[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