|
|---|
|
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Kentucky; Basic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Publication: Federal Register Agency: Environmental Protection Agency Byline: Patrick M. Tobin Date: 28 July 1995 Subject: American Government  • The Environment
|
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 145 (Friday, July 28, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38700-38707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18513]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[KY77-1-6553a; FRL-5257-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Kentucky; Basic Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted on November 12, 1993, by the Commonwealth of Kentucky,
through the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Cabinet. This revision modifies the implementation of a basic motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Jefferson County,
Kentucky, which will include commuter vehicles in the program.
DATES: This final rule will be effective September 26, 1995 unless
adverse or critical comments are received by August 28, 1995. If the
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Dale
Aspy at the EPA Regional office listed below.
Copies of the documents relative to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24
hours before the visiting day.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC
20460.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Air Programs Branch, 345
Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson County 850 Barrett Avenue,
Suite 205, Louisville, Kentucky 40204.
Division for Air Quality, Department for Environmental Protection,
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, 316 St. Clair
Mall, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale Aspy, Mobile Source Planning
Unit, Regulatory Planning and Development Section, Air Programs Branch,
Air,
[[Page 38701]]
Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
The telephone number is 404/347-3555, extension 4214. Reference file KY
KY77-1-6553.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act) requires that most
ozone nonattainment areas adopt either ``basic'' or ``enhanced'' I/M
programs, depending on the severity of the problem and the population
of the area. The moderate ozone nonattainment areas, plus marginal
ozone areas with existing or previously required I/M programs, fall
under the ``basic'' I/M requirements. Enhanced programs are required in
serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas with 1980
urbanized populations of 200,000 or more.
The 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 on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950,
codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.350-51.373).
The I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for
basic 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
standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and compliance via
diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement; motorist
compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance;
enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors; data
collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and
licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection;
improving repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road
testing; SIP revisions; and implementation deadlines. The performance
standard for basic I/M programs remains the same as it has been since
initial I/M policy was established in 1978, pursuant to the 1977
amendments to the Clean Air Act.
The Commonwealth of Kentucky contains the Louisville urbanized area
portion of the Louisville ozone nonattainment area which is classified
as moderate. The Louisville ozone nonattainment area also includes two
counties in Indiana. Section 51.372(b)(2) of the federal I/M regulation
(codified at 40 CFR 51.372(b)(2)) required affected states to submit
full I/M SIP revisions that met the requirements of the Act to EPA by
November 15, 1993. This notice addresses only the Jefferson County
portion of the nonattainment area.
On November 12, 1993, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the
Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet
submitted to EPA a revised SIP for an improved basic I/M program for
Jefferson County. This submittal included revisions to Regulation 8.01,
Mobile Source Emissions Control; Regulation 8.02, Vehicle Emissions
Testing Procedure; and 8.03, Commuter Vehicle Testing Requirements. The
I/M regulations were adopted by the Department of Planning and
Environmental Management, Air Pollution Control District (APCD) of
Jefferson County, Kentucky on February 17, 1993, and became effective
on March 1, 1993, and on September 14, 1993, for Regulation 8.03. EPA
summarizes the requirements of the Federal I/M regulations as found in
40 CFR 51.350-51.373 and its analysis of the state submittal below.
Parties desiring additional details on the Federal I/M regulation are
referred to the November 5, 1992, Federal Register notice (57 FR 52950)
or 40 CFR 51.350-51.373.
II. EPA's Analysis of the Louisville, Kentucky, Basic I/M Program
As discussed above, section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act requires that
states adopt and implement updated regulations for I/M programs in
moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. The following sections of
this notice summarize the requirements of the Federal I/M regulations
and address whether the elements of the Commonwealth's submittal comply
with the Federal rule.
Applicability--40 CFR 51.350
Section 182(b)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.350(a)(4) require that
any area classified as moderate ozone nonattainment and not required to
implement enhanced I/M under 40 CFR 51.350(a)(1) shall implement basic
I/M in the 1990 Census-defined urbanized nonattainment area. The
urbanized portion of the Louisville nonattainment area includes most,
but not all of Jefferson County, a portion of Bullit County, Kentucky,
and portions of Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana. The population
distribution of these counties is such that an equivalent or greater
population is covered by an I/M program in all of Jefferson County,
Kentucky, and all of Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana. The Kentucky
submittal contains the legal authority and regulations necessary for
the Jefferson County APCD to establish the program boundaries and
operate a basic I/M program. The I/M program for Clark and Floyd
Counties will be submitted by Indiana and will be addressed in a
separate notice.
The program boundaries described in the Kentucky submittal meet the
Federal I/M requirements under section 51.350 and are approvable.
The Federal I/M regulation requires that state programs shall not
lapse prior to the time they are no longer needed. EPA has concluded
that a program that does not lapse prior to the attainment deadline for
each applicable area would meet this requirement. The attainment date
for the Louisville ozone nonattainment area is November 15, 1996, and
the Jefferson County I/M regulations contained in the Kentucky
submittal do not establish an I/M program implementation sunset date
prior to the attainment deadline. EPA therefore concludes that this
section is approvable.
Jefferson County's Regulation 8.03 also subjects owners or
operators of vehicles who routinely or regularly commute to Jefferson
County, Kentucky, for employment or self-employment to the same vehicle
emissions testing program as residents of the county. The employer is
responsible for providing a list of such vehicle owners subject to the
provisions of this regulation. EPA has determined this section of the
submittal is approvable.
Basic I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.352
The basic I/M program must 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) for certain
pollutants. The performance standard shall be established using local
characteristics, such as vehicle mix and local fuel controls, and the
following model I/M program parameters: network type, start date, test
frequency, model year coverage, vehicle type coverage, exhaust emission
test type, emission standards, emission control device,
[[Page 38702]]
evaporative system function checks, stringency, waiver rate, compliance
rate and evaluation date. The emission levels achieved by the state's
program design shall be calculated using the most current version, at
the time of submittal, of the EPA mobile source emission factor model.
At the time of the Kentucky submittal the most current version was
MOBILE5a. Areas shall meet or exceed the performance standard for the
pollutants which cause them to be subject to basic I/M requirements. In
the case of ozone nonattainment areas, the performance standard must be
met for both NOX and VOCs.
The Kentucky submittal includes the following program design
parameters:
network type--centralized, test-only
start date--1984
test frequency--annual
model year coverage--1968 and later
vehicle type coverage--light and heavy duty gasoline powered
vehicles
emission test--Idle
emission standards--1.2 percent CO, 220 ppm HC
emission control device--none
evaporative system checks (pressure)--1984 and later
stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)--20 percent
waiver rate (pre-81/81 and newer)--22 percent/17 percent
compliance rate--99 percent
evaluation date(s)--January 1, 1997
The Jefferson County, Kentucky, program design parameters meet the
Federal I/M regulations and are approvable.
The emission levels achieved by the County were modeled using
MOBILE5a. The modeling demonstration was performed correctly, used
local characteristics and demonstrated that the program design will
exceed the minimum basic I/M performance standard, expressed in gpm,
for VOCs and NOx for each milestone and for the attainment deadline.
The modeling demonstration is approvable.
Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353
Basic I/M programs can be operated in a centralized test-only
format, in a decentralized test and repair, or in any hybrid version as
long as states can demonstrate that the selected program is effective
in achieving the basic I/M performance standard. The APCD will
administer a centralized I/M program in Jefferson County. The enhanced
program evaluation requirements of this section do not pertain to the
Jefferson County program as it is a basic I/M program. The network type
is approvable.
Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354
The Federal regulation requires states to demonstrate that adequate
funding of the program is available. A portion of the test fee or
separately assessed per vehicle fee shall be collected, placed in a
dedicated fund and used to finance the program. Alternative funding
approaches are acceptable if demonstrated that the funding can be
maintained. Reliance on funding from a state or local General Fund is
not acceptable unless doing otherwise would be a violation of the
state's constitution. The SIP shall include a detailed budget plan
which describes the source of funds for personnel, program
administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP
shall also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality
assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement,
public education and assistance and other necessary functions.
The Jefferson County, Kentucky, program is to be funded by direct
reimbursement of the primary contractor from vehicle inspection fees. A
portion of the vehicle inspection fee will be returned to APCD to cover
the cost of program oversight and will be sufficient to cover the
activities of the audit contractor, and the Department of Planning and
Environmental Management. This method meets the Federal regulation and
is approvable. The submittal demonstrates that sufficient funds,
equipment and personnel have been appropriated to meet program
operation requirements. The Commonwealth submittal meets the adequate
tools and resources requirements set forth in the Federal I/M
regulations and is approvable.
Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355
The SIP shall describe the test year selection scheme, how the test
frequency is integrated into the enforcement process and shall include
the legal authority, regulations or contract provisions to implement
and enforce the test frequency. The program shall be designed to
provide convenient service to the motorist by ensuring short wait
times, short driving distances and regular testing hours.
The Jefferson County, Kentucky, I/M regulation provides for an
annual test frequency for all covered vehicles. A vehicle is assigned a
test month. Prior to the assigned test month, the program contractor
notifies the vehicle owner when their vehicles may be tested. The
vehicle may be tested in either the month prior to the assigned month
or in the assigned month. Vehicle owners not complying with the testing
requirement by the end of the assigned month are notified they are in
violation and subject to criminal prosecution. Continued noncompliance
results in a court appearance. A guilty verdict results in a fine and
the mandatory payment of court costs. The assignment of test months
within each test year will be made using a method to be determined by
the program contractor, and is based on the registration month of the
vehicle. The program RFP sets standards for station convenience and
requires a station in each quadrant of Jefferson County. The contract
calls for all lanes to be operational at peak times as defined in the
Request For Proposals (RFP). The contract also calls for additional
lanes to be opened as practical whenever queuing in all operating lanes
at a station exceeds an average of five cars per operating lane. The
submittal meets the requirements for testing frequency and convenience
and is approvable.
Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356
The performance standard for basic I/M programs assumes coverage of
all 1968 and later model year light duty vehicles (LDV) and light duty
trucks (LDT) up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and
includes vehicles operating on all fuel types. Other levels of coverage
may be approved if the necessary emission reductions are achieved.
Vehicles registered or required to be registered within the I/M program
area boundaries and fleets primarily operated within the I/M program
area boundaries and belonging to the covered model years and vehicle
classes comprise the subject vehicles. Fleets may be officially
inspected outside of the normal I/M program test facilities, if such
alternatives are approved by the program administration, but shall be
subject to the same test requirements using the same quality control
standards as non-fleet vehicles and shall be inspected in independent,
test-only facilities, according to the requirements of 40 CFR
51.353(a). Vehicles which are operated on Federal installations located
within an I/M program area shall be tested, regardless of whether the
vehicles are registered in the state or local I/M area.
The Federal I/M regulation requires that the SIP shall include the
legal authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle
coverage requirement, a detailed description of the number and types of
[[Page 38703]]
vehicles to be covered by the program and a plan for how those vehicles
are to be identified including vehicles that are routinely operated in
the area but may not be registered in the area, and a description of
any special exemptions including the percentage and number of vehicles
to be impacted by the exemption.
The Jefferson County I/M regulation requires all vehicles up to
18,000 pounds gross vehicle weight registered in the county except
diesel vehicles, two stroke motorcycles, and vehicles which the APCD
Administrator has determined shall not be tested because of fuel or
engine characteristics, to be tested annually. In addition to light
duty vehicles and light duty trucks, motorcycles, motorhomes, and large
gasoline powered vehicles are subject to testing. Vehicle owners are
notified that the vehicle is required to be tested prior to
registration via a computer matching mechanism. Noncomplying vehicle
owners are issued a Notice of Violation. Regulation 8.03 also requires
commuters into Jefferson County to have their vehicles tested. This
regulation requires all employers to submit a list of employees that
live outside of Jefferson County but commute to their jobs in Jefferson
County. Fleet self testing is allowed only for businesses not involved
in the general repair or sales of vehicles. Quality control
requirements apply equally to both the centralized testing stations and
the fleet self testers. Federally owned vehicles are subject to the
testing requirements. Vehicles from other areas may be tested and the
APCD will also accept test results from other approved testing
programs. Exempted vehicles are taken into account in the performance
standard demonstration.
The Commonwealth's plan for testing fleet vehicles is acceptable
and meets the requirements of the Federal I/M regulation.
Owners of vehicles which are registered in the program area but are
operated more than 250 miles outside of the area for extended periods,
such as with students and military personnel, may apply for an
extension. The vehicle owner must present a sworn affidavit with
documentation that the vehicle will be based at the remote location for
the time period claimed. The vehicle must be presented for testing once
it is returned to Jefferson County. The Kentucky submittal meets the
requirements of this section.
Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR 51.357
Written test procedures and pass/fail standards shall be
established and followed for each model year and vehicle type included
in the program. Test procedures and standards are detailed in 40 CFR
Part 51.357 and in the EPA document entitled ``Recommended I/M Short
Test Procedures For the 1990's: Six Alternatives.''
The Commonwealth's I/M submittal includes a description of the test
procedure used in the Louisville I/M program. The program contract
requires the procedure described in Appendix H, which contains the EPA
short tests mentioned above, to be utilized. Specifically, Test 1
provides for minor modifications to EPA's ``Idle Test Procedure with
Loaded Preconditioning.'' Test 2 contains the same modifications to
EPA's ``Idle Test Procedure.'' The modification is to allow the
Contractor to declare an Initial Test Mode Failure at less than the
overall maximum initial test time of 55 seconds which shall result in
performing the second chance as prescribed in the referenced EPA
document. Regulation 8.02 added the requirement for testing the
evaporative system with the EPA recommended pressure test. The
evaporative system pressure test procedure is the EPA procedure
described in Appendix B, Subpart 5, Part 51.
These test procedures conform to EPA approved test procedures and
are approvable. The I/M regulation for Jefferson County establishes
hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) pass/fail exhaust standards
for all test procedures for each applicable model year and vehicle
type. The exhaust standards adopted by the Commonwealth conform to EPA
established standards and are approvable. The Jefferson County I/M
regulation establishes evaporative pressure test standards which
conform to EPA established standards and are approvable.
Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358
Computerized test systems are required for performing any
measurement on subject vehicles. The Federal I/M regulation requires
that state SIP submittals include written technical specifications for
all test equipment used in the program. The specifications shall
describe the emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment,
the required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and
procedures.
The Jefferson County I/M regulation and RFP require exhaust
analyzers that meet the BAR90 performance specifications. These
specifications require the use of computerized test systems. The
specifications also include performance features and functional
characteristics of the computerized test systems which meet the Federal
I/M regulations and are approvable.
Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359
Quality control measures shall insure that emission measurement
equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection,
calibration records, and control charts are accurately created,
recorded and maintained.
Section 9 of the Jefferson County regulations, the RFP, and the
contract all contain quality control requirements for the emission
measurement equipment, record keeping requirements and measures to
maintain the security of all documents used to establish compliance
with the inspection requirements. A special software encryption
algorithm codes the ``Inspection Number'' field on the test form and
cannot be duplicated without access to the source code. The RFP also
contains the requirement for two mobile audit vans which provide overt
audit capability. They are provided by the contractor, but used by APCD
personnel. This portion of the Kentucky submittal complies with the
quality control requirements set forth in the Federal I/M regulation
and is approvable.
Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360
The Federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver,
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. For
basic I/M programs, an expenditure of at least $75 for pre-81 vehicles
and $200 for 1981 and later vehicles in repairs, is required in order
to qualify for a waiver. Waivers can only be issued after a vehicle has
failed a retest performed after all qualifying repairs have been made.
Any available warranty coverage must be used to obtain repairs before
expenditures can be counted toward the cost limit. Tampering related
repairs shall not be applied toward the cost limit. Repairs must be
appropriate to the cause of the test failure. Repairs for 1980 and
newer model year vehicles must be performed by a recognized repair
technician. The Federal regulation allows for compliance via a
diagnostic inspection after failing a retest on emissions and requires
quality control of waiver issuance. The SIP must set a maximum waiver
rate and must describe corrective action that would be taken if the
waiver rate exceeds that contained in the SIP.
The Jefferson County regulation provides the necessary authority to
[[Page 38704]]
issue waivers, set cost limits, administer and enforce the waiver
system. The submittal commits to a maximum waiver rate as established
in the performance standard demonstration and commits to corrective
action to reduce the waiver rate if this value is exceeded. The
Jefferson County Regulation 8.01 sets a $75 cost limit for pre-81
vehicles and $200 for 1981 and newer vehicles. The regulation includes
provisions which address waiver criteria and procedures, including cost
limits, tampering and warranty related repairs, quality control and
administration. A unique feature of the regulation is any vehicle owner
requesting a waiver must submit the vehicle for review at the APCD
referee test center and must show a measurable improvement in
emissions. A vehicle repair form must be submitted by the owner at that
time, verifying the repairs. The vehicle is diagnosed by APCD personnel
that must be ASE certified Master Mechanics as well as sworn Kentucky
peace officers and EPA Administrator designated representatives for
tampering and fuels. These provisions meet the Federal I/M regulations
requirements and are approvable.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361
The Federal regulation requires that compliance shall be ensured
through the denial of motor vehicle registration in I/M programs.
However, a basic area may use an alternative enforcement mechanism if
it demonstrates that the alternative will be as effective as
registration denial. The SIP shall provide information concerning the
enforcement process, legal authority to implement and enforce the
program, a commitment to a compliance rate to be used for modeling
purposes and to be maintained in practice. The Jefferson County
regulation provides the legal authority to implement a computer
matching enforcement system. The RFP contains a detailed description of
the enforcement process. The contractor is responsible for data
operations. This includes a requirement to update the database every
Monday. A database of tested vehicles is compared to a database of
registered subject vehicles. The testing process for the vehicle owner
begins when the owner is sent a reminder of the testing requirement by
the contractor. Any owner failing to obtain a certificate of compliance
by the end of the assigned month will be sent a notice of violation
(NOV) which states that if the vehicle is brought in for testing that
month no further action will be taken. A legal notice called Notice of
Court Action (NOCA) will be sent by the contractor to the vehicle owner
who fails to have the vehicle tested by the end of the NOV month. This
notice states that, if the owner obtains a certificate of compliance by
a specified cutoff date, a criminal complaint which has already been
prepared in his name, will not be processed by the Jefferson County
District Court. The cutoff date is established by the APCD each month.
When an owner fails to obtain a certificate of compliance by the cutoff
date, a sworn criminal complaint is filed in the Jefferson district
court pursuant to the Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure. The fine
for violations shall not be less than $10 and not more than $50 for the
first offense and not less than $50 or more than $100 for each
subsequent offense. Payment of court costs by a defendant, upon
conviction, shall be mandatory and cannot be probated or suspended.
Jefferson County Regulation 8.03 contains a requirement that people
living outside of the County but working in it must have their vehicles
inspected. The employer is responsible for providing a list of vehicle
owners subject to this requirement. An employer may be fined up to $500
per day per offense. Enforcement against vehicle owners is the same as
for residents of Jefferson County. The submittal commits to maintaining
the compliance rate used in the performance standard demonstration.
This portion of the Kentucky submittal meets the Federal requirements
and is approvable.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362
The Federal I/M regulation requires that the enforcement program
shall be audited regularly and shall follow effective program
management practices, including adjustments to improve operation when
necessary. The SIP shall include quality control and quality assurance
procedures to be used to insure the effective overall performance of
the enforcement system. An information management system shall be
established which will characterize, evaluate and enforce the program.
The Jefferson County regulation provides the legal authority to
implement a computer matching enforcement system. The RFP contains a
detailed description of the enforcement process. The submittal also
describes the process used in auditing the computer matching
enforcement mechanism. Compliance with the vehicle inspection program
is audited by the Jefferson County APCD by routine checks of Kentucky
vehicle registration records against I/M test records. Additionally,
Jefferson County APCD enters all court records of all noncompliance
cases into a computer program to verify appropriate action was taken.
Cases are identified as ultimately receiving the inspection after
appropriate legal action, the vehicle being removed from the owner's
record because of sale or scrappage of vehicle, or no test required
because the vehicle has been removed from use on the road. This portion
of the Kentucky submittal meets the Federal requirements and is
approvable.
Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363
An ongoing quality assurance program shall be implemented to
discover, correct and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the program.
The program shall include covert and overt performance audits of the
inspectors, audits of station and inspector records, equipment audits,
and formal training of all state I/M enforcement officials and
auditors. A description of the quality assurance program which includes
written procedure manuals on the above discussed items must be
submitted as part of the SIP.
The Kentucky submittal includes a quality assurance program which
describes details and procedures for implementing inspector, records,
and equipment audits. Performance audits of inspectors and testing
equipment will be performed by the APCD personnel. Regulation 8,
Sections 8 and 9 require various quality assurance and control
functions be performed to insure correct program operation. These
include overt and covert audits and remote observation of inspection
personnel performing testing. Overt audits may be performed by APCD
personnel at any time, unannounced, during station operation. Covert
audits are required to use a range of vehicles which have been set to
fail the inspection test. The RFP requires the contractor to develop
quality assurance and control procedures as well as operations manuals.
The quality assurance requirements and procedures in the Jefferson
County program meet the Federal I/M regulation requirements and are
approvable.
Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364
Enforcement against licensed stations or contractors, and
inspectors shall include swift, sure, effective, and consistent
penalties for violation of program requirements. The Federal I/M
regulation requires the establishment of minimum penalties for
violations of
[[Page 38705]]
program rules and procedures which can be imposed against stations,
contractors and inspectors. The legal authority for establishing and
imposing penalties, civil fines, license suspensions and revocations
must be included in the SIP. State quality assurance officials shall
have the authority to temporarily suspend station and/or inspector
licenses immediately upon finding a violation that directly affects
emission reduction benefits. The SIP shall describe the administrative
and judicial procedures and responsibilities relevant to the
enforcement process, including which agencies, courts and jurisdictions
are involved, who will prosecute and adjudicate cases and the resources
and sources of those resources which will support this function.
The Kentucky submittal includes the legal authority to establish
and impose penalties against stations, contractors and inspectors. The
Jefferson County enforcement program is staffed by Kentucky peace
officers and immediate action and prosecution is taken when needed. The
Jefferson County APCD auditors can suspend licenses and operations
immediately upon detection of a violation. The RFP establishes fines to
the contractor for failure to perform as required. Inspectors may be
decertified. The Jefferson County I/M program meets the requirements of
this section and is approvable.
Data Collection--40 CFR 51.365
Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation
and enforcement of an I/M program. The Federal I/M regulation requires
data to be gathered on each individual test conducted and on the
results of the quality control checks of test equipment required under
40 CFR 51.359.
Jefferson County Regulation 8.01, Section 7, specifies the
information contained on the inspection form. The RFP requires the
collection of data, and subsequent analysis, on each individual test
conducted and describes the type of data to be collected. The type of
test data collected meets the Federal I/M regulation requirements and
is approvable. The submittal also commits to gather and report the
results of the quality control checks required under 40 CFR 51.359 and
is approvable.
Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR 51.366
Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring
and evaluation of the program by the states and EPA. The Federal I/M
regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide
information and statistics and summarize activities performed for each
of the following programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control
and enforcement. These reports are to be submitted by July and shall
provide statistics for the period of January to December of the
previous year. A biennial report shall be submitted to EPA which
addresses changes in program design, regulations, legal authority,
program procedures and any weaknesses in the program found during the
two year period and how these problems will be or were corrected.
The Jefferson County I/M program RFP provides for the analysis and
reporting of data for the testing program, quality assurance program,
quality control program and the enforcement program. The type of data
to be analyzed and reported meets the Federal I/M regulation
requirements and is approvable. Jefferson County commits to submit all
required reports to EPA. Additionally, Jefferson County APCD commits to
submitting the annual reports on these programs to EPA by July of the
subsequent year. These annual reports will be submitted July 1, 1996,
and each July 1 thereafter, covering the previous test year. The
submittal commits to the reports required under 40 CFR 51.366 and is
approvable.
Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR 51.367
The Federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally
trained and licensed or certified to perform inspections.
The Jefferson County I/M regulation requires all inspectors to
receive formal training, be certified by APCD and renew the
certification every year. The inspector must attend a training course
and pass an examination with at least a score of 80%. The SIP meets the
Federal I/M regulation requirements for inspector training and
certification and is approvable.
Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR 51.368
The Federal I/M regulation requires the SIP to include a public
information and consumer protection program. The RFP includes a public
information program which educates the public on I/M, Commonwealth and
Federal regulations, air quality and the role of motor vehicles in the
air pollution problem and other items as described in the Federal rule.
The consumer protection program includes provisions for a challenge
mechanism, protection of whistle blowers and providing assistance to
motorists in obtaining warranty covered repairs. The public information
and consumer protection programs contained in the SIP submittal meet
the Federal regulations and are approvable.
Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369
Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The
Federal regulation requires states to take steps to ensure that the
capability exists in the repair industry to repair vehicles. The SIP
must include a description of the technical assistance program to be
implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria to be used in
meeting the performance monitoring requirements required in the Federal
regulation and a description of the repair technician training
resources available in the community.
The Jefferson County regulations contain a provision regarding
vehicle repair forms. These must be completed by a professional
mechanic registered with the APCD, or the vehicle owner in cases of
self-repair. A mechanic registered by the APCD must pass an APCD
training course in which air pollution and vehicles are discussed. The
APCD also maintains a hotline staffed by ASE certified master
technicians. Motorists whose vehicles fail the test are given a repair
facility report card. This report card contains information regarding a
facility's success in repairing vehicles and having them pass the
inspection retest. The APCD provides regular feedback to each facility
on their repair performance. The performance monitoring program design
meets the criteria described in the Federal regulation and is
approvable. The repair effectiveness program described in the SIP meets
the Federal regulation and is approvable.
Compliance With Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370
The Federal regulation requires the states to establish methods to
ensure that vehicles that are subject to enhanced I/M and are included
in an emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to
completing the emission test or renewing the vehicle registration.
The Jefferson County nonattainment area is classified as moderate
and therefore not subject to this provision.
On-road Testing--40 CFR 51.371
On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas. The use of
either remote sensing devices (RSD) or roadside pullovers including
tailpipe emission testing can be used to meet the Federal regulations.
The program must
[[Page 38706]]
include on-road testing of 0.5% of the subject fleet or 20,000
vehicles, whichever is less, in the nonattainment area or the I/M
program area. Motorists that have passed an emission test and are found
to be high emitters as a result of a on-road test shall be required to
pass an out-of-cycle test.
The Jefferson County nonattainment area is classified as moderate
and therefore not subject to this provision.
State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR
51.372-373
The Federal regulation requires centralized basic I/M programs to
be fully implemented by January 1, 1994. The Jefferson County I/M
program has been in operation since 1984. The changes required by the
CAA were implemented during 1993. The SIP meets the SIP submission and
implementation deadline requirements set forth in the Federal I/M
regulation.
EPA's review of the material indicates that the Commonwealth has
adopted a basic I/M program in accordance with the requirements of the
Act. EPA is approving the Kentucky SIP revision for a basic I/M program
in Jefferson County, which was submitted on November 12, 1993.
Final Action
The EPA is approving the Jefferson County I/M revision and is
publishing this action without prior proposal because the agency views
this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse public
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register
publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should
adverse or critical comment be filed. This action will be effective
September 26, 1995 unless, by August 28, 1995 adverse or critical
comments are received.
If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
discussed in a subsequent final rule based on the separate proposed
rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period for 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 September 26, 1995.
EPA is approving this revision to the Kentucky SIP for a basic I/M
program. The Agency has reviewed this request for revision of the
Federally-approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990
Amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The Agency has determined that
this action conforms with those requirements.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(1),
petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September
26, 1995. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for purposes
of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607 (b)(2).)
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the
requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866.
Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for a 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.
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 populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not
create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval
does not 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. sections
7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).
Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State,
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan
revision, the State and any local or tribal governments have elected to
adopt the program provided for under Section 182 of the Clean Air Act.
These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform
certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain
duties. To the extent that the rules being approved by this action will
impose any mandate upon the State, local, or tribal governments either
as the owner or operator of a source or as a regulator, or would impose
any mandate upon the private sector, EPA's action will impose no new
requirements; such sources are already subject to these regulations
under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
EPA has also determined that this final action does not include a
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private
sector.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 28, 1995.
Patrick M. Tobin,
Acting Regional Administrator.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 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 S--Kentucky
2. Section 52.920, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(72) to read
as follows:
[[Page 38707]]
Sec. 52.920 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(72) Modifications to the existing basic I/M program in Jefferson
County to implement an anti-tampering check, pressure testing of the
evaporative control system, and testing of commuter vehicles submitted
by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on November 12, 1993.
(i) Incorporation by reference. Regulation 8.01 and 8.02, adopted
on February 17, 1993, and Regulation 8.03 adopted on February 17, 1993.
(ii) Other material. None.
* * *
[FR Doc. 95-18513 Filed 7-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P