Title 40—Protection of Environment--Volume 1
PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
§ 51.308   Regional haze program requirements.
(a) What is the purpose of this section? This section establishes requirements for implementation plans, plan revisions, and periodic progress reviews to address regional haze.
(b) When are the first implementation plans due under the regional haze program? Except as provided in § 51.309(c), each State identified in § 51.300(b) must submit, for the entire State, an implementation plan for regional haze meeting the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section no later than December 17, 2007.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) What are the core requirements for the implementation plan for regional haze? The State must address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the State. To meet the core requirements for regional haze for these areas, the State must submit an implementation plan containing the following plan elements and supporting documentation for all required analyses:
(1) Reasonable progress goals. For each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State, the State must establish goals (expressed in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period.
(i) In establishing a reasonable progress goal for any mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, the State must:
(A) Consider the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors were taken into consideration in selecting the goal.
(B) Analyze and determine the rate of progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions by the year 2064. To calculate this rate of progress, the State must compare baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions in the mandatory Federal Class I area and determine the uniform rate of visibility improvement (measured in deciviews) that would need to be maintained during each implementation period in order to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. In establishing the reasonable progress goal, the State must consider the uniform rate of improvement in visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve it for the period covered by the implementation plan.
(ii) For the period of the implementation plan, if the State establishes a reasonable progress goal that provides for a slower rate of improvement in visibility than the rate that would be needed to attain natural conditions by 2064, the State must demonstrate, based on the factors in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(A) of this section, that the rate of progress for the implementation plan to attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable; and that the progress goal adopted by the State is reasonable. The State must provide to the public for review as part of its implementation plan an assessment of the number of years it would take to attain natural conditions if visibility improvement continues at the rate of progress selected by the State as reasonable.
(iii) In determining whether the State's goal for visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions, the Administrator will evaluate the demonstrations developed by the State pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii) of this section.
(iv) In developing each reasonable progress goal, the State must consult with those States which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area. In any situation in which the State cannot agree with another such State or group of States that a goal provides for reasonable progress, the State must describe in its submittal the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. In reviewing the State's implementation plan submittal, the Administrator will take this information into account in determining whether the State's goal for visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions.
(v) The reasonable progress goals established by the State are not directly enforceable but will be considered by the Administrator in evaluating the adequacy of the measures in the implementation plan to achieve the progress goal adopted by the State.
(vi) The State may not adopt a reasonable progress goal that represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from implementation of other requirements of the CAA during the applicable planning period.
(2) Calculations of baseline and natural visibility conditions. For each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State, the State must determine the following visibility conditions (expressed in deciviews):
(i) Baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days. The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000 to 2004. Baseline visibility conditions must be calculated, using available monitoring data, by establishing the average degree of visibility impairment for the most and least impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. The baseline visibility conditions are the average of these annual values. For mandatory Class I Federal areas without onsite monitoring data for 2000-2004, the State must establish baseline values using the most representative available monitoring data for 2000-2004, in consultation with the Administrator or his or her designee;
(ii) For an implementation plan that is submitted by 2003, the period for establishing baseline visibility conditions for the period of the first long-term strategy is the most recent 5-year period for which visibility monitoring data are available for the mandatory Class I Federal areas addressed by the plan. For mandatory Class I Federal areas without onsite monitoring data, the State must establish baseline values using the most representative available monitoring data, in consultation with the Administrator or his or her designee;
(iii) Natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days. Natural visibility conditions must be calculated by estimating the degree of visibility impairment existing under natural conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days, based on available monitoring information and appropriate data analysis techniques; and
(iv) For the first implementation plan addressing the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days.
(3) Long-term strategy for regional haze. Each State listed in § 51.300(b) must submit a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and for each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from the State. The long-term strategy must include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals established by States having mandatory Class I Federal areas. In establishing its long-term strategy for regional haze, the State must meet the following requirements:
(i) Where the State has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area located in another State or States, the State must consult with the other State(s) in order to develop coordinated emission management strategies. The State must consult with any other State having emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area within the State.
(ii) Where other States cause or contribute to impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal area, the State must demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the progress goal for the area. If the State has participated in a regional planning process, the State must ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.
(iii) The State must document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which the State is relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. The State may meet this requirement by relying on technical analyses developed by the regional planning organization and approved by all State participants. The State must identify the baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies are based. The baseline emissions inventory year is presumed to be the most recent year of the consolidate periodic emissions inventory.
(iv) The State must identify all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by the State in developing its long-term strategy. The State should consider major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources.
(v) The State must consider, at a minimum, the following factors in developing its long-term strategy:
(A) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment;
(B) Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities;
(C) Emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goal;
(D) Source retirement and replacement schedules;
(E) Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the State for these purposes;
(F) Enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and
(G) The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy.
(4) Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements. The State must submit with the implementation plan a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State. This monitoring strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in § 51.305 for reasonably attributable visibility impairment. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments network. The implementation plan must also provide for the following:
(i) The establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State are being achieved.
(ii) Procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State.
(iii) For a State with no mandatory Class I Federal areas, procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas in other States.
(iv) The implementation plan must provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the State. To the extent possible, the State should report visibility monitoring data electronically.
(v) A statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. The State must also include a commitment to update the inventory periodically.
(vi) Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility.
(e) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for regional haze visibility impairment. The State must submit an implementation plan containing emission limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART for each BART-eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area, unless the State demonstrates that an emissions trading program or other alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions.
(1) To address the requirements for BART, the State must submit an implementation plan containing the following plan elements and include documentation for all required analyses:
(i) A list of all BART-eligible sources within the State.
(ii) A determination of BART for each BART-eligible source in the State that emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area. All such sources are subject to BART.
(A) The determination of BART must be based on an analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each BART-eligible source that is subject to BART within the State. In this analysis, the State must take into consideration the technology available, the costs of compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, any pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
(B) The determination of BART for fossil-fuel fired power plants having a total generating capacity greater than 750 megawatts must be made pursuant to the guidelines in appendix Y of this part (Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule).
(C) Exception. A State is not required to make a determination of BART for SO 2 or for NO X if a BART-eligible source has the potential to emit less than 40 tons per year of such pollutant(s), or for PM 10 if a BART-eligible source has the potential to emit less than 15 tons per year of such pollutant.
(iii) If the State determines in establishing BART that technological or economic limitations on the applicability of measurement methodology to a particular source would make the imposition of an emission standard infeasible, it may instead prescribe a design, equipment, work practice, or other operational standard, or combination thereof, to require the application of BART. Such standard, to the degree possible, is to set forth the emission reduction to be achieved by implementation of such design, equipment, work practice or operation, and must provide for compliance by means which achieve equivalent results.
(iv) A requirement that each source subject to BART be required to install and operate BART as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the implementation plan revision.
(v) A requirement that each source subject to BART maintain the control equipment required by this subpart and establish procedures to ensure such equipment is properly operated and maintained.
(2) A State may opt to implement or require participation in an emissions trading program or other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. Such an emissions trading program or other alternative measure must achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. For all such emission trading programs or other alternative measures, the State must submit an implementation plan containing the following plan elements and include documentation for all required analyses:
(i) A demonstration that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative program. This demonstration must be based on the following:
(A) A list of all BART-eligible sources within the State.
(B) A list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source categories covered by the alternative program. The State is not required to include every BART source category or every BART-eligible source within a BART source category in an alternative program, but each BART-eligible source in the State must be subject to the requirements of the alternative program, have a federally enforceable emission limitation determined by the State and approved by EPA as meeting BART in accordance with section 302(c) or paragraph (e)(1) of this section, or otherwise addressed under paragraphs (e)(1) or (e)(4)of this section.
(C) An analysis of the best system of continuous emission control technology available and associated emission reductions achievable for each source within the State subject to BART and covered by the alternative program. This analysis must be conducted by making a determination of BART for each source subject to BART and covered by the alternative program as provided for in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, unless the emissions trading program or other alternative measure has been designed to meet a requirement other than BART (such as the core requirement to have a long-term strategy to achieve the reasonable progress goals established by States). In this case, the State may determine the best system of continuous emission control technology and associated emission reductions for similar types of sources within a source category based on both source-specific and category-wide information, as appropriate.
(D) An analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable through the trading program or other alternative measure.
(E) A determination under paragraph (e)(3) of this section or otherwise based on the clear weight of evidence that the trading program or other alternative measure achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at the covered sources.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) A requirement that all necessary emission reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze. To meet this requirement, the State must provide a detailed description of the emissions trading program or other alternative measure, including schedules for implementation, the emission reductions required by the program, all necessary administrative and technical procedures for implementing the program, rules for accounting and monitoring emissions, and procedures for enforcement.
(iv) A demonstration that the emission reductions resulting from the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.
(v) At the State's option, a provision that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure may include a geographic enhancement to the program to address the requirement under § 51.302(b) or (c) related to reasonably attributable impairment from the pollutants covered under the emissions trading program or other alternative measure.
(vi) For plans that include an emissions trading program that establishes a cap on total annual emissions of SO 2 or NO X from sources subject to the program, requires the owners and operators of sources to hold allowances or authorizations to emit equal to emissions, and allows the owners and operators of sources and other entities to purchase, sell, and transfer allowances, the following elements are required concerning the emissions covered by the cap:
(A) Applicability provisions defining the sources subject to the program. The State must demonstrate that the applicability provisions (including the size criteria for including sources in the program) are designed to prevent any significant potential shifting within the State of production and emissions from sources in the program to sources outside the program. In the case of a program covering sources in multiple States, the States must demonstrate that the applicability provisions in each State cover essentially the same size facilities and, if source categories are specified, cover the same source categories and prevent any significant, potential shifting within such States of production and emissions to sources outside the program.
(B) Allowance provisions ensuring that the total value of allowances (in tons) issued each year under the program will not exceed the emissions cap (in tons) on total annual emissions from the sources in the program.
(C) Monitoring provisions providing for consistent and accurate measurements of emissions from sources in the program to ensure that each allowance actually represents the same specified tonnage of emissions and that emissions are measured with similar accuracy at all sources in the program. The monitoring provisions must require that boilers, combustion turbines, and cement kilns in the program allowed to sell or transfer allowances must comply with the requirements of part 75 of this chapter. The monitoring provisions must require that other sources in the program allowed to sell or transfer allowances must provide emissions information with the same precision, reliability, accessibility, and timeliness as information provided under part 75 of this chapter.
(D) Recordkeeping provisions that ensure the enforceability of the emissions monitoring provisions and other program requirements. The recordkeeping provisions must require that boilers, combustion turbines, and cement kilns in the program allowed to sell or transfer allowances must comply with the recordkeeping provisions of part 75 of this chapter. The recordkeeping provisions must require that other sources in the program allowed to sell or transfer allowances must comply with recordkeeping requirements that, as compared with the recordkeeping provisions under part 75 of this chapter, are of comparable stringency and require recording of comparable types of information and retention of the records for comparable periods of time.
(E) Reporting provisions requiring timely reporting of monitoring data with sufficient frequency to ensure the enforceability of the emissions monitoring provisions and other program requirements and the ability to audit the program. The reporting provisions must require that boilers, combustion turbines, and cement kilns in the program allowed to sell or transfer allowances must comply with the reporting provisions of part 75 of this chapter, except that, if the Administrator is not the tracking system administrator for the program, emissions may be reported to the tracking system administrator, rather than to the Administrator. The reporting provisions must require that other sources in the program allowed to sell or transfer allowances must comply with reporting requirements that, as compared with the reporting provisions under part 75 of this chapter, are of comparable stringency and require reporting of comparable types of information and require comparable timeliness and frequency of reporting.
(F) Tracking system provisions which provide for a tracking system that is publicly available in a secure, centralized database to track in a consistent manner all allowances and emissions in the program.
(G) Authorized account representative provisions ensuring that the owners and operators of a source designate one individual who is authorized to represent the owners and operators in all matters pertaining to the trading program.
(H) Allowance transfer provisions providing procedures that allow timely transfer and recording of allowances, minimize administrative barriers to the operation of the allowance market, and ensure that such procedures apply uniformly to all sources and other potential participants in the allowance market.
(I) Compliance provisions prohibiting a source from emitting a total tonnage of a pollutant that exceeds the tonnage value of its allowance holdings, including the methods and procedures for determining whether emissions exceed allowance holdings. Such method and procedures shall apply consistently from source to source.
(J) Penalty provisions providing for mandatory allowance deductions for excess emissions that apply consistently from source to source. The tonnage value of the allowances deducted shall equal at least three times the tonnage of the excess emissions.
(K) For a trading program that allows banking of allowances, provisions clarifying any restrictions on the use of these banked allowances.
(L) Program assessment provisions providing for periodic program evaluation to assess whether the program is accomplishing its goals and whether modifications to the program are needed to enhance performance of the program.
(3) A State which opts under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) to implement an emissions trading program or other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART may satisfy the final step of the demonstration required by that section as follows: If the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class I area, for the worst and best 20 percent of days. The modeling would demonstrate “greater reasonable progress” if both of the following two criteria are met:
(i) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area, and
(ii) There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.
(4) A State whose sources are subject to a trading program established under part 97 of this chapter in accordance with a federal implementation plan set forth in § 52.38 or § 52.39 of this chapter or a trading program established under a SIP revision approved by the Administrator as meeting the requirements of § 52.38 or § 52.39 of this chapter need not require BART-eligible fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants in the State to install, operate, and maintain BART for the pollutant covered by such trading program in the State. A State may adopt provisions, consistent with the requirements applicable to the State's sources for such trading program, for a geographic enhancement to the trading program to address any requirement under § 51.302(b) or (c) related to reasonably attributable impairment from the pollutant covered by such trading program in that State.
(5) After a State has met the requirements for BART or implemented an emissions trading program or other alternative measure that achieves more reasonable progress than the installation and operation of BART, BART-eligible sources will be subject to the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (f) of this section, as applicable, in the same manner as other sources.
(6) Any BART-eligible facility subject to the requirement under paragraph (e) of this section to install, operate, and maintain BART may apply to the Administrator for an exemption from that requirement. An application for an exemption will be subject to the requirements of § 51.303(a)(2)-(h).
(f) Requirements for periodic comprehensive revisions of implementation plans for regional haze. Each State identified in § 51.300(b) must revise and submit its regional haze implementation plan revision to EPA by July 31, 2021, July 31, 2028, and every 10 years thereafter. The plan revision due on or before July 31, 2021, must include a commitment by the State to meet the requirements of paragraph (g) of this section. In each plan revision, the State must address regional haze in each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the State. To meet the core requirements for regional haze for these areas, the State must submit an implementation plan containing the following plan elements and supporting documentation for all required analyses:
(1) Calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions; progress to date; and the uniform rate of progress. For each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State, the State must determine the following:
(i) Baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days. The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000 to 2004. The State must calculate the baseline visibility conditions for the most impaired days and the clearest days using available monitoring data. To determine the baseline visibility condition, the State must calculate the average of the annual deciview index values for the most impaired days and for the clearest days for the calendar years from 2000 to 2004. The baseline visibility condition for the most impaired days or the clearest days is the average of the respective annual values. For purposes of calculating the uniform rate of progress, the baseline visibility condition for the most impaired days must be associated with the last day of 2004. For mandatory Class I Federal areas without onsite monitoring data for 2000-2004, the State must establish baseline values using the most representative available monitoring data for 2000-2004, in consultation with the Administrator or his or her designee. For mandatory Class I Federal areas with incomplete monitoring data for 2000-2004, the State must establish baseline values using the 5 complete years of monitoring data closest in time to 2000-2004.
(ii) Natural visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days. A State must calculate natural visibility condition by estimating the average deciview index existing under natural conditions for the most impaired days or the clearest days based on available monitoring information and appropriate data analysis techniques; and
(iii) Current visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days. The period for calculating current visibility conditions is the most recent 5-year period for which data are available. The State must calculate the current visibility conditions for the most impaired days and the clearest days using available monitoring data. To calculate each current visibility condition, the State must calculate the average of the annual deciview index values for the years in the most recent 5-year period. The current visibility condition for the most impaired or the clearest days is the average of the respective annual values.
(iv) Progress to date for the most impaired and clearest days. Actual progress made towards the natural visibility condition since the baseline period, and actual progress made during the previous implementation period up to and including the period for calculating current visibility conditions, for the most impaired and for the clearest days.
(v) Differences between current visibility condition and natural visibility condition. The number of deciviews by which the current visibility condition exceeds the natural visibility condition, for the most impaired and for the clearest days.
(vi) Uniform rate of progress. (A) The uniform rate of progress for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the State. To calculate the uniform rate of progress, the State must compare the baseline visibility condition for the most impaired days to the natural visibility condition for the most impaired days in the mandatory Class I Federal area and determine the uniform rate of visibility improvement (measured in deciviews of improvement per year) that would need to be maintained during each implementation period in order to attain natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064.
(B) As part of its implementation plan submission, the State may propose (1) an adjustment to the uniform rate of progress for a mandatory Class I Federal area to account for impacts from anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or (2) an adjustment to the uniform rate of progress for the mandatory Class I Federal area to account for impacts from wildland prescribed fires that were conducted with the objective to establish, restore, and/or maintain sustainable and resilient wildland ecosystems, to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, and/or to preserve endangered or threatened species during which appropriate basic smoke management practices were applied. To calculate the proposed adjustment(s), the State must add the estimated impact(s) to the natural visibility condition and compare the baseline visibility condition for the most impaired days to the resulting sum. If the Administrator determines that the State has estimated the impact(s) from anthropogenic sources outside the United States and/or wildland prescribed fires using scientifically valid data and methods, the Administrator may approve the proposed adjustment(s) to the uniform rate of progress.
(2) Long-term strategy for regional haze. Each State must submit a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and for each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from the State. The long-term strategy must include the enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to (f)(2)(i) through (iv). In establishing its long-term strategy for regional haze, the State must meet the following requirements:
(i) The State must evaluate and determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the costs of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected anthropogenic source of visibility impairment. The State should consider evaluating major and minor stationary sources or groups of sources, mobile sources, and area sources. The State must include in its implementation plan a description of the criteria it used to determine which sources or groups of sources it evaluated and how the four factors were taken into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy. In considering the time necessary for compliance, if the State concludes that a control measure cannot reasonably be installed and become operational until after the end of the implementation period, the State may not consider this fact in determining whether the measure is necessary to make reasonable progress.
(ii) The State must consult with those States that have emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area to develop coordinated emission management strategies containing the emission reductions necessary to make reasonable progress.
(A) The State must demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan all measures agreed to during state-to-state consultations or a regional planning process, or measures that will provide equivalent visibility improvement.
(B) The State must consider the emission reduction measures identified by other States for their sources as being necessary to make reasonable progress in the mandatory Class I Federal area.
(C) In any situation in which a State cannot agree with another State on the emission reduction measures necessary to make reasonable progress in a mandatory Class I Federal area, the State must describe the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. In reviewing the State's implementation plan, the Administrator will take this information into account in determining whether the plan provides for reasonable progress at each mandatory Class I Federal area that is located in the State or that may be affected by emissions from the State. All substantive interstate consultations must be documented.
(iii) The State must document the technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, cost, engineering, and emissions information, on which the State is relying to determine the emission reduction measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. The State may meet this requirement by relying on technical analyses developed by a regional planning process and approved by all State participants. The emissions information must include, but need not be limited to, information on emissions in a year at least as recent as the most recent year for which the State has submitted emission inventory information to the Administrator in compliance with the triennial reporting requirements of subpart A of this part. However, if a State has made a submission for a new inventory year to meet the requirements of subpart A in the period 12 months prior to submission of the SIP, the State may use the inventory year of its prior submission.
(iv) The State must consider the following additional factors in developing its long-term strategy:
(A) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably attributable visibility impairment;
(B) Measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities;
(C) Source retirement and replacement schedules;
(D) Basic smoke management practices for prescribed fire used for agricultural and wildland vegetation management purposes and smoke management programs; and
(E) The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy.
(3) Reasonable progress goals. (i) A state in which a mandatory Class I Federal area is located must establish reasonable progress goals (expressed in deciviews) that reflect the visibility conditions that are projected to be achieved by the end of the applicable implementation period as a result of those enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) of this section that can be fully implemented by the end of the applicable implementation period, as well as the implementation of other requirements of the CAA. The long-term strategy and the reasonable progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days since the baseline period and ensure no degradation in visibility for the clearest days since the baseline period.
(ii)(A) If a State in which a mandatory Class I Federal area is located establishes a reasonable progress goal for the most impaired days that provides for a slower rate of improvement in visibility than the uniform rate of progress calculated under paragraph (f)(1)(vi) of this section, the State must demonstrate, based on the analysis required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section, that there are no additional emission reduction measures for anthropogenic sources or groups of sources in the State that may reasonably be anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I area that would be reasonable to include in the long-term strategy. The State must provide a robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria used to determine which sources or groups or sources were evaluated and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy. The State must provide to the public for review as part of its implementation plan an assessment of the number of years it would take to attain natural visibility conditions if visibility improvement were to continue at the rate of progress selected by the State as reasonable for the implementation period.
(B) If a State contains sources which are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal area in another State for which a demonstration by the other State is required under (f)(3)(ii)(A), the State must demonstrate that there are no additional emission reduction measures for anthropogenic sources or groups of sources in the State that may reasonably be anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the Class I area that would be reasonable to include in its own long-term strategy. The State must provide a robust demonstration, including documenting the criteria used to determine which sources or groups or sources were evaluated and how the four factors required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) were taken into consideration in selecting the measures for inclusion in its long-term strategy.
(iii) The reasonable progress goals established by the State are not directly enforceable but will be considered by the Administrator in evaluating the adequacy of the measures in the implementation plan in providing for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions at that area.
(iv) In determining whether the State's goal for visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions, the Administrator will also evaluate the demonstrations developed by the State pursuant to paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3)(ii)(A) of this section and the demonstrations provided by other States pursuant to paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.
(4) If the Administrator, Regional Administrator, or the affected Federal Land Manager has advised a State of a need for additional monitoring to assess reasonably attributable visibility impairment at the mandatory Class I Federal area in addition to the monitoring currently being conducted, the State must include in the plan revision an appropriate strategy for evaluating reasonably attributable visibility impairment in the mandatory Class I Federal area by visual observation or other appropriate monitoring techniques.
(5) So that the plan revision will serve also as a progress report, the State must address in the plan revision the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this section. However, the period to be addressed for these elements shall be the period since the most recent progress report.
(6) Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements. The State must submit with the implementation plan a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation in the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments network. The implementation plan must also provide for the following:
(i) The establishment of any additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether reasonable progress goals to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the State are being achieved.
(ii) Procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State.
(iii) For a State with no mandatory Class I Federal areas, procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining the contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas in other States.
(iv) The implementation plan must provide for the reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the State. To the extent possible, the State should report visibility monitoring data electronically.
(v) A statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area. The inventory must include emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. The State must also include a commitment to update the inventory periodically.
(vi) Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility.
(g) Requirements for periodic reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals. Each State identified in § 51.300(b) must periodically submit a report to the Administrator evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goal for each mandatory Class I Federal area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the State. The first progress report is due 5 years from submittal of the initial implementation plan addressing paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. The first progress reports must be in the form of implementation plan revisions that comply with the procedural requirements of § 51.102 and § 51.103. Subsequent progress reports are due by January 31, 2025, July 31, 2033, and every 10 years thereafter. Subsequent progress reports must be made available for public inspection and comment for at least 30 days prior to submission to EPA and all comments received from the public must be submitted to EPA along with the subsequent progress report, along with an explanation of any changes to the progress report made in response to these comments. Periodic progress reports must contain at a minimum the following elements:
(1) A description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State.
(2) A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of the measures described in paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
(3) For each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, the State must assess the following visibility conditions and changes, with values for most impaired, least impaired and/or clearest days as applicable expressed in terms of 5-year averages of these annual values. The period for calculating current visibility conditions is the most recent 5-year period preceding the required date of the progress report for which data are available as of a date 6 months preceding the required date of the progress report.
(i)(A) Progress reports due before January 31, 2025. The current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days.
(B) Progress reports due on and after January 31, 2025. The current visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days;
(ii)(A) Progress reports due before January 31, 2025. The difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions.
(B) Progress reports due on and after January 31, 2025. The difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and clearest days and baseline visibility conditions.
(iii)(A) Progress reports due before January 31, 2025. The change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the period since the period addressed in the most recent plan required under paragraph (f) of this section.
(B) Progress reports due on and after January 31, 2025. The change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and clearest days over the period since the period addressed in the most recent plan required under paragraph (f) of this section.
(4) An analysis tracking the change over the period since the period addressed in the most recent plan required under paragraph (f) of this section in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State. Emissions changes should be identified by type of source or activity. With respect to all sources and activities, the analysis must extend at least through the most recent year for which the state has submitted emission inventory information to the Administrator in compliance with the triennial reporting requirements of subpart A of this part as of a date 6 months preceding the required date of the progress report. With respect to sources that report directly to a centralized emissions data system operated by the Administrator, the analysis must extend through the most recent year for which the Administrator has provided a State-level summary of such reported data or an internet-based tool by which the State may obtain such a summary as of a date 6 months preceding the required date of the progress report. The State is not required to backcast previously reported emissions to be consistent with more recent emissions estimation procedures, and may draw attention to actual or possible inconsistencies created by changes in estimation procedures.
(5) An assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have occurred since the period addressed in the most recent plan required under paragraph (f) of this section including whether or not these changes in anthropogenic emissions were anticipated in that most recent plan and whether they have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility.
(6) An assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other States with mandatory Class I Federal areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established reasonable progress goals for the period covered by the most recent plan required under paragraph (f) of this section.
(7) For progress reports for the first implementation period only, a review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.
(8) For a state with a long-term strategy that includes a smoke management program for prescribed fires on wildland that conducts a periodic program assessment, a summary of the most recent periodic assessment of the smoke management program including conclusions if any that were reached in the assessment as to whether the program is meeting its goals regarding improving ecosystem health and reducing the damaging effects of catastrophic wildfires.
(h) Determination of the adequacy of existing implementation plan. At the same time the State is required to submit any progress report to EPA in accordance with paragraph (g) of this section, the State must also take one of the following actions based upon the information presented in the progress report:
(1) If the State determines that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the State must provide to the Administrator a declaration that revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time.
(2) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in another State(s) which participated in a regional planning process, the State must provide notification to the Administrator and to the other State(s) which participated in the regional planning process with the States. The State must also collaborate with the other State(s) through the regional planning process for the purpose of developing additional strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.
(3) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along with available information, to the Administrator.
(4) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources within the State, the State shall revise its implementation plan to address the plan's deficiencies within one year.
(i) What are the requirements for State and Federal Land Manager coordination? (1) By November 29, 1999, the State must identify in writing to the Federal Land Managers the title of the official to which the Federal Land Manager of any mandatory Class I Federal area can submit any recommendations on the implementation of this subpart including, but not limited to:
(i) Identification of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area(s); and
(ii) Identification of elements for inclusion in the visibility monitoring strategy required by § 51.305 and this section.
(2) The State must provide the Federal Land Manager with an opportunity for consultation, in person at a point early enough in the State's policy analyses of its long-term strategy emission reduction obligation so that information and recommendations provided by the Federal Land Manager can meaningfully inform the State's decisions on the long-term strategy. The opportunity for consultation will be deemed to have been early enough if the consultation has taken place at least 120 days prior to holding any public hearing or other public comment opportunity on an implementation plan (or plan revision) for regional haze required by this subpart. The opportunity for consultation on an implementation plan (or plan revision) or on a progress report must be provided no less than 60 days prior to said public hearing or public comment opportunity. This consultation must include the opportunity for the affected Federal Land Managers to discuss their:
(i) Assessment of impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal area; and
(ii) Recommendations on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment.
(3) In developing any implementation plan (or plan revision) or progress report, the State must include a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the Federal Land Managers.
(4) The plan (or plan revision) must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the State and Federal Land Manager on the implementation of the visibility protection program required by this subpart, including development and review of implementation plan revisions and progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
§ 51.309   Requirements related to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission.
(a) What is the purpose of this section? This section establishes the requirements for the first regional haze implementation plan to address regional haze visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report. For the period through 2018, certain States (defined in paragraph (b) of this section as Transport Region States) may choose to implement the Commission's recommendations within the framework of the national regional haze program and applicable requirements of the Act by complying with the provisions of this section. If a Transport Region State submits an implementation plan which is approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of this section, it will be deemed to comply with the requirements for reasonable progress with respect to the 16 Class I areas for the period from approval of the plan through 2018. Any Transport Region State electing not to submit an implementation plan under this section is subject to the requirements of § 51.308 in the same manner and to the same extent as any State not included within the Transport Region. Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, each Transport Region State is also subject to the requirements of § 51.308 with respect to any other Federal mandatory Class I areas within the State or affected by emissions from the State.
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
(1) 16 Class I areas means the following mandatory Class I Federal areas on the Colorado Plateau: Grand Canyon National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, San Pedro Parks Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park, and Zion National Park.
(2) Transport Region State means one of the States that is included within the Transport Region addressed by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming).
(3) Commission Report means the report of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission entitled “Recommendations for Improving Western Vistas,” dated June 10, 1996.
(4) Fire means wildfire, wildland fire, prescribed fire, and agricultural burning conducted and occurring on Federal, State, and private wildlands and farmlands.
(5) Milestone means the maximum level of annual regional SO 2 emissions, in tons per year, for a given year, assessed annually, through the year 2018, consistent with paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
(6) Continuous decline in total mobile source emissions means that the projected level of emissions from mobile sources of each listed pollutant in 2008, 2013, and 2018, are less than the projected level of emissions from mobile sources of each listed pollutant for the previous period ( i.e., 2008 less than 2003; 2013 less than 2008; and 2018 less than 2013).
(7) Base year means the year for which data for a source included within the program were used by the WRAP to calculate emissions as a starting point for development of the milestone required by paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section.
(8)-(12) [Reserved]
(13) Eligible renewable energy resource, for purposes of 40 CFR 51.309, means electricity generated by non-nuclear and non-fossil low or no air emission technologies.
(c) Implementation Plan Schedule. Each Transport Region State electing to submit an implementation plan under this section must submit such a plan no later than December 17, 2007. Indian Tribes may submit implementation plans after this deadline.
(d) Requirements of the first implementation plan for States electing to adopt all of the recommendations of the Commission Report. Except as provided for in paragraph (e) of this section, each Transport Region State must submit an implementation plan that meets the following requirements:
(1) Time period covered. The implementation plan must be effective through December 31, 2018 and continue in effect until an implementation plan revision is approved by EPA in accordance with § 51.308(f).
(2) Projection of visibility improvement. For each of the 16 mandatory Class I areas located within the Transport Region State, the plan must include a projection of the improvement in visibility conditions (expressed in deciviews, and in any additional ambient visibility metrics deemed appropriate by the State) expected through the year 2018 for the most impaired and least impaired days, based on the implementation of all measures as required in the Commission report and the provisions in this section. The projection must be made in consultation with other Transport Region States with sources which may be reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the relevant Class I area. The projection may be based on a satisfactory regional analysis.
(3) Treatment of clean-air corridors. The plan must describe and provide for implementation of comprehensive emission tracking strategies for clean-air corridors to ensure that the visibility does not degrade on the least-impaired days at any of the 16 Class I areas. The strategy must include:
(i) An identification of clean-air corridors. The EPA will evaluate the State's identification of such corridors based upon the reports of the Commission's Meteorology Subcommittee and any future updates by a successor organization;
(ii) Within areas that are clean-air corridors, an identification of patterns of growth or specific sites of growth that could cause, or are causing, significant emissions increases that could have, or are having, visibility impairment at one or more of the 16 Class I areas.
(iii) In areas outside of clean-air corridors, an identification of significant emissions growth that could begin, or is beginning, to impair the quality of air in the corridor and thereby lead to visibility degradation for the least-impaired days in one or more of the 16 Class I areas.
(iv) If impairment of air quality in clean air corridors is identified pursuant to paragraphs (d)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section, an analysis of the effects of increased emissions, including provisions for the identification of the need for additional emission reductions measures, and implementation of the additional measures where necessary.
(v) A determination of whether other clean air corridors exist for any of the 16 Class I areas. For any such clean air corridors, an identification of the necessary measures to protect against future degradation of air quality in any of the 16 Class I areas.
(4) Implementation of stationary source reductions. The first implementation plan submission must include:
(i) Provisions for stationary source emissions of SO 2 . The plan submission must include a SO 2 program that contains quantitative emissions milestones for stationary source SO 2 emissions for each year through 2018. After the first two years of the program, compliance with the annual milestones may be measured by comparing a three-year rolling average of actual emissions with a rolling average of the emissions milestones for the same three years. During the first two years of the program, compliance with the milestones may be measured by a methodology of the States' choosing, so long as all States in the program use the same methodology. Compliance with the 2018 milestone shall be measured by comparing actual emissions from the year 2018 with the 2018 milestone. The milestones must provide for steady and continuing emissions reductions through 2018 consistent with the Commission's definition of reasonable progress, its goal of 50 to 70 percent reduction in SO 2 emissions from 1990 actual emission levels by 2040, applicable requirements under the CAA, and the timing of implementation plan assessments of progress and identification of any deficiencies which will be due in the years 2013 and 2018. The milestones must be shown to provide for greater reasonable progress than would be achieved by application of BART pursuant to § 51.308(e)(2).
(ii) Documentation of emissions calculation methods for SO 2 . The plan submission must include documentation of the specific methodology used to calculate SO 2 emissions during the base year for each emitting unit included in the program. The implementation plan must also provide for documentation of any change to the specific methodology used to calculate emissions at any emitting unit for any year after the base year.
(iii) Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of SO 2 emissions. The plan submission must include provisions requiring the monitoring, recordkeeping, and annual reporting of actual stationary source SO 2 emissions within the State. The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting data must be sufficient to determine annually whether the milestone for each year through 2018 is achieved. The plan submission must provide for reporting of these data by the State to the Administrator and to the regional planning organization. The plan must provide for retention of records for at least 10 years from the establishment of the record.
(iv) Criteria and Procedures for a Market Trading Program. The plan must include the criteria and procedures for conducting an annual evaluation of whether the milestone is achieved and, in accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(v) of this section, for activating a market trading program in the event the milestone is not achieved. A draft of the annual report evaluating whether the milestone for each year is achieved shall be completed no later than 12 months from the end of each milestone year. The plan must also provide for assessments of the program in the years 2013 and 2018.
(v) Market trading program. The implementation plan must include requirements for a market trading program to be implemented in the event that a milestone is not achieved. The plan shall require that the market trading program be activated beginning no later than 15 months after the end of the first year in which the milestone is not achieved. The plan shall also require that sources comply, as soon as practicable, with the requirement to hold allowances covering their emissions. Such market trading program must be sufficient to achieve the milestones in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section, and must be consistent with the elements for such programs outlined in § 51.308(e)(2)(vi). Such a program may include a geographic enhancement to the program to address the requirement under § 51.302(b) related to reasonably attributable impairment from the pollutants covered under the program.
(vi) Provision for the 2018 milestone.
(A) Unless and until a revised implementation plan is submitted in accordance with § 51.308(f) and approved by EPA, the implementation plan shall prohibit emissions from covered stationary sources in any year beginning in 2018 that exceed the year 2018 milestone. In no event shall a market-based program approved under § 51.308(f) allow an emissions cap for SO 2 that is less stringent than the 2018 milestone, unless the milestones are replaced by a different program approved by EPA as meeting the BART and reasonable progress requirements established in § 51.308.
(B) The implementation plan must provide a framework, including financial penalties for excess emissions based on the 2018 milestone, sufficient to ensure that the 2018 milestone will be met even if the implementation of the market trading program in paragraph (d)(4)(v) of this section has not yet been triggered, or the source allowance compliance provision of the trading program is not yet in effect.
(vii) Provisions for stationary source emissions of NO X and PM. The implementation plan must contain any necessary long term strategies and BART requirements for stationary source PM and NO X emissions. Any such BART provisions may be submitted pursuant to either § 51.308(e)(1) or '51.308(e)(2).
(5) Mobile sources. The plan submission must provide for:
(i) Statewide inventories of onroad and nonroad mobile source emissions of VOC, NO X , SO 2 , PM 2.5 , elemental carbon, and organic carbon for the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018.
(A) The inventories must demonstrate a continuous decline in total mobile source emissions (onroad plus nonroad; tailpipe and evaporative) of VOC, NO X , PM 2.5 , elemental carbon, and organic carbon, evaluated separately. If the inventories show a continuous decline in total mobile source emissions of each of these pollutants over the period 2003-2018, no further action is required as part of this plan to address mobile source emissions of these pollutants. If the inventories do not show a continuous decline in mobile source emissions of one or more of these pollutants over the period 2003-2018, the plan submission must provide for an implementation plan revision by no later than December 31, 2008 containing any necessary long-term strategies to achieve a continuous decline in total mobile source emissions of the pollutant(s), to the extent practicable, considering economic and technological reasonableness and federal preemption of vehicle standards and fuel standards under title II of the CAA.
(B) The plan submission must also provide for an implementation plan revision by no later than December 31, 2008 containing any long-term strategies necessary to reduce emissions of SO 2 from nonroad mobile sources, consistent with the goal of reasonable progress. In assessing the need for such long-term strategies, the State may consider emissions reductions achieved or anticipated from any new Federal standards for sulfur in nonroad diesel fuel.
(ii) Interim reports to EPA and the public in years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018 on the implementation status of the regional and local strategies recommended by the Commission Report to address mobile source emissions.
(6) Programs related to fire. The plan must provide for:
(i) Documentation that all Federal, State, and private prescribed fire programs within the State evaluate and address the degree visibility impairment from smoke in their planning and application. In addition the plan must include smoke management programs that include all necessary components including, but not limited to, actions to minimize emissions, evaluation of smoke dispersion, alternatives to fire, public notification, air quality monitoring, surveillance and enforcement, and program evaluation.
(ii) A statewide inventory and emissions tracking system (spatial and temporal) of VOC, NO X , elemental and organic carbon, and fine particle emissions from fire. In reporting and tracking emissions from fire from within the State, States may use information from regional data-gathering and tracking initiatives.
(iii) Identification and removal wherever feasible of any administrative barriers to the use of alternatives to burning in Federal, State, and private prescribed fire programs within the State.
(iv) Enhanced smoke management programs for fire that consider visibility effects, not only health and nuisance objectives, and that are based on the criteria of efficiency, economics, law, emission reduction opportunities, land management objectives, and reduction of visibility impact.
(v) Establishment of annual emission goals for fire, excluding wildfire, that will minimize emission increases from fire to the maximum extent feasible and that are established in cooperation with States, tribes, Federal land management agencies, and private entities.
(7) Area sources of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads. The plan must include an assessment of the impact of dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads on visibility conditions in the 16 Class I Areas. If such dust emissions are determined to be a significant contributor to visibility impairment in the 16 Class I areas, the State must implement emissions management strategies to address the impact as necessary and appropriate.
(8) Pollution prevention. The plan must provide for:
(i) An initial summary of all pollution prevention programs currently in place, an inventory of all renewable energy generation capacity and production in use, or planned as of the year 2002 (expressed in megawatts and megawatt-hours), the total energy generation capacity and production for the State, the percent of the total that is renewable energy, and the State's anticipated contribution toward the renewable energy goals for 2005 and 2015, as provided in paragraph (d)(8)(vi) of this section.
(ii) Programs to provide incentives that reward efforts that go beyond compliance and/or achieve early compliance with air-pollution related requirements.
(iii) Programs to preserve and expand energy conservation efforts.
(iv) The identification of specific areas where renewable energy has the potential to supply power where it is now lacking and where renewable energy is most cost-effective.
(v) Projections of the short- and long-term emissions reductions, visibility improvements, cost savings, and secondary benefits associated with the renewable energy goals, energy efficiency and pollution prevention activities.
(vi) A description of the programs relied on to achieve the State's contribution toward the Commission's goal that renewable energy will comprise 10 percent of the regional power needs by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015, and a demonstration of the progress toward achievement of the renewable energy goals in the years 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018. This description must include documentation of the potential for renewable energy resources, the percentage of renewable energy associated with new power generation projects implemented or planned, and the renewable energy generation capacity and production in use and planned in the State. To the extent that it is not feasible for a State to meet its contribution to the regional renewable energy goals, the State must identify in the progress reports the measures implemented to achieve its contribution and explain why meeting the State's contribution was not feasible.
(9) Implementation of additional recommendations. The plan must provide for implementation of all other recommendations in the Commission report that can be practicably included as enforceable emission limits, schedules of compliance, or other enforceable measures (including economic incentives) to make reasonable progress toward remedying existing and preventing future regional haze in the 16 Class I areas. The State must provide a report to EPA and the public in 2003, 2008, 2013, and 2018 on the progress toward developing and implementing policy or strategy options recommended in the Commission Report.
(10) Periodic implementation plan revisions and progress reports. Each Transport Region State must submit to the Administrator periodic reports in the years 2013 and as specified for subsequent progress reports in § 51.308(g). The progress report due in 2013 must be in the form of an implementation plan revision that complies with the procedural requirements of §§ 51.102 and 51.103.
(i) The report due in 2013 will assess the area for reasonable progress as provided in this section for mandatory Class I Federal area(s) located within the State and for mandatory Class I Federal area(s) located outside the State that may be affected by emissions from within the State. This demonstration may be based on assessments conducted by the States and/or a regional planning body. The progress report due in 2013 must contain at a minimum the following elements:
(A) A description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the implementation plan for achieving reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I Federal areas both within and outside the State.
(B) A summary of the emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through implementation of the measures described in paragraph (d)(10)(i)(A) of this section.
(C) For each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State, an assessment of the following: the current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days; the difference between current visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days and baseline visibility conditions; the change in visibility impairment for the most impaired and least impaired days over the past 5 years.
(D) An analysis tracking the change over the past 5 years in emissions of pollutants contributing to visibility impairment from all sources and activities within the State. Emissions changes should be identified by type of source or activity. The analysis must be based on the most recent updated emissions inventory, with estimates projected forward as necessary and appropriate, to account for emissions changes during the applicable 5-year period.
(E) An assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have occurred over the past 5 years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility.
(F) An assessment of whether the current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other States with mandatory Federal Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established reasonable progress goals.
(G) A review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.
(ii) At the same time the State is required to submit the 5-year progress report due in 2013 to EPA in accordance with paragraph (d)(10)(i) of this section, the State must also take one of the following actions based upon the information presented in the progress report:
(A) If the State determines that the existing implementation plan requires no further substantive revision at this time in order to achieve established goals for visibility improvement and emissions reductions, the State must provide to the Administrator a negative declaration that further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed at this time.
(B) If the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in another State(s) which participated in a regional planning process, the State must provide notification to the Administrator and to the other State(s) which participated in the regional planning process with the States. The State must also collaborate with the other State(s) through the regional planning process for the purpose of developing additional strategies to address the plan's deficiencies.
(C) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from sources in another country, the State shall provide notification, along with available information, to the Administrator.
(D) Where the State determines that the implementation plan is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress due to emissions from within the State, the State shall develop additional strategies to address the plan deficiencies and revise the implementation plan no later than one year from the date that the progress report was due.
(iii) The requirements of § 51.308(g) regarding requirements for periodic reports describing progress towards the reasonable progress goals apply to States submitting plans under this section, with respect to subsequent progress reports due after 2013.
(iv) The requirements of § 51.308(h) regarding determinations of the adequacy of existing implementation plans apply to States submitting plans under this section, with respect to subsequent progress reports due after 2013.
(11) State planning and interstate coordination. In complying with the requirements of this section, States may include emission reductions strategies that are based on coordinated implementation with other States. Examples of these strategies include economic incentive programs and transboundary emissions trading programs. The implementation plan must include documentation of the technical and policy basis for the individual State apportionment (or the procedures for apportionment throughout the trans-boundary region), the contribution addressed by the State's plan, how it coordinates with other State plans, and compliance with any other appropriate implementation plan approvability criteria. States may rely on the relevant technical, policy and other analyses developed by a regional entity (such as the Western Regional Air Partnership) in providing such documentation. Conversely, States may elect to develop their own programs without relying on work products from a regional entity.
(12) Tribal implementation. Consistent with 40 CFR Part 49, tribes within the Transport Region may implement the required visibility programs for the 16 Class I areas, in the same manner as States, regardless of whether such tribes have participated as members of a visibility transport commission.
(e) States electing not to implement the commission recommendations. Any Transport Region State may elect not to implement the Commission recommendations set forth in paragraph (d) of this section. Such States are required to comply with the timelines and requirements of § 51.308. Any Transport Region State electing not to implement the Commission recommendations must advise the other States in the Transport Region of the nature of the program and the effect of the program on visibility-impairing emissions, so that other States can take this information into account in developing programs under this section.
(f) [Reserved]
(g) Additional Class I areas. Each Transport Region State implementing the provisions of this section as the basis for demonstrating reasonable progress for mandatory Class I Federal areas other than the 16 Class I areas must include the following provisions in its implementation plan. If a Transport Region State submits an implementation plan which is approved by EPA as meeting the requirements of this section, it will be deemed to comply with the requirements for reasonable progress for the period from approval of the plan to 2018.
(1) A demonstration of expected visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days at the additional mandatory Class I Federal area(s) based on emissions projections from the long-term strategies in the implementation plan. This demonstration may be based on assessments conducted by the States and/or a regional planning body.
(2) Provisions establishing reasonable progress goals and implementing any additional measures necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress for the additional mandatory Federal Class I areas. These provisions must comply with the provisions of § 51.308(d)(1) through (4).
(i) In developing long-term strategies pursuant to § 51.308(d)(3), the State may build upon the strategies implemented under paragraph (d) of this section, and take full credit for the visibility improvement achieved through these strategies.
(ii) The requirement under § 51.308(e) related to Best Available Retrofit Technology for regional haze is deemed to be satisfied for pollutants addressed by the milestones and backstop trading program if, in establishing the emission reductions milestones under paragraph (d)(4) of this section, it is shown that greater reasonable progress will be achieved for these additional Class I areas than would be achieved through the application of source-specific BART emission limitations under § 51.308(e)(1).
(iii) The Transport Region State may consider whether any strategies necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals required by paragraph (g)(2) of this section are incompatible with the strategies implemented under paragraph (d) of this section to the extent the State adequately demonstrates that the incompatibility is related to the costs of the compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, or the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements.
§ 51.320   Annual air quality data report.
The requirements for reporting air quality data collected for purposes of the plan are located in subpart C of part 58 of this chapter.
§ 51.321   Annual source emissions and State action report.
The State agency shall report to the Administrator (through the appropriate Regional Office) information as specified in §§ 51.322 through 51.326.
§ 51.322   Sources subject to emissions reporting.
The requirements for reporting emissions data under the plan are in subpart A of this part 51.
§ 51.323   Reportable emissions data and information.
The requirements for reportable emissions data and information under the plan are in subpart A of this part 51.
§ 51.324   Progress in plan enforcement.
(a) For each point source, the State shall report any achievement made during the reporting period of any increment of progress of compliance schedules required by:
(1) The applicable plan, or
(2) Any enforcement order or other State action required to be submitted pursuant to § 51.327.
(b) For each point source, the State shall report any enforcement action taken during the reporting period and not submitted under § 51.327 which results in civil or criminal penalties.
§ 51.326   Reportable revisions.
The State shall identify and describe all substantive plan revisions during the reporting period of the applicable plan other than revisions to rules and regulations or compliance schedules submitted in accordance with § 51.6(d). Substantive revisions shall include but are not limited to changes in stack-test procedures for determining compliance with applicable regulations, modifications in the projected total manpower needs to carry out the approved plan, and all changes in responsibilities given to local agencies to carry out various portions of the plan.
§ 51.327   Enforcement orders and other State actions.
(a) Any State enforcement order, including any State court order, must be submitted to the Administrator within 60 days of its issuance or adoption by the State.
(b) A State enforcement order or other State action must be submitted as a revision to the applicable implementation plan pursuant to § 51.104 and approved by the Administrator in order to be considered a revision to such plan.
§ 51.328   [Reserved]
§ 51.341   Request for 18-month extension.
(a) Upon request of the State made in accordance with this section, the Administrator may, whenever he determines necessary, extend, for a period not to exceed 18 months, the deadline for submitting that portion of a plan that implements a secondary standard.
(b) Any such request must show that attainment of the secondary standards will require emission reductions exceeding those which can be achieved through the application of reasonably available control technology.
(c) Any such request for extension of the deadline with respect to any State's portion of an interstate region must be submitted jointly with requests for such extensions from all other States within the region or must show that all such States have been notified of such request.
(d) Any such request must be submitted sufficiently early to permit development of a plan prior to the deadline in the event that such request is denied.
§ 51.350   Applicability.
Inspection/maintenance (I/M) programs are required in both ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas, depending upon population and nonattainment classification or design value.
(a) Nonattainment area classification and population criteria. (1) States or areas within an ozone transport region shall implement enhanced I/M programs in any metropolitan statistical area (MSA), or portion of an MSA, within the State or area with a 1990 population of 100,000 or more as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regardless of the area's attainment classification. In the case of a multi-state MSA, enhanced I/M shall be implemented in all ozone transport region portions if the sum of these portions has a population of 100,000 or more, irrespective of the population of the portion in the individual ozone transport region State or area.
(2) Apart from those areas described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, any area classified as serious or worse ozone nonattainment, or as moderate or serious CO nonattainment with a design value greater than 12.7 ppm, and having a 1980 Bureau of Census-defined (Census-defined) urbanized area population of 200,000 or more, shall implement enhanced I/M in the 1990 Census-defined urbanized area.
(3) Any area classified, as of November 5, 1992, as marginal ozone nonattainment or moderate CO nonattainment with a design value of 12.7 ppm or less shall continue operating I/M programs that were part of an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) as of November 15, 1990, and shall update those programs as necessary to meet the basic I/M program requirements of this subpart. Any such area required by the Clean Air Act, as in effect prior to November 15, 1990, as interpreted in EPA guidance, to have an I/M program shall also implement a basic I/M program. Serious, severe and extreme ozone areas and CO areas over 12.7 ppm shall also continue operating existing I/M programs and shall upgrade such programs, as appropriate, pursuant to this subpart.
(4) Any area classified as moderate ozone nonattainment, and not required to implement enhanced I/M under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, shall implement basic I/M in any 1990 Census-defined urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more.
(5) [Reserved]
(6) If the boundaries of a moderate ozone nonattainment area are changed pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A)(i)-(ii) of the Clean Air Act, such that the area includes additional urbanized areas with a population of 200,000 or more, then a basic I/M program shall be implemented in these additional urbanized areas.
(7) If the boundaries of a serious or worse ozone nonattainment area or of a moderate or serious CO nonattainment area with a design value greater than 12.7 ppm are changed any time after enactment pursuant to section 107(d)(4)(A) such that the area includes additional urbanized areas, then an enhanced I/M program shall be implemented in the newly included 1990 Census-defined urbanized areas, if the 1980 Census-defined urban area population is 200,000 or more.
(8) If a marginal ozone nonattainment area, not required to implement enhanced I/M under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, is reclassified to moderate, a basic I/M program shall be implemented in the 1990 Census-defined urbanized area(s) with a population of 200,000 or more. If the area is reclassified to serious or worse, an enhanced I/M program shall be implemented in the 1990 Census-defined urbanized area, if the 1980 Census-defined urban area population is 200,000 or more.
(9) If a moderate ozone or CO nonattainment area is reclassified to serious or worse, an enhanced I/M program shall be implemented in the 1990 Census-defined urbanized area, if the 1980 Census-defined population is 200,000 or more.
(b) Extent of area coverage. (1) In an ozone transport region, the program shall cover all counties within subject MSAs or subject portions of MSAs, as defined by OMB in 1990, except largely rural counties having a population density of less than 200 persons per square mile based on the 1990 Census and counties with less than 1% of the population in the MSA may be excluded provided that at least 50% of the MSA population is included in the program. This provision does not preclude the voluntary inclusion of portions of an excluded county. Non-urbanized islands not connected to the mainland by roads, bridges, or tunnels may be excluded without regard to population.
(2) Outside of ozone transport regions, programs shall nominally cover at least the entire urbanized area, based on the 1990 census. Exclusion of some urban population is allowed as long as an equal number of non-urban residents of the MSA containing the subject urbanized area are included to compensate for the exclusion.
(3) Emission reduction benefits from expanding coverage beyond the minimum required urban area boundaries can be applied toward the reasonable further progress requirements or can be used for offsets, provided the covered vehicles are operated in the nonattainment area, but not toward the enhanced I/M performance standard requirement.
(4) In a multi-state urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more that is required under paragraph (a) of this section to implement I/M, any State with a portion of the area having a 1990 Census-defined population of 50,000 or more shall implement an I/M program. The other coverage requirements in paragraph (b) of this section shall apply in multi-state areas as well.
(5) Notwithstanding the limitation in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, in an ozone transport region, States which opt for a program which meets the performance standard described in § 51.351(h) and claim in their SIP less emission reduction credit than the basic performance standard for one or more pollutants, may apply a geographic bubble covering areas in the State not otherwise subject to an I/M requirement to achieve emission reductions from other measures equal to or greater than what would have been achieved if the low enhanced performance standard were met in the subject I/M areas. Emissions reductions from non-I/M measures shall not be counted towards the OTR low enhanced performance standard.
(c) Requirements after attainment. All I/M programs shall provide that the program will remain effective, even if the area is redesignated to attainment status or the standard is otherwise rendered no longer applicable, until the State submits and EPA approves a SIP revision which convincingly demonstrates that the area can maintain the relevant standard(s) without benefit of the emission reductions attributable to the I/M program. The State shall commit to fully implement and enforce the program until such a demonstration can be made and approved by EPA. At a minimum, for the purposes of SIP approval, legislation authorizing the program shall not sunset prior to the attainment deadline for the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
(d) SIP requirements. The SIP shall describe the applicable areas in detail and, consistent with § 51.372 of this subpart, shall include the legal authority or rules necessary to establish program boundaries.
§ 51.351   Enhanced I/M performance standard.
(a) [Reserved]
(b) On-road testing. The performance standard shall include on-road testing (including out-of-cycle repairs in the case of confirmed failures) 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), (g), and (h) of this section. Specific requirements are listed in § 51.371 of this subpart.
(c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). For those areas required to implement an enhanced I/M program prior to the effective date of designation and classifications under the 8-hour ozone standard, the performance standard shall include inspection of all model year 1996 and later light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks equipped with certified on-board diagnostic systems, and repair of malfunctions or system deterioration identified by or affecting OBD systems as specified in § 51.357, and assuming a start date of 2002 for such testing. For areas required to implement enhanced I/M as a result of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard, the performance standard defined in paragraph (i) of this section shall include inspection of all model year 2001 and later light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks equipped with certified on-board diagnostic systems, and repair of malfunctions or system deterioration identified by or affecting OBD systems as specified in § 51.357, and assuming a start date of 4 years after the effective date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard.
(d) Modeling requirements. Equivalency of the emission levels which will be achieved by the I/M program design in the SIP to those of the model program described in this section shall be demonstrated using the most current version of EPA's mobile source emission model, or an alternative approved by the Administrator, using EPA guidance to aid in the estimation of input parameters. States may adopt alternative approaches that meet this performance standard. States may do so through program design changes that affect normal I/M input parameters to the mobile source emission factor model, or through program changes (such as the accelerated retirement of high emitting vehicles) that reduce in-use mobile source emissions. If the Administrator finds, under section 182(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act pertaining to reasonable further progress demonstrations or section 182(f)(1) of the Act pertaining to provisions for major stationary sources, that NO X emission reductions are not beneficial in a given ozone nonattainment area, then NO X emission reductions are not required of the enhanced I/M program, but the program shall be designed to offset NO X increases resulting from the repair of HC and CO failures.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) High Enhanced Performance Standard. 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, 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. Except as provided in paragraphs (g) and (h) 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 NO X ;
(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 NO X ;
(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 NO X ;
(iv) Emission standards for 1994 and later light duty vehicles meeting Tier 1 emission standards of 0.70 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO, and 1.4 gpm NO X ;
(v) Emission standards for 1994 and later light duty trucks under 6000 pounds GVWR and meeting Tier 1 emission standards of 0.70 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO, and 2.0 gpm NO X ;
(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 HC, 15 gpm CO and 2.5 gpm NO X ;
(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 (CO 2 ) on vehicles subject to a steady-state test (as described in appendix B of this subpart S); and
(viii) Maximum exhaust dilution measured as no less than 6% CO plus carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 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 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 January 1, 2002 to within ±0.02 gpm. Subject programs shall demonstrate through modeling the ability to maintain this level of emission reduction (or better) through their attainment deadline for the applicable NAAQS standard(s).
(g) Alternate Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standard. An enhanced I/M area which is either not subject to or has an approved State Implementation Plan pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 for Reasonable Further Progress in 1996, and does not have a disapproved plan for Reasonable Further Progress for the period after 1996 or a disapproved plan for attainment of the air quality standards for ozone or CO, may select the alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard described below in lieu of the standard described in paragraph (f) of this section. The model 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 (g) shall be shown to obtain the same or lower emission levels as the model program described in this paragraph by January 1, 2002 to within ±0.02 gpm. Subject programs shall demonstrate through modeling the ability to maintain this level of emission reduction (or better) through their attainment deadline for the applicable NAAQS standard(s).
(h) Ozone Transport Region Low-Enhanced Performance Standard. An attainment area, marginal ozone area, or moderate ozone area with a 1980 Census population of less than 200,000 in the urbanized area, in an ozone transport region, that is required to implement enhanced I/M under section 184(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, but was not previously required to or did not in fact implement basic I/M under the Clean Air Act as enacted prior to 1990 and is not subject to the requirements for basic I/M programs in this subpart, may select the performance standard described below in lieu of the standard described in paragraph (f) or (g) of this section as long as the difference in emission reductions between the program described in paragraph (g) and this paragraph are made up with other measures, as provided in § 51.350(b)(5). Offsetting measures shall not include those otherwise required by the Clean Air Act in the areas from which credit is bubbled. The program elements for this alternate OTR enhanced I/M performance standard are:
(1) Network type. Centralized testing.
(2) Start date. January 1, 1999.
(3) Test frequency. Annual testing.
(4) Model year coverage. Testing of 1968 and newer vehicles.
(5) Vehicle type coverage. Light duty vehicles, and light duty trucks, rated up to 8,500 pounds GVWR.
(6) Exhaust emission test type. Remote sensing measurements on 1968-1995 vehicles; on-board diagnostic system checks on 1996 and newer vehicles.
(7) Emission standards. For remote sensing measurements, a carbon monoxide standard of 7.5% (with at least two separate readings above this level to establish a failure).
(8) Emission control device inspections. Visual inspection of the catalytic converter on 1975 and newer vehicles and visual inspection of the positive crankcase ventilation valve on 1968-1974 vehicles.
(9) Waiver rate. A 3% waiver rate, as a percentage of failed vehicles.
(10) Compliance rate. A 96% compliance rate.
(11) Evaluation date. Enhanced I/M program areas subject to the provisions of this paragraph shall be shown to obtain the same or lower VOC and NOx emission levels as the model program described in this paragraph (h) by January 1, 2002 to within ±0.02 gpm. Subject programs shall demonstrate through modeling the ability to maintain this level of emission reduction (or better) through their attainment deadline for the applicable NAAQS standard(s). Equality of substituted emission reductions to the benefits of the low enhanced performance standard must be demonstrated for the same evaluation date.
(i) Enhanced performance standard for areas designated and classified under the 8-hour ozone standard. Areas required to implement an enhanced I/M program as a result of being designated and classified under the 8-hour ozone standard, must meet or exceed the HC and NO X emission reductions achieved by the model program defined as follows:
(1) Network type. Centralized testing.
(2) Start date. 4 years after the effective date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard.
(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) Emission test type. Idle testing (as described in appendix B of this subpart) for 1968-2000 vehicles; onboard diagnostic checks on 2001 and newer vehicles.
(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, with the exception of those performed by the OBD system on vehicles so-equipped and only for model year 2001 and newer 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 subject to the provisions of this paragraph (i) shall be shown to obtain the same or lower emission levels for HC and NO X as the model program described in this paragraph assuming an evaluation date set 6 years after the effective date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard (rounded to the nearest July) to within ±0.02 gpm. Subject programs shall demonstrate through modeling the ability to maintain this percent level of emission reduction (or better) through their applicable attainment date for the 8-hour ozone standard, also rounded to the nearest July.
§ 51.352   Basic I/M performance standard.
(a) Basic I/M programs shall be designed and implemented to meet or exceed a minimum performance standard, which is expressed as emission levels achieved from highway mobile sources as a result of the program. The performance standard shall be established using the following model I/M program inputs and local characteristics, such as vehicle mix and local fuel controls. Similarly, the emission reduction benefits of the State's program design shall be estimated using the most current version of the EPA mobile source emission model, and shall meet the minimum performance standard both in operation and for SIP approval.
(1) Network type. Centralized testing.
(2) Start date. For areas with existing I/M programs, 1983. For areas newly subject, 1994.
(3) Test frequency. Annual testing.
(4) Model year coverage. Testing of 1968 and later model year vehicles.
(5) Vehicle type coverage. Light duty vehicles.
(6) Exhaust emission test type. Idle test.
(7) Emission standards. No weaker than specified in 40 CFR part 85, subpart W.
(8) Emission control device inspections. None.
(9) Stringency. A 20% emission test failure rate among pre-1981 model year vehicles.
(10) Waiver rate. A 0% waiver rate.
(11) Compliance rate. A 100% compliance rate.
(12) Evaluation date. Basic I/M programs shall be shown to obtain the same or lower emission levels as the model inputs by 1997 for ozone nonattainment areas and 1996 for CO nonattainment areas; and, for serious or worse ozone nonattainment areas, on each applicable milestone and attainment deadline, thereafter.
(b) Oxides of nitrogen. Basic I/M testing in ozone nonattainment areas shall be designed such that no increase in NO X emissions occurs as a result of the program. If the Administrator finds, under section 182(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act pertaining to reasonable further progress demonstrations or section 182(f)(1) of the Act pertaining to provisions for major stationary sources, that NO X emission reductions are not beneficial in a given ozone nonattainment area, then the basic I/M NO X requirement may be omitted. States shall implement any required NO X controls within 12 months of implementation of the program deadlines required in § 51.373 of this subpart, except that newly implemented I/M programs shall include NO X controls from the start.
(c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). For those areas required to implement a basic I/M program prior to the effective date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard, the performance standard shall include inspection of all model year 1996 and later light-duty vehicles equipped with certified on-board diagnostic systems, and repair of malfunctions or system deterioration identified by or affecting OBD systems as specified in § 51.357, and assuming a start date of 2002 for such testing. For areas required to implement basic I/M as a result of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard, the performance standard defined in paragraph (e) of this section shall include inspection of all model year 2001 and later light-duty vehicles equipped with certified on-board diagnostic systems, and repair of malfunctions or system deterioration identified by or affecting OBD systems as specified in § 51.357, and assuming a start date of 4 years after the effective date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard.
(d) Modeling requirements. Equivalency of emission levels which will be achieved by the I/M program design in the SIP to those of the model program described in this section shall be demonstrated using the most current version of EPA's mobile source emission model and EPA guidance on the estimation of input parameters. Areas required to implement basic I/M programs shall meet the performance standard for the pollutants which cause them to be subject to basic requirements. Areas subject as a result of ozone nonattainment shall meet the standard for VOCs and shall demonstrate no NO X increase, as required in paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) Basic performance standard for areas designated non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. Areas required to implement a basic I/M program as a result of being designated and classified under the 8-hour ozone standard, must meet or exceed the emission reductions achieved by the model program defined for the applicable ozone precursor(s):
(1) Network type. Centralized testing.
(2) Start date. 4 years after the effective date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard.
(3) Test frequency. Annual testing.
(4) Model year coverage. Testing of 1968 and newer vehicles.
(5) Vehicle type coverage. Light duty vehicles.
(6) Emission test type. Idle testing (as described in appendix B of this subpart) for 1968-2000 vehicles; onboard diagnostic checks on 2001 and newer vehicles.
(7) Emission standards. Those specified in 40 CFR part 85, subpart W.
(8) Emission control device inspections. None.
(9) Evaporative system function checks. None, with the exception of those performed by the OBD system on vehicles so-equipped and only for model year 2001 and newer vehicles.
(10) Stringency. A 20% emission test failure rate among pre-1981 model year vehicles.
(11) Waiver rate. A 0% waiver rate, as a percentage of failed vehicles.
(12) Compliance rate. A 100% compliance rate.
(13) Evaluation date. Basic I/M program areas subject to the provisions of this paragraph (e) shall be shown to obtain the same or lower emission levels as the model program described in this paragraph by an evaluation date set 6 years after the effective date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard (rounded to the nearest July) for the applicable ozone precursor(s).
§ 51.353   Network type and program evaluation.
Basic and enhanced I/M programs can be centralized, decentralized, or a hybrid of the two at the State's discretion, but shall be demonstrated to achieve the same (or better) level of emission reduction as the applicable performance standard described in either § 51.351 or 51.352 of this subpart. For decentralized programs other than those meeting the design characteristics described in paragraph (a) of this section, the State must demonstrate that the program is achieving the level of effectiveness claimed in the plan within 12 months of the plan's final conditional approval before EPA can convert that approval to a final full approval. The adequacy of these demonstrations will be judged by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
(a) Presumptive equivalency. A decentralized network consisting of stations that only perform official I/M testing (which may include safety-related inspections) and in which owners and employees of those stations, or companies owning those stations, are contractually or legally barred from engaging in motor vehicle repair or service, motor vehicle parts sales, and motor vehicle sale and leasing, either directly or indirectly, and are barred from referring vehicle owners to particular providers of motor vehicle repair services (except as provided in § 51.369(b)(1) of this subpart) shall be considered presumptively equivalent to a centralized, test-only system including comparable test elements. States may allow such stations to engage in the full range of sales not covered by the above prohibition, including self-serve gasoline, pre-packaged oil, or other, non-automotive, convenience store items. At the State's discretion, such stations may also fulfill other functions typically carried out by the State such as renewal of vehicle registration and driver's licenses, or tax and fee collections.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) Program evaluation. Enhanced I/M programs shall include an ongoing evaluation to quantify the emission reduction benefits of the program, and to determine if the program is meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act and this subpart.
(1) The State shall report the results of the program evaluation on a biennial basis, starting two years after the initial start date of mandatory testing as required in § 51.373 of this subpart.
(2) The evaluation shall be considered in establishing actual emission reductions achieved from I/M for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of sections 182(g)(1) and 182(g)(2) of the Clean Air Act, relating to reductions in emissions and compliance demonstration.
(3) The evaluation program shall consist, at a minimum, of those items described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and program evaluation data using a sound evaluation methodology, as approved by EPA, and evaporative system checks, specified in § 51.357(a) (9) and (10) of this subpart, for model years subject to those evaporative system test procedures. The test data shall be obtained from a representative, random sample, taken at the time of initial inspection (before repair) on a minimum of 0.1 percent of the vehicles subject to inspection in a given year. Such vehicles shall receive a State administered or monitored test, as specified in this paragraph (c)(3), prior to the performance of I/M-triggered repairs during the inspection cycle under consideration.
(4) The program evaluation test data shall be submitted to EPA and shall be capable of providing accurate information about the overall effectiveness of an I/M program, such evaluation to begin no later than 1 year after program start-up.
(5) Areas that qualify for and choose to implement an OTR low enhanced I/M program, as established in § 51.351(h), and that claim in their SIP less emission reduction credit than the basic performance standard for one or more pollutants, are exempt from the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. The reports required under § 51.366 of this part shall be sufficient in these areas to satisfy the requirements of Clean Air Act for program reporting.
(d) SIP requirements. (1) The SIP shall include a description of the network to be employed, the required legal authority, and, in the case of areas making claims under paragraph (b) of this section, the required demonstration.
(2) The SIP shall include a description of the evaluation schedule and protocol, the sampling methodology, the data collection and analysis system, the resources and personnel for evaluation, and related details of the evaluation program, and the legal authority enabling the evaluation program.
§ 51.354   Adequate tools and resources.
(a) Administrative resources. The program shall maintain the administrative resources necessary to perform all of the program functions including quality assurance, data analysis and reporting, and the holding of hearings and adjudication of cases. A portion of the test fee or a separately assessed per vehicle fee shall be collected, placed in a dedicated fund and retained, to be used to finance program oversight, management, and capital expenditures. Alternatives to this approach shall be acceptable if the State can demonstrate that adequate funding of the program can be maintained in some other fashion (e.g., through contractual obligation along with demonstrated past performance). Reliance on future uncommitted annual or biennial appropriations from the State or local General Fund is not acceptable, unless doing otherwise would be a violation of the State's constitution. This section shall in no way require the establishment of a test fee if the State chooses to fund the program in some other manner.
(b) Personnel. The program shall employ sufficient personnel to effectively carry out the duties related to the program, including but not limited to administrative audits, inspector audits, data analysis, program oversight, program evaluation, public education and assistance, and enforcement against stations and inspectors as well as against motorists who are out of compliance with program regulations and requirements.
(c) Equipment. The program shall possess equipment necessary to achieve the objectives of the program and meet program requirements, including but not limited to a steady supply of vehicles for covert auditing, test equipment and facilities for program evaluation, and computers capable of data processing, analysis, and reporting. Equipment or equivalent services may be contractor supplied or owned by the State or local authority.
(d) SIP requirements. The SIP shall include a description of the resources that will be used for program operation, and discuss how the performance standard will be met.
(1) The SIP shall include a detailed budget plan which describes the source of funds for personnel, program administration, program enforcement, purchase of necessary equipment (such as vehicles for undercover audits), and any other requirements discussed throughout, for the period prior to the next biennial self-evaluation required in § 51.366 of this subpart.
(2) The SIP shall include a description of personnel resources. The plan shall include the number of personnel dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data analysis, program administration, enforcement, and other necessary functions and the training attendant to each function.
§ 51.355   Test frequency and convenience.
(a) The performance standards for I/M programs assume an annual test frequency; other schedules may be approved if the required emission targets are achieved. The SIP shall describe the test schedule in detail, including the test year selection scheme if testing is other than annual. The SIP shall include the legal authority necessary to implement and enforce the test frequency requirement and explain how the test frequency will be integrated with the enforcement process.
(b) In enhanced I/M programs, test systems shall be designed in such a way as to provide convenient service to motorists required to get their vehicles tested. The SIP shall demonstrate that the network of stations providing test services is sufficient to insure short waiting times to get a test and short driving distances. Stations shall be required to adhere to regular testing hours and to test any subject vehicle presented for a test during its test period.
§ 51.356   Vehicle coverage.
The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs assumes coverage of all 1968 and later model year light duty vehicles and light duty trucks up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, and includes vehicles operating on all fuel types. The standard for basic I/M programs does not include light duty trucks. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary emission reductions are achieved. Vehicles registered or required to be registered within the I/M program area boundaries and fleets primarily operated within the I/M program area boundaries and belonging to the covered model years and vehicle classes comprise the subject vehicles.
(a) Subject vehicles. (1) All vehicles of a covered model year and vehicle type shall be tested according to the applicable test schedule, including leased vehicles whose registration or titling is in the name of an equity owner other than the lessee or user.
(2) All subject fleet vehicles shall be inspected. Fleets may be officially inspected outside of the normal I/M program test facilities, if such alternatives are approved by the program administration, but shall be subject to the same test requirements using the same quality control standards as non-fleet vehicles. If all vehicles in a particular fleet are tested during one part of the cycle, then the quality control requirements shall be met during the time of testing only. Any vehicle available for rent in the I/M area or for use in the I/M area shall be subject. Fleet vehicles not being tested in normal I/M test facilities in enhanced I/M programs, however, shall be inspected in independent, test-only facilities, according to the requirements of § 51.353(a) of this subpart.
(3) Subject vehicles which are registered in the program area but are primarily operated in another I/M area shall be tested, either in the area of primary operation, or in the area of registration. Alternate schedules may be established to permit convenient testing of these vehicles (e.g., vehicles belonging to students away at college should be rescheduled for testing during a visit home). I/M programs shall make provisions for providing official testing to vehicles registered elsewhere.
(4) Vehicles which are operated on Federal installations located within an I/M program area shall be tested, regardless of whether the vehicles are registered in the State or local I/M area. This requirement applies to all employee-owned or leased vehicles (including vehicles owned, leased, or operated by civilian and military personnel on Federal installations) as well as agency-owned or operated vehicles, except tactical military vehicles, operated on the installation. This requirement shall not apply to visiting agency, employee, or military personnel vehicles as long as such visits do not exceed 60 calendar days per year. In areas without test fees collected in the lane, arrangements shall be made by the installation with the I/M program for reimbursement of the costs of tests provided for agency vehicles, at the discretion of the I/M agency. The installation shall provide documentation of proof of compliance to the I/M agency. The documentation shall include a list of subject vehicles and shall be updated periodically, as determined by the I/M program administrator, but no less frequently than each inspection cycle. The installation shall use one of the following methods to establish proof of compliance:
(i) Presentation of a valid certificate of compliance from the local I/M program, from any other I/M program at least as stringent as the local program, or from any program deemed acceptable by the I/M program administrator.
(ii) Presentation of proof of vehicle registration within the geographic area covered by the I/M program, except for any program whose enforcement is not through registration denial.
(iii) Another method approved by the State or local I/M program administrator.
(5) Special exemptions may be permitted for certain subject vehicles provided a demonstration is made that the performance standard will be met.
(6) States may also exempt MY 1996 and newer OBD-equipped vehicles that receive an OBD-I/M inspection from the tailpipe, purge, and fill-neck pressure tests (where applicable) without any loss of emission reduction credit.
(b) SIP requirements. (1) The SIP shall include a detailed description of the number and types of vehicles to be covered by the program, and a plan for how those vehicles are to be identified, including vehicles that are routinely operated in the area but may not be registered in the area.
(2) The SIP shall include a description of any special exemptions which will be granted by the program, and an estimate of the percentage and number of subject vehicles which will be impacted. Such exemptions shall be accounted for in the emission reduction analysis.
(3) The SIP shall include the legal authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage requirement.
§ 51.357   Test procedures and standards.
Written test procedures and pass/fail standards shall be established and followed for each model year and vehicle type included in the program.
(a) Test procedure requirements. Emission tests and functional tests shall be conducted according to good engineering practices to assure test accuracy.
(1) Initial tests ( i.e. , those occurring for the first time in a test cycle) shall be performed without repair or adjustment at the inspection facility, prior to the test, except as provided in paragraph (a)(10)(i) of this section.
(2) The vehicle owner or driver shall have access to the test area such that observation of the entire official inspection process on the vehicle is permitted. Such access may be limited but shall in no way prevent full observation.
(3) An official test, once initiated, shall be performed in its entirety regardless of intermediate outcomes except in the case of invalid test condition, unsafe conditions, fast pass/fail algorithms, or, in the case of the on-board diagnostic (OBD) system check, unset readiness codes.
(4) Tests involving measurement shall be performed with program-approved equipment that has been calibrated according to the quality procedures contained in appendix A to this subpart.
(5) Vehicles shall be rejected from testing if the exhaust system is missing or leaking, or if the vehicle is in an unsafe condition for testing. Coincident with mandatory OBD-I/M testing and repair of vehicles so equipped, MY 1996 and newer vehicles shall be rejected from testing if a scan of the OBD system reveals a “not ready” code for any component of the OBD system. At a state's option it may choose alternatively to reject MY 1996-2000 vehicles only if three or more “not ready” codes are present and to reject MY 2001 and later model years only if two or more “not ready” codes are present. This provision does not release manufacturers from the obligations regarding readiness status set forth in 40 CFR 86.094-17(e)(1): “Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicle Engines: Regulations RequiringOn-Board Diagnostic Systems on 1994 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicles and Light-Duty Trucks.” Once the cause for rejection has been corrected, the vehicle must return for testing to continue the testing process. Failure to return for testing in a timely manner after rejection shall be considered non-compliance with the program, unless the motorist can prove that the vehicle has been sold, scrapped, or is otherwise no longer in operation within the program area.
(6) Vehicles shall be retested after repair for any portion of the inspection that is failed on the previous test to determine if repairs were effective. To the extent that repair to correct a previous failure could lead to failure of another portion of the test, that portion shall also be retested. Evaporative system repairs shall trigger an exhaust emissions retest (in programs which conduct an exhaust emission test as part of the initial inspection).
(7) Steady-state testing. Steady-state tests shall be performed in accordance with the procedures contained in appendix B to this subpart.
(8) Emission control device inspection. Visual emission control device checks shall be performed through direct observation or through indirect observation using a mirror, video camera or other visual aid. These inspections shall include a determination as to whether each subject device is present and appears to be properly connected and appears to be the correct type for the certified vehicle configuration.
(9) Evaporative system purge test procedure. The purge test procedure shall consist of measuring the total purge flow (in standard liters) occurring in the vehicle's evaporative system during the transient dynamometer emission test specified in paragraph (a)(11) of this section. The purge flow measurement system shall be connected to the purge portion of the evaporative system in series between the canister and the engine, preferably near the canister. The inspector shall be responsible for ensuring that all items that are disconnected in the conduct of the test procedure are properly re-connected at the conclusion of the test procedure. Alternative procedures may be used if they are shown to be equivalent or better to the satisfaction of the Administrator. Except in the case of government-run test facilities claiming sovereign immunity, any damage done to the evaporative emission control system during this test shall be repaired at the expense of the inspection facility.
(10) Evaporative system integrity test procedure. The test sequence shall consist of the following steps:
(i) Test equipment shall be connected to the fuel tank canister hose at the canister end. The gas cap shall be checked to ensure that it is properly, but not excessively tightened, and shall be tightened if necessary.
(ii) The system shall be pressurized to 14 ±0.5 inches of water without exceeding 26 inches of water system pressure.
(iii) Close off the pressure source, seal the evaporative system and monitor pressure decay for up to two minutes.
(iv) Loosen the gas cap after a maximum of two minutes and monitor for a sudden pressure drop, indicating that the fuel tank was pressurized.
(v) The inspector shall be responsible for ensuring that all items that are disconnected in the conduct of the test procedure are properly re-connected at the conclusion of the test procedure.
(vi) Alternative procedures may be used if they are shown to be equivalent or better to the satisfaction of the Administrator. Except in the case of government-run test facilities claiming sovereign immunity, any damage done to the evaporative emission control system during this test shall be repaired at the expense of the inspection facility.
(11) Transient emission test. The transient emission test shall consist of mass emission measurement using a constant volume sampler (or an Administrator-approved alternative methodology for accounting for exhaust volume) while the vehicle is driven through a computer-monitored driving cycle on a dynamometer. The driving cycle shall include acceleration, deceleration, and idle operating modes as specified in appendix E to this subpart (or an approved alternative). The driving cycle may be ended earlier using approved fast pass or fast fail algorithms and multiple pass/fail algorithms may be used during the test cycle to eliminate false failures. The transient test procedure, including algorithms and other procedural details, shall be approved by the Administrator prior to use in an I/M program.
(12) On-board diagnostic checks. Beginning January 1, 2002, inspection of the on-board diagnostic (OBD) system on MY 1996 and newer light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks shall be conducted according to the procedure described in 40 CFR 85.2222, at a minimum. This inspection may be used in lieu of tailpipe, purge, and fill-neck pressure testing. Alternatively, states may elect to phase-in OBD-I/M testing for one test cycle by using the OBD-I/M check to screen clean vehicles from tailpipe testing and require repair and retest for only those vehicles which proceed to fail the tailpipe test. An additional alternative is also available to states with regard to the deadline for mandatory testing, repair, and retesting of vehicles based upon the OBD-I/M check. Under this third option, if a state can show good cause (and the Administrator takes notice-and-comment action to approve this good cause showing as a revision to the State's Implementation Plan), up to an additional 12 months' extensionmay be granted, establishing an alternative start date for such states of no later than January 1, 2003. States choosing to make this showing will also have available to them the phase-in approach described in this section, with the one-cycle time limit to begin coincident with the alternative start date established by Administrator approval of the showing, but no later than January 1, 2003. The showing of good cause (and its approval or disapproval) will be addressed on a case-by-case basis by the Administrator.
(13) Approval of alternative tests. Alternative test procedures may be approved if the Administrator finds that such procedures show a reasonable correlation with the Federal Test Procedure and are capable of identifying comparable emission reductions from the I/M program as a whole, in combination with other program elements, as would be identified by the test(s) which they are intended to replace.
(b) Test standards —(1) Emissions standards. HC, CO, and CO + CO 2 (or CO 2 alone) emission standards shall be applicable to all vehicles subject to the program with the exception of MY 1996 and newer OBD-equipped light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks, which will be held to the requirements of 40 CFR 85.2207, at a minimum. Repairs shall be required for failure of any standard regardless of the attainment status of the area. NO X emission standards shall be applied to vehicles subject to a loaded mode test in ozone nonattainment areas and in an ozone transport region, unless a waiver of NO X controls is provided to the State under § 51.351(d).
(2) Visual equipment inspection standards. (i) Vehicles shall fail visual inspections of subject emission control devices if such devices are part of the original certified configuration and are found to be missing, modified, disconnected, or improperly connected.
(ii) Vehicles shall fail visual inspections of subject emission control devices if such devices are found to be incorrect for the certified vehicle configuration under inspection. Aftermarket parts, as well as original equipment manufacture parts, may be considered correct if they are proper for the certified vehicle configuration. Where an EPA aftermarket approval or self-certification program exists for a particular class of subject parts, vehicles shall fail visual equipment inspections if the part is neither original equipment manufacture nor from an approved or self-certified aftermarket manufacturer.
(3) Functional test standards —(i) Evaporative system integrity test. Vehicles shall fail the evaporative system pressure test if the system cannot maintain a system pressure above eight inches of water for up to two minutes after being pressurized to 14 ±0.5 inches of water or if no pressure drop is detected when the gas cap is loosened as described in paragraph (a)(10)(iv) of this section. Additionally, vehicles shall fail the evaporative test if the canister is missing or obviously damaged, if hoses are missing or obviously disconnected, or if the gas cap is missing.
(ii) Evaporative canister purge test. Vehicles with a total purge system flow measuring less than one liter, over the course of the transient test required in paragraph (a)(9) of this section, shall fail the evaporative purge test.
(4) On-board diagnostic test standards. Vehicles shall fail the on-board diagnostic test if they fail to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 85.2207, at a minimum. Failure of the on-board diagnostic test need not result in failure of the vehicle inspection/maintenance test until January 1, 2002. Alternatively, states may elect to phase-in OBD-I/M testing for one test cycle by using the OBD- I/M check to screen clean vehicles from tailpipe testing and require repair and retest for only those vehicles which proceed to fail the tailpipe test. An additional alternative is also available to states with regard to the deadline for mandatory testing, repair, and retesting of vehicles based upon the OBD-I/M check. Under this third option, if a state can show good cause (and the Administrator takes notice-and-comment action to approve this good cause showing), up to an additional 12 months' extension may be granted, establishing an alternative start date for such states of no later than January 1, 2003. States choosing to make this showing will also have available to them the phase-in approach described in this section, with the one-cycle time limit to begin coincident with the alternative start date established by Administrator approval of the showing, but no later than January 1, 2003. The showing of good cause (and its approval or disapproval) will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
(c) Fast test algorithms and standards. Special test algorithms and pass/fail algorithms may be employed to reduce test time when the test outcome is predictable with near certainty, if the Administrator approves by letter the equivalency to full procedure testing.
(d) Applicability. In general, section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act prohibits altering a vehicle's configuration such that it changes from a certified to a non-certified configuration. In the inspection process, vehicles that have been altered from their original certified configuration are to be tested in the same manner as other subject vehicles with the exception of MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles on which the data link connector is missing, has been tampered with or which has been altered in such a way as to make OBD system testing impossible. Such vehicles shall be failed for the on-board diagnostics portion of the test and are expected to be repaired so that the vehicle is testable. Failure to return for retesting in a timely manner after failure and repair shall be considered non-compliance with the program, unless the motorist can prove that the vehicle has been sold, scrapped, or is otherwise no longer in operation within the program area.
(1) Vehicles with engines other than the engine originally installed by the manufacturer or an identical replacement of such engine shall be subject to the test procedures and standards for the chassis type and model year including visual equipment inspections for all parts that are part of the original or now-applicable certified configuration and part of the normal inspection. States may choose to require vehicles with such engines to be subject to the test procedures and standards for the engine model year if it is newer than the chassis model year.
(2) Vehicles that have been switched from an engine of one fuel type to another fuel type that is subject to the program (e.g., from a diesel engine to a gasoline engine) shall be subject to the test procedures and standards for the current fuel type, and to the requirements of paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(3) Vehicles that are switched to a fuel type for which there is no certified configuration shall be tested according to the most stringent emission standards established for that vehicle type and model year. Emission control device requirements may be waived if the program determines that the alternatively fueled vehicle configuration would meet the new vehicle standards for that model year without such devices.
(4) Mixing vehicle classes (e.g., light-duty with heavy-duty) and certification types (e.g., California with Federal) within a single vehicle configuration shall be considered tampering.
(e) SIP requirements. The SIP shall include a description of each test procedure used. The SIP shall include the rule, ordinance or law describing and establishing the test procedures.
§ 51.358   Test equipment.
Computerized emission test systems are required for performing an official emissions test on subject vehicles.
(a) Performance features of computerized emission test systems. The emission test equipment shall be certified by the program, and newly acquired emission test systems shall be subjected to acceptance test procedures to ensure compliance with program specifications.
(1) Emission test equipment shall be capable of testing all subject vehicles and shall be updated from time to time to accommodate new technology vehicles as well as changes to the program. In the case of OBD-based testing, the equipment used to access the onboard computer shall be capable of testing all MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks.
(2) At a minimum, emission test equipment:
(i) Shall make automatic pass/fail decisions;
(ii) Shall be secured from tampering and/or abuse;
(iii) Shall be based upon written specifications; and
(iv) Shall be capable of simultaneously sampling dual exhaust vehicles in the case of tailpipe-based emission test equipment.
(3) The vehicle owner or driver shall be provided with a record of test results, including all of the items listed in 40 CFR part 85, subpart W as being required on the test record (as applicable). The test report shall include:
(i) A vehicle description, including license plate number, vehicle identification number, and odometer reading;
(ii) The date and time of test;
(iii) The name or identification number of the individual(s) performing the tests and the location of the test station and lane;
(iv) The type(s) of test(s) performed;
(v) The applicable test standards;
(vi) The test results, by test, and, where applicable, by pollutant;
(vii) A statement indicating the availability of warranty coverage as required in section 207 of the Clean Air Act;
(viii) Certification that tests were performed in accordance with the regulations and, in the case of decentralized programs, the signature of the individual who performed the test; and
(ix) For vehicles that fail the emission test, information on the possible cause(s) of the failure.
(b) Functional characteristics of computerized emission test systems. The test system is composed of motor vehicle test equipment controlled by a computerized processor and shall make automatic pass/fail decisions.
(1) [Reserved]
(2) Test systems in enhanced I/M programs shall include a real-time data link to a host computer that prevents unauthorized multiple initial tests on the same vehicle in a test cycle and to insure test record accuracy. For areas which have demonstrated the ability to meet their other, non-I/M Clean Air Act requirements without relying on emission reductions from the I/M program (and which have also elected to employ stand-alone test equipment as part of the I/M program), such areas may adopt alternative methods for preventing multiple initial tests, subject to approval by the Administrator.
(3) [Reserved]
(4) On-board diagnostic test equipment requirements. The test equipment used to perform on-board diagnostic inspections shall function as specified in 40 CFR 85.2231.
(c) SIP requirements. The SIP shall include written technical specifications for all test equipment used in the program and shall address each of the above requirements (as applicable). The specifications shall describe the testing process, the necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and procedures.
§ 51.359   Quality control.
Quality control measures shall insure that emission testing equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection, calibration records, and control charts are accurately created, recorded and maintained (where applicable).
(a) General requirements. (1) The practices described in this section and in appendix A to this subpart shall be followed for those tests (or portions of tests) which fall into the testing categories identified. Alternatives or exceptions to these procedures or frequencies may be approved by the Administrator based on a demonstration of comparable performance.
(2) Preventive maintenance on all inspection equipment necessary to insure accurate and repeatable operation shall be performed on a periodic basis.
(3) [Reserved]
(b) Requirements for steady-state emissions testing equipment. (1) Equipment shall be maintained according to demonstrated good engineering practices to assure test accuracy. The calibration and adjustment requirements in appendix A to this subpart shall apply to all steady-state test equipment. States may adjust calibration schedules and other quality control frequencies by using statistical process control to monitor equipment performance on an ongoing basis.
(2) For analyzers that use ambient air as zero air, provision shall be made to draw the air from outside the inspection bay or lane in which the analyzer is situated.
(3) The analyzer housing shall be constructed to protect the analyzer bench and electrical components from ambient temperature and humidity fluctuations that exceed the range of the analyzer's design specifications.
(4) Analyzers shall automatically purge the analytical system after each test.
(c) Requirements for transient exhaust emission test equipment. Equipment shall be maintained according to demonstrated good engineering practices to assure test accuracy. Computer control of quality assurance checks and quality control charts shall be used whenever possible. Exceptions to the procedures and the frequency of the checks described in appendix A of this subpart may be approved by the Administrator based on a demonstration of comparable performance.
(d) Requirements for evaporative system functional test equipment. Equipment shall be maintained according to demonstrated good engineering practices to assure test accuracy. Computer control of quality assurance checks and quality control charts shall be used whenever possible. Exceptions to the procedures and the frequency of the checks described in appendix A of this subpart may be approved by the Administrator based on a demonstration of comparable performance.
(e) Document security. Measures shall be taken to maintain the security of all documents by which compliance with the inspection requirement is established including, but not limited to inspection certificates, waiver certificates, license plates, license tabs, and stickers. This section shall in no way require the use of paper documents but shall apply if they are used by the program for these purposes.
(1) Compliance documents shall be counterfeit resistant. Such measures as the use of special fonts, water marks, ultra-violet inks, encoded magnetic strips, unique bar-coded identifiers, and difficult to acquire materials may be used to accomplish this requirement.
(2) All inspection certificates, waiver certificates, and stickers shall be printed with a unique serial number and an official program seal.
(3) Measures shall be taken to ensure that compliance documents cannot be stolen or removed without being damaged.
(f) SIP requirements. The SIP shall include a description of quality control and record keeping procedures. The SIP shall include the procedure manual, rule, ordinance or law describing and establishing the quality control procedures and requirements.
§ 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) Waiver issuance criteria. The waiver criteria shall include the following at a minimum.
(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 the emission control components, listed in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, performed within 60 days of the test date.
(2) Any available warranty coverage shall be used to obtain needed repairs before expenditures can be counted towards the cost limits in paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) of this section. The operator of a vehicle within the statutory age and mileage coverage under section 207(b) of the Clean Air Act shall present a written denial of warranty coverage from the manufacturer or authorized dealer for this provision to be waived for approved tests applicable to the vehicle.
(3) Waivers shall not be issued to vehicles for tampering-related repairs. The cost of tampering-related repairs shall not be applicable to the minimum expenditure in paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) of this section. States may issue exemptions for tampering-related repairs if it can be verified that the part in question or one similar to it is no longer available for sale.
(4) Repairs shall be appropriate to the cause of the test failure, and a visual check shall be made to determine if repairs were actually made if, given the nature of the repair, it can be visually confirmed. Receipts shall be submitted for review to further verify that qualifying repairs were performed.
(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 the cost of parts (not labor) utilized by non-technicians (e.g., owners) to apply toward the waiver limit. The waiver would apply to the cost of parts for the repair or replacement of the following list of emission control components: oxygen sensor, catalytic converter, thermal reactor, EGR valve, fuel filler cap, evaporative canister, PCV valve, air pump, distributor, ignition wires, coil, and spark plugs. The cost of any hoses, gaskets, belts, clamps, brackets or other accessories directly associated with these components may also be applied to 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 shall be in full effect by January 1, 1998, or coincident with program start-up, whichever is later. 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.
(i) The Consumer Price Index for any calendar year is the average of the Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers published by the Department of Labor, as of the close of the 12-month period ending on August 31 of each calendar year. A copy of the current Consumer Price Index may be obtained from the Emission Planning and Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105.
(ii) The revision of the Consumer Price Index which is most consistent with the Consumer Price Index for calendar year 1989 shall be used.
(8) States may establish lower minimum expenditures if a program is established to scrap vehicles that do not meet standards after the lower expe nditure is made.
(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 §§ 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.
(c) Quality control of waiver issuance. (1) Enhanced programs shall control waiver issuance and processing by establishing a system of agency-issued waivers. The State may delegate this authority to a single contractor but inspectors in stations and lanes shall not issue waivers. Basic programs may permit inspector-issued waivers as long as quality assurance efforts include a comprehensive review of waiver issuance.
(2) The program shall include methods of informing vehicle owners or lessors of potential warranty coverage, and ways to obtain warranty repairs.
(3) The program shall insure that repair receipts are authentic and cannot be revised or reused.
(4) The program shall insure that waivers are only valid for one test cycle.
(5) The program shall track, manage, and account for time extensions or exemptions so that owners or lessors cannot receive or retain a waiver improperly.
(d) SIP requirements. (1) The SIP shall include a maximum waiver rate expressed as a percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver rate shall be used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling analysis.
(2) The State shall take corrective action if the waiver rate exceeds that committed to in the SIP or revise the SIP and the emission reductions claimed.
(3) The SIP shall describe the waiver criteria and procedures, including cost limits, quality assurance methods and measures, and administration.
(4) The SIP shall include the necessary legal authority, ordinance, or rules to issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits as required in paragraph (a)(5) of this section, and carry out any other functions necessary to administer the waiver system, including enforcement of the waiver provisions.
§ 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.
(a) Registration denial. Registration denial enforcement is defined as rejecting an application for initial registration or reregistration of a used vehicle ( i.e. , a vehicle being registered after the initial retail sale and associated registration) unless the vehicle has complied with the I/M requirement prior to granting the application. Pursuant to section 207(g)(3) of the Act, nothing in this subpart shall be construed to require that new vehicles shall receive emission testing prior to initial retail sale. In designing its enforcement program, the State shall:
(1) Provide an external, readily visible means of determining vehicle compliance with the registration requirement to facilitate enforcement of the program;
(2) Adopt a schedule of testing (either annual or biennial) that clearly determines when a vehicle shall comply prior to registration;
(3) Design a testing certification mechanism (either paper-based or electronic) that shall be used for registration purposes and clearly indicates whether the certification is valid for purposes of registration, including:
(i) Expiration date of the certificate;
(ii) Unambiguous vehicle identification information; and
(iii) Whether the vehicle passed or received a waiver;
(4) Routinely issue citations to motorists with expired or missing license plates, with either no registration or an expired registration, and with no license plate decals or expired decals, and provide for enforcement officials other than police to issue citations (e.g., parking meter attendants) to parked vehicles in noncompliance;
(5) Structure the penalty system to deter non-compliance with the registration requirement through the use of mandatory minimum fines (meaning civil, monetary penalties, in this subpart) constituting a meaningful deterrent and through a requirement that compliance be demonstrated before a case can be closed;
(6) Ensure that evidence of testing is available and checked for validity at the time of a new registration of a used vehicle or registration renewal;
(7) Prevent owners or lessors from avoiding testing through manipulation of the title or registration system; title transfers may re-start the clock on the inspection cycle only if proof of current compliance is required at title transfer;
(8) Prevent the fraudulent initial classification or reclassification of a vehicle from subject to non-subject or exempt by requiring proof of address changes prior to registration record modification, and documentation from the testing program (or delegate) certifying based on a physical inspection that the vehicle is exempt;
(9) Limit and track the use of time extensions of the registration requirement to prevent repeated extensions;
(10) Provide for meaningful penalties for cases of registration fraud;
(11) Limit and track exemptions to prevent abuse of the exemption policy for vehicles claimed to be out-of-state; and
(12) Encourage enforcement of vehicle registration transfer requirements when vehicle owners move into the I/M area by coordinating with local and State enforcement agencies and structuring other activities (e.g., drivers license issuance) to effect registration transfers.
(b) Alternative enforcement mechanisms —(1) General requirements. The program shall demonstrate that a non-registration-based enforcement program is currently more effective than registration-denial enforcement in enhanced I/M programs or, prospectively, as effective as registration denial in basic programs. The following general requirements shall apply:
(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;
(ii) The State shall assess the alternative program's effectiveness, as well as the current effectiveness of the registration system, including the following:
(A) Determine the number and percentage of vehicles subject to the I/M program that were in compliance with the program over the course of at least one test cycle; and
(B) Determine the number and fraction of the same group of vehicles as in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section that were in compliance with the registration requirement over the same period. Late registration shall not be considered non-compliance for the purposes of this determination. The precise definition of late registration versus a non-complying vehicle shall be explained and justified in the SIP;
(iii) An alternative mechanism shall be considered more effective if the fraction of vehicles complying with the existing program, as determined according to the requirements of this section, is greater than the fraction of vehicles complying with the registration requirement. An alternative mechanism is as effective if the fraction complying with the program is at least equal to the fraction complying with the registration requirement.
(2) Sticker-based enforcement. In addition to the general requirements, a sticker-based enforcement program shall demonstrate that the enforcement mechanism will swiftly and effectively prevent operation of subject vehicles that fail to comply. Such demonstration shall include the following:
(i) An assessment of the current extent of the following forms of non-compliance and demonstration that mechanisms exist to keep such non-compliance within acceptable limits:
(A) Use of stolen, counterfeit, or fraudulently obtained stickers;
(B) In States with safety inspections, the use of “Safety Inspection Only” stickers on vehicles that should be subject to the I/M requirement as well; and
(C) Operation of vehicles with expired stickers, including a stratification of non-compliance by length of noncompliance and model year.
(ii) The program as currently implemented or as proposed to be improved shall also:
(A) Require an easily observed external identifier such as the county name on the license plate, an obviously unique license plate tab, or other means that shows whether or not a vehicle is subject to the I/M requirement;
(B) Require an easily observed external identifier, such as a windshield sticker or license plate tab that shows whether a subject vehicle is in compliance with the inspection requirement;
(C) Impose monetary fines at least as great as the estimated cost of compliance with I/M requirements (e.g., test fee plus minimum waiver expenditure) for the absence of such identifiers;
(D) Require that such identifiers be of a quality that makes them difficult to counterfeit, difficult to remove without destroying once installed, and durable enough to last until the next inspection without fading, peeling, or other deterioration;
(E) Perform surveys in a variety of locations and at different times for the presence of the required identifiers such that at least 10% of the vehicles or 10,000 vehicles (whichever is less) in the subject vehicle population are sampled each year;
(F) Track missing identifiers for all inspections performed at each station, with stations being held accountable for all such identifiers they are issued; and
(G) Assess and collect significant fines for each identifier that is unaccounted for by a station.
(3) Computer matching. In addition to the general requirements, computer-matching programs shall demonstrate that the enforcement mechanism will swiftly and effectively prevent operation of subject vehicles that fail to comply. Such demonstration shall:
(i) Require an expeditious system that results in at least 90% of the subject vehicles in compliance within 4 months of the compliance deadline;
(ii) Require that subject vehicles be given compliance deadlines based on the regularly scheduled test date, not the date of previous compliance;
(iii) Require that motorists pay monetary fines at least as great as the estimated cost of compliance with I/M requirements (e.g., test fee plus minimum waiver expenditure) for the continued operation of a noncomplying vehicle beyond 4 months of the deadline;
(iv) Require that continued non-compliance will eventually result in preventing operation of the non-complying vehicle (no later than the date of the next test cycle) through, at a minimum, suspension of vehicle registration and subsequent denial of reregistration;
(v) Demonstrate that the computer system currently in use is adequate to store and manipulate the I/M vehicle database, generate computerized notices, and provide regular backup to said system while maintaining auxiliary storage devices to insure ongoing operation of the system and prevent data losses;
(vi) Track each vehicle through the steps taken to ensure compliance, including:
(A) The compliance deadline;
(B) The date of initial notification;
(C) The dates warning letters are sent to non-complying vehicle owners;
(D) The dates notices of violation or other penalty notices are sent; and
(E) The dates and outcomes of other steps in the process, including the final compliance date;
(vii) Compile and report monthly summaries including statistics on the percentage of vehicles at each stage in the enforcement process; and
(viii) Track the number and percentage of vehicles initially identified as requiring testing but which are never tested as a result of being junked, sold to a motorist in a non-I/M program area, or for some other reason.
(c) SIP requirements. (1) The SIP shall provide information concerning the enforcement process, including:
(i) A description of the existing compliance mechanism if it is to be used in the future and the demonstration that it is as effective or more effective than registration-denial enforcement;
(ii) An identification of the agencies responsible for performing each of the applicable activities in this section;
(iii) A description of and accounting for all classes of exempt vehicles; and
(iv) A description of the plan for testing fleet vehicles, rental car fleets, leased vehicles, and any other subject vehicles, e.g., those operated in (but not necessarily registered in) the program area.
(2) The SIP shall include a determination of the current compliance rate based on a study of the system that includes an estimate of compliance losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and unregistered vehicles. Estimates of the effect of closing such loopholes and otherwise improving the enforcement mechanism shall be supported with detailed analyses.
(3) The SIP shall include the legal authority to implement and enforce the program.
(4) The SIP shall include a commitment to an enforcement level to be used for modeling purposes and to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.
§ 51.362   Motorist compliance enforcement program oversight.
The enforcement program shall be audited regularly and shall follow effective program management practices, including adjustments to improve operation when necessary.
(a) Quality assurance and quality control. A quality assurance program shall be implemented to insure effective overall performance of the enforcement system. Quality control procedures are required to instruct individuals in the enforcement process regarding how to properly conduct their activities. At a minimum, the quality control and quality assurance program shall include:
(1) Verification of exempt vehicle status by inspecting and confirming such vehicles by the program or its delegate;
(2) Facilitation of accurate critical test data and vehicle identifier collection through the use of automatic data capture systems such as bar-code scanners or optical character readers, or through redundant data entry (where applicable);
(3) Maintenance of an audit trail to allow for the assessment of enforcement effectiveness;
(4) Establishment of written procedures for personnel directly engaged in I/M enforcement activities;
(5) Establishment of 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;
(6) Follow-up validity checks on out-of-area or exemption-triggering registration changes;
(7) Analysis of registration-change applications to target potential violators;
(8) A determination of enforcement program effectiveness through periodic audits of test records and program compliance documentation;
(9) Enforcement procedures for disciplining, retraining, or removing enforcement personnel who deviate from established requirements, or in the case of non-government entities that process registrations, for defranchising, revoking or otherwise discontinuing the activity of the entity issuing registrations; and
(10) The prevention of fraudulent procurement or use of inspection documents by controlling and tracking document distribution and handling, and making stations financially liable for missing or unaccounted for documents by assessing monetary fines reflecting the “street value” of these documents ( i.e. , the test fee plus the minimum waiver expenditure).
(b) Information management. In establishing an information base to be used in characterizing, evaluating, and enforcing the program, the State shall:
(1) Determine the subject vehicle population;
(2) Permit EPA audits of the enforcement process;
(3) Assure the accuracy of registration and other program document files;
(4) Maintain and ensure the accuracy of the testing database through periodic internal and/or third-party review;
(5) Compare the testing database to the registration database to determine program effectiveness, establish compliance rates, and to trigger potential enforcement action against non-complying motorists; and
(6) Sample the fleet as a determination of compliance through parking lot surveys, road-side pull-overs, or other in-use vehicle measurements.
(c) SIP requirements. The SIP shall include a description of enforcement program oversight and information management activities.
§ 51.363   Quality assurance.
An ongoing quality assurance program shall be implemented to discover, correct and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse and to determine whether procedures are being followed, are adequate, whether equipment is measuring accurately, and whether other problems might exist which would impede program performance. The quality assurance and quality control procedures shall be periodically evaluated to assess their effectiveness and relevance in achieving program goals.
(a) Performance audits. Performance audits shall be conducted on a regular basis to determine whether inspectors are correctly performing all tests and other required functions. Performance audits shall be of two types: overt and covert, and shall include:
(1) Performance audits based upon written procedures and results shall be reported using either electronic or written forms to be retained in the inspector and station history files, with sufficient detail to support either an administrative or civil hearing;
(2) Performance audits in addition to regularly programmed audits for stations employing inspectors suspected of violating regulations as a result of audits, data analysis, or consumer complaints;
(3) Overt performance audits shall be performed at least twice per year for each lane or test bay and shall include:
(i) A check for the observance of appropriate document security;
(ii) A check to see that required record keeping practices are being followed;
(iii) A check for licenses or certificates and other required display information; and
(iv) Observation and written evaluation of each inspector's ability to properly perform an inspection;
(4) Covert performance audits shall include:
(i) Remote visual observation of inspector performance, which may include the use of aids such as binoculars or video cameras, at least once per year per inspector in high-volume stations ( i.e. , those performing more than 4000 tests per year);
(ii) Site visits at least once per year per number of inspectors using covert vehicles set to fail (this requirement sets a minimum level of activity, not a requirement that each inspector be involved in a covert audit);
(iii) For stations that conduct both testing and repairs, at least one covert vehicle visit per station per year including the purchase of repairs and subsequent retesting if the vehicle is initially failed for tailpipe emissions (this activity may be accomplished in conjunction with paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section but must involve each station at least once per year);
(iv) Documentation of the audit, including vehicle condition and preparation, sufficient for building a legal case and establishing a performance record;
(v) Covert vehicles covering the range of vehicle technology groups (e.g., carbureted and fuel-injected vehicles) included in the program, including a full range of introduced malfunctions covering the emission test, the evaporative system tests, and emission control component checks (as applicable);
(vi) Sufficient numbers of covert vehicles and auditors to allow for frequent rotation of both to prevent detection by station personnel; and
(vii) Where applicable, access to on-line inspection databases by State personnel to permit the creation and maintenance of covert vehicle records.
(b) Record audits. Station and inspector records shall be reviewed or screened at least monthly to assess station performance and identify problems that may indicate potential fraud or incompetence. Such review shall include:
(1) Automated record analysis to identify statistical inconsistencies, unusual patterns, and other discrepancies;
(2) Visits to inspection stations to review records not already covered in the electronic analysis (if any); and
(3) Comprehensive accounting for all official forms that can be used to demonstrate compliance with the program.
(c) Equipment audits. During overt site visits, auditors shall conduct quality control evaluations of the required test equipment, including (where applicable):
(1) A gas audit using gases of known concentrations at least as accurate as those required for regular equipment quality control and comparing these concentrations to actual readings;
(2) A check for tampering, worn instrumentation, blocked filters, and other conditions that would impede accurate sampling;
(3) A check for critical flow in critical flow CVS units;
(4) A check of the Constant Volume Sampler flow calibration;
(5) A check for the optimization of the Flame Ionization Detection fuel-air ratio using methane;
(6) A leak check;
(7) A check to determine that station gas bottles used for calibration purposes are properly labelled and within the relevant tolerances;
(8) Functional dynamometer checks addressing coast-down, roll speed and roll distance, inertia weight selection, and power absorption;
(9) A check of the system's ability to accurately detect background pollutant concentrations;
(10) A check of the pressure monitoring devices used to perform the evaporative canister pressure test(s); and
(11) A check of the purge flow metering system.
(d) Auditor training and proficiency. (1) Auditors shall be formally trained and knowledgeable in:
(i) The use of test equipment and/or procedures;
(ii) Program rules and regulations;
(iii) The basics of air pollution control;
(iv) Basic principles of motor vehicle engine repair, related to emission performance;
(v) Emission control systems;
(vi) Evidence gathering;
(vii) State administrative procedures laws;
(viii) Quality assurance practices; and
(ix) Covert audit procedures.
(2) Auditors shall themselves be audited at least once annually.
(3) The training and knowledge requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section may be waived for temporary auditors engaged solely for the purpose of conducting covert vehicle runs.
(e) SIP requirements. The SIP shall include a description of the quality assurance program, and written procedures manuals covering both overt and covert performance audits, record audits, and equipment audits. This requirement does not include materials or discussion of details of enforcement strategies that would ultimately hamper the enforcement process.
§ 51.364   Enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors.
Enforcement against licensed stations or contractors, and inspectors shall include swift, sure, effective, and consistent penalties for violation of program requirements.
(a) Imposition of penalties. A penalty schedule shall be developed that establishes minimum penalties for violations of program rules and procedures.
(1) The schedule shall categorize and list violations and the minimum penalties to be imposed for first, second, and subsequent violations and for multiple violation of different requirements. In the case of contracted systems, the State may use compensation retainage in lieu of penalties.
(2) Substantial penalties or retainage shall be imposed on the first offense for violations that directly affect emission reduction benefits. At a minimum, in test-and-repair programs inspector and station license suspension shall be imposed for at least 6 months whenever a vehicle is intentionally improperly passed for any required portion of the test. In test-only programs, inspectors shall be removed from inspector duty for at least 6 months (or a retainage penalty equivalent to the inspector's salary for that period shall be imposed).
(3) All findings of serious violations of rules or procedural requirements shall result in mandatory fines or retainage. In the case of gross neglect, a first offense shall result in a fine or retainage of no less than $100 or 5 times the inspection fee, whichever is greater, for the contractor or the licensed station, and the inspector if involved.
(4) Any finding of inspector incompetence shall result in mandatory training before inspection privileges are restored.
(5) License or certificate suspension or revocation shall mean the individual is barred from direct or indirect involvement in any inspection operation during the term of the suspension or revocation.
(b) Legal authority. (1) The quality assurance officer shall have the authority to temporarily suspend station and inspector licenses or certificates (after approval of a superior) immediately upon finding a violation or equipment failure that directly affects emission reduction benefits, pending a hearing when requested. In the case of immediate suspension, a hearing shall be held within fourteen calendar days of a written request by the station licensee or the inspector. Failure to hold a hearing within 14 days when requested shall cause the suspension to lapse. In the event that a State's constitution precludes such a temporary license suspension, the enforcement system shall be designed with adequate resources and mechanisms to hold a hearing to suspend or revoke the station or inspector license within three station business days of the finding.
(2) The oversight agency shall have the authority to impose penalties against the licensed station or contractor, as well as the inspector, even if the licensee or contractor had no direct knowledge of the violation but was found to be careless in oversight of inspectors or has a history of violations. Contractors and licensees shall be held fully responsible for inspector performance in the course of duty.
(c) Recordkeeping. The oversight agency shall maintain records of all warnings, civil fines, suspensions, revocations, and violations and shall compile statistics on violations and penalties on an annual basis.
(d) SIP requirements. (1) The SIP shall include the penalty schedule and the legal authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines, license suspension, and revocations.
(2) In the case of State constitutional impediments to immediate suspension authority, the State Attorney General shall furnish an official opinion for the SIP explaining the constitutional impediment as well as relevant case law.
(3) The SIP shall describe the administrative and judicial procedures and responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which agencies, courts, and jurisdictions are involved; who will prosecute and adjudicate cases; and other aspects of the enforcement of the program requirements, the resources to be allocated to this function, and the source of those funds. In States without immediate suspension authority, the SIP shall demonstrate that sufficient resources, personnel, and systems are in place to meet the three day case management requirement for violations that directly affect emission reductions.
(e) Alternative quality assurance procedures or frequencies that achieve equivalent or better results may be approved by the Administrator. Statistical process control shall be used whenever possible to demonstrate the efficacy of alternatives.
(f) Areas that qualify for and choose to implement an OTR low enhanced I/M program, as established in § 51.351(h), and that claim in their SIP less emission reduction credit than the basic performance standard for one or more pollutants, are not required to meet the oversight specifications of this section.
§ 51.365   Data collection.
Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation, and enforcement of an I/M program. The program shall gather test data on individual vehicles, as well as quality control data on test equipment (with the exception of test procedures for which either no testing equipment is required or those test procedures relying upon a vehicle's OBD system).
(a) Test data. The goal of gathering test data is to unambiguously link specific test results to a specific vehicle, I/M program registrant, test site, and inspector, and to determine whether or not the correct testing parameters were observed for the specific vehicle in question. In turn, these data can be used to distinguish complying and noncomplying vehicles as a result of analyzing the data collected and comparing it to the registration database, to screen inspection stations and inspectors for investigation as to possible irregularities, and to help establish the overall effectiveness of the program. At a minimum, the program shall collect the following with respect to each test conducted:
(1) Test record number;
(2) Inspection station and inspector numbers;
(3) Test system number (where applicable);
(4) Date of the test;
(5) Emission test start time and the time final emission scores are determined;
(6) Vehicle Identification Number;
(7) License plate number;
(8) Test certificate number;
(9) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR);
(10) Vehicle model year, make, and type;
(11) Number of cylinders or engine displacement;
(12) Transmission type;
(13) Odometer reading;
(14) Category of test performed ( i.e. , initial test, first retest, or subsequent retest);
(15) Fuel type of the vehicle ( i.e. , gas, diesel, or other fuel);
(16) Type of vehicle preconditioning performed (if any);
(17) Emission test sequence(s) used;
(18) Hydrocarbon emission scores and standards for each applicable test mode;
(19) Carbon monoxide emission scores and standards for each applicable test mode;
(20) Carbon dioxide emission scores (CO + CO 2 ) and standards for each applicable test mode;
(21) Nitrogen oxides emission scores and standards for each applicable test mode;
(22) Results (Pass/Fail/Not Applicable) of the applicable visual inspections for the catalytic converter, air system, gas cap, evaporative system, positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve, fuel inlet restrictor, and any other visual inspection for which emission reduction credit is claimed;
(23) Results of the evaporative system pressure test(s) expressed as a pass or fail;
(24) Results of the evaporative system purge test expressed as a pass or fail along with the total purge flow in liters achieved during the test (where applicable); and
(25) Results of the on-board diagnostic check expressed as a pass or fail along with the diagnostic trouble codes revealed (where applicable).
(b) Quality control data. At a minimum, the program shall gather and report the results of the quality control checks required under § 51.359 of this subpart, identifying each check by station number, system number, date, and start time. The data report shall also contain the concentration values of the calibration gases used to perform the gas characterization portion of the quality control checks (where applicable).
§ 51.366   Data analysis and reporting.
Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring and evaluation of the program by program management and EPA, and shall provide information regarding the types of program activities performed and their final outcomes, including summary statistics and effectiveness evaluations of the enforcement mechanism, the quality assurance system, the quality control program, and the testing element. Initial submission of the following annual reports shall commence within 18 months of initial implementation of the program as required by § 51.373 of this subpart. The biennial report shall commence within 30 months of initial implementation of the program as required by § 51.373 of this subpart.
(a) Test data report. The program shall submit to EPA by July of each year a report providing basic statistics on the testing program for January through December of the previous year, including:
(1) The number of vehicles tested by model year and vehicle type;
(2) By model year and vehicle type, the number and percentage of vehicles:
(i) Failing initially, per test type;
(ii) Failing the first retest per test type;
(iii) Passing the first retest per test type;
(iv) Initially failed vehicles passing the second or subsequent retest per test type;
(v) Initially failed vehicles receiving a waiver; and
(vi) Vehicles with no known final outcome (regardless of reason).
(vii)-(x) [Reserved]
(xi) Passing the on-board diagnostic check;
(xii) Failing the on-board diagnostic check;
(xiii) Failing the on-board diagnostic check and passing the tailpipe test (if applicable);
(xiv) Failing the on-board diagnostic check and failing the tailpipe test (if applicable);
(xv) Passing the on-board diagnostic check and failing the I/M gas cap evaporative system test (if applicable);
(xvi) Failing the on-board diagnostic check and passing the I/M gas cap evaporative system test (if applicable);
(xvii) Passing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M gas cap evaporative system test (if applicable);
(xviii) Failing both the on-board diagnostic check and I/M gas cap evaporative system test (if applicable);
(xix) MIL is commanded on and no codes are stored;
(xx) MIL is not commanded on and codes are stored;
(xxi) MIL is commanded on and codes are stored;
(xxii) MIL is not commanded on and codes are not stored;
(xxiii) Readiness status indicates that the evaluation is not complete for any module supported by on-board diagnostic systems;
(3) The initial test volume by model year and test station;
(4) The initial test failure rate by model year and test station; and
(5) The average increase or decrease in tailpipe emission levels for HC, CO, and NO X (if applicable) after repairs by model year and vehicle type for vehicles receiving a mass emissions test.
(b) Quality assurance report. The program shall submit to EPA by July of each year a report providing basic statistics on the quality assurance program for January through December of the previous year, including:
(1) The number of inspection stations and lanes:
(i) Operating throughout the year; and
(ii) Operating for only part of the year;
(2) The number of inspection stations and lanes operating throughout the year:
(i) Receiving overt performance audits in the year;
(ii) Not receiving overt performance audits in the year;
(iii) Receiving covert performance audits in the year;
(iv) Not receiving covert performance audits in the year; and
(v) That have been shut down as a result of overt performance audits;
(3) The number of covert audits:
(i) Conducted with the vehicle set to fail per test type;
(ii) Conducted with the vehicle set to fail any combination of two or more test types;
(iii) Resulting in a false pass per test type;
(iv) Resulting in a false pass for any combination of two or more test types;
(v)-(viii) [Reserved]
(4) The number of inspectors and stations:
(i) That were suspended, fired, or otherwise prohibited from testing as a result of covert audits;
(ii) That were suspended, fired, or otherwise prohibited from testing for other causes; and
(iii) That received fines;
(5) The number of inspectors licensed or certified to conduct testing;
(6) The number of hearings:
(i) Held to consider adverse actions against inspectors and stations; and
(ii) Resulting in adverse actions against inspectors and stations;
(7) The total amount collected in fines from inspectors and stations by type of violation;
(8) The total number of covert vehicles available for undercover audits over the year; and
(9) The number of covert auditors available for undercover audits.
(c) Quality control report. The program shall submit to EPA by July of each year a report providing basic statistics on the quality control program for January through December of the previous year, including:
(1) The number of emission testing sites and lanes in use in the program;
(2) The number of equipment audits by station and lane;
(3) The number and percentage of stations that have failed equipment audits; and
(4) Number and percentage of stations and lanes shut down as a result of equipment audits.
(d) Enforcement report. (1) All varieties of enforcement programs shall, at a minimum, submit to EPA by July of each year a report providing basic statistics on the enforcement program for January through December of the previous year, including:
(i) An estimate of the number of vehicles subject to the inspection program, including the results of an analysis of the registration data base;
(ii) The percentage of motorist compliance based upon a comparison of the number of valid final tests with the number of subject vehicles;
(iii) The total number of compliance documents issued to inspection stations;
(iv) The number of missing compliance documents;
(v) The number of time extensions and other exemptions granted to motorists; and
(vi) The number of compliance surveys conducted, number of vehicles surveyed in each, and the compliance rates found.
(2) Registration denial based enforcement programs shall provide the following additional information:
(i) A report of the program's efforts and actions to prevent motorists from falsely registering vehicles out of the program area or falsely changing fuel type or weight class on the vehicle registration, and the results of special studies to investigate the frequency of such activity; and
(ii) The number of registration file audits, number of registrations reviewed, and compliance rates found in such audits.
(3) Computer-matching based enforcement programs shall provide the following additional information:
(i) The number and percentage of subject vehicles that were tested by the initial deadline, and by other milestones in the cycle;
(ii) A report on the program's efforts to detect and enforce against motorists falsely changing vehicle classifications to circumvent program requirements, and the frequency of this type of activity; and
(iii) The number of enforcement system audits, and the error rate found during those audits.
(4) Sticker-based enforcement systems shall provide the following additional information:
(i) A report on the program's efforts to prevent, detect, and enforce against sticker theft and counterfeiting, and the frequency of this type of activity;
(ii) A report on the program's efforts to detect and enforce against motorists falsely changing vehicle classifications to circumvent program requirements, and the frequency of this type of activity; and
(iii) The number of parking lot sticker audits conducted, the number of vehicles surveyed in each, and the noncompliance rate found during those audits.
(e) Additional reporting requirements. In addition to the annual reports in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section, programs shall submit to EPA by July of every other year, biennial reports addressing:
(1) Any changes made in program design, funding, personnel levels, procedures, regulations, and legal authority, with detailed discussion and evaluation of the impact on the program of all such changes; and
(2) Any weaknesses or problems identified in the program within the two-year reporting period, what steps have already been taken to correct those problems, the results of those steps, and any future efforts planned.
(f) SIP requirements. The SIP shall describe the types of data to be collected.
§ 51.367   Inspector training and licensing or certification.
All inspectors shall receive formal training and be licensed or certified to perform inspections.
(a) Training. (1) Inspector training shall impart knowledge of the following:
(i) The air pollution problem, its causes and effects;
(ii) The purpose, function, and goal of the inspection program;
(iii) Inspection regulations and procedures;
(iv) Technical details of the test procedures and the rationale for their design;
(v) Emission control device function, configuration, and inspection;
(vi) Test equipment operation, calibration, and maintenance (with the exception of test procedures which either do not require the use of special equipment or which rely upon a vehicle's OBD system);
(vii) Quality control procedures and their purpose;
(viii) Public relations; and
(ix) Safety and health issues related to the inspection process.
(2) If inspector training is not administered by the program, the responsible State agency shall monitor and evaluate the training program delivery.
(3) In order to complete the training requirement, a trainee shall pass ( i.e., a minimum of 80% of correct responses or lower if an occupational analysis justifies it) a written test covering all aspects of the training. In addition, a hands-on test shall be administered in which the trainee demonstrates without assistance the ability to conduct a proper inspection and to follow other required procedures. Inability to properly conduct all test procedures shall constitute failure of the test. The program shall take appropriate steps to insure the security and integrity of the testing process.
(b) Licensing and certification. (1) All inspectors shall be either licensed by the program (in the case of test-and-repair systems that do not use contracts with stations) or certified by an organization other than the employer (in test-only programs and test-and-repair programs that require station owners to enter into contracts with the State) in order to perform official inspections.
(2) Completion of inspector training and passing required tests shall be a condition of licensing or certification.
(3) Inspector licenses and certificates shall be valid for no more than 2 years, at which point refresher training and testing shall be required prior to renewal. Alternative approaches based on more comprehensive skill examination and determination of inspector competency may be used.
(4) Licenses or certificates shall not be considered a legal right but rather a privilege bestowed by the program conditional upon adherence to program requirements.
(c) SIP requirements. The SIP shall include a description of the training program, the written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or certification process.
§ 51.368   Public information and consumer protection.
(a) Public awareness. The SIP shall include a plan for informing the public on an ongoing basis throughout the life of the I/M program of the air quality problem, the requirements of Federal and State law, the role of motor vehicles in the air quality problem, the need for and benefits of an inspection program, how to maintain a vehicle in a low-emission condition, how to find a qualified repair technician, and the requirements of the I/M program. Motorists that fail the I/M test in enhanced I/M areas shall be offered a list of repair facilities in the area and information on the results of repairs performed by repair facilities in the area, as described in § 51.369(b)(1) of this subpart. Motorists that fail the I/M test shall also be provided with information concerning the possible cause(s) for failing the particular portions of the test that were failed.
(b) Consumer protection. The oversight agency shall institute procedures and mechanisms to protect the public from fraud and abuse by inspectors, mechanics, and others involved in the I/M program. This shall include a challenge mechanism by which a vehicle owner can contest the results of an inspection. It shall include mechanisms for protecting whistle blowers and following up on complaints by the public or others involved in the process. It shall include a program to assist owners in obtaining warranty covered repairs for eligible vehicles that fail a test. The SIP shall include a detailed consumer protection plan.