20934 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 100.35T01–033.—SECTOR ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE—Continued

Date Sector Time Status

July 7, 1995 .................. 1 Midnight–11:59 p.m ............................................. OPEN.

1 12:00 noon–5:00 p.m ........................................... CLOSED to all traffic.

1 5:01 p.m.–11:59 p.m ............................................ OPEN.

2–15 ALL DAY .............................................................. OPEN.

July 8, 1995 .................. 1 Midnight–11:59 p.m ............................................. OPEN.

1 12:00 noon–5:00 p.m ........................................... CLOSED to all traffic.

1 5:01 p.m.–11:59 p.m ............................................ OPEN.

2–15 ALL DAY .............................................................. OPEN.

July 9, 1995 .................. 1 Midnight–11:59 p.m ............................................. OPEN.

1 12:00 noon–5:00 p.m ........................................... CLOSED to all traffic.

1 5:01 p.m.–11:59 p.m ............................................ OPEN.

2–15 ALL DAY .............................................................. OPEN.

July 10, 1995 ................ ALL SECTORS ALL DAY .............................................................. OPEN.

(d) Special local regulations.

(1) Commander, U.S. Coast Guard

Forces Long Island Sound reserves the

right to delay, modify, or cancel any

marine event within the regulated area

as conditions or circumstances require.

(2) No person or vessel may enter,

transit, or remain in a closed sector of

the regulated area unless participating

in the event or unless authorized by the

Coast Guard patrol commander.

Spectator vessels are required to remain

out of all closed sectors within the

regulated area, in accordance with the

established enforcement schedule.

Commercial towing vessels will not be

allowed to operate in any closed sector

unless expressly authorized by the

patrol commander.

(3) Vessels awaiting passage through

the regulated area will be required to

wait outside established sectors when

closed. A Coast Guard patrol vessel will

be stationed along each boundary of the

closed sectors. Vessels will not be

allowed to transit, enter, cross, or

remain in sectors when closed.

(4) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Forces

Long Island Sound or the designated onscene patrol personnel. On-scene patrol

personnel include commissioned,

warrant, and petty officers of the U.S.

Coast Guard. Upon hearing five or more

blasts from a U.S. Coast Guard vessel,

the operator of a vessel shall stop

immediately, then proceed as directed.

Members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary

may be present to inform vessel

operators of this regulation and other

applicable laws.

(c) Effective period. This section is

effective from 8 a.m. Thursday, July 1,

1995, to 8 p.m. Monday, July 10, 1995,

unless otherwise specified in the Coast

Guard Local Notice to Mariners and a

notice in the Federal Register.

Dated: April 18, 1995.

J. L. Linnon,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95–10537 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Chapter I

[FRL–5199–3]

Notice of Open Meeting of the

Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory

Committee for Small Nonroad Engine

Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: FACA committee meeting—

negotiated rulemaking on small nonroad

engine regulations.

SUMMARY: As required by section 9(a)(2)

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463), EPA is giving notice of

the next meeting of the Advisory

Committee to negotiate a rule to reduce

air emissions from small nonroad

engines. Small nonroad engines are

engines which are spark ignited gasoline

engines less than 25 horsepower. The

meeting is open to the public without

advance registration. Agenda items for

the meeting include reports from the

task groups and discussions of the

emissions standard and standard

structure.

DATES: The committee will meet on May

22, 1995 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,

and on May 23, 1995 from 8:00 a.m. to

4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The location of the meeting

will be the Courtyard by Marriott, 3205

Boardwalk, Ann Arbor, MI 48108;

phone: (313) 995–5900.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Persons needing further information on

the substantive matters of the rule

should contact Lisa Snapp, National

Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory,

2565 Plymouth Rd., Ann Arbor,

Michigan 48105, (313) 668–4200.

Persons needing further information on

committee procedural matters should

call Deborah Dalton, Consensus and

Dispute Resolution Program,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,

(202) 260–5495, or the Committee’s

facilitators, Lucy Moore or John FolkWilliams, Western Network, 616 Don

Gaspar, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87501,

(505) 982–9805.

Dated: April 21, 1995.

Deborah Dalton,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 95–10511 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL–5196–5]

Inspection/Maintenance Flexibility

Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes

revisions to the motor vehicle

Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program

Requirements. EPA announced its intent

to amend the I/M Program Requirements

in December 1994 and held

stakeholders’ meetings on January 24,

1995 and January 31, 1995. This

proposed action would create a second,

less stringent enhanced I/M

performance standard that could be

used in areas that can demonstrate an

ability to meet the 1990 Clean Air Act

deadlines for Reasonable Further

Progress and attainment while

implementing an I/M program that falls

below the originally promulgated

enhanced I/M performance standard.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 20935

Because the new low enhanced I/M

performance standard eliminates the

need for the special enhanced

performance standard for El Paso,

Texas, this proposed action would

repeal that special performance

standard. This proposed action would

also revise the high enhanced I/M

performance standard to include a

visual inspection of the positive

crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve on all

light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks

from model years 1968 to 1971,

inclusive, and of the exhaust gas

recirculation (EGR) valve on all lightduty vehicles and light-duty trucks from

model years 1972 through 1983,

inclusive. The low enhanced

performance standard contains similar

requirements, which are necessary to

ensure full compliance with the Clean

Air Act’s requirement that all federal

performance standards for enhanced I/

M programs be based upon a model

program that includes, at a minimum,

two inspections per subject vehicle: an

emission inspection and a visual

inspection. This proposed action would

also change the waiver cost

requirements by: Extending the deadline

for implementing the minimum

expenditure to qualify for a waiver

specified in the Clean Air Act; allowing

the application of pre-inspection repairs

toward meeting the waiver expenditure

requirements under limited

circumstances; allowing repairs of

primary emission control components

performed by non-technicians to apply

toward the waiver cost requirement; and

removing the bar against issuing

hardship exemptions more than once

per vehicle lifetime. This proposal also

solicits public comment on whether or

not EPA should include revised

regulatory language in its final

rulemaking which change the

population cutoff for basic I/M from

50,000 persons to 200,000 persons.

Lastly, this proposal would make

clarifying amendments to the I/M

requirements for areas undergoing

redesignation.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal must be received no later than

May 15, 1995. A public hearing is

scheduled for May 17, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may

submit written comments (in duplicate

if possible) to Public Docket No. A–95–

08. It is requested that a duplicate copy

be submitted to Eugene J. Tierney at the

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. The docket is

located at the Air Docket, Room M–1500

(6102), Waterside Mall S.W.,

Washington, DC 20460. The public

hearing will be held at the National Fuel

and Vehicle Emission Laboratory at

2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor,

Michigan, Conference Rooms C&D from

10:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m. The docket

may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and

12 noon and between 1:30 p.m. until

3:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying docket

material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene J. Tierney, Office of Mobile

Sources, National Vehicle and Fuel

Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth

Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105.

Telephone (313) 668–4456.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Contents

II. Summary of Proposal

III. Authority

IV. Background of the Proposed Amendments

A. Visual Inspection

B. Enhanced Performance Standards

C. Waivers

D. Redesignation

E. Population Requirements

V. Discussion of Major Issues

A. Emission Impact of the Proposed

Amendments

B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M

Programs

VI. Economic Costs and Benefits

VII. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

B. Public Hearing

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

B. Reporting and Record Keeping

Requirement

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

II. Summary of Proposal

Under the Clean Air Act as amended

in 1990 (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.,

the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) published in the Federal

Register on November 5, 1992 (40 CFR

part 51) rules related to plans for Motor

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/

M) programs (hereafter referred to as the

I/M rule, see 57 FR 52950). EPA is

proposing today to revise this rule to

provide greater flexibility to states

required to implement I/M programs.

Section 182 of the Act was

prescriptive regarding the various

elements that are required as part of an

enhanced I/M performance standard. It

also required that EPA provide states

with flexibility in meeting the

requirement for enhanced or basic I/M

programs. States have requested

additional flexibility in two areas: the

timing of the Act’s mandated minimum

expenditure required to qualify for a

waiver and a lower performance

standard for areas that do not need an

enhanced I/M program as effective as

the one EPA adopted in 1992 to meet

the Act’s Reasonable Further Progress

and attainment demonstration

requirements. (These two programs are

hereafter referred to as low enhanced

and high enhanced performance

standards, respectively.)

EPA is today proposing to establish an

alternate, low enhanced I/M

performance standard for those areas

that can meet the Act’s requirements for

Reasonable Further Progress and

attainment of either the carbon

monoxide (CO) and/or ozone ambient

air quality standards without the

benefits of the high enhanced I/M

performance standard. This low

enhanced performance standard is

designed for areas that are required to

implement enhanced I/M but do not

have a major mobile source component

to the air quality problem or can obtain

adequate emission reductions from

other sources to meet the 15% VOC

emission reduction requirement and

demonstrate attainment. With respect to

states in the northeast ozone transport

region (OTR), EPA believes that the low

enhanced performance standard will

provide needed reductions but still

offers greater flexibility. Areas within

the Northeast OTR are still subject to the

enhanced I/M requirement and OTR

states are required to submit plans for

their nonattainment areas. However

EPA believes that the states are in the

best position to make decisions about

the emphasis placed upon individual

strategies within their borders as long as

emission reduction opportunities

needed for timely attainment are not

irrevocably lost. Moreover, with respect

to interstate pollution within the OTR,

EPA has just oulined a phased

attainment-process among states

contributing to or affected by transport.

See memorandum of March 2, 1995

from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation,

entitled ‘‘Ozone Attainment

Demonstrations’’ (available in the

docket for this rulemaking). The desired

outcome of that process is to reach

consensus on the additional regionwide

and national emission reductions

needed to bring all areas in the OTR into

attainment. EPA believes that the

interstate consultative process provides

the best forum for ascertaining and

requiring those necessary additional

emission reductions. The low enhanced

performance standard meets the Act’s

requirement that it be based on

centralized, annual testing of light duty

cars and trucks, and checks for

tampering and exhaust emissions.

Nevertheless, this standard can be met

with a comprehensive decentralized,

test-and-repair program.

EPA is also proposing modifications

to the requirements related to waivers.

EPA is proposing to extend the deadline
20936 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

for the full implementation of the

minimum expenditure required to be

eligible for a waiver for both basic and

enhanced I/M programs until January

1998. This will allow states additional

time to phase-in the higher expenditures

required by the Act and the I/M rule. In

the interim, a state can establish any

minimum expenditure it chooses, as

long as it accounts for the higher waiver

rates that will occur between now and

1998 in its emission inventory forecasts

in the Reasonable Further Progress plan.

EPA is proposing to allow states to

include qualified repair cost

expenditures that occur within 60 days

of the initial test toward meeting the

minimum waiver expenditure. EPA also

proposes to delete language from the

November 5, 1992 I/M rule barring

motorists from qualifying for more than

one hardship exemption during the

lifetime of a vehicle.

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit, Natural Resource Defense

Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir.

1994), EPA is proposing today to revise

the enhanced I/M performance standard

to correct the omission of a visual check

on pre-1984 vehicles in the high

enhanced performance standard. EPA is

proposing to include in the high

enhanced performance standard a visual

inspection of the positive crankcase

ventilation (PCV) valve on all light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks of model

year 1968 through 1971, inclusive, and

of the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)

valve on all light-duty vehicles and

light-duty trucks of model year 1972

through 1983, inclusive. According to

EPA’s current guidance for estimating

emission reductions from I/M programs,

this change should not significantly

increase the overall emission reduction

requirements that must be met by states

as they design programs to meet the

enhanced I/M performance standard.

EPA is also requesting comment on

whether or not it should change the

minimum population cutoff for basic I/

M programs. Currently, for areas outside

an ozone transport region, basic I/M

programs are required in moderate

ozone and carbon monoxide

nonattainment areas with 1990 Censusdefined population of 50,000 or more.

EPA is considering the possibility of

including revised regulatory language in

the final rulemaking that would increase

this minimum threshold for basic I/M

programs to 200,000 or more. If adopted,

this proposed change would mark a

return to the policy in effect prior to the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on

minimum population requirements for

basic I/M and would provide states

further flexibility in meeting their Clean

Air Act goals.

At the I/M Stakeholders meetings of

January 24 and 31, 1995, EPA indicated

its intent to establish additional I/M

credits for the use of remote sensing.

These credits will be published in a

guidance document, similar to the one

in which credits for retest-based hybrid

programs. ASM2 testing, and mechanic

training and certification were

published. EPA intends to base these

credits on data from the California I/M

Pilot Program in Sacramento, since this

is the most comprehensive study on

remote sensing to date. The agency is

interested in obtaining all available

information on remote sensing.

Therefore, EPA is requesting comments

from anyone with data on the

effectiveness remote sensing and on

ways it might be used to supplement I/

M programs.

Finally, EPA is proposing to clarify

the requirements for basic I/M areas that

are eligible for redesignation to

attainment. On January 5, 1995, EPA

published a final amendment to the I/

M rule to address this issue (60 FR

1738). The rule was not completely

clear with regard to EPA’s intent in the

event that an area that has been

redesignated to attainment experiences

a violation of the standard. EPA does

not believe that a violation

automatically requires the

implementation or upgrade of an I/M

program. EPA believes that, in the event

of a violation, a state should have the

flexibility to select whichever

contingency measures are best suited to

correcting the problem to bring the area

to attainment as quickly as possible. The

rule would continue to require,

however, that such an upgraded basic I/

M program be among the contingency

measures from which the state will

choose. Changes to remove extraneous

language related to the requirements for

an implementation schedule are being

proposed, as well.

III. Authority

Authority for the action proposed in

this notice is granted to EPA by section

182 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42

U.S.C. 7401, et seq.).

IV. Background of the Proposed

Amendments

The features of the enhanced I/M

performance standard model program

are used to generate the minimum

performance target that a state must

meet. When programmed into the most

current version of EPA’s mobile source

emission factor model (hereafter

referred to as the MOBILE model), these

features produce a target emission factor

(emissions per mile of vehicle travel)

which a state’s proposed program must

not exceed to be deemed minimally

acceptable for purposes of state

implementation plan (SIP) approval.

This combination of features, however,

does not constitute a recommended

program design. For example, while the

enhanced I/M performance standard, as

required by the Act, includes annual

vehicle inspections, EPA does not

require or even recommend that state

programs actually adopt annual testing.

In fact, EPA has found biennial testing

to be significantly less expensive while

only marginally less effective at

reducing fleet-wide vehicle emissions.

This marginal loss in benefit can be

easily accommodated by strengthening

some other aspects of the program, for

example, by increasing vehicle

coverage, or increasing the number or

stringency of the tests conducted on

selected classes of vehicles. The use of

the performance standard approach

allows EPA to meet Congress’s dual

statutory requirements that the EPA

develop a performance standard based

on certain statutory features and that the

standard provide states with maximum

flexibility to design I/M programs to

meet local needs.

A. Visual Inspections

During the Fall of 1992, the National

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed

three separate lawsuits against EPA in

the Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit, challenging various

aspects of EPA’s policy on committalbased State Implementation Plans (SIP)

and the I/M rule. Among other things,

NRDC maintained that the enhanced I/

M performance standard had been

purposely weakened to justify a shift

away from the statutory presumption of

annual testing to EPA’s preferred

alternative, biennial testing. NRDC

maintained that this was achieved by

exempting older vehicles from the hightech tailpipe test known as the IM240,

visual inspections, and evaporative

system checks. In responding to NRDC’s

claims, EPA maintained that it set the

enhanced performance standard strict

enough to net significant emission

reductions while also being lenient

enough to provide states with

‘‘continued reasonable flexibility to

fashion effective, reasonable, and fair

programs for the affected consumer,’’ as

required by section 182(a)(2)(B)(ii) of

the Act.

In its May 6, 1994 ruling, the Court of

Appeals found that, ‘‘each of the parties

wins some and loses some on this

issue.’’ NRDC v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125

(D.C. Cir. 1994). Agreeing with EPA, the

court found that the Act did not require
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 20937

EPA to set the most stringent annual

performance standard possible.

Nevertheless, the Court also agreed with

NRDC’s contention that the Act required

EPA to establish an enhanced I/M

performance standard that is ‘‘the

product of two different kinds of

testing,’’ including a visual and an

emission test. Since EPA’s current

enhanced I/M performance standard

only includes one test, a steady-state,

idle-based tailpipe test, on vehicle

model years 1968 through 1983 and

does not require a visual inspection of

those cars, the Court found that the

current standard falls short of

complying with the letter of the Act for

those model years.

To correct this oversight, EPA is today

proposing to amend the high enhanced

I/M performance standard to include a

minimum of two inspections per subject

vehicle. Currently, the only vehicles

included in the high enhanced I/M

performance standard that are not

covered by both tests are light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks from

model years 1968 through 1983. EPA

therefore proposes to amend the current

high enhanced I/M performance

standard to include a visual inspection

for the PCV valve on 1968 through 1971

light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks

up to 8,500 pounds Gross Vehicle

Weight Rating (GVWR) and a visual

inspection of the EGR valve on model

year 1972 through 1983 light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks.

Tampering surveys have shown that

these emission control devices are

tampered or inadequately maintained. A

visual check can identify such problems

and emission reductions can occur on

individual cars as a result of repairs to

these devices.

B. Enhanced Performance Standards

The Court of Appeals ruling on the

issue of performance standard

stringency also clarifies EPA’s authority

to establish any enhanced I/M

performance standard it deems

reasonable, provided it incorporates the

minimally required elements set forth

by Congress in the Act. By requiring

enhanced I/M, Congress gave states one

mechanism to meet the required 15%

reduction of VOC emissions and

demonstrate attainment. Today, EPA is

proposing to give states greater

flexibility in choosing the enhanced I/M

program which will work best with the

15% VOC emission reduction plan.

States may elect to implement low

enhanced I/M, or any program between

low and high enhanced I/M, if that is all

they need to meet the 15% VOC

emission reduction requirement and

attainment demonstration. EPA believes

it is reasonable to require lower

reductions from enhanced I/M where

greater reductions are not needed to

reduce VOC emissions by 15% or for

attainment.

EPA maintains that the Act in no way

bars it from establishing more than one

enhanced I/M performance standard.

EPA believes that precedent exists for

the adoption of multiple enhanced I/M

performance standards, tailored to the

unique needs of certain areas, and

points to the case of El Paso, Texas, for

which a separate, enhanced I/M

performance standard already exists [40

CFR Part 51.351(e)], as evidence of this

interpretation. Today, EPA proposes to

repeal § 51.351(e) which establishes the

El Paso performance standard because

the new low enhanced performance

standard eliminates the need for that

special enhanced performance standard.

C. Waivers

EPA also believes Section 182 (3)(C)

of the Act provides flexibility in its

waiver requirement, by not specifying a

deadline by which such limits are to be

fully implemented and determinative in

the granting of waivers. To get the full

emission reduction potential of an I/M

program element, the statutory waiver

requirement must be in full effect at

least one full inspection cycle prior to

evaluation (so that all subject vehicles

will be held to that standard and found

to comply). Since compliance with the

performance standard is based on a

modeling demonstration comparing the

state’s program to the performance

standard using an initial evaluation date

of January 1, 2000 for ozone

nonattainment areas, and January 1,

2001 for carbon monoxide (CO)

nonattainment areas, EPA believes it is

possible to postpone full

implementation of the enhanced I/M

waiver requirements at least January 1,

1998 without jeopardizing the ability of

states to meet the relevant enhanced I/

M performance standards. EPA requests

comment on whether this or a later date

would be appropriate. EPA also requests

comments as to the timing of

application of the CPI adjustment in

relation to the phase-in of the full

waiver requirements.

Adoption of a January 1, 1998 date for

full implementation of the waiver

requirement would provide states with

the continued flexibility necessary to

allow for biennial testing. Furthermore,

postponing full implementation of the

waiver requirement provides the short

term regulatory relief states have been

requesting since passage of the Act,

while at the same time allowing states

to meet the long-term Clean Air Act

goals. As mentioned previously, EPA

requests comments on the need for and

implications of postponing full

implementation of the waiver

requirements to a date beyond January

1, 1998. EPA hopes that states will use

any additional time to develop programs

to assist vehicle owners in fully

repairing their vehicles; for example, by

subsidizing or co-funding repairs out of

revenues collected in any of a number

of possible ways.

Today’s proposed action would also

allow motorists to apply the cost of preinspection repair of primary emission

control devices toward meeting the

minimum waiver expenditure

requirement provided the repairs were

made within 60 days of the inspection.

When repairs correct obvious emission

control problems, EPA believes it is

appropriate to credit repair costs toward

minimum waiver expenditures,

provided the repairs occur shortly prior

to testing.

Today’s proposed action would limit

the non-technician repairs that can be

applied toward waiver limits to repairs

of primary emission control components

only. However, today’s action also

removes the language limiting

application of non-technician repairs

toward waiver expenditure

requirements to pre-1980 model year

vehicles. The result is that a nontechnician repair to a primary emission

control component may be applied

toward the waiver expenditure

requirement for any model year vehicle.

EPA does not believe there is reason to

distinguish between model years for

non-technician repairs to primary

emission controls. EPA believes it is

appropriate to maintain the distinction

for other types of repairs since these are

not easily diagnosed or performed the

way a missing catalyst, for example,

may be diagnosed and repaired.

Today’s action proposes to remove the

language from the I/M rule which limits

hardship extensions to one time in the

lifetime of a vehicle. EPA believes it is

in the interest of fairness to remove this

limitation, especially in the case of used

car buyers who may otherwise be

deprived of the opportunity for such an

extension because this ‘‘right’’ was

already exercised by a previous owner.

Instead, the proposed action would

allow a vehicle that has already received

a time extension and subsequently

passed the applicable test standards to

be eligible for another time extension.

While EPA acknowledges that there is a

potential for minuscule emission

reduction losses as a result of changing

this limitation, EPA believes that any

potential abuses will be accounted for

by the existing requirements that all

such extensions be tracked by the state,
20938 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

that the state commit to a maximum

waiver limit as part of its SIP for

modeling purposes, and that the state

commit to program modifications

should the actual waiver rate exceed

that committed to in the SIP.

D. Redesignation

Today’s action proposes to clarify the

requirements for basic I/M areas that are

eligible for redesignation to attainment.

EPA believes these changes are

necessary because the amendments to

the I/M rule addressing redesignation,

which were published on January 5,

1995 (60 FR 1738), were not clear with

regard to EPA’s intent in the event that

an area that has been redesignated to

attainment experiences a violation of

the standard. EPA does not believe that

a violation of the standard automatically

requires the state to implement or

upgrade an I/M program. If a violation

or other air quality problem occurs, EPA

believes that the state should have the

flexibility to select the contingency

measure(s) that will most quickly

correct the problem and bring the area

to attainment.

Today’s proposed action also clarifies

the timing of SIP submissions and

program implementation in areas that

select I/M to correct the air quality

problem. SIPs must be submitted 18

months after EPA notifies the state that

a violation has occurred and programs

must be implemented 24 months after

the date of notification. No particular

date is specified as to when a state must

make a selection, but clearly the

selection must be made in time to

submit a plan by the 18 month point

and implement by the 24 month point.

E. Population Requirements

Under current EPA regulations, basic

I/M programs are required in moderate

ozone and carbon monoxide

nonattainment areas with a 1990

Census-defined population of 50,000 or

more. Today’s proposal solicits public

comment on whether revised regulatory

language should be included in the final

rulemaking to increase the minimum

population threshold for basic I/M

programs to 200,000 or more. If adopted,

this proposed change would mark a

return to the policy in effect prior to the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments on

minimum population requirements for

basic I/M. This potential revision is

proposed to grant states further

flexibility in designing I/M programs to

meet local needs, and to allow some

areas with a population of less than

200,000 and without existing I/M

programs to opt-out of I/M completely.

Should public comment favor, or at

least not overwhelmingly oppose, such

a revision, EPA hereby proposes to set

the urbanized area population threshold

at 200,000 or more based on the 1990

Census. Under this proposed change,

any area outside an ozone transport

region classified as moderate ozone or

carbon monoxide nonattainment would

be required to implement a basic I/M

program if its 1990 Census-defined

population was equal to or exceeded

200,000. EPA believes that this change

is authorized by the Act because Section

182 requires implementation in all

moderate ozone nonattainment areas

only of the program contained in pre1990 guidance, which limited basic I/M

applicability to areas with a population

of 200,000 or more. EPA requests

comments on whether this proposed

change would have any implications on

the states continued participation in the

Northeast Ozone Transport Region.

V. Discussion of Major Issues

A. Emission Impact of the Proposed

Amendments

The proposed low enhanced I/M

performance standard was modeled

using MOBILE5a and national average

values for vehicle age mix, mileage

accumulation, and other area and fleet

related variables. Compared to a no I/M

case, the proposed low enhanced

performance standard yields a VOC

emission reduction of about 9.3%, and

a NOx emission reduction of about

1.5%, assuming an evaluation date of

January 1, 2000; assuming a January 1,

2001 evaluation date, the low enhanced

performance standard produces a CO

emission reduction of about 14.2%

compared to the no-I/M case. The low

enhanced performance standard yields a

45% greater reduction in VOC

emissions than the basic performance

standard. Specifically, the basic

performance standard programs yields a

minimum VOC reduction of 6.4%

compared to the minimum 9.3%

reduction from the low enhanced

standard.

The proposed low enhanced I/M

performance standard would allow

ozone nonattainment states to adopt a

biennial decentralized, test-and-repair

program that included idle tailpipe

testing, full visual checks, and pressure

testing of the evaporative emission

control system on all gasoline powered

vehicles. For areas needing to meet the

Act’s requirements for CO, the proposed

low enhanced I/M performance

standard can be met using a biennial,

decentralized test and repair program

including two-speed tailpipe testing and

full visual checks on all gasoline

powered vehicles in conjunction with a

comprehensive training or certification

program for vehicle repair technicians.

If these CO areas also have an ozone

requirement, pressure testing will need

to be added to the scenario.

Alternatively, if test-only, IM240, purge

and pressure testing are adopted, states

would be able to meet the new, low

enhanced standard while exempting

large portions of either the oldest or

newest vehicles from the test.

The changes in the waiver criteria

(e.g., the lower minimum expenditure

for the interim years preceding 1998)

could reduce emission reduction

benefits achieved by I/M programs,

depending on the degree to which

particular states lower the minimum

expenditure in the short term. If states

establish lower minimum expenditures,

waiver rates will be higher than under

the $450 standard. Instead of waiver

rates on the order of 3% of failed

vehicles in enhanced programs, waiver

rates could be as high as 20% or more

if states were to lower the minimum to

$100-$150. Prior to 1998, the first

milestone that states have to meet is the

Act’s 15% reduction in VOC emissions

by November 15, 1996. In states that

require only a lower expenditure, the

higher waiver rates will lower benefits

for this milestone. This loss in emission

reduction needs to be accounted for in

calculating 15% plan benefits. As a

result, states may have to increase

emission reductions from other sources,

such as stationary sources, to make up

for the loss.

B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M

Programs

Only states that choose to utilize the

proposed flexibility will be affected by

today’s proposal. Modifications to a

state’s I/M program as a result of this

rule change may require a SIP revision,

if a plan has already been approved.

Each case is likely to be different,

depending upon the magnitude of the

change. It is important to note that

today’s proposed flexibility in no way

increases the existing burden on states.

States that currently comply, or are in

the process of complying, with the

existing I/M rule would only be affected

by today’s rule if they so choose.

Today’s proposed amendments

represent opportunities for those states

that can meet the criteria set forth in

today’s proposal; under no

circumstances are these proposed

opportunities to be construed as

mandatory obligations.

VI. Economic Costs and Benefits

Today’s proposed revisions provide

states additional flexibility that lessens

rather than increases the potential

burden on states. Furthermore, states are
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 20939

under no obligation, legal or otherwise,

to modify existing plans meeting the

previously applicable requirements as a

result of today’s proposal.

VII. Public Participation

A. Comments and the Public Docket

EPA desires full public participation

in arriving at final decisions in this

Rulemaking action. EPA solicits

comments on all aspects of this proposal

from all parties. Wherever applicable,

full supporting data and detailed

analysis should also be submitted to

allow EPA to make maximum use of the

comments. All comments should be

directed to the Air Docket, Docket No.

A–95–08.

B. Public Hearing

If a hearing is requested, anyone

wishing to present testimony about this

proposal at the public hearing (see

DATES) should, if possible, notify the

contact person (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) at least seven

days prior to the day of the hearing. The

contact person should be given an

estimate of the time required for the

presentation of testimony and

notification of any need for audio/visual

equipment. A sign-up sheet will be

available at the registration table the

morning of the hearing to schedule

those wishing to present testimony who

have not notified the contact earlier.

This testimony will be scheduled on a

first-come, first-serve basis following the

previously scheduled testimony.

EPA requests that approximately 50

copies of the statement or material to be

presented be brought to the hearing for

distribution to the audience. In

addition, EPA would find it helpful to

receive an advanced copy of any

statement or material to be presented at

the hearing at least one week before the

scheduled hearing date. This will give

EPA staff adequate time to review such

material before the hearing. Such

advanced copies should be submitted to

the contact person listed.

The official records of the hearing will

be kept open for 15 days following the

hearing to allow submission of rebuttal

and supplementary testimony. All such

submittals should be directed to the Air

Docket, Docket No. A–95–08 (see

ADDRESSES).

The hearing will be conducted

informally, and technical rules of

evidence will not apply. A written

transcript of the hearing will be placed

in the above docket for review. Anyone

desiring to purchase a copy of the

transcript should make individual

arrangements with the court reporter

recording the proceeding.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

It has been determined that these

proposed amendments to the I/M rule is

a significant regulatory action under the

terms of Executive Order 12866 and are

therefore subject to OMB review. Any

impacts associated with these revisions

do not constitute additional burdens

when compared to the existing I/M

requirements published in the Federal

Register on November 5, 1992 (57 FR

52950).

However, it does not create an annual

effect on the economy of $100 million

or more or otherwise adversely affect

the economy or the environment. It is

not inconsistent with nor does it

interfere with actions by other agencies.

It does not alter budgetary impacts of

entitlements or other programs, and it

does not raise any new or unusual legal

or policy issues.

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping

Requirement

There are no information

requirements in this proposed/final rule

which require the approval of the Office

of Management and Budget under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Administrator certifies that

this proposal will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities and, therefore,

is not subject to the requirement of a

Regulatory Impact Analysis. A small

entity may include a small government

entity or jurisdiction. A small

government jurisdiction is defined as

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,

townships, villages, school districts, or

special districts, with a population of

less than 50,000.’’ This certification is

based on the fact that the I/M areas

impacted by the proposed rulemaking

do not meet the definition of a small

government jurisdiction, that is,

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,

townships, villages, school districts, or

special districts, with a population of

less than 50,000.’’ Furthermore, the

impact created by the proposed action

does not increase the pre-existing

burden which this proposal seeks to

amend.

D. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

where the estimated costs to State, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private

sector, will be $100 million or more.

Under Section 205, EPA must select the

most cost-effective and least

burdensome alternative that achieves

the objective of the rule and is

consistent with statutory requirements.

Section 203 requires EPA to establish a

plan for informing and advising any

small governments that may be

significantly impacted by the rule.

To the extent that the rules being

proposed by this action would impose

mandate as defined in Section 101 of

the Unfunded Mandates Act upon the

state, local, or tribal governments, or the

private sector, as explained above, this

proposed rule is not estimated to

impose costs in excess of $100 million.

Therefore, EPA has not prepared a

statement with respect to budgetary

impacts. As noted above, this rule offers

opportunities to states that would

enable them to lower economic burdens

from those resulting from the currently

existing I/M rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Intergovernmental relations, Lead,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: April 18, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 51 of title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be

amended to read as follows:

PART 51—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 51

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 740l–7671q.

2. Section 51.351 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (b), by

removing and reserving paragraph (e),

and by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to

read as follows:

§ 51.351 Enhanced I/M performance

standards.

(a) 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,
20940 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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.

(b) On-road testing. The performance

standard shall include on-road testing 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) and (g) of this section.

Specific requirements are listed in

§ 51.371 of this subpart.

* * * * *

(e) [Reserved].

* * * * *

(f) High Enhanced Performance

Standard. Except as provided in

paragraph (g) 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 NOx;

(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

NOx;

(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 NOx;

(iv) Emission standards for 1994 and

later light duty vehicles meeting Tier 1

emission standards of 0.70 gpm, 15 gpm

CO, and 1.4 gpm NOX;

(v) Emission standards for 1994 and

later light duty trucks under 6000

pounds GVWR and meeting Tier 1

emission standards of 0.70 gpm, 15 gpm

CO, and 2.0 gpm NOX;

(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, 15 gpm

CO and 2.5 gpm NOX;

(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 (CO2) on vehicles subject

to a steady-state test (as described in

appendix B of this subpart S); and

(ix) Maximum exhaust dilution

measured as no less than 6% CO plus

carbon dioxide (CO2) 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 shall be shown to obtain

the same or lower emission levels as the

model program described in this

paragraph by 2000 for ozone

nonattainment areas and 2001 for CO

nonattainment areas, and for severe and

extreme ozone nonattainment areas, on

each applicable milestone and

attainment deadline, thereafter.

Milestones for NOX shall be the same as

for ozone.

(g) Alternate Low Enhanced I/M

Performance Standard. An area either

not subject to or able to meet the

requirements of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 for Reasonable

Further Progress in 1996 and thereafter,

and the relevant deadlines for

attainment of the ambient air quality

standards for ozone and CO without an

enhanced I/M program meeting the

performance standard described in

paragraph (f) of this section, may select

the alternate low enhanced I/M

performance standard described below

in lieu of the standard described in

paragraph (f). The 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 shall be shown to

obtain the same or lower emission levels

as the model program described in this

paragraph by 2000 for ozone

nonattainment areas and 2001 for CO

nonattainment areas, and for severe and

extreme ozone nonattainment areas, on

each applicable milestone and

attainment deadline, thereafter.

Milestones for NOX shall be the same as

for ozone.

3. Section 51.360 is amended by

revising the introductory text and

paragraph (a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7)

introductory text, (a)(7)(ii), (a)(9) and (b)

to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 82 / Friday, April 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 20941

§ 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) * * *

(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 primary emission control

components performed within 60 days

of the test date.

* * * * *

(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

repairs of primary emission control

components performed by nontechnicians (e.g., owners) to apply

toward 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 must be in full effect no

later than January 1, 1998. 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.

* * * * *

(ii) The revision of the Consumer

Price Index which is most consistent

with the Consumer Price Index for

calendar year 1989 shall be used. The

first Consumer Price Index adjustment

to the minimum $450 waiver

expenditure shall go into effect on

January 1, 1998.

* * * * *

(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.

* * * * *

4. Section 51.372 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) introductory text,

(c)(3) and (c)(4), and paragraph (e) to

read as follows:

§ 51.372. State implementation plan

submissions.

* * * * *

(c) Redesignation requests. Any

nonattainment area that EPA determines

would otherwise qualify for

redesignation from nonattainment to

attainment shall receive full approval of

a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

submittal under Sections 182(a)(2)(B) or

182(b)(4) if the submittal contains the

following elements:

* * * * *

(3) A contingency measure consisting

of a commitment by the Governor or the

Governor’s designee to adopt or

consider adopting regulations to

implement an I/M program to correct a

violation of the ozone or CO standard or

other air quality problem, in accordance

with the provisions of the maintenance

plan.

(4) A commitment that includes an

enforceable schedule for adoption and

implementation of the I/M program, and

appropriate milestones. The schedule

shall include the date for submission of

a SIP meeting all of the requirements of

this subpart. Schedule milestones shall

be listed in months from the date EPA

notifies the state that it is in violation

of the ozone or CO standard or any

earlier date specified in the state plan.

Unless the state, in accordance with the

provisions of the maintenance plan,

chooses not to implement I/M, it must

submit a SIP revision containing an I/M

program no more than 18 months after

notification by EPA.

* * * * *

(e) SIP submittals to correct

violations. SIP submissions required

pursuant to a violation of the ambient

ozone or CO standard (as discussed in

§ 51.372(c)) shall address all of the

requirements of this subpart. The SIP

shall demonstrate that performance

standards in either § 51.351 or § 51.352

shall be met using an evaluation date

(rounded to the nearest January for

carbon monoxide and July for

hydrocarbons) seven years after the date

EPA notifies the state that it is in

violation of the ozone or CO standard or

any earlier date specified in the state

plan. Emission standards for vehicles

subject to an IM240 test may be phased

in during the program but full standards

must be in effect for at least one

complete test cycle before the end of the

5-year period. All other requirements

shall take effect in within 24 months of

the date EPA notifies the state that it is

in violation of the ozone or CO standard

or any earlier date specified in the state

plan. The phase-in allowances of

§ 51.373(c) of this subpart shall not

apply.

[FR Doc. 95–10505 Filed 4–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[ND–001; FRL–5199–8]

Clean Air Act Proposed Interim

Approval, or in the Alternative

Proposed Disapproval, of Operating

Permits Program; State of North

Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes interim

approval of the Operating Permits

Program submitted by the State of North

Dakota for the purpose of complying

with Federal requirements for an

approvable State program to issue

operating permits to all major stationary

sources, and to certain other sources. In

the alternative, EPA proposes

disapproval of the North Dakota

Operating Permits Program if the

corrective action necessary for final

interim PROGRAM approval is not