vehicles to allow frequent rotation to prevent detection by station

personnel.

The SIP and the RFP detail the quality assurance program and

procedures. Many of the specific details regarding how the state will

meet the aforementioned requirement are expected to be provided by the

contractor. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of

the SIP. Full approval is contingent on the state revising its SIP to

address the previously discussed items for this program element prior

to final action on this proposal.

Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364

As required by Federal regulation, the Missouri submittal includes

the legal authority to establish and to impose penalties against

stations, contractors, and inspectors. The state I/M regulation,

legislation, and RFP include penalty provisions for stations,

contractors, and inspectors. Enforcement against registered stations or

contractors and inspectors will include swift, sure, effective, and

consistent penalties for violation of program requirements. The state

submittal establishes minimum penalties for violations of program rules

and procedures that can be imposed against stations, contractors, and

inspectors. These penalties will be administered through the contract.

The state I/M regulation gives the state auditor the authority to

temporarily suspend station and inspector registrations immediately

upon finding a violation. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve

this portion of the SIP provided the state submits a signed contract

containing the penalty provisions described in the SIP submitted prior

to final action on this proposal.

Data Collection--40 CFR 51.365

Accurate data collection is essential to the management,

evaluation, and enforcement of an I/M program. The Federal I/M

regulation requires data to be gathered on each individual test

conducted and on the results of the quality control checks of test

equipment, as required under 40 CFR 51.359. The SIP outlines many

functions to be carried out by the contractor. The EPA is proposing to

approve this portion of the SIP provided the state submits the signed

contract as a SIP revision prior to final action on this proposal.

Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR 51.366

Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring

and evaluating the program by the state and the EPA. The Federal I/M

regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide

information and statistics and summarize activities performed for each

of the following programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control,

and enforcement. These reports are to be submitted by July and will

provide statistics during January to December of the previous year. A

biennial report must be submitted to the EPA that addresses changes in

program design, regulations, legal authority, program procedures, and

any weaknesses in the program found during the two-year period and how

these problems will be or were corrected. Missouri outlines the

requirement for the contractors that appear to meet all of these

Federal requirements. The SIP also commits to address all the items

listed in Sec. 51.366.

The RFP details the functions the contractor is expected to

fulfill. Thus, the EPA expects the state will meet the requirements of

this section when the contract is signed. As noted earlier, procedures

for data collection, analysis, and reporting are critical and must be

in place prior to start-up. Therefore, the EPA believes that in order

to fully approve this element, the state must submit a contract

detailing these

[[Page 9465]]

provisions consistent with the RFP prior to final action on this

proposal.

Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR 51.366

The Federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally

trained and registered to perform inspections. The narrative in the

submittal states that all inspectors are to receive formal training, be

registered by MDNR or the operating contractor, and renew the

registration every two years. As required in the I/M rule, Missouri

provides a description of the training program and commits to require

the contractor to develop a program that meets the requirements

outlined in this section of the rule.

The RFP, however, details the functions the contractor is expected

to fulfill, such as developing and maintaining a procedural training

manual. In addition, the contractor is responsible for administering a

certification test requiring inspectors to receive a minimum score of

80 percent. The RFP states that the contractor will prepare and submit

the training manuals and other training program details after the

contract is awarded. Thus, the EPA expects the state will meet the

requirements of this section. The EPA cannot fully approve this portion

of the SIP until the state and the contractor fulfill the

aforementioned requirements. The state must address this provision

prior to the EPA taking final action on the SIP.

Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR 51.368

The Federal I/M regulation requires the SIP to include public

information and consumer protection programs. State legislation

requires Missouri to provide a public information program which

educates the public on I/M, state, and Federal regulations; air quality

and the role of motor vehicles in the air pollution problem; and other

items as described in the Federal rule.

The RFP requires the contractor, in conjunction with the state, to

develop a public information program. Besides educating the public

about I/M, the state provides assistance to the motorist in obtaining

warranty-covered repairs. However, the state needs to provide a

consumer protection program to include provisions for a challenge

mechanism, protection of whistle-blowers, and assistance to the

motorist in obtaining warranty-covered repairs. With the exception of

the aforementioned consumer protection requirements, the public

information requirement is adequate and does meet Federal requirements.

Since the consumer protection program contained in the SIP is not

complete, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of the SIP

contingent on the state fully meeting the aforementioned requirements

prior to final action on this proposal.

Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369

Effective repair work is the key to achieving program goals. The

Federal regulation requires states to take steps to ensure that the

capability exists in the repair industry to repair vehicles. The SIP

lacks a description of the technical assistance program to be

implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria to be used in

meeting the performance monitoring requirements required in the Federal

regulation, and a description of the repair technician training

resources available in the community.

The RFP provides a discussion of the repair effectiveness program.

Many of the functions will be fulfilled by the contractor. As described

in the RFP, the selected contractor will establish a hotline to assist

repair technicians and track the performance of repair facilities. In

addition, the contractor will establish a toll-free hotline that will

supply information on wait times, station locations, and general

inspection and waiver information. The EPA expects the state will meet

the requirements of this section once the contract is issued. However,

the EPA cannot fully approve this portion of the SIP until the state

and the selected contractor fulfill the aforementioned requirements.

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of the SIP

contingent on the state submitting a signed contract prior to final

action on this rulemaking.

Compliance with Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370

The CAA and Federal regulations require states to establish methods

to ensure that vehicles subject to I/M programs are included in an

emission-related recall program. Vehicle owners must receive the

required repairs before completing the emission test or renewing the

vehicle registration.

The Missouri regulation provides the legal authority to require

owners to comply with emission-related recalls before completing the

emission test or renewing the vehicle registration. The submittal

includes a commitment to submit an annual report to the EPA that

includes the information as required in 40 CFR 51.370(c). Missouri

state inspection or registration database and quality control methods

will help ensure recall repairs are properly documented and tracked.

Therefore, this portion of the SIP is approvable.

On-Road Testing--40 CFR 51.371

On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas only. The use of

either RSD or roadside pullovers, including tailpipe emission testing,

can be used to meet the Federal regulations. Enabling authority to

implement the on-road testing program and enforce off-cycle inspection

and repair requirements are contained in Missouri's legislation.

The on-road testing requirements are optional for basic programs.

Therefore, this item is not relevant to the EPA's proposed action with

respect to the basic I/M requirement.

State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR

51.372-373

The Federal regulation requires enhanced I/M programs to be

implemented in accord with 40 CFR 51.372-51.373. The Missouri submittal

included the final state I/M regulation, an RFP detailing program

elements, and legislative authority to implement the program. The SIP

lacks the contractor's proposal, the signed contract between the state

and the contractor, and procedural documents. These latter documents

must be submitted prior to final approval.

Section 51.372 requires states to demonstrate that adequate funding

of the program is available. Section 51.372(a)(8) requires that the SIP

contain evidence of adequate funding and resources to implement and

continue operation of all aspects of the program. Funding needs to be

available to accommodate personnel and equipment resources necessary to

operate the program.

The SIP indicates capital improvements of land, buildings, and

inspection equipment are expected to be funded through a combination of

revenue bonds and Federal funds. Currently, Missouri has proved that

these funding sources are or will be available.

The test fee or separately assessed per vehicle fee is to be

collected, placed in a dedicated fund, and used to finance the program.

Adequate funding will be available to begin and operate the program.

Overall, Missouri's SIP has a detailed plan demonstrating that

there are adequate funding sources available to carry out program

requirements. The SIP has a detailed description of the equipment to be

used to facilitate program implementation.

[[Page 9466]]

Finally, although the SIP lacks a definitive start date, the RFP

indicates that the program should begin by April 2000. The EPA expects

that commitment to an actual start date, consistent with the schedule

in the RFP, will be established when the contract is signed and that

the state will submit the actual start date with the other submissions

identified in this document. Based on the description in the SIP

submittal of the activities which must be accomplished prior to program

start-up, the EPA believes that the projected start date of April 2000

would be as expeditious as practicable and that the program is not

deficient because of the projected start date. (It is EPA policy that

once the start date in the regulations has passed, SIPs are approvable

if programs start as expeditiously as practicable.) Nevertheless, given

that corrections to the basic program should have been implemented by

January 1, 1994, the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this SIP

pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act to ensure expeditious

implementation. The EPA's conditional approval of the SIP would last

until April 30, 2000. If the state does not begin implementation of the

program by this date, the conditional approval would convert to a

disapproval after a findings letter is sent to the state. This is an

implied condition under the EPA's general approval authority of

110(k)(3), not an explicit condition due to regulatory deficiency under

110(k)(4). Therefore, it will not automatically convert to a

disapproval but will only convert after the EPA transmits a findings

letter to the state indicating that the program has not started.

The EPA is also considering an alternative, in which the EPA would

grant full approval of this SIP (provided the state corrects all of the

previously identified deficiencies prior to final rulemaking). Under

this approach, the state would still be obligated to start up the

program by the date specified in the contract which the EPA believes

should be no later than April 30, 2000. If the state then fails to

begin the program by that date, the EPA would issue a finding under

section 179(a)(4) of the Act that the state had failed to implement

this SIP element and possibly also a SIP call to correct the SIP under

110(k)(5). The EPA solicits comments on this approach as an alternative

to conditional approval.

In the case of either a finding that the condition had not been met

or that the state had failed to implement the SIP, under section

179(a)(2) the EPA must apply one of the sanctions set forth in section

179(b) within 18 months of such finding. Section 179(b) provides two

sanctions available to the Administrator: imposition of emission offset

requirements and limitations on highway funding. In the EPA's August 4,

1994, final sanctions rule (see 59 FR 39832), the sequence of mandatory

sanctions for findings and disapprovals made pursuant to section 179 of

the CAA was finalized. This rulemaking states that the emission offset

sanction applies in an area 18 months from the date when the EPA makes

a finding under section 179(a) with regard to that area. Furthermore,

the highway funding restrictions apply in an area six months following

application of the offset sanction. This nondiscretionary process for

imposing and lifting sanctions is set forth at 40 CFR 52.31.

V. What Is the EPA's Conclusion and Proposed Action?

The EPA's review of the material indicates that the state has

adopted the substance of an adequate I/M program in accordance with the

requirements of the Act. The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve

the Missouri SIP revision for the St. Louis I/M program which was

submitted on August 5, 1997, with the single condition that the program

must begin operation by April 30, 2000, and provided the state submits

no later than November 1999 a revised SIP, including a signed contract,

which addresses the following items:

1. Start date for testing vehicles.

2. Details of the start-up for the first two years (Sec. 51.357).

3. Enforcement provisions against contractors, stations, and

inspectors (Sec. 51.364).

4. Provisions for data collection (Sec. 51.365), analysis, and

reporting (Sec. 51.366).

5. Inspector training, certification, and licensing requirements

(Sec. 51.366).

6. Revised emission reduction estimates and vehicle coverage taking

into account the clean-screening provisions (Secs. 51.351, 51.352, and

51.356).

7. Revised regulations reflecting the clean-screening provisions

(Secs. 51.351 and 51.352).

8. Procedures for program oversight including document handling and

processing, audits, registration changes, disciplinary actions, and

enforcement action involving non-government entities (Sec. 51.362).

9. Corrections to the quality assurance program to address real-

time access to test station information and sufficient covert vehicles

(Sec. 51.363).

10. Consumer protection program (Sec. 51.368).

11. Technical assistance program including performance monitoring

requirements and repair technician training resources (Sec. 51.369).

The EPA believes that allowing the state until November 1999 to

address these remaining deficiencies provides adequate time for the

state to adopt and submit a revised SIP. If the revisions address the

issues outlined in this document without significant deviation from the

descriptions of the program in the RFP and as described in this

document and the technical support document, the EPA is proposing to

proceed with final conditional approval of the I/M program. The EPA may

repropose action on a portion of the I/M program if the state makes a

submission which deviates significantly from these parameters or

provides significant new data not previously made publicly available,

to the extent necessary to ensure adequate public notice and

opportunity for comment. Finally, if the state fails to make a complete

submission by November, the EPA will not take final action on this

proposal but rather will proceed with a proposed disapproval of the I/M

SIP. The EPA solicits comments on this proposed action.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

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

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and

Review.''

B. E.O. 12875

Under E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, the

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 or the EPA consults with

those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875

requires the EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of

the 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 the EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals

[[Page 9467]]

containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's 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. E.O. 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 the

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 not an

economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866,

and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that

would have a disproportionate effect on children.

D. E.O. 13084

Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments, the 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 those communities, unless the Federal government

provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs

incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA consults with those

governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires the

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

preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the 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 the EPA

to develop an effective process permitting elected officials 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.''

Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve

or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the

requirements of Section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 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 proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities, because SIP approvals under Section 110 and

Subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing.

Therefore, because the Federal SIP 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 CAA,

preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry

into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids the

EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on 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, the 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, the

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 the 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 preexisting 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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: February 17, 1999.

Dennis Grams,

Regional Administrator, Region VII.

[FR Doc. 99-4825 Filed 2-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P