[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 130 (Friday, July 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16599]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 8, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[ME13-1-6321; A-1-FRL-5006-7]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maine; Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance in Androscoggin, Cumberland, 
Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, and York Counties

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve a 
revision to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for Inspection and Maintenance (I/M). 
This SIP revision was submitted to EPA for approval on November 1, 
1993. The submittal was supplemented by a May 26, 1994 letter from the 
Commissioner of the DEP describing the changes and additions Maine is 
making to the I/M program. The SIP includes Chapter 128 of a State rule 
entitled ``Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection Program,'' and additional 
supporting material including authorizing legislation, administrative 
items, and a description of the program being implemented. EPA proposes 
to conditionally approve the SIP revision if the changes and additions 
specified in this proposal are submitted to EPA by July 22, 1994. If a 
full SIP revision addressing the issues discussed in this notice is not 
submitted, EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove Maine's 
submission. This action is being taken under Section 110 of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA).
    EPA proposes conditional approval, under section 110(k)(4) of the 
CAA, of certain commitments made by Maine in its May 26, 1994 letter. 
Maine's commitments pertain to the ``low mileage'' waiver described in 
III.F below. Section 110(k)(4) provides that, if a state fails to 
comply with its commitments by a date certain, but no later than one 
year of EPA approval, EPA's conditional approval will convert to a 
disapproval. The content of the State letter is described in detail in 
this notice.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 8, 1994. Public 
comments on this document are requested and will be considered before 
taking final action on this SIP revision.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Linda M. Murphy, Director, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Bldg. (AAA), Boston, MA 02203. 
Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours, by 
appointment at the Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, 10th 
floor, Boston, MA and the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of 
Environmental Protection, 71 Hospital Street, Augusta, ME 04333.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, (617) 565-3233.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this action, EPA is proposing to 
conditionally approve or, in the alternative, disapprove the Maine I/M 
SIP revision if the State fails to submit an additional SIP correcting 
the deficiencies identified in this notice. EPA proposes to 
conditionally approve the DEP's I/M SIP, which was submitted to EPA for 
approval on November 1, 1993. The SIP includes Chapter 128 of a State 
rule entitled ``Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection Program,'' and 
additional supporting material including authorizing legislation, 
administrative items, and a description of the program being 
implemented. However, because many issues were not adequately addressed 
in the November 1, 1993 submittal, Maine intends to supplement its 
submittal by July 22, 1994. Upon submission, this revised submittal 
will be made part of the material on Maine's enhanced I/M program 
available for public review.
    Maine submitted this SIP revision request to the EPA to satisfy the 
requirements of sections 182(b)(4) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air 
Act, and the federal I/M rule codified at 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S. 
This SIP revision will require vehicle owners to comply with the Maine 
I/M program in the seven Maine moderate ozone nonattainment counties. 
This revision applies to the Maine counties of Androscoggin, 
Cumberland, Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, Sagadahoc, and York. In addition, 
the State is proposing revisions to its regulations and is undergoing 
rulemaking action to address outstanding deficiencies in the rules 
submitted as part of this SIP revision. Once those revised adopted 
rules and a detailed narrative description of the program are submitted 
by Maine, EPA proposes to take final action approving the program if 
the content of that submission is consistent with the requirements of 
the I/M rule. EPA intends to take final action on this rulemaking no 
later than September 15, 1994.
    On May 26, 1994, the State of Maine sent a letter to EPA describing 
how the state intends to address all outstanding issues, and agreed to 
make the required changes. These changes include submission of a 
detailed description of the motorist enforcement program, a description 
of resources to provide staff and equipment to implement the program, 
and assurances that the state will prepare reports and program 
evaluations. These and other changes are described later in this 
notice, and in even greater detail in the technical support document 
(TSD) prepared for this revision.
    If the State of Maine does not address the issues discussed in this 
notice and submit revised rules and a narrative as a complete SIP 
revision to EPA by July 22, 1994, EPA proposes to disapprove the 
November 1, 1993 I/M SIP revision, since the program will not meet the 
requirements of EPA's final rule (57 FR 52950).
    EPA believes it is appropriate to propose in the alternative for 
several reasons. The State is presently on an expedited schedule to 
revise its regulations prior to the July 1, 1994 start-up of the 
inspection and maintenance program. As such, a public hearing was held 
on May 25, 1994 on proposed changes to the Maine I/M regulations. These 
changes will be submitted to EPA no later than July 22, 1994. EPA 
reviewed the proposed changes and received a guarantee from the State 
of Maine to address other outstanding issues with their I/M program 
prior to July 22, 1994. Once these issues are adequately addressed, EPA 
believes the program will fulfill most of the requirements set forth in 
EPA's final I/M rule.
    The only outstanding issue which cannot be resolved in time for the 
July 22, 1994 submission (and which therefore necessitates that the 
final action on this proposal be a conditional approval) is the ``low 
mileage'' waiver (LMW). Conditional approval is necessary because the 
number of vehicles to be granted low mileage exemptions is uncertain 
and EPA is concerned that the use of LMWs may result in the State's 
failing to meet the minimum enhanced I/M performance standard in actual 
practice. By proposing conditional approval on this action, EPA is 
agreeing to defer final, full approval on the revised SIP until the 
State has conducted a study of the impact of the LMW on the I/M 
program's emission reductions. The May 26, 1994 letter commits to 
completing this evaluation no later than January 31, 1995. It should be 
noted that the State's authorizing legislation currently sets a 
deadline of January 15, 1996 for completion of this evaluation, and the 
State's commitment to complete the report by January 31, 1995 
represents a significantly expedited schedule. In the event that the 
above evaluation shows that the State's use of LMWs causes it to fall 
short of the enhanced I/M performance standard in actual practice, the 
State has further committed to securing the necessary legal and 
regulatory changes to eliminate LMWs in time to submit a corrected I/M 
SIP no later than September 1, 1995. Should the State fail to meet the 
above commitments, the conditional approval will convert to a 
disapproval.
    Based on the State's May 26, 1994 letter, EPA expects that the 
outstanding issues will be addressed in a manner consistent with EPA's 
final I/M rule. Therefore, this revision is being proposed under a 
procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking 
action concurrently with the state's procedures for amending its 
regulations. If the proposed revision is substantially changed in areas 
other than those identified in this proposal, EPA will disapprove the 
revision. If no substantial changes are made other than those areas 
cited in this proposal, EPA will publish a Final Rulemaking Notice on 
the revised revision. The final conditional approval by EPA will occur 
only after the amended regulations, as described below, have been 
adopted by Maine and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into 
the SIP.

I. Clean Air Act Requirements

Background

    Maine is part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). Section 
184(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires areas of the OTR defined in EPA's 
final I/M rule (57 FR 52950, November 5, 1992) to adopt and implement 
an inspection and maintenance program meeting EPA's enhanced I/M 
performance standard. In addition, the I/M rule requires that all 
moderate ozone nonattainment areas containing urbanized areas with a 
population greater than 50,000 must implement a program meeting the 
basic I/M performance standard. Maine is affected by these provisions 
in areas of the State. Specifically, under EPA's I/M rule, enhanced I/M 
programs are required in the Portland area, and the Maine portion of 
the Portsmouth, New Hampshire area. Basic I/M would be required in the 
Lewiston-Auburn area. This program is being submitted to fulfill 
Maine's obligations to implement basic and enhanced I/M. Enhanced I/M 
is a more stringent program and includes all of the required components 
of basic I/M.
    By this action, EPA proposes to conditionally approve Maine's 
submittal if the necessary regulatory changes are completed in 
accordance with the I/M rule and submitted by July 22, 1994. If such 
changes are not made and submitted by July 22, 1994, EPA proposes to 
disapprove this action. EPA has reviewed the State submittal against 
the requirements of the Act and EPA's final I/M rule. A summary of 
EPA's analysis is provided below.

II. I/M Regulation General SIP Submittal Requirements

    On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), EPA published a final regulation 
establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to section 182 and 187 of 
the Act. The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S, 
and requires States to submit, by November 15, 1993, an I/M SIP 
revision that includes all necessary legal authority and the items 
specified in 40 CFR 51.350 through 51.373.

III. State Submittal

    On November 1, 1993, and on May 26, 1994, the State of Maine 
submitted an I/M SIP revision for seven ozone nonattainment counties 
classified as moderate or above. A public hearing for the November 1, 
1993 submittal was held on October 26, 1992. As stated in the May 26, 
1994 letter from the DEP, a public hearing also was held on May 25, 
1994. The DEP has pledged to submit revised regulations based on this 
most recent hearing no later than July 22, 1994. EPA submitted comments 
during both of those hearings. In addition, EPA has worked closely with 
the DEP to ensure that the I/M program meets EPA requirements 
identified in the I/M rule.
    The I/M SIP submittal provides for the implementation of enhanced 
I/M in the Maine counties of Androscoggin, Cumberland, Kennebec, Knox, 
Lincoln, Sagadahoc, and York beginning on July 1, 1994. Maine will be 
implementing a biennial, test-only I/M program. Once the changes the 
State committed to in its May 26, 1994 letter have been adopted and 
submitted as an amendment to the November 1, 1993 submission, the 
program will meet the requirements of EPA's performance standard and 
other requirements contained in the federal I/M rule, in the above-
listed counties. Testing will be overseen by the DEP and implemented by 
an I/M contractor. Other aspects of the Maine I/M program include: 
transient testing of 1968 and later light duty vehicles and trucks and 
heavy duty trucks (only the testing of 1981 and newer vehicles is 
considered in evaluating whether the enhanced performance standard is 
met), evaporative emission testing for specified model year vehicles, a 
test fee to ensure adequate resources to implement the program, 
enforcement by registration suspension, a repair effectiveness program, 
requirements for testing convenience, quality assurance, data 
collection, minimum expenditures prior to time extensions and hardship 
waivers, reporting, test equipment and test procedure specifications, 
public information and consumer protection, inspector training and 
certification, penalties based on inspector incompetence, an on-road 
testing program, and emission recall enforcement. A section-by-section 
analysis of the federal I/M rule, and Maine's demonstration of how the 
I/M program meets some of the federal SIP requirements, as well as the 
expected changes to the Maine I/M program described in the May 26, 1994 
letter from the DEP so that the remainder of the federal I/M program 
requirements are met, is provided below.

A. Applicability

    The SIP describes in detail the areas subject to the enhanced I/M 
SIP revision and, consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, includes the legal 
authority necessary to establish program boundaries.
    The Maine I/M regulations and authorizing legislation specify that 
the enhanced I/M program be implemented in the counties described 
above. The Maine I/M program is being implemented in areas beyond those 
required by EPA's rule. Maine is implementing the enhanced I/M program 
throughout each of its moderate ozone nonattainment areas, in part, to 
meet requirements of Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the CAA that requires 
reasonable further progress (RFP). EPA currently is taking separate 
rulemaking action on the portion of the Maine submittal that expands 
the geographical scope of the I/M program to counties not otherwise 
required to adopt I/M. These counties include Kennebec, Knox, Lincoln, 
and Sagadahoc. Although these areas are not required to implement 
enhanced or basic I/M, the State of Maine has requested expedited 
approval for those areas in order to make the resultant emission 
reductions federally enforceable. Therefore, EPA has moved forward to 
approve I/M in these areas as strengthening the SIP in Knox, Kennebec, 
Lincoln, and Sagadahoc Counties. EPA is taking separate action on the 
optional I/M program in the event that EPA takes final action 
disapproving this SIP. However, if the Maine I/M program is 
conditionally approved, the revised SIP requirements will apply, and 
once Maine has fulfilled its commitment regarding the ``low mileage'' 
waiver, EPA will withdraw the separate rulemaking action approving the 
optional I/M program since that action would be superseded by final 
approval of this action.

B. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard

    Today's proposal discusses the I/M program designed, in part, to 
meet the enhanced I/M performance standard for ozone precursors causing 
air quality problems in Maine. Maine's program was designed to meet the 
performance standard for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen 
oxides (NOx). EPA's performance standard establishes an emission 
reduction target that must be met by a program in order for the SIP to 
be approvable. The program, as documented in the SIP, must meet the 
performance standard in actual operation, with provisions for 
appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met.
    The State submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA computer 
model, MOBILE5a, showing that the enhanced performance standard will be 
met in the area. The effect of the allowed program exemptions (for 
example, street rods and stock race cars) have been incorporated into 
the estimate of the program's effectiveness. In addition, in its May 
26, 1994 submittal, the DEP provided a commitment to maintain the level 
of compliance and waivers assumed in the modeling. The DEP also 
committed to providing additional detail on this modeling effort, 
including justification for the modeling inputs assumed, in the revised 
submittal no later than July 22, 1994. The effect of the ``low 
mileage'' waiver was not evaluated in this modeling effort. The reason 
that this action is a conditional approval is to allow the State to 
demonstrate that the effect is negligible, or to fulfill its commitment 
to make necessary legislative and regulatory changes if the ``low 
mileage'' waiver affects the ability of the State to meet the 
performance standard.

C. Network Type and Program Evaluation

    Under the Act and EPA's I/M rule the SIP must include a description 
of the network to be employed, the required legal authority, and, in 
the case of areas making claims for case-by-case equivalency, the 
required demonstration. Also, for enhanced I/M areas, the SIP needs to 
include a description of the evaluation schedule and protocol, the 
sampling methodology, the data collection and analysis system, the 
resources and personnel for evaluation and related details of the 
evaluation program, as well as the legal authority establishing the 
evaluation program.
    Maine has chosen to implement a test-only I/M network program 
design utilizing contractors to implement the inspection portion of the 
program. The State has chosen not to make a demonstration for case-by-
case equivalency for a different network design, and has provided 
evidence that precludes conflicts of interest by the contractor, as 
described in the ``test-only'' requirements in the I/M rule. In its May 
26, 1994 letter, the Maine DEP states, in its SIP revision narrative, 
that it will institute a continuous ongoing evaluation program 
consistent with the federal I/M rule. The results of the evaluation 
program will be reported to EPA on a biennial basis (40 CFR 51.353). In 
addition, Maine commits to developing and submitting the annual reports 
described by 40 CFR 51.366 and will describe the reports in more detail 
in the revised SIP submittal required by July 22, 1994. Legal 
authority, already contained in Maine state law, authorizes the DEP to 
implement this contractor operated, test-only program and conduct the 
program evaluation, as necessary to implement I/M consistent with 
federal requirements. As mentioned earlier, if a program for evaluation 
and submission of annual reports is not completed consistent with the 
I/M rule and submitted to EPA by July 22, 1994, EPA will disapprove 
Maine's SIP revision.

D. Adequate Tools and Resources

    Under the Act and EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a 
description of the resources that will be used for program operation 
and must discuss how the performance standard will be met, including: 
(1) A detailed budget plan describing the source of funds for 
personnel, program administration, program enforcement, purchase of 
necessary equipment (such as vehicles for undercover audits), and for 
other requirements discussed throughout the I/M rule, for the period 
prior to the next biennial self-evaluation required by the federal I/M 
rule, and (2) a description of personnel resources, the number of 
personnel dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data analysis, 
program administration, enforcement, and other necessary functions, and 
the training attendant to each function.
    The current Maine legislation was effective July 12, 1993. The 
legislation authorizes the DEP to collect a fee from the I/M 
contractors to cover the costs of administrating, overseeing, and 
enforcing the I/M program, and provides for allocation of certain 
highway funds for implementation. The May 26, 1994 letter states that 
the DEP will include additional detail on the funding and description 
of resources to be used for implementation of the enhanced I/M program 
in the SIP narrative to be submitted no later than July 22, 1994. In 
order to be conditionally approved, this narrative will describe the 
budget, staffing support, and equipment needed to implement the 
program. The revised regulations provide for up to a $4.00 fee per 
inspection to be used to administer the program. Pursuant to EPA 
comment, the revised regulations are expected to define that the fee be 
no less than $2.00 per test.

E. Test Frequency and Convenience

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a detailed test 
schedule, including the test year selection scheme if testing is other 
than annual. The SIP must also include the legal authority necessary to 
implement and enforce the test frequency requirement and explain how 
the test frequency will be integrated with the enforcement process. In 
addition, in enhanced I/M programs, the SIP needs to demonstrate that 
the network of stations providing testing services is sufficient to 
ensure consumer convenience by providing short waiting times to get a 
test, and short driving distances to get to the test center.
    The Maine SIP revision requires biennial inspections for all 
subject motor vehicles that are at least two years old. The inspections 
will be conducted on odd or even years corresponding to the model year 
of the vehicle and timed with the registration process committed to be 
described in more detail in the July 22, 1994 submittal. The authority 
for enforcing the testing frequency is contained in the revised Maine 
I/M rule expected to be submitted shortly. Short waiting times and 
short driving distances relating to network design are addressed in the 
contract between the State and its contractor, and in the Maine rules. 
The contract requires an average waiting time of 15 minutes per test 
and inspection facility locations which ensure that 85% of the vehicle 
population is within a fifteen mile drive of each facility.

F. Vehicle Coverage

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a detailed description 
of the number and types of vehicles to be covered by the program, and a 
plan for identifying subject vehicles, including vehicles that are 
routinely operated in the area but may not be registered in the area. 
Also, the SIP must include a description of any special exemptions 
which will be granted by the program, and an estimate of the percentage 
and number of vehicles granted such exemptions. Such exemptions need to 
be accounted for in the emission reduction analysis. In addition, the 
SIP needs to include the legal authority necessary to implement and 
enforce the vehicle coverage requirement.
    Maine's I/M program covers all 1968 and newer model year gasoline 
powered light-duty vehicles and light-duty and heavy-duty trucks, 
registered, or required to be registered, within the nonattainment 
areas (only the testing of 1981 and newer vehicles is considered in 
evaluating whether the enhanced performance standard is met). Vehicles 
will be identified through the State Department of Transportation 
vehicle registration database. Special classes, which are exempt from 
the emission testing program, include vehicles weighing more than 
10,000 pounds (GVWR), street rods, stock race cars, and motorcycles. 
Based on information provided by the State, EPA believes such 
exemptions will not prevent the program from achieving the performance 
standard. Additional detail supporting this conclusion will be 
submitted by the state no later than July 22, 1994. Legal authority for 
the vehicle coverage requirement is contained in the Maine I/M rule and 
the July 1993 authorizing legislation. The revised rules committed to 
be submitted by Maine by July 22, 1994 will include a low-mileage 
waiver (LMW) which exempts vehicles driven less than 5000 miles per 
year. The authorizing legislation requires the LMW and also requires 
that the DEP prepare a report on its effect on Maine's ability to meet 
the performance standard. The May 26, 1994 letter from the DEP commits 
to provide the legislature with this information by January 31, 1995, 
and to secure revised legislation if the data shows that Maine cannot 
achieve the performance standard required by EPA's I/M rule. If 
necessary, the DEP also commits to revising its regulation by June 1, 
1995, to hold a public hearing on necessary regulatory changes, and to 
submit to EPA a revised SIP submittal removing the LMW by September 1, 
1995. At present, there is inadequate information for EPA to determine 
how this waiver will affect the performance standard. For this reason, 
EPA proposes to conditionally approve the submission based on the DEP's 
commitments. Failure to meet any of these dates will result in EPA 
disapproval of this action, unless the EPA Regional Administrator 
approves a later date in writing no later than the date of the 
milestone. In no circumstances will the September 1, 1995 date for 
final submittal be revised.

G. Test Procedures and Standards

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of each 
test procedure used. The SIP also must include the rule, ordinance or 
law describing and establishing the test procedures.
    The Maine I/M SIP revision obligates the State to perform transient 
exhaust emission testing using the IM240 driving cycle. In addition, 
the State of Maine has stated that it will follow procedures in 
accordance with EPA's guidance document entitled, ``High-Tech I/M Test 
Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and 
Equipment Specifications'' (Technical Guidance). The State will be 
requiring IM240 tests on 1968 and later model year vehicles in the 
area. This model year coverage complies with EPA's I/M regulation. In 
addition, the State of Maine will require evaporative emission testing 
of the fuel system's integrity and functionality for at least 1981 and 
newer vehicles. The test procedures are set forth with specificity in 
the I/M Request For Proposal (RFP) which the Maine I/M contractor is 
required to abide by. Maine committed to amending these procedures to 
ensure that the latest EPA procedures will be used in the program.

H. Test Equipment

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include written technical 
specifications for all test equipment used in the program and address 
each of the requirements set forth at 40 CFR 51.358. The specifications 
must describe the emission analysis process, the necessary test 
equipment, the required features, and written acceptance testing 
criteria and procedures.
    By its May 26, 1994 letter, Maine guarantees to supplement its I/M 
SIP revision by or before July 22, 1994 so that the Maine I/M SIP 
revision requires the State to use the current written equipment 
specifications contained in EPA's IM240 Guidance and the appendices of 
EPA's I/M rule. The Maine SIP, May 26, 1994 letter, and request for 
proposal address the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 and include 
descriptions of performance features and functional characteristics of 
the computerized test systems. The necessary test equipment, required 
features, and acceptance testing criteria are mandated by the RFP and 
contract.

I. Quality Control

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of quality 
control and recordkeeping procedures. The SIP also must include the 
procedures manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and 
establishing quality control procedures and requirements.
    The Maine I/M SIP narrative and RFP and contract contain 
descriptions and requirements establishing the quality control 
procedures in accordance with the federal I/M rule. As stated in the 
Maine DEP's May 26, 1994 letter, these procedures will be detailed in 
the revised SIP submittal, and will be consistent with EPA guidance. 
These requirements will help ensure that equipment calibrations are 
properly performed and recorded and that the necessary compliance 
document security is maintained. The Maine SIP will obligate the State 
to comply with all specifications for quality control set forth in 
Section 51.359 and Appendix A of the federal I/M rule, and EPA's 
technical guidance.

J. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection

    Under EPA's I/M rule the SIP must include a maximum waiver rate 
expressed as a percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver 
rate is used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling 
analysis. Corrective action must be taken if the waiver rate exceeds 
that estimated in the SIP, or the state must revise the SIP and claim 
emission reductions accordingly. The SIP also must describe the waiver 
criteria and procedures, including cost limits, quality assurance 
methods and measures, and administration. Lastly, the SIP must include 
the necessary legal authority, ordinance(s), or rules to issue waivers, 
set and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out any other 
functions necessary to administer the waiver system, including 
enforcement of the waiver provisions.
    Cost limits for the minimum expenditure waivers must be in 
accordance with the CAA and federal I/M rule. Expenditures for repairs 
of at least $450, adjusted annually for the consumer price index (CPI), 
must be spent in order to qualify for a waiver in the enhanced I/M 
program. Maine has demonstrated that it can meet the enhanced I/M 
performance standard testing only 1981 and newer vehicles. In addition, 
Maine is requiring I/M on vehicles as old as 1968 model year. These 
vehicles will not be included as part of the ``enhanced I/M'' program, 
despite being subject to the same type of emission testing. The testing 
of these additional vehicles will achieve additional emission 
reductions which will be used, in part, as a means of achieving 
additional emission reductions required for RFP, and anticipated by 
Maine to be necessary for attainment. Accordingly, these older vehicles 
will be subject to a lower waiver expenditure of $125, adjusted for 
CPI, prior to receiving a waiver.
    The Maine program includes a waiver rate of 3% of initially failed 
vehicles in the area. These waiver rates are used in the modeling 
demonstration. The DEP has stated in the May 26, 1994 letter, and will 
include in the revised SIP, that if the waiver rates are higher than 
estimated as determined by its program reports, the State will take 
corrective action to address the deficiency. The SIP describes the 
three types of waivers the State will allow including: a minimum 
expenditure, a time extension, and a one-time hardship waiver 
provisions. These issues are dealt with in a manner consistent with the 
federal I/M rule. The proper criteria, procedures, quality assurance 
and administration regarding the issuance of waivers, consistent with 
EPA's I/M rule, will be ensured by the DEP and its contractors and are 
committed to be detailed in the SIP narrative, promised to be submitted 
by July 22, 1994.

K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must provide information concerning 
motorist enforcement, including: (1) A description of the existing 
compliance mechanism if it will continue to be used for this program, 
and the demonstration that it is as effective or more effective than 
registration-denial enforcement; (2) an identification of the agencies 
responsible for performing each of the applicable activities in this 
section; (3) a description of, and accounting for, all classes of 
exempt vehicles; and (4) a description of the plan for testing fleet 
vehicles, rental car fleets, leased vehicles, and any other special 
classes of subject vehicles, such as those operated (but not 
necessarily registered) in the program area. Also, the SIP must include 
a determination of the current compliance rate based on a study of the 
system including an estimate of compliance losses due to loopholes, 
counterfeiting, and unregistered vehicles. Estimates of the effect of 
closing such loopholes and otherwise improving the enforcement 
mechanism must be supported with detailed analyses. In addition, the 
SIP needs to include the legal authority to implement and enforce the 
program. Lastly, the SIP must include a commitment to an enforcement 
level and minimum compliance level used for modeling purposes and to be 
maintained, at a minimum, in practice.
    The State of Maine has chosen to use a program of registration 
suspension whereby subsequent registration is denied to anyone who 
fails to meet emission testing requirements. The motorist compliance 
enforcement program will be implemented primarily by the Maine Bureau 
of Motor Vehicles (BMV). The enforcement strategy is described in 
Maine's May 26, 1994 letter, and more detail will be provided in the 
revised SIP. The enforcement strategy is designed to ensure a 90 
percent compliance rate for all vehicles within 4 months of the 
compliance deadline. As described in the May 26, 1994 letter, this will 
be accomplished by a computer matching program that will identify 
registered vehicles tested prior to registration, as well as those 
receiving their emission inspection within a specified period after 
registering. Those not receiving the emissions test will be notified of 
such failure, and put on notice that their registration will be 
suspended if they do not comply. Those that still fail to comply will 
either receive a summons to appear in court, or be subject to 
confiscation of their license plate by BMV personnel who would 
physically remove the plate from the vehicle. In addition, the Maine 
legislation authorizing I/M provides that vehicles operating with a 
suspended registration must be fined at least $450.
    The only classes of vehicles exempt from this program are described 
above under vehicle coverage. Fleet vehicles, rental car fleets, and 
leased vehicles will be required to meet the same program requirements 
as all other vehicles that receive annual registration. Compliance 
rates with the new program are estimated at 96%. The May 26, 1994 
letter, and the anticipated revised SIP, commit to revise the I/M SIP 
if Maine fails to meet the 96% compliance rate. The legal authority to 
implement and enforce the program are included in the Maine State law 
and in DEP and BMV rules to be supplied by July 22, 1994.

L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of 
enforcement program oversight and information management activities.
    The Maine I/M SIP revision provides for regular auditing of its 
enforcement program and adherence to effective management practices, 
including adjustments to improve the program when necessary. According 
to the May 26, 1994 letter from the DEP, these program oversight and 
information management activities will be described in the July 22, 
1994 SIP narrative, be consistent with the I/M rule, and include: 
establishing written procedures for personnel engaged in I/M document 
handling and processing, supporting an on-line telecommunications 
network for the State's oversight and management requirements, and 
establishing an I/M database to compare to the registration database 
for purposes of to determining program effectiveness.

M. Quality Assurance

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of the 
quality assurance program, and written procedure manuals covering both 
overt and covert performance audits, record audits, and equipment 
audits.
    The May 26, 1994 letter from Maine includes a description of the 
quality assurance program, and a pledge to provide more detail, 
consistent with EPA's I/M rule, in the revised SIP submittal expected 
on or before July 22, 1994. According to that letter, the program will 
include operation and progress reports and overt and covert audits of 
all emission inspectors and emission inspection facilities to be 
conducted by the DEP. Written procedures and techniques for overt and 
covert performance, record, and equipment audits will be provided to 
auditors and updated as needed. The July 22, 1994 submission will also 
include a commitment to a minimum level of activity for overt and 
covert audits, as required by the federal I/M rule.

N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a penalty schedule and 
legal authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines; 
station and inspector, license suspension, and revocations. In the case 
of state constitutional impediments precluding immediate authority to 
suspend licenses, the state Attorney General shall furnish an official 
opinion within the SIP explaining the constitutional impediment as well 
as relevant case law. The SIP also must describe the administrative and 
judicial procedures and responsibilities relevant to the enforcement 
process, including the agencies, courts, and jurisdictions involved; 
personnel to prosecute and adjudicate cases; and other aspects of the 
enforcement of the program requirements, the resources to be allocated 
to the enforcement function, and the source of those funds. In states 
that are without immediate suspension authority, the SIP must 
demonstrate that sufficient resources, personnel, and systems are in 
place to meet the three-day case management requirement for violations 
that directly affect emission reductions.
    The Maine I/M SIP revision includes specific penalties in its 
enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors in accordance 
with the federal I/M rule. Based on its May 26, 1994 letter, Maine 
intends to revise its SIP submittal by July 22, 1994, to include the 
State's enforcement procedures that can be pursued through contractual 
or regulatory action. The DEP also will address the authority to 
immediately suspend a station inspector for violations that directly 
affect emission reduction benefits. Authority for establishing and 
imposing penalties, civil fines, license suspension, and revocations 
are contained in the awarded contract. The DEP is planning to assign 
employees to covert and overt auditing and commit additional resources 
required for enforcement oversight provided by the contractor. These 
audits and oversight functions will be funded by the inspection fee. 
Final approval of the SIP will be dependent upon this information being 
submitted consistent with EPA's I/M rule.

O. Data Analysis and Reporting

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must describe the types of data to be 
collected.
    The Maine I/M SIP provides for collecting test data to link 
specific test results to specific vehicles, I/M program registrants, 
test sites, and inspectors. The SIP lists the specific types of test 
data and quality control data which will be collected. As outlined 
above and described in the May 26, 1994 letter, the data will be used 
to generate reports concerning test data, quality assurance, quality 
control, enforcement, as well as necessary changes and identified 
weaknesses in the program. The state has also committed to collecting 
all data necessary for the quality assurance and enforcement reports. 
These reports will be described in more detail in the revised SIP 
submittal expected on or before July 22, 1994. Final approval of the 
SIP will be dependent upon this information being submitted consistent 
with EPA's I/M rule.

P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a description of the 
training program, the written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or 
certification process.
    The May 26, 1994 letter from the DEP provides some detail on the 
inspector training program. The Maine revised I/M SIP will provide for 
implementation of training, certification, and refresher programs for 
emission inspectors. The revised SIP will describe this program and 
curriculum including written and hands-on testing at least once every 
two years. All inspectors will be required to be certified to inspect 
vehicles in the Maine I/M program.

Q. Improving Repair Effectiveness

    Under EPA's I/M rule, 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 of this section for enhanced I/M programs, and 
a description of the repair technician training resources available in 
the community.
    In the May 26, 1994 letter, Maine commits to providing additional 
detail and a description of the technical assistance, performance 
monitoring and repair technician training programs to be implemented. 
The SIP revision provides for regularly informing repair facilities 
about changes to the inspection program, training course schedules, 
common problems, and potential solutions for particular engine 
families, diagnostic tips, repairs, and other assistance issues. As 
described in the May 26, 1994 letter, the DEP will also ensure that a 
repair technician hotline will be available for repair technicians, and 
issued a request for proposals to serve this purpose. Performance 
monitoring statistics of repair facilities will be provided to 
motorists whose vehicles fail the I/M tests in enhanced I/M areas. The 
State has committed to ensure that adequate repair technician training 
exists by establishing training courses at technical schools in the 
area, and has secured necessary funding under the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act. Further, the May 26, 1994 letter states 
that the revised SIP will include a detailed public information and 
consumer protection plan consistent with the requirements of EPA's I/M 
at section 51.368.

R. Compliance With Recall Notices

    Under EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must describe, for enhanced I/M 
programs, the procedures used to incorporate the vehicle recall lists 
provided into the inspection or registration database, the quality 
control methods used to insure that recall repairs are properly 
documented and tracked, and the method (inspection failure or 
registration denial) used to enforce the recall requirements.
    The revised Maine I/M SIP will ensure that vehicles subject to 
enhanced I/M programs, that are included in either a voluntary emission 
recall or a remedial plan determination pursuant to the CAA, have had 
the appropriate repairs made prior to the inspection. The contractor 
will identify vehicles that have not completed recall repairs by 
electronic means. Motorists with unresolved recall notices will be 
required to show proof of compliance or will be denied the opportunity 
for inspection. The rules recently revised by Maine address this issue, 
and will be submitted on or before July 22, 1994. These rules have 
undergone public comment at the State level, and are being adopted.

S. On-Road Testing

    Under the Act and EPA's I/M rule, the SIP must include a detailed 
description of the on-road testing program required in enhanced I/M 
areas, including the types of testing, test limits and criteria, the 
number of vehicles (the percentage of the fleet) to be tested, the 
number of employees to be dedicated to the on-road testing effort, the 
methods for collecting, analyzing, utilizing, and reporting the results 
of on-road testing and, the portion of the program budget to be 
dedicated to on-road testing. Also, the SIP must include the legal 
authority necessary to implement the on-road testing program, including 
the authority to enforce off-cycle inspection and repair requirements. 
In addition, emission reduction credit for on-road testing programs can 
only be granted for a program designed to obtain significant emission 
reductions over and above those predicted to be achieved by other 
aspects of the I/M program. The SIP needs to include technical support 
for the claimed additional emission reductions.
    Maine has stated that in the revised I/M SIP to be submitted by 
July 22, 1994, it will include a detailed description of its on-road 
testing program. The testing program will include 0.5% of the subject 
vehicles. Vehicles with emission readings measured by remote sensing 
devices exceeding limits defined in the revised rules will be required 
to obtain an out-of-cycle inspection at a vehicle emission inspection 
facility. This program will be staffed by a State contractor and 
overseen by the DEP. Data collection and reporting will be done using 
the general record-keeping and reporting provisions of the I/M program. 
The legal authority for this program is contained in the Maine I/M rule 
and the authorizing legislation. The State did not include additional 
modeling credit for this portion of the program in the modeling 
demonstrating that EPA's performance standard was met.

T. Concluding Statement

    A more detailed analysis of the State's submittal and how it meets 
the federal requirements is contained in the EPA's technical support 
document prepared for this action. The TSD is available from the EPA 
New England Regional office listed above. The criteria used to review 
the submitted SIP revision are based on the requirements set forth in 
Section 182 of the CAA and in the federal I/M regulations. Based on 
these requirements, EPA developed a detailed I/M approvability 
checklist to be used nationally to determine if I/M programs meet the 
requirements of the CAA and the federal I/M rule. The checklist states 
the federal requirements, referenced by section of the rule, whether or 
not the Maine program meets such requirements, and where in the Maine 
SIP submittal the requirements are met. This checklist, the CAA, and 
the federal I/M regulation formed the basis for EPA's technical review. 
EPA has reviewed the Maine I/M SIP revision submitted to the EPA using 
the criteria stated above. The Maine regulations and accompanying 
materials contained in the SIP, as well as the May 26, 1994 commitment 
letter from the State to provide revised rules and a more detailed 
description of the I/M program fulfilling the outstanding requirements 
of the federal I/M rule by July 22, 1994, represent an acceptable plan 
to comply with the I/M requirements and meet all the criteria required 
for EPA to conditionally approve the SIP.

IV. Maine I/M Committal SIP

    On September 27, 1993, (58 FR 50304) EPA proposed conditional 
approval of the Maine I/M committal SIP which was submitted on December 
11, 1992, including a schedule of implementation for the program. At 
that time, EPA believed that conditional approvals were appropriate for 
I/M SIPs because the States could not be expected to begin developing 
an I/M program meeting the requirements of the CAA and the I/M 
regulations until the I/M regulations were adopted as a final rule 
which occurred on November 5, 1992. In a letter dated October 21, 1993, 
the Natural Resource Defense Counsel (NRDC) commented on the proposed 
approval of the committal SIP arguing that States should have submitted 
full I/M SIPs by November 15, 1992. In addition, in a Court order dated 
May 6, 1994, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit concluded, as a result of an NRDC lawsuit concerning 
I/M, that EPA's acceptance of I/M committal SIPs was contrary to law 
and improperly delayed SIP submissions beyond the statutory deadlines. 
Further, the Court directed EPA to review and either approve or 
disapprove by no later than September 15, 1994 all I/M SIPs already 
received. As a result of that court order, EPA is taking this action to 
propose conditional approval of the Maine SIP submitted on November 1, 
1993 and on May 26, 1994, and will not be taking further action on the 
``committal'' I/M SIP submitted by the State of Maine on December 11, 
1992. In the alternative, EPA is proposing disapproval if the July 22, 
1994 submittal is deficient or not made.

Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the Maine I/M program 
initially submitted by the State, on November 1, 1993, in consideration 
of Maine's May 26, 1994 letter calling for a revised SIP submittal by 
July 22, 1994. EPA's proposed conditional approval of the Maine I/M 
program is subject to Maine's fulfillment of the specific conditions 
outlined in this notice. This action also proposes, in the alternative, 
to disapprove the Maine I/M SIP revision if Maine does not adequately 
address the issues articulated in this notice by July 22, 1994.
    Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA proposes conditional 
approval of Maine's submission based on the commitments of the DEP. 
Specifically, by January 31, 1995 the DEP will submit a report 
outlining the effect of the ``low mileage'' waiver to the legislature; 
by June 1, 1995, if necessary, to hold a public hearing on revised 
regulation changes; and by September 1, 1995, if necessary, to submit a 
revised SIP revision removing the ``low mileage'' waiver from the 
regulations. Section 110(k)(4) provides that, if a state fails to 
comply with its commitment, such conditional approval will become a 
disapproval.
    Failure to meet any of these dates will result in EPA disapproval 
of this action, unless the EPA Regional Administrator approves a later 
date in writing no later than the date of the milestone. In no 
circumstances will the September 1, 1995 date for final submittal be 
revised.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this SIP revision will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. (See 46 FR 8709.)
    The EPA requests comments on this proposal including the EPA's 
proposal to conditionally approve the I/M SIP for Maine as meeting the 
requirements of the CAA and federal I/M rule and, in the alternative, 
to disapprove the I/M SIP for Maine. As indicated at the outset of this 
action, the EPA will consider any comments received by August 8, 1994, 
and make the TSD available upon request.
    This action has been classified as a Table 1 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993, 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. A future notice will inform the general public of 
these tables.
    Conditional approvals of SIP submittal under Sections 110 and 301 
subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but 
simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing or has 
committed to impose in the future. Therefore, because the federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, 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 flexibility analysis for a SIP approval would constitute federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of the state actions. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 96 S. Ct. 2518 (1976); 42 
U.S.C. Section 7410(a)(2).
    If EPA issues a final disapproval or if the conditional approval is 
converted to a disapproval under section 110(k), based on the state's 
failure to meet the commitment, it will not affect any existing state 
requirements applicable to small entities. Federal disapproval of the 
state submittal does not affect its state-enforceability. Moreover, 
EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not impose a new federal 
requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies that in the event EPA disapproves 
the state submittal, this disapproval action would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it 
would not remove existing state requirements nor does it substitute a 
new federal requirement.
    It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is 
therefore not subject to OMB review.
    The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the SIP 
revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements of Section 
110(a)(2) (A)-(K) and 110(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and 
EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: June 12, 1994.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 94-16599 Filed 7-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P