22518 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(c) * * *

(117) The Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation has

submitted revisions to the Tennessee

State Implementation Plan. These

revisions address the requirements of

section 507 of Title V of the CAA and

establish the Small Business Stationary

Source Technical and Environmental

Assistance Program (PROGRAM).

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Revision to the Tennessee State

Implementation Plan to Incorporate

Small Business Assistance Program as

Required by the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, approved by the

Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board

on February 10, 1993.

(ii) Additional information—None.

[FR Doc. 95–10978 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 47–1–6945a FRL–5191–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Arizona—State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Maricopa Nonattainment Area; Basic

and Enhanced Inspection and

Maintenance Program for Carbon

Monoxide and Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is giving full approval

through a direct final action on

revisions to the Arizona State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the

attainment of National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for carbon

monoxide (CO) and ozone. The SIP

revision provides for the adoption and

implementation of both basic and

enhanced motor vehicle inspection/

maintenance (I/M) programs meeting all

requirements of EPA regulations,

published in the Federal Register on

November 5, 1992 (I/M Regulations),

concerning motor vehicle I/M programs.

On November 14, 1994, the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ) submitted a SIP revision to

implement both a basic and enhanced

I/M program meeting EPA’s I/M

regulations.

This direct final approval action will

incorporate these rules into the federally

approved SIP. The intended effect of

approving this SIP revision is to regulate

emissions of CO and volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval of

these revisions into the Arizona SIP

under provisions of the CAA regarding

EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary NAAQS

and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

DATES: This action is effective on July 7,

1995, unless adverse or critical

comments are received by June 7, 1995.

If the effective date is delayed, a timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: A docket has been

established and contains material

relevant to this action. A copy of the

docket is available for public inspection

at EPA’s Region IX office during normal

business hours. Copies of the submitted

SIP revisions are available for

inspection at the following locations:

Mobile Sources Section (A–2–1), Air

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), ANR 443, 401 ‘‘M’’

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roxanne Johnson, Mobile Sources

Section (A–2–1), Air and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,

Telephone: (415) 744–1225.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Motor vehicles are a major contributor

of VOCs, CO, and oxides of nitrogen

(NOX) emissions. The motor vehicle I/M

program is an effective means of

reducing these emissions. Despite

improvements in emission control

technology in past years, mobile sources

in urban areas continue to remain

responsible for roughly half of the

emissions of VOC causing ozone, and

most of the emissions of CO. They also

emit substantial amounts of NOX and air

toxics. This is because the number of

vehicle miles traveled has doubled in

the last 20 years to 20×1012 (20 trillion)

miles per year, offsetting much of the

technological progress in vehicle

emission control over the same period.

Projections indicate that the steady

growth in vehicle miles will continue.

Under the Act, the U.S. EPA is

pursuing a three-point strategy to

achieve emission reductions from motor

vehicles. The development and

commercialization of cleaner vehicles

and cleaner fuels represent the first two

elements of the strategy. These

developments will take many years

before cleaner vehicles and fuels

dominate the fleet and favorably impact

the environment. This notice addresses

the third element of the strategy, I/M,

which is aimed at the reduction of

emissions from the existing fleet by

ensuring that vehicles are maintained to

meet the emission standards established

by EPA. Properly functioning emission

controls are necessary to keep pollution

levels low. The driving public is often

unable to detect a malfunction of the

emission control system. While some

minor malfunctions can increase

emissions significantly, they do not

affect drivability and may go unnoticed

for a long period of time. Effective I/M

programs can identify excessive

emissions and assure repairs. The EPA

projects that sophisticated I/M programs

such Arizona’s will identify emission

related problems and prompt the

vehicle owner to obtain timely repairs,

thus reducing emissions.

The Act directed EPA to establish a

minimum performance standard for

enhanced I/M programs. The standard is

based on the performance achievable by

annual inspections in a centralized test

program. States have flexibility to

design their own programs if they can

show that their program is as effective

as the model program used in the

performance standard. The more

effective the program the more credit a

State will get towards the emission

reduction requirement. An effective

program will help to offset growth in

vehicle use and allow for industrial and

or commercial growth. EPA and the

States have learned a great deal about

what makes an I/M program effective

since the Clean Air Act of 1977 first

required I/M programs for polluted

areas. There are three major keys to an

effective program:

1. Given the advanced state of current

vehicle design and anticipated technology

changes, the ability to accurately fail problem

vehicles and pass clean ones requires

improved test equipment and test

procedures;

2. Comprehensive quality control and

aggressive enforcement is essential to

assuring the testing is done properly;

3. Skillful diagnostics and capable

mechanics are important to assure that failed

cars are fixed properly.

These three factors are missing in

most older I/M programs. Specifically,

the idle and 2500 RPM/idle short tests

and anti-tamper inspections used in

current I/M programs are not as effective

in identifying and reducing in-use

emissions from the types of vehicles in

the current and future fleet. Also, covert

audits by EPA and State agencies

typically discover improper inspection

and testing 50 percent of the time in

test-and-repair stations. Experience has

shown that quality control at high-
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22519

1The proposed FIP for Maricopa County

consisted of a motor vehicle winter time oxygenated

fuels program and an employee-based trip

reduction program.

2The court order was the result of a citizen suit

brought against EPA on April 8, 1985, by the

Arizona Center for Law in Public Interest (ACLPI).

3EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

4Meeting EPA performance standards for two

levels of I/M programs: basic and enhanced.

5November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950)

volume test-only stations, such as

Arizona’s I/M program, is usually much

better. And, finally, diagnostics and

mechanics training are often poor or

nonexistent.

EPA’s I/M regulations, dated

November 5, 1992, established a hightech emission test for high-tech cars.

This I/M test, known as the IM240 test,

is so effective that biennial test

programs yield almost the same

emission reduction benefits as annual

programs. The test can also accurately

measure NOX emissions where NOX is

important to address an ozone problem.

Adding the ‘‘pressure and purge’’ tests

increases the benefit even more by

reducing problems associated with

evaporative emissions losses. The

pressure test is designed to find leaks in

the fuel system, and the purge test

evaluates the functionality of the vapor

control system.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone and CO nonattainment

areas under the provisions of the Clean

Air Act, as amended in 1977, that

included Maricopa County. 43 FR 8970,

40 CFR 81.305. Generally, the states

containing these designated

‘‘nonattainment areas’’ had to submit

revised SIPs by January 1, 1979. The

1979 SIP revisions were to provide for

attainment of the NAAQS by December

31, 1982, however an extension until

1987 was available under section 172 if

the state could demonstrate as part of its

1979 SIP revision that attainment by the

end of 1982 was not possible, despite

the implementation of all reasonably

available control measures. Arizona

submitted Maricopa County’s initial

nonatttainment area plan for CO in 1979

and 1980. On October 30, 1980, the

State submitted a request to EPA to

extend the CO attainment date in

Maricopa County to December 31, 1987.

EPA proposed to approve the extension

request on February 5, 1982 (47 FR

5439). On May 5, 1982 (47 FR 19826),

EPA took final action to approve the

1979 SIP revision.

On August 10, 1987, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Arizona ordered

EPA to promulgate a federal

implementation plan 1 (FIP) under

section 110(c) of the Act for CO.2 The

Maricopa Association of Governments

developed a plan for the CO

nonattainment portions of Maricopa

County. The plan claimed credit both

implicitly and explicitly, for the

Arizona vehicle I/M program as

expanded through 1987. EPA proposed

approval of the improvements to the

State’s I/M program as adopted by the

Arizona State Legislature in 1985, 1986,

and 1987. (51 FR 14818 (April 26,

1988).) In that notice EPA stated that if

the Arizona legislature adopted a

loaded-mode test requirement, EPA

would approve the I/M program through

a direct final rulemaking process.

Revisions to the Arizona I/M program

were adopted and EPA approved the I/

M program.

On June 21, 1994, Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ), acting as the governor’s

designee, submitted a SIP revision to

implement a motor vehicle basic I/M

program meeting EPA’s I/M regulations.

On July 13, 1994, EPA found that the

SIP submittal conformed to the

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51,

Appendix V.3 EPA is today taking final

action to approve this program.

Under the Act, Arizona is required to

implement only a basic vehicle I/M

program (182(b)(4)). To aid the State in

meeting federal requirements for the

portion of its ozone SIP pertaining to the

Maricopa County nonattainment area,

Arizona ‘‘opted-up’’ to an enhanced

vehicle I/M 4 program to reduce by 15%

emissions of VOCs which contribute to

ozone pollution by 1996 from baseline

levels established in 1990, net of

growth. This rule was adopted as part of

Maricopa’s effort to achieve the NAAQS

for ozone and CO.

III. Requirements for I/M Programs

A. Applicability of Basic and Enhanced

I/M Programs

As amended in 1990, the Clean Air

Act requires states to make changes to

improve existing I/M programs or to

implement new ones for certain

nonattainment areas. Section

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

publish updated guidance for state I/M

programs, taking into consideration

findings of the Administrator’s audits

and investigations of these programs.

The Act further requires each area

required to have an I/M program to

incorporate this guidance into the SIP.

Based on these requirements, EPA

promulgated I/M regulations.5

Under section 182(b)(4) of the Act,

basic I/M programs are required in all

moderate ozone nonattainment areas.

Under sections 182(c)(3) and 187(b)(1),

areas designated as serious and worse

ozone nonattainment areas with 1980

populations of 200,000 or more and CO

nonattainment areas with design

classifications above 12.7 ppm and

populations of 200,000 or more, in

addition to metropolitan statistical areas

with populations of 100,000 or more in

the northeast ozone transport region, are

required to meet EPA regulations for

‘‘enhanced’’ I/M programs.

The I/M regulation establishes

minimum performance standards for

basic and enhanced I/M programs as

well as requirements for the following:

Network type and program evaluation;

adequate tools and resources; test

frequency and convenience; vehicle

coverage; test procedures and standard;

test equipment; quality control; waivers

and compliance via diagnostic

inspection; motorist compliance

enforcement; motorist compliance

enforcement program oversight; quality

assurance; enforcement against

contractors, stations and inspectors;

data collection; data analysis and

reporting; inspector training and

licensing or certification; public

information and consumer protection;

improving repair effectiveness;

compliance with recall notices; on-road

testing; SIP revisions; and

implementation deadlines.

B. I/M Program in Arizona

1. Arizona SIP

The State of Arizona submitted a

basic I/M SIP revision on June 21, 1994

to improve their I/M program for

Arizona’s ozone and CO nonattainment

areas. In that submittal, Arizona’s air

quality regulations took effect only until

January 1, 1995. On November 14, 1994,

Arizona submitted a full SIP for both

basic and enhanced motor vehicle I/M

programs. Therefore, the November 14,

1994 SIP submission superseded the

June 21, 1994 SIP revision and the EPA

is recognizing the November 14, 1994 as

the full SIP submission. A public

hearing on the November 14, 1994

submittal was held by the State on

November 10, 1994.

a. Reason for Adopting Enhanced I/M.

The Arizona legislature adopted rules to

implement enhanced I/M to meet

federal requirements for the portion of

its ozone SIP pertaining to the Maricopa

County nonattainment area. Because of

requirements for reasonable further

progress, and rapid growth in vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) projected for Area
22520 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

6Area A means a CO nonattainment area in a

county with a population of one million two

hundred thousand or more persons as determined

by the most recent U.S. decennial census.

7Act 1 of the sixth special session of the 1993

legislature, more commonly known as HB 2001,

gave ADEQ the statutory authority necessary to

implement an enhanced vehicle emissions program,

and contains the primary authority for most of the

rule.

8Arizona defines Area ‘‘B’’ as a CO

nonattainment area in a county with a population

in excess of four hundred thousand but fewer than

one million two hundred thousand persons as

determined by the most recent U.S. decennial

census.

9Arizona law, ARS 49–404 gives the Director of

ADEQ Director authority to adopt rules related to

air quality for SIP purposes.

10Effective January 1, 1989.

11Regarding any potential increase in NOX,

ADEQ on April 8, 1994 submitted a petition for

exemption to NOX reasonable available control

technology (RACT) requirements for major sources

within the Maricopa County ozone nonattainment

area. EPA proposed to approve ADEQ’s request on

November 1, 1994 (59 FR 54540). NOX testing is not

required for basic areas opting-up to an enhanced

I/M program.

A,6 the State moved forward and put an

enhanced I/M program in place that

began January 3, 1995.7 The new

upgrades are efficient, enforceable, and

did not require expensive modifications

to the program. H.B. 2001 established a

biennial, transient loaded (IM240)

emission test for gasoline powered

vehicles model years 1981 or newer

with a gross vehicle weight of up to

8,500 pounds. A purge and pressure

check is also required, eliminating

Arizona’s current tampering check.

Gasoline powered vehicles model years

1967–1974 are required to pass a loaded

emission test. Motorcycles and or

constant four-wheel drive vehicles are

required to take and pass an idle

emissions test. A snap idle test for

diesel powered vehicles was also

required as of January 1, 1995. Arizona’s

enhanced I/M program is in Area A and

the basic I/M program is implemented

in Area B.8 Area A vehicles are subject

to biennial tests where registration

expiration date will come every other

year, and area B vehicles are subject to

annual testing where registration

expiration will come every year.

2. Background

ADEQ’s centralized Vehicle Emission

Inspection (VEI) program began January

1976.9 Major improvements to Arizona’s

VEI program over the years included: (1)

H.B. 2014 enacted in 1988 provided the

I/M program under which vehicles must

be tested in the loaded-mode

condition,10 as well as in the idle mode,

to determine pass/fail status; (2) S.B.

1176 enacted in 1989 increased the

number of vehicles subject to the I/M

program by removing the exemption for

vehicles manufactured in or before the

1966 model year; (3) S.B. 1430 enacted

in 1992 made several changes to

Arizona’s VEI program; (4) H.B. 2001

enacted 1993 gave ADEQ authority to

implement an enhanced vehicle

program; (5) finally, in 1994 H.B. 2575

made a number of corrections to H.B.

2001.

IV. EPA Evaluation of State Submittal

1. Applicability Section 51.350

EPA’s I/M regulations require I/M SIP

submittals to describe the applicable

areas in detail and to include the legal

authority or rules necessary to establish

program boundaries. The Maricopa

County ozone nonattainment area and

CO nonattainment area are both

classified as moderate. Pima County is

not classified for CO and is in

attainment for the ozone NAAQS.

The legal authority and areas required

to implement basic I/M are described in

the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS)

§§ 49–542.A and 49–541.17 and Arizona

Administrative Code (AAC) R18–2–

1003.A and R18–2–1001.48. Arizona’s

authority to implement enhanced I/M

was amended by H.B. 2001, 1993 Sixth

Special Legislative Session and is found

in AAC R18–2–1001 and R18–2–1003,

Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 10, Motor

Vehicles: Inspection and Maintenance.

Arizona’s centralized I/M program was

implemented August 1, 1988. The

geographic coverage of the program

complies with the requirements of the

EPA I/M regulation for basic I/M areas

and is approvable.

2.a. Basic I/M Performance Standard

Section 51.352

EPA’s I/M regulations outline the

method States are to follow to arrive at

a minimum performance standard. The

performance standard sets an emission

reduction target that the program must

meet in order for the SIP to be

approvable. The SIP must also

demonstrate that the program will meet

the performance standard in actual

operation, with provisions for

appropriate adjustments if the standard

is not met.

The performance standard for which

the ADEQ must be able to demonstrate

compliance was established using the

MOBILE5a model inputs and local

characteristics outlined in § 51.352.

Arizona’s modeling and accompanying

documentation indicates that the state

program meets the EPA performance

standard for hydrocarbons (HC) and for

CO, i.e., that the emission factors

resulting from modeling the state’s

program are at or below the EPA

performance standard.

2.b. Enhanced I/M Performance

Standard Section 51.351

The EPA MOBILE5a input file used to

model the enhanced performance

standard reflects EPA-specified inputs

tailored to the characteristics of the

local area. Arizona’s beginning date of

January 1, 1995 used appropriate inputs

and meets EPA’s performance standard

for the enhanced I/M program. EPA has

allowed the assumption of one full cycle

of testing for summer 1996 ozone

modeling.11

3. Network Type and Evaluation Section

51.353

EPA’s I/M rule requires SIPs to

include a description of the network to

be employed, the required legal

authority, and a description of the

evaluation schedule and protocol,

sampling methodology, the data

collection and analysis system, the

resources and personnel for evaluation,

and related details of the evaluation

program.

Through a contractual agreement,

Arizona operates a centralized program,

consisting of eleven inspection stations

with 48 testing lanes. The ADEQ

compiles data (including the enhanced

I/M data requirements) supporting

modelling assumptions and modelled

program evaluation and effectiveness

including failure rate, compliance rate,

the number of certificates issued, and

other similar matters.

The SIP adequately describes these

features and is approvable.

4. Adequate Tools and Resources

Section 51.354

Section 51.354 requires States to

demonstrate that the appropriate

administrative, budgetary, personnel,

and equipment resources have been

allocated for the I/M program and

discusses how the performance standard

will be met. Arizona’s submittal,

Appendix 1, ARS §§ 49–544 and 49–

545, describes the personnel, equipment

and funding resources to be used for

program operation and maintaining all

required program functions. Section 49–

544 insures future dedicated funding

and provides for sufficient staff to carry

out program duties. Appendix 1, ARS

§§ 49–545.A authorizes a contract with

an independent contractor, Gordon

Darby. Subsection B of that section

specifies that the contractor may not be

in the business of maintaining or

repairing motor vehicles.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22521

12Checklist for Completing the Inspection/

Maintenance SIP, published March 1993.

5. Test Frequency and Convenience

Section 51.355

The I/M regulations require the SIP to

describe in detail the test schedule of

the program. If the testing is not

performed on an annual basis, the

description is to include the test year

selection scheme. In addition, the SIP

should 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.

Arizona’s program is based upon an

annual and biennial test frequency and

legal authority for enforcing such

frequency is in Appendix 1, ARS § 49–

542 and AAC R18–2–1005. Those

provisions state that applicable vehicles

may not be registered nor re-registered

without undergoing emissions

inspection. Appendix 1, AAC R18–2–

1006 requires that the contractor test

any subject vehicle presented for

inspection, except for vehicles

exhibiting unsafe conditions or carrying

explosives or other hazardous materials.

6. Vehicle Coverage Section 51.356

SIPs are to 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. The SIP should also

include a description of any special

exemptions granted by the program, an

estimate of the percentage and number

of subject vehicles which will be

exempted. Exempted vehicles should be

accounted for in the emission reduction

analysis. The SIP should also include

the legal authority or rule necessary to

implement and enforce the vehicle

coverage requirement.

Requirements for vehicles subject to

the Arizona I/M program are presented

in Appendix 1. ARS § 49–542 and AAC

R18–2–1003 describe vehicular coverage

by test methods, categories of model

year, fuel type, result summary for 1993,

and displays tests performed

differentiated by those categories.

Vehicles exempted from testing are

described in ARS § 49–542 and AAC

R18–2–1003.B. Modeling conducted in

response to § 51.352 took into account

exempted vehicles. ARS § 49–542 and

AAC R18–2–1003, -1017 and -1019

(Appendix 1) provide for fleet vehicles,

including federally-owned vehicles, that

are subject to the same testing and

quality control requirements as are nonfleet vehicles. ARS § 49–542 and AAC

R18–21023 (Appendix 1) provide the

requirements for vehicles registered in

the program area and operated outside

the area.

The Arizona I/M program exempts the

following vehicles from the program:

a. Vehicles manufactured in or before

the 1966 model year.

b. Vehicles leased to a person residing

outside Areas A and B by a leasing

company whose place of business is

in Area A or B.

c. Vehicles being sold between motor

vehicle dealers.

d. Electrically-powered vehicles.

e. Prorate vehicles.

f. Golf carts.

g. Vehicles with engine displacements

of less than 90 cubic centimeters.

h. New vehicles originally registered at

the time of initial retail sale and

titling in the state.

i. Vehicles being registered at the time

of change of name of ownership

except when the change in

registration is accompanied by

required fees for the year following

expiration of the prior registration or

the change results from the sale by a

dealership whose place of business is

located in area A or area B.

j. Vehicles for which a current

certificate of exemption or Director’s

certificate has been issued.

The Arizona SIP submittal provides

an estimate of the number of vehicles

exempted due to vehicle age, fuel type,

and engine type. These exempted

vehicles are accounted for in the

compliance area which was used in the

MOBILE5a modeling process to

demonstrate compliance with the

performance standard.

7. Test Procedures and Standards

Section 51.357

The I/M rule requires SIPs to include

a description of each test procedure

used, the legal authority or rule

describing and establishing the test

procedures, and the test standards. The

EPA Checklist 12 lists the criteria that

State I/M programs must satisfy in order

to be approvable. The Arizona I/M

program satisfies the criteria of the

Checklist. AAC R18–2–1006 provides

detailed test procedures and pass/fail

standards for all applicable classes of

vehicles. Procedures and standards

correspond to EPA requirements for

short tests. Initial tests are performed

without prior repair at the test facility,

as the contractor is prohibited from

being in the business of repairing

vehicles.

Requirements for reinspection of

failed vehicles are described in AAC

R18–2–1013. R18–2–1029 requires that

all vehicles must have all emission

control devices that were installed by

the vehicle manufacturer. AAC R18–2–

1001.42 requires vehicles with

‘‘switched’’ engines to meet standards

applicable to the year of vehicle

manufacture.

8. Test Equipment Section 51.358

The I/M rule requires SIPs to include

written technical specifications for all

test equipment used in the program. The

specifications should describe the

emissions analysis process, the

necessary test equipment, the required

features, and written acceptance of

testing criteria and procedures.

Arizona’s SIP provides detailed

requirements for test equipment,

automation to the highest degree

commercially available to minimize the

potential for intentional fraud and/or

human error, security, accuracy,

recording of test data and quality

assurance. Also, Arizona’s rules require

the contractor to provide the necessary

computerized test equipment capable of

testing all subject vehicles, including

test systems that are connected by a

real-time data link to a host computer

that prevents unauthorized multiple

initial tests on the same vehicle.

9. Quality Control Section 51.359

The I/M rule requires SIPs to include

a description of quality control and

recordkeeping procedures. The

submittal should include the procedures

manual, rule, ordinance, or law

establishing the procedures of quality

control and recordkeeping.

Arizona’s rules, Appendix 1, AAC

R18–2–1025 through –1028 provide all

the required quality control elements of

basic and enhanced I/M programs.

Protection of analyzer bench and

electrical components is assured

through the enclosure of such

equipment in lockable steel cabinets.

10. Waivers and Compliance via

Diagnostic Inspection Section 51.360

Section 51.360 outlines the standards

that State SIP submittals must satisfy

before owners of vehicles can be issued

waivers or temporary extensions. A

waiver or temporary extension allows

motorists to renew vehicle registration.

These requirements include: A

maximum waiver rate used for

estimating emission reduction benefits

in the modeling analysis; a commitment

by the State to take corrective action if

the waiver rate exceeds that which was

committed to in the SIP or a

commitment to revise the SIP and

emission reductions claimed;

description of waiver criteria and

procedures, including cost limits,

quality assurance methods and

administration; and the necessary legal
22522 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

authority to issue waivers, set and

adjust cost limits and carry out any

other functions necessary to administer

the waiver system.

Section 51.360 established the

minimum repair expenditures (both for

basic and enhanced I/M programs) that

vehicle owners must incur in order to

qualify for a waiver. In basic I/M

programs, owners must expend a

minimum of $75 for pre-1981 and at

least $200 for 1981 and newer vehicles.

For enhanced I/M programs, vehicle

owners at a minimum must expend

$450 in repairs to qualify for a waiver.

Arizona’s rules provide that waivers

may only be issued after failing a retest

and after qualifying repairs are made,

including performance of a lowemission tune-up. Those provisions

exclude costs of repair of tampering

from applicability to a waiver cost limit,

and inspection and review of receipts.

Owners of all failing vehicles receive a

brochure describing possible eligibility

of warranty coverage. Waiver limits

prescribed in ARS § 49–542.L and R18–

3–1010.E for Area A (enhanced I/M

program) and R18–2–1010.F for Area B

(basic I/M program) differ from those

prescribed in EPA’s I/M regulation, but

are not overall less stringent. For Area

B, 1967–74 model year vehicles are

subject to a lower $50 limit, yet 1975–

80 model year vehicles are subject to a

$200 limit, exceeding EPA’s minimum

standard. Arizona’s $350 limit for 1981

and newer vehicles is also more

stringent than EPA’s minimum $200

limit for Area B. Waiver limits for Area

A exceed the EPA I/M program

guidelines for vehicles not subject to the

enhanced test procedure. Arizona has

provided for vehicle repair grants in

R18–2–1014.

11. Motorist Compliance Enforcement

Section 51.361

Under § 51.361, SIP submittals must

include a description of the enforcement

process; a determination of the current

compliance rate that includes at a

minimum an estimate of compliance

loss due to loopholes; legal authority for

enforcement; and a commitment to an

enforcement level to be used for

modeling purposes and to be main Area

B documents.

Appendix 1, ARS § 49–542.D and

AAC R18–2–1007 require that no

affected motorist can obtain a vehicle

registration without demonstrating that

the vehicle has completed a vehicle

emissions inspection. The State will be

able to verify emissions compliance by

checking an up-to-date computer

database produced directly from

contractor testing data rather than

relying on a document. A1050X may not

be used for Area A registration

purposes. AAC R18–2–1017, –1019

address inspection procedures for fleets,

including governmental vehicles.

Appendix 2 addresses the assumed level

of enforcement for modeling purposes

and ARS 49–542.E provides for the

registering officer to issue an air quality

compliance sticker to be placed on the

subject vehicle.

12. Motorist Compliance Enforcement

Program Oversight Section 51.362

The I/M SIP submittals are to include

a description of enforcement program

oversight and information management

activities. The enforcement program

must be audited regularly and follow

effective program management

practices. Arizona’s law, ARS 49–542.D

sets out the requirement for registration

enforcement of I/M requirements for

subject vehicles. Subsection J.2 of that

section defines a list of readily

exempted vehicles, including vehicle

age, engine displacement, mode of

power, and type of registration. The

Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) of the

Arizona Department of Transportation

has the authority for vehicle

registration. In the case of Maricopa

County, MVD has delegated the

authority for processing registrations to

the Maricopa County Assessor;

however, MVD retains responsibility for

the registration program and for the

registration database. The requirement

for inspection of a vehicle is determined

in the MVD database by zip code of the

physical address of the vehicle

registration and by other parameters

relating to exemptions listed in ARS 49–

542.H.

MVD, the Maricopa County Assessor,

and ADEQ maintain written procedures

governing the issuance and auditing of

compliance-related documents,

including waivers and validations tabs,

as appropriate. All compliance

documents, certificates of waiver, and

validation tabs are individually

numbered and kept according to the

respective agencies’ security

procedures. AAC R18–2–1023 provides

procedures for processing exemptions

for vehicles not available within the

State at time of registration or reregistration. That rule also requires

inspection by an out of state I/M

program, if the subject vehicle is being

operated in a program area.

ADEQ and registering agencies have

developed procedures to address

vehicles physically registered in zip

codes which straddle I/M program

boundaries. Under that process,

emissions applicability is determined by

motorist submittal of a ‘‘Code 52’’

application, which provides verifiable

information that the physical

registration address is outside the I/M

program boundary. The ‘‘Code 52’’

process is conducted by ADEQ in

Maricopa County and by MVD in Pima

County. Arizona law enforcement

agencies and MVD are authorized under

statute to enforce the sticker-based

registration and I/M requirements. MVD

and Maricopa County routinely make

their databases available to ADEQ for

compliance and enforcement purposes.

13. Quality Assurance Section 51.363

The I/M rule requires States to operate

on-going quality assurance programs

aimed at discovering, correcting, and

preventing fraud, waste and abuse. The

quality assurance officer should also

assess whether correct operating

procedures are being followed and that

testing equipment provides accurate

measurements. SIP submittals must

include a description of the quality

assurance program, written procedures

manuals covering covert and overt

audits, records audits, and equipment

audits. Quality assurance procedures

can be found in AAC R18–2–1025 and

–1026. Performance audits are based

upon written procedures, with audit

results recorded and retained in station

and inspector files. Records are of

sufficient detail to support

administrative or civil hearings.

Both the testing contractor and ADEQ

conduct routine covert audits and

exchange audit findings. Covert audits

are performed at least once per year per

licensed inspector employed by the

independent contractor. Covert vehicles

are procured through rental or through

cooperative agreement with the

Department of Public Safety to obtain

undercover vehicles. A tampering defect

or emissions-related failure condition is

introduced and a driver not directly

affiliated with the program is selected.

ADEQ monitors the contractor’s

response to failed covert audits,

including training, disciplinary actions

or dismissal. ADEQ performs remote

observation of inspections, including

covert actions designed to detect fraud

or collusion between inspectors and

either repair facilities or dealers. Overt

audits are performed at least twice per

year for each inspection lane. In the

event that an inspector fails any of the

requirements in AAC R18–2–1025, the

inspector’s license may be suspended or

revoked.

14. Enforcement Against Contractors,

Stations & Inspectors Section 51.364

I/M programs are to include

enforcement mechanisms that allow for

the imposition of penalties against

licensed stations, contractors or
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 22523

inspectors that violate program

requirements. SIP submittals must

describe the legal authority for imposing

penalties, civil fines, license

suspension, and revocations. ARS,

Section 49–548 prohibits improper

representation of a facility as an official

testing site, or false issuance of

certificates of inspection by fleets. ARS

49–549 prohibits production and use of

false I/M certificates. ARS 49–550

provides civil penalties for violations of

I/M requirements. ADEQ has submitted,

under separate cover, dated, August 2,

1994, an opinion by the Attorney

General related to the applicability of

that statute to the deadlines for license

suspension contained in 40 CFR 51.364.

15. Data Collection Section 51.365

EPA’s I/M rule outlines the test data

and quality control data that must be

collected for the management,

evaluation, and enforcement of an I/M

program. I/M programs must gather test

data on individual vehicles, as well as

quality control data on test equipment.

The Arizona I/M program contains data

gathering provisions that meet all of the

criteria of the EPA Checklist. AAC R18–

2–1011 describes the data collected

during an inspection which forms the

basis for issuance of a ‘‘Vehicle

Inspection Report.’’ Arizona is currently

collecting all data required for both

basic and enhanced I/M programs.

15. Data Analysis and Reporting Section

51.366

SIP submittals are to include

information on how States will

incorporate data analysis and reporting

into their I/M programs. Reports should

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. Arizona has

committed to provide test, quality

control and enforcement reports as

specified in this section and applicable

to I/M programs. The contract with the

independent contractor reflects

requirements to collect data necessary

for ADEQ to make these submittals.

16. Inspector Training and Licensing or

Certification Section 51.367

All inspectors involved in I/M

programs must receive formal training

and be licensed or certified to perform

inspections. SIP submittals must

include a description of the training

program, the written and practical

examinations and the licensing or

certification process. Lane inspectors

are employed and trained by the

independent contractor. AAC R18–2–

1016 authorizes ADEQ to license

vehicle inspectors and provides

minimum standards for licensure.

ADEQ is authorized to suspend, revoke

or refuse to renew any inspector license.

The contract between ADEQ and the

independent contractor allows ADEQ to

require training of inspectors consistent

with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.363.

ADEQ monitors the training program

conducted by the contractor and

performs on-site overt audits to verify

inspector proficiency, consistent with

EPA’s I/M rule.

17. Public Information and Consumer

Protection Section 51.368

SIP submittals must include a plan for

informing the public on an ongoing

basis, throughout the life of the I/M

program, of the air quality program, the

requirements of federal and state law,

the role of motor vehicles in the air

quality problem, and the need for and

benefits of an inspection program. In

addition, the submittal must describe

procedures and mechanisms to protect

the public from fraud and abuse by

inspectors, mechanics, and others

involved in the I/M program.

ADEQ, in conjunction with its

independent contractor, conducts a

public awareness program which

complies with the requirements of 40

CFR 51.368. Information on the air

quality problem, the role of motor

vehicles, and I/M requirements is

contained in a brochure mailed with

registration or re-registration

documentation to all affected motorists.

The independent contractor produces a

‘‘Repair Industry Performance Report’’

which identifies by repair site, the

number of vehicles undergoing repairs

and the overall pass rate of vehicles

repaired at that facility.

18. Improving Repair Effectiveness

Section 51.369

The State of Arizona provides the

technical assistance requirements of

both EPA’s basic and enhanced I/M

rule. ADEQ provides newsletters and

special purpose mailings to inform the

repair industry of program changes,

common problems, and opportunities

for training. In addition, ADEQ provides

newsletters published by the Coalition

for Safer, Cleaner Vehicles to repair

industry personnel in the Maricopa

nonattainment area. ADEQ employs

referee technicians at each ADEQoperated waiver facility who provide

diagnostic assistance to the repair

industry.

The State currently provides repair

technician training which focuses on

causes of emissions failures in computer

controlled closed-loop vehicles,

effective diagnoses and repair. The

training also provides information on

Arizona’s I/M program. ADEQ provides

these courses on an as-needed basis,

with a minimum of two courses in

Phoenix and one course in Tucson each

month. Technicians are tested at the

conclusion of the course, and successful

candidates are either certified as a

trained technician or licensed as a fleet

technician. In order to retain

certification or licensure, technicians

must take and pass the examination

annually.

19. Compliance With Recall Notices

Section 51.370

The I/M rule requires States to

establish methods to ensure that

vehicles subject to enhanced I/M and

that are included in either a ‘‘Voluntary

Emissions Recall’’ as defined at 40 CFR

85.1902(d), or in a remedial plan

determination made pursuant to section

207(c) of the Act, receive the required

repairs. Arizona has committed to

comply with section 51.370 when the

Agency provides the State with

manufacturer recall and unresolved

vehicle recall data.

20. On-Road Testing Section 51.371

Because Arizona is ‘‘opting-up’’ to an

enhanced I/M program, the State is not

required to implement this section.

However, Arizona’s regulation, AAC

R18–2–1015 requires the State to begin

on-road testing in January 1995 in Area

A only. A minimum of six remote

sensing units will be used throughout

the nonattainment area. Arizona’s SIP

submittal states that this measure

provides an incremental benefit over the

existing I/M and anti-tampering

program by increasing compliance with

the I/M program and reducing the

incidence of vehicle tampering. AAC

R18–2–1015 also includes: That a

vehicle shall not have a waiver on

record; an emissions test that is required

pursuant to a remote sensing

identification shall be performed at a

state station pursuant to R18–2–1006

and shall not require payment of any

test fee unless the test can be used for

the purpose of complying with

registration or re-registration

requirements; failure of an emissions

test that is required pursuant to a remote

sensing identification shall require the

vehicle to be repaired or to receive a

waiver from any emission standards not

complied with within 30 days of the test

to avoid suspension of registration; and

one reinspection shall also be free as

provided in R18–2–1012(D). A full

description of Arizona’s remote sensing
22524 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 88 / Monday, May 8, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

is in their request for proposal (RFP)

located in the docket.

21. State Implementation Plan

Submissions Section 51.372 and

Implementation Deadlines Section

51.373

Arizona is currently implementing an

annual basic I/M and an enhanced I/M

program. The November 1994 I/M SIP

submittal is fully approvable and

includes all elements meeting EPA’s I/

M regulations (e.g., an analysis of the

emission level targets meeting both

basic and enhanced I/M performance

standard, passage of enabling statutory

and legal authority, and regulations).

V. EPA Analysis of the Arizona I/M

Program Submittal

A complete EPA analysis of the

program submittal is detailed in the

Agency’s technical support document

(TSD) which is available in the docket.

A copy of the TSD can be obtained by

contacting the person listed in the

ADDRESSES portion of this notice. The

TSD summarizes the requirements of

the federal I/M regulations and

addresses whether the elements of the

State’s submittal comply with the

federal rule. Interested parties are

encouraged to examine the TSD for

additional detailed information about

the Arizona I/M program.

VI. EPA Action

In determining the approvability of an

I/M SIP submittal, EPA must evaluate

the SIP for consistency with the

requirements of CAA and EPA

regulations, as found in section 110 and

part D of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51

(Requirements for Preparation,

Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans).

EPA has evaluated the submitted SIP

and has determined that it is consistent

with the CAA, EPA regulations, and

EPA policy. Therefore, Arizona’s SIP

revision, Basic and Enhanced I/M

Vehicle Emissions Inspection/

Maintenance (I/M) Program

Implemented in Ozone and Carbon

Monoxide Nonattainment Areas of

Arizona is being approved under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the

requirements of section 110(a) and Part

D.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

EPA is publishing this notice without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective July 7, 1995,

unless, within 30 days of its

publication, adverse or critical

comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent notice that will withdraw

the final action. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

separate proposed rule.

The EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective July 7, 1995.

VII. Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises and government entities

with jurisdiction over population of less

than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301(a) and subchapter I, Part D of the

CAA do not create any new

requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not impose

any new requirements, I certify that it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2). The OMB

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Carbon

monoxide, Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Arizona was approved by the Director of the

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: April 5, 1995.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart D—Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(75) to read as

follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(75) Program elements submitted on

November 14, 1994, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality.

(1) Basic and Enhanced Inspection

and Maintenance Vehicle Emissions

Program. Adopted on September 15,

1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–10814 Filed 5–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–5203–7]

Tennessee; Final Authorization of

Revisions to State Hazardous Waste

Management Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: Tennessee has applied for

final authorization of revisions to its

hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). Tennessee’s revisions

consist of the provisions contained in

rules promulgated between July 1, 1986,

and June 30, 1993, otherwise known as

Non-HSWA Clusters III, V, VI, HSWA

Cluster II, and RCRA Clusters I–III.

These requirements are listed in Section