Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31199

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor

will it have substantial direct effects on

the States, on the relationship between

the national government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Motor vehicle pollution,

Volatile organic compounds, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

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

Dated: May 29, 2001.

Lynda F. Carroll,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 01–14477 Filed 6–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–144–3–7502; FRL–6995–4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality State Implementation Plans

(SIP); Texas: Motor Vehicle Inspection

and Maintenance (I/M) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the EPA, are proposing

full approval of revisions to the Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

Program for the Houston-Galveston

ozone nonattainment area (HGA)

adopted by the State of Texas. The

revision replaces the two-speed idle test

in Harris County with ASM–2, and

expands the upgraded I/M program to

cover the entire HGA nonattainment

area. The I/M SIP revision is part of the

HGA Attainment Demonstration.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 11, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning

Section, at the EPA Regional Office

listed below. Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–L),

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,

Texas 75202–2733.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78711–3087.

Persons interested in examining these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Sandra G. Rennie, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214)665–7367.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Is the Status of the Current I/M

Program in Texas?

A low-enhanced vehicle I/M program

called the Texas Motorist Choice (TMC)

Program is operating in the Dallas-Fort

Worth, Houston, and El Paso ozone

nonattainment areas. The program

consists of a 2-speed idle test and gas

cap test in Dallas, Tarrant, Harris, and

El Paso counties, the core counties of

the program. In addition, the program

has a remote sensing component to

identify gross polluters that commute

into the core counties from Denton and

Collin Counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth

area, and from seven surrounding

nonattainment counties in the Houston

area. An interim conditional approval

for this program was proposed on

October 3, 1996 (61 FR 51651). An

interim final conditional approval was

published on July 11, 1997 (62 FR

37138). The conditions were removed

from the interim approval on April 23,

1999 (64 FR 19910).

The State submitted an approvable

18-month demonstration on February 8,

1999, as required by the National

Highway System Designation Act of

1995 (NHSDA), Public Law 104–59,

section 348(c)(1). The program was not

fully approved at that time because one

provision of the interim approval

required that the State provide evidence

that the remote sensing program be

effective in identifying the shortfall in

number of vehicles needed to make up

for the lack of a tailpipe testing program

in all the nonattainment counties. The

State began the remote sensing program

in October 1998. Because the State

submitted this I/M SIP revision in

which it expands geographic coverage,

the requirement to cover the shortfall

with remote sensing (the final barrier to

final full approval) is eliminated when

the new I/M tests start in each county

in the HGA.

Why Is the State Submitting This SIP

Revision to the I/M Program?

This I/M SIP revision was submitted

as part of the HGA attainment

demonstration. Modeling has shown

that oxides of nitrogen ( NOX)

reductions are essential to reaching

attainment in the HGA area. As a result,

the Texas Motorist Choice I/M program

has been revised to include

measurement for NOX emissions and to

provide additional NOX emission

reductions by expanding coverage of the

program to all eight counties within the

nonattainment area (Harris, Galveston,

Brazoria, Fort Bend, Montgomery,

Liberty, Waller, and Chambers).

What Did the State Submit?

The I/M SIP revision was submitted

under a Governor’s letter dated

December 20, 2001. The State plans to

replace the 2-speed idle test in the HGA

area with the ASM–2 test and expand

31200 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the testing area to include all eight

nonattainment counties (Harris,

Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend,

Montgomery, Liberty, Waller, and

Chambers). The SIP revision contains a

narrative, rules, modeling, and

supporting documentation as outlined

in the requirements of the Federal I/M

rules.

What Is an ASM–2 Test?

Acceleration Simulation Mode,

known as ASM, operates the vehicle at

a steady load and steady speed on a

treadmill-type device called a

dynamometer. The test more accurately

simulates real world driving conditions

than the current two-speed idle test.

ASM–2 means that the test is performed

in both approved testing modes, i.e.,

operating the vehicle at 50% load at 15

MPH (ASM5015) and then operating the

vehicle at 25% load at 25 MPH

(ASM2525). The test measures exhaust

concentrations for hydrocarbons, carbon

monoxide, and NOX. Pass/fail standards

are based on the chassis model year and

engine displacement.

EPA’s Analysis of Texas’s I/M Program

The EPA reviewed the State’s

proposal against the requirements

contained in the Act and Federal I/M

rules (40 CFR part 51, subpart S). The

submittal was also reviewed for

administrative completeness under

criteria contained in Federal rules (40

CFR part 51, appendix V).

The following analysis addresses how

the State submittal fulfills the

requirements of the Act and the Federal

I/M rules. Only the sections of the rule

for which the State has made changes

are discussed. All other sections of the

I/M SIP remain the same as previously

approved on an interim basis.

Legal authority for the State to

implement the I/M program continues

to be granted by Chapter 382 of the

Texas Health and Safety Code, and

Transportation Code sections 502 and

548.

Section 51.350 Applicability

EPA’s regulations establish the

minimum geographic scope for

nonattainment I/M programs based on

nonattainment classification and area

population. As stated previously, the

Texas Motorist Choice program

currently approved in the SIP does not

include tailpipe testing throughout the

urbanized nonattainment areas. The

vehicle shortfall is covered through a

remote sensing program.

Beginning May 1, 2002, On-Board

Diagnostic (OBD) testing was added to

the low-enhanced, two-speed idle test

currently implemented in Harris

County. The shortfall in vehicle

coverage for the HGA nonattainment

area continues to be made up by remote

sensing within Harris County to identify

gross polluting vehicles commuting in

from the seven surrounding

nonattainment counties. In prior actions

on the Texas I/M SIP, we said the

remote sensing program must prove to

be effective in identifying and obtaining

repairs on the same number of vehicles

that would be brought in if the program

covered the entire urbanized area.

Otherwise, the Texas I/M core program

areas (Harris County, Dallas, and

Tarrant Counties) must be expanded to

include the entire urbanized area. (See

61 FR 51659 and 62 FR 37141.) The

DFW I/M core area is expanded in a SIP

revision dated April 25, 2000. The HGA

I/M core area is being expanded to

include the entire eight county

nonattainment area.

Beginning May 1, 2002, the State

commits to begin vehicle testing in

Harris County utilizing ASM–2 or a

vehicle emissions testing program that

meets SIP emissions reduction

requirements and which is approved by

EPA. This will be in addition to OBD

testing.

Beginning May 1, 2003, the State will

expand the I/M program to include the

nonattainment counties of Galveston,

Brazoria, Fort Bend, and Montgomery.

These additional counties will

transition from performing just safety

inspections plus gas cap pressure testing

to also doing OBD and ASM–2 (or other

EPA approved) testing as described

above.

Beginning May 1, 2004, the State will

expand the I/M program to include the

nonattainment counties of Chambers,

Liberty, and Waller. These additional

counties will transition from doing just

safety inspections plus gas cap pressure

testing, to also doing OBD and ASM–2

(or other EPA approved) testing as

described above.

As an alternative option for

Chambers, Liberty, and Waller Counties,

the State rule allows any or all of these

counties to opt-out of I/M and substitute

an alternative air control strategy. The

county or counties as a group will be

required to submit a resolution to the

State. If acceptable, the State will

submit a SIP revision containing the

resolution to EPA for approval. The

alternative strategy would be based on

modeled reductions of VOC and NOX

equivalent to the reductions that are

modeled for the I/M program. If this

alternative approach is used, the State

commits to continue monitoring

vehicles with remote sensing from nonI/M counties that opted out.

EPA finds this to be an acceptable

approach as long as the implemented I/

M program covers the urbanized area

within the HGA Metropolitan Statistical

Area and does not rely on the remote

sensing program for vehicle coverage.

The State submittal meets the

requirements of § 51.350 of the Federal

I/M regulation for approval.

Section 51.351–352 Low Enhanced I/

M Performance Standard

The State submitted a modeling

demonstration using the EPA computer

model MOBILE5alH and localized

parameters showing that the low

enhanced performance standard can be

met for Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOCs) and Nitrogen Oxides ( NOX) in

the HGA area with the ASM–2 test in

combination with other I/M components

proposed by the State. The low

enhanced performance standard is

established in 40 CFR 51.351(g). The

State modeled with a test and repair

program that assumes a 100 percent

credit for network effectiveness,

although the compliance rate is

estimated at 96 percent. The State

submitted an approvable 18-month

demonstration on February 8, 1999, as

required by the NHSDA that validated

the program credit claimed.

The State submittal meets the

performance standard requirement of

the Federal I/M regulation for approval.

Section 51.354 Adequate Tools and

Resources

Section 382.037(e) and (k), of the

Texas Health and Safety Code,

authorizes the program to charge an

emission inspection fee. The SIP

narrative also describes the budget,

staffing support, and equipment that

will be added to the existing personnel

and budget needed to implement the

program.

The State submittal meets the

adequate tools and resources

requirements of the Federal I/M

regulations for approval.

Section 51.357 Test Procedures and

Standards

Vehicles tested in all area programs

are also subject to an antitampering

check and a gas cap pressure test.

Vehicles that are model year 1996 and

newer will receive an OBD check. In the

HGA I/M program area, vehicles that are

model year 1995 and older will be

subject to an ASM–2 loaded mode

tailpipe test. The State already

committed to implementing OBD testing

on all 1996 and newer vehicles

beginning January 1, 2001, in a SIP

revision that was approved April 23,

1999 (64 FR 19910).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31201

The State submittal meets this

requirement for test procedures and

standards of the Federal I/M rule.

Section 51.358 Test Equipment

The revised I/M SIP describes the

ASM–2 test equipment that will be used

in the HGA I/M program area.

Specifications are included. The

equipment will meet EPA specifications

as contained in ‘‘Acceleration

Simulation Mode Test Procedures,

Emission Standards, Quality Control

Requirements, and Equipment

Specifications’’, (EPA420–P–00–004)

July, 2000.

The OBD testing equipment will meet

all Federal requirements contained in 40

CFR 85.2207–2231 and Society of

Engineers practices in J2962, J1978, and

J1979. The OBD equipment will be

tethered to the emissions analyzer

which will automatically record the

data into a central data collection

system.

The State submittal meets the

requirement for test equipment of the

Federal I/M rule.

Section 51.371 On-Road Testing

Vehicles commuting into Harris

County from the surrounding

nonattainment counties will continue to

be monitored via remote sensing

through April 30, 2003. Starting May 1,

2003, all subject vehicles in Galveston,

Brazoria, Fort Bend, and Montgomery

County will receive a tailpipe emissions

test and/or OBD test, as described in

this proposal and the revised SIP.

Vehicles in Waller, Liberty, and

Chambers counties will continue to be

monitored via remote sensing until

April 30, 2004. Starting May 1, 2004, all

subject vehicles in Waller, Liberty, and

Chambers County will receive a tailpipe

emissions test and/or OBD test, as

described in this proposal and the

revised SIP.

In addition, the State will comply

with the on-road testing requirements

by continuing to use remote sensing to

evaluate the on-road emissions

performance of at least 20,000 vehicles

(or 0.5 percent of the fleet) subject to

emissions testing in all I/M program

areas. All probable high-emitting

vehicles which are registered within

these counties are identified for

compliance follow-up.

The State submittal meets the

requirement for on-road testing of the

Federal I/M rule.

Section 51.373 Implementation

Deadlines

The Texas Motorist Choice Program

met the November 15, 1997, start date

requirement of the NHSDA. The Texas

Motorist Choice Program started in July

1996 in Dallas and Tarrant Counties and

in January 1997 in Harris and El Paso

Counties. It has been operating

continuously since that time.

The revised I/M SIP commits to a

schedule for start-up of ASM–2 testing

activities and OBD testing. All other

aspects of this regulation remain the

same as previously approved on an

interim basis.

The State submittal meets the

compliance with implementation plan

submission requirements of the Federal

I/M regulations for approval.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Our review of this submittal indicates

that the proposed SIP revision meets the

minimum requirements of the Act and

Federal I/M rules. Based upon the

discussion contained in the previous

analysis sections and in the Technical

Support Document accompanying this

notice, we find that the State’s submittal

represents an acceptable approach to the

I/M requirements and meets the

requirements for approval. Therefore,

we are proposing approval of the I/M

SIP revision for HGA.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing, or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any State

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.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This proposed action merely

approves state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to

approve pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4). For the same

reason, this proposed rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This proposed

rule will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

31202 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2001 / Proposed Rules

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

Dated: May 31, 2001.

Gregg A. Cooke,

Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 01–14621 Filed 6–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U