[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 53 (Monday, March 18, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10962-10968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6235]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[MO-001-1001(b); FRL-5442-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to disapprove revisions to the air pollution 
control State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the state of 
Missouri. The SIP pertains to the St. Louis vehicle inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) program. These revisions require the implementation 
of an enhanced motor vehicle I/M program in the St. Louis

[[Page 10963]]
metropolitan area, i.e., Jefferson, St. Louis, and St. Charles 
counties, and St. Louis city. This proposal is being published to meet 
the EPA's statutory obligation under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Stanley A. Walker, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota 
Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley A. Walker at (913) 551-7494.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The CAA as amended in 1990 (the Act) requires areas that do not 
meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone pollution to 
adopt either a ``basic'' or an ``enhanced'' I/M program, depending on 
the severity of the problem and the population of the area. The Act 
further requires each state, with an area required to have an I/M 
program, to incorporate the I/M requirements into its SIP. Section 
182(b)(4) requires basic I/M programs to be updated and implemented in 
any 1990 Census-defined urbanized area classified as moderate ozone 
nonattainment, e.g., the St. Louis nonattainment area. In order to 
correct deficiencies in its basic program and to obtain greater 
emission reductions (as explained below), Missouri opted to establish 
an enhanced program. The state is required to comply with the I/M 
requirements published in the Federal Register (57 FR 52950) I/M 
Program Requirements (I/M rule) on November 5, 1992, codified at 40 CFR 
Part 51, subpart S, as those requirements relate to basic I/M programs.
    One reason for Missouri's election to develop an enhanced I/M 
program is that section 182 (b)(1)(A) of the CAA requires states, with 
nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above for ozone, to 
develop a plan to reduce areawide volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions from a 1990 baseline by 15 percent. The reduction must 
account for growth in emissions between 1990 and 1996. Missouri, like 
other states, was required to submit the plan by November 15, 1993, and 
reductions were required to be achieved within six years after 
enactment or by November 15, 1996.
    In addition, for areas such as St. Louis, the Act prohibits credit 
toward the 15 percent reduction for basic I/M programs. On May 25, 
1995, Missouri submitted to the EPA a plan to reduce VOC emissions by 
15 percent compared to 1990 VOC emission levels. The plan included 
reasonably available control technology corrections, stationary source 
rules, and an enhanced I/M program. By implementing an enhanced 
program, Missouri could make the required improvements in its existing 
program and gain greater emission reduction benefits which are 
creditable toward the rate-of-progress plan (ROPP).
    The enhanced I/M program can reduce mobile source emissions over 40 
percent; consequently, it plays a vital role in Missouri's ability to 
meet the 15% ROPP. Based on Missouri's ROPP submission, the enhanced 
program accounts for a substantial amount of the necessary 15 percent 
emission reduction. Failure to implement a full enhanced I/M program 
limits the state's ability to meet all the requirements under section 
182 of the Act and to attain the ozone standards.
    Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed the EPA to publish updated 
guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of 
the Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. Based 
on these requirements, the EPA promulgated I/M regulations on November 
5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), codified at 40 CFR 51.350 through 50.373.
    The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs is normally 
based on a high-tech test designed for new technology vehicles (i.e., 
those with closed-loop control and, especially, fuel injected engines), 
including a transient loaded exhaust short test incorporating 
hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
cutpoints; an evaporative system integrity (pressure) test; and an 
evaporative system performance (purge) test. The performance standard 
for basic I/M programs remains the same as it has been since the 
initial I/M policy was established in 1978, pursuant to the 1977 Clean 
Air Act Amendments.
    Although Missouri has submitted an enhanced I/M program, the EPA is 
proposing to act on the submittal with regard to compliance with the 
basic I/M requirements in section 182(b)(4) and 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart 
S, since those are the I/M requirements applicable to St. Louis. 
However, in order to assist the state in developing an enhanced program 
(should it choose to continue pursuit of that program), the EPA's 
review will also include an analysis of the submission as it relates to 
requirements for enhanced I/M.

Background on Missouri's Program

    On January 1, 1984, the state of Missouri implemented a motor 
vehicle I/M program in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The St. Louis 
program is decentralized and jointly administered by the Missouri State 
Highway Patrol and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). 
The St. Louis I/M program was implemented to help reduce ozone and CO 
pollution through testing vehicle emissions and requiring those 
vehicles that have excessive emissions to be repaired.
    The EPA first audited the St. Louis, Missouri, I/M program in 1985. 
The audit found that the St. Louis I/M program experienced a 
significant shortfall in achieving the minimum required VOC emission 
reductions necessary for an acceptable I/M program. As a follow-up to 
the 1985 audit, the EPA conducted a second audit of the St. Louis I/M 
program in 1987. The follow-up audit showed that the state had not made 
sufficient progress toward improving the program. Based on the 
continued low failure rate, an unrepresentative reporting on the 
tampering rate, and an excessive waiver rate, the I/M program again 
failed to achieve a level of emission reductions consistent with the 
minimum emission reduction requirements (MERR).
    Since the St. Louis I/M program did not meet the minimum 
requirements, the EPA requested the state to submit a corrective action 
plan (CAP) to correct the St. Louis I/M program deficiencies. As part 
of the CAP, Missouri implemented computerized BAR-90 type analyzers on 
December 1, 1990.
    The EPA conducted an audit of the revised program in August 1992. 
Despite improvements following the EPA's two previous audits, the St. 
Louis I/M program still had not demonstrated a level of VOC emission 
reductions consistent with the MERR for a basic program. The I/M 
program is an important strategy toward achieving healthful air quality 
in St. Louis. To maximize progress toward that goal, the state of 
Missouri and the EPA believed the most effective approach would be to 
implement a centralized, test-only program including high-tech testing.
    As discussed in the EPA's I/M rule, states such as Missouri were 
required to submit an SIP by November 15, 1992, including a schedule, 
analysis, description, legal authority, and adequate evidence of 
funding and resources for program implementation discussed in section 
51.372 (a)(1)-(a)(8).
    Missouri, however, failed to submit an SIP revision which would 
meet the

[[Page 10964]]
requirements of applicable guidance and regulations for an I/M program. 
Therefore, on January 15, 1993, pursuant to section 179(a) of the CAA, 
the EPA made a finding of failure to submit a plan. As provided by the 
Act, Missouri had 18 months (until July 15, 1994) to submit a complete 
SIP revision or be subject to the sanction provisions identified in 
section 179(b).
    Missouri could not adopt corrections to program deficiencies 
without additional legal authority. Therefore, on May 13, 1994, 
Missouri received legislative authority not only to correct the 
deficiencies identified in the current basic I/M program, but to 
implement a more cost-effective enhanced I/M program (Senate Bill 590). 
With legislative authority to implement the enhanced I/M program, MDNR 
and the EPA began working together to develop a complete SIP revision, 
which was necessary to stop the sanction clock. Although the 18-month 
clock expired, the EPA could not impose sanctions until the effective 
date of a final rulemaking prescribing the order in which the section 
179(b) sanctions were to be applied. The final rulemaking (59 FR 39832) 
on the order of CAA sanctions was published on August 4, 1994, and 
became effective on September 6, 1994.
    On September 1, 1994, Missouri submitted to the EPA a revised SIP 
for an enhanced I/M program. The plan had undergone proper notice and 
public hearing, and was adopted by the Missouri Air Conservation 
Commission (MACC) on August 28, 1994. The revision included a copy of 
the emergency rulemaking filed with the Secretary of State, a letter 
from the Attorney General's Office describing the legal authority for 
the emergency rulemaking, a copy of Senate Bill 590, and a Request for 
Proposal narrative. Through upfront coordination with MDNR, the EPA was 
able to determine that the SIP was complete on September 1, 1994. Thus, 
Missouri was able to avoid sanctions. Subsequent amendments were 
submitted by Missouri on May 25, 1995, in conjunction with the 15% 
ROPP. On June 29, 1995, Missouri submitted additional documentation for 
the I/M SIP. The rule was adopted by the MACC on July 27, 1995. 
However, during the 1995 legislative session, the Missouri legislature 
voted to delete I/M funding for operation of the centralized I/M 
program. Lack of I/M funding severely hinders Missouri's ability to 
implement several key aspects of the program (as explained below). 
Consequently, the EPA is proposing to disapprove Missouri's I/M SIP 
submission.

III. The EPA's Analysis of Missouri's I/M Program Submittal

    As discussed above, sections 182(b)(4), 182(c)(3), 184(b)(1)(A), 
187(a)(6), and 187(b)(1) of the Act require that states adopt and 
implement regulations for a basic or an enhanced I/M program in certain 
areas. The following sections of this notice summarize the requirements 
of the Federal I/M regulations and address whether the elements of the 
state's submittal comply with the Federal rule. Although Missouri opted 
to revise its SIP to implement an enhanced I/M program, the CAA merely 
required the state to submit a plan to correct deficiencies associated 
with the current basic I/M program. As such, the EPA's decision 
regarding the approvability of Missouri's SIP is based solely on the 
criteria for a basic program. However, because Missouri chose to 
correct its basic program by submitting an enhanced program, the EPA 
has also reviewed the submittal for compliance with the requirements of 
an enhanced program. Nonetheless, the deficiencies necessitating the 
proposed disapproval, described below, relate to requirements for a 
basic I/M program. Parties needing more specific information should 
consult the Technical Support Document.

Applicability--40 CFR Section 51.350

    Sections 182(b)(4) of the Act and 40 CFR section 51.350(a) require 
all states classified as moderate ozone nonattainment, and not required 
to implement enhanced I/M, to implement an I/M program no less 
stringent than a basic I/M program. Implementation must occur in the 
nonattainment area.
    The state's submittal contains legal authority and regulations 
necessary to establish the program boundaries for enhanced I/M. The 
program area which includes the St. Louis metropolitan nonattainment 
area, i.e., Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis counties, and St. 
Louis city meets Federal requirements. Therefore, this portion of the 
SIP is approvable.

I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR Sections 51.351 and 51.352

    Section 51.351 contains the performance standard for enhanced I/M 
programs, and section 51.352 contains the performance standard for 
basic programs. As provided in the state submittal, Missouri's program 
design parameters meet the Federal I/M regulations and are approvable. 
The emission levels achieved by the state were modeled using MOBILE5a. 
The modeling demonstration was performed adequately using local 
characteristics and demonstrating that the program design meets the 
minimum enhanced I/M performance standards. Therefore, the SIP meets 
requirements for enhanced I/M programs under section 51.351. In 
addition, the SIP meets the basic I/M requirements under section 
51.352.

Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR Section 51.353

    As required for enhanced programs in the I/M rule, Missouri's 
submittal provides for a centralized, test-only network. The SIP 
includes a discussion regarding program evaluation and includes a 
schedule for the biennial report. As indicated in the SIP, many program 
evaluation aspects will be accomplished by a contractor. However, the 
SIP lacks procedures describing the method by which the evaluation will 
be conducted. Therefore, the SIP does not meet the program evaluation 
requirements in section 51.353 of the I/M rule. However, the program 
evaluation criterion is required for enhanced I/M programs only. 
Therefore, this deficiency is not relevant to the EPA's proposed action 
with respect to the basic I/M requirements.

Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR Section 51.354

    In accord with section 51.354 of the I/M rule, the state must 
provide a description of the resources and personnel to be used in the 
program. According to section 51.372, the state must demonstrate that 
adequate funding and resources for the program are available. Section 
51.372(a)(8) requires that the SIP contain evidence of adequate funding 
and resources to implement all aspects of the program.
    As required, the SIP includes a detailed budget plan which 
describes the source of funds for personnel, program administration, 
program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP also includes a 
description of personnel resources dedicated to overt and covert 
auditing, data analysis, program administration, enforcement, and other 
necessary functions. The description of funding and resources is 
adequate for purposes of section 51.354. However, the SIP does not meet 
the Federal requirements for evidence of adequate tools and resources 
under section 51.372. See the discussion of section 51.372 below for 
more details.

Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR Section 51.355

    The enhanced I/M performance standards assume an annual test

[[Page 10965]]
frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the performance 
standard is achieved. In addition, Missouri must demonstrate that the 
network of stations providing the test services is sufficient to ensure 
short waiting times and short driving distances.
    Missouri's enhanced I/M regulations provide for a biennial test 
frequency which meets the performance standard. However, the SIP lacks 
sufficient evidence that convenient services will be provided to the 
motorist. The state submittal lacks a signed contract or a completed 
Request for Proposal (RFP) that demonstrates the convenience 
requirements, which is required for enhanced I/M programs only, will be 
met. If Missouri chooses to rely on an enhanced I/M program to meet the 
I/M SIP element required by section 182(b)(4) and the ROPP requirement 
of section 182(b)(1), the state must address this requirement. 
Consequently, this portion of the SIP does not meet the Federal 
requirements for an enhanced I/M program. However, this deficiency is 
not relevant to the EPA's proposed action with respect to the basic I/M 
requirements.

Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR Section 51.356

    According to Federal regulations, the SIP needs to include a 
detailed description of the number and types of vehicles to be covered 
by the program, and a description of any special exemptions which will 
be granted by the program.
    Missouri's enhanced I/M legislation requires coverage of 1971 and 
newer light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks up to 8500 pounds gross 
vehicle weight rating which are registered or required to be registered 
in the I/M program area. This level of coverage is approvable because, 
overall, the program design meets the enhanced I/M performance 
standard. Also, Missouri is authorized in its enabling legislation to 
impose fleet testing requirements and requirements for special 
exemptions in accordance with Federal I/M requirements. This portion of 
the SIP is approvable.

Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR Section 51.357

    Consistent with Federal regulation, Missouri's submittal includes a 
description of the test procedures for transient, idle, evaporative 
system purge, evaporative system pressure testing, and a visual 
emission control device inspection. These test procedures conform to 
the EPA approved test procedures detailed in the Federal I/M rule and 
in the EPA document entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test Procedures, Emission 
Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and Equipment 
Specifications,'' EPA-AA-EPSD-I/M-93-1, dated July 1993, and are 
approvable. The state I/M regulation establishes {HC, CO, CO, and 
NOX} pass/fail exhaust standards for all test procedures for each 
applicable model year and vehicle type. The exhaust standards adopted 
by the state conform to the EPA established standards and are 
approvable. The Missouri I/M regulation establishes evaporative purge 
and pressure test standards which conform to the EPA established 
standards and are approvable. The state regulation provides for start-
up standards during the first two years of program implementation. 
However, details of how the program start-up will be accomplished are 
not included, and the SIP submittal indicates they will be provided by 
a contractor. Without a signed contract or an RFP detailing 
implementation of the start-up process, the EPA cannot approve this 
portion of the SIP.

Test Equipment--40 CFR Section 51.358

    Computerized test systems are required for performing any emission 
measurements on subject vehicles. The Federal I/M regulation requires 
Missouri's submittal to include written technical specifications for 
all test equipment used in the program. The specifications describe the 
emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment, the required 
features, and written acceptance testing criteria and procedures. 
Missouri's SIP meets these criteria.

Quality Control--40 CFR Section 51.359

    The state submittal contains a procedure manual and regulations 
which describe and establish quality control measures for the emission 
measurement equipment, recordkeeping requirements, and measures to 
maintain the security of all documents used to establish compliance 
with the inspection requirements. The submittal states that many 
quality control functions will be carried out by a contractor. However, 
the submittal does not contain an adequate description of how the 
contractor will carry out the functions relating to quality control. 
Without a signed contract or RFP detailing these functions, the EPA 
cannot evaluate whether these controls are adequate and cannot 
determine that the state has adequate authority to ensure that these 
functions will be implemented.

Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR Section 51.360

    Missouri's regulation includes provisions which address waiver 
criteria and procedures. The state regulation includes provisions 
regarding cost limits, tampering and warranty-related repairs, quality 
control, and administration. The state regulation requires repairs for 
1981 and newer model year vehicles to be performed by a recognized 
repair technician. The waiver rate has been used in the performance 
standard modeling demonstration and is approvable. The waiver 
provisions outlined in the submittal meet Federal I/M regulations and 
are acceptable. However, the EPA notes that the waiver provision in the 
current operating basic program allows waivers of emission testing for 
persons who receive a low-emission tune-up. This is one of the 
deficiencies the EPA noted in its January 15, 1993, finding that 
Missouri had failed to submit corrections to its basic I/M program. 
Without implementation of the program submitted in September 1, 1994, 
this deficiency has not been corrected.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR Section 51.361

    The Federal regulation requires compliance to be ensured through 
the denial of motor vehicle registration in enhanced I/M programs, 
unless an exception for use of an existing alternative is approved.
    The Missouri SIP commits to a compliance rate of 96 percent which 
was used in the performance standard modeling demonstration and is 
approvable. The submittal includes detailed information concerning the 
registration denial enforcement process which meets Federal I/M 
regulations and is approvable.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR Section 
51.362

    According to the Federal I/M regulation, the enforcement program 
must be audited regularly and must follow effective program management 
practices, including adjustments to improve operations when necessary. 
The lack of adequate oversight was cited as a deficiency in the basic 
program in the January 15, 1993, findings letter described previously.
    The Missouri regulation, procedure manual, and supporting documents 
describe how the enforcement program oversight is quality controlled 
and quality assured. The enforcement program oversight activities 
included in the submittal meet most of the Federal

[[Page 10966]]
I/M regulation requirements. However, the state submittal lacks details 
of how the information management system will be implemented. As 
indicated in the SIP, requirements of this section depend on 
participation from the Missouri Department of Revenue (MDOR) and the 
assigned contractor. The state needs a Memorandum of Understanding with 
MDOR, and a signed contract or an RFP outlining the duties of the 
contractor to meet the requirements of this section. The enforcement 
program oversight activities included in the submittal do not meet the 
Federal I/M requirements and are not approvable. Therefore, the EPA 
cannot approve this portion of the SIP.

Quality Assurance--40 CFR Section 51.363

    The Federal regulation requires the SIP to describe the quality 
assurance program and meet the applicable provision of the rule. 
Missouri's submittal lacks a quality assurance procedural manual and 
supporting documents which describe details and procedures for 
implementing inspector records and equipment audits, as well as 
providing formal training to all state enforcement officials. 
Performance audits of inspectors will consist of both covert and overt 
audits. The SIP indicates many functions of this section are to be 
carried out by a contractor. The SIP states the contractor will be 
responsible for portions of the oversight and enforcement provisions. 
For example, the contractor is to be responsible for developing the 
interactive software that would allow real-time access to all test 
station information. Without a signed contract or an RFP detailing the 
quality assurance program and procedures, the EPA cannot adequately 
evaluate this portion of the SIP. Thus, the EPA cannot approve this 
portion of the SIP.

Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations, and Inspectors--40 CFR 
Section 51.364

    The Federal regulation requires the state to meet applicable 
enforcement provisions. The Federal I/M regulation requires the 
establishment of minimum penalties for violations of program rules.
    The Missouri submittal includes the legal authority to establish 
and impose penalties against stations, contractors, and inspectors. The 
state I/M regulation gives the state auditor the authority to 
temporarily suspend station and inspector registrations immediately 
upon finding a violation. The submittal includes an official opinion 
from the State Attorney General which explains the state constitutional 
impediment to immediate suspension authority, and explains that a 
system is in place to hold a hearing to suspend or revoke a license 
within three business days of finding a violation. The submittal 
includes a description of administrative and judicial procedures 
relevant to the enforcement process. However, as discussed in the SIP, 
a penalty schedule for the inspectors and details on how the contractor 
will impose penalties against the inspectors will be included in the 
contracts between the state and inspection station contractors. Without 
a signed contract or RFP detailing this procedure, the EPA is unable to 
approve this portion of the SIP.

Data Collection--40 CFR Section 51.365

    Accurate data collection is essential to the management, 
evaluation, and enforcement of an I/M program. The narrative in the SIP 
states that data will be collected on each individual test conducted 
and describes the type of data to be collected. The submittal also 
commits to gather and report the results of the quality control checks 
required pursuant to the Federal I/M regulations. However, the SIP 
indicates much of this function will be fulfilled by a contractor, and 
the submittal lacks a description of how the data will be collected. 
Therefore, without an RFP or a signed contract detailing this 
procedure, the EPA cannot approve this portion of the SIP.

Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR Section 51.366

    Data analysis and reporting are required to assist in monitoring 
and evaluating the program by the state and the EPA. The Federal I/M 
regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide 
information and statistics and summarize activities performed.
    The narrative provides for the analysis and reporting of data for 
the testing program, quality assurance program, quality control 
program, and the enforcement program. Again, the SIP indicates much of 
this function will be fulfilled by the contractor and lacks an adequate 
description of how the data will be collected and reported. Therefore, 
without an RFP or a signed contract, the EPA cannot approve this 
portion of the SIP.

Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR Section 
51.367

    The Federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally 
trained and licensed or registered to perform inspections.
    The narrative in the submittal states that all inspectors will 
receive formal training, will be registered by MDNR or the operating 
contractor, and will renew their registration every two years. The 
narrative includes a description of the items that need to be covered 
in the training program. However, the SIP lacks a detailed description 
of the written and hands-on tests and a description of the registration 
process. The narrative states that a contractor will fulfill most of 
the requirement of this section. Therefore, without an RFP or a 
contract specifically detailing how this requirement will be met, the 
EPA is unable to approve this portion of the SIP.

Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR Section 51.368

    The Federal I/M regulation requires the SIP to include public 
information and consumer protection programs.
    Missouri addresses these provisions in the SIP. Missouri must 
develop a public information program which educates the public on I/M, 
state 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 needs to include 
provisions for a challenge mechanism, protection of whistle-blowers, 
and providing assistance to motorists in obtaining warranty-covered 
repairs. The SIP indicates that the requirement of this section will 
primarily be the responsibility of a contractor. However, without an 
RFP or a signed contract between the contractor and MDNR providing an 
adequate description of these programs, the EPA is unable to approve 
this portion of the SIP.

Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR Section 51.369

    As required by Federal regulation, the Missouri submittal needs to 
require the implementation of a technical assistance program which 
includes a hotline service to assist repair technicians, and a method 
of regularly informing the repair facilities of changes in the program, 
training courses, and common repair problems. Missouri lacks a repair 
facility performance monitoring program which is expected to be 
included in the RFP and I/M contract. Also, the monitoring program 
would provide the motorist whose vehicle fails the test a summary of 
local repair facilities performance, would provide regular feedback to 
each facility on its repair performance, and would require the 
submittal of a completed repair form at the time of retest. The 
submittal lacks

[[Page 10967]]
an adequate description of the performance monitoring program design 
and technician training program, and does not meet the criteria 
described in the Federal regulation and is not approvable.

Compliance With Recall Notices--40 CFR Section 51.370

    The Federal regulation requires the states to establish methods to 
ensure that vehicles that are subject to the testing requirements and 
are included in an emission-related recall receive the required repairs 
before completing the emission test or renewing the vehicle 
registration.
    The Missouri regulation provides the legal authority to require 
owners to comply with emission-related recalls before completing the 
emission test or renewing the vehicle registration. The submittal 
includes a commitment to submit an annual report to the EPA which 
includes the information as required by Federal regulation. However, 
the SIP does not include an adequate description of procedures to be 
used to incorporate national database recall information into the state 
inspection database, and does not include quality control methods to 
ensure recall repairs are properly documented and tracked. Therefore, 
the recall compliance program contained in the SIP submittal does not 
meet the Federal requirements and is not approvable.

On-Road Testing--40 CFR Section 51.371

    On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas. Although 
Missouri is not required to implement these on-road requirements, the 
use of either remote sensing devices or roadside pullover (including 
tailpipe emission testing) can increase the program's efficiency. Any 
additional emission reductions achieved would be creditable towards 
Missouri's 15% ROPP. Missouri does have enabling authority to implement 
the on-road testing requirements. This requirement is optional for 
basic I/M areas. Therefore, if Missouri chooses not to include all of 
the on-road testing requirements in the program, it will not affect the 
EPA's proposed action with respect to the basic requirements.

SIP Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR Section 51.372-373

    The Federal regulation requires enhanced I/M programs to meet the 
submission deadline and to be implemented in accord with 40 CFR section 
51.372-373.
    The Missouri submittal included the final state I/M regulations and 
legislative authority to implement the program. The SIP lacks final 
specifications, a final RFP, the contractor's proposal, the signed 
contract between the state and the contractor, procedural documents, 
interagency agreements, memoranda of understanding for program 
implementation, and evidence of adequate funding and resources to 
implement the program.
    Regarding adequate tools and resources, the state must demonstrate 
that adequate funding and resources for the program are available. 
Section 51.372(a)(8) requires that the SIP contain evidence of adequate 
funding and resources to implement all aspects of the program. In 
attempting to meet the aforementioned requirements, some of Missouri's 
test fee or separately assessed per vehicle fee is to be collected, 
placed in a dedicated fund, and used to help finance the program. 
However, legislative action would be required to enable MDNR to use the 
funds for operation of the program. In addition, the Missouri General 
Assembly has specifically deleted funding for operation of the program 
from Missouri's fiscal year 1996 budget. Consequently, the state has 
not demonstrated that adequate funding is available to meet the budget 
plan and carry out other program functions.
    The state submittal does not meet the adequate tools and resources 
requirements set forth in 40 CFR section 51.372.

Conclusion

    As discussed previously in this rulemaking, Missouri does not meet 
the CAA requirements because its SIP submittal does not correct 
deficiencies with respect to the basic I/M program. Currently, the 
program is still operating under the system for which the EPA issued a 
January 15, 1993, findings letter for failure to submit a plan to meet 
MERR. Although the state has submitted a plan in an attempt to correct 
I/M program deficiencies, the state has not demonstrated the I/M 
program includes adequate resources to implement the program. Without 
other supporting documents, such as a signed contract or an RFP 
detailing how other requirement of the EPA's I/M rule will be met, the 
EPA is unable to evaluate and approve the state's submittal.
    EPA Action: The EPA's review of the material indicates that the 
state has not adopted an adequate I/M program in accordance with the 
requirements of the Act. The EPA is proposing to disapprove the 
Missouri SIP revision for an I/M program, which was submitted on 
September 1, 1994. The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues 
discussed in this notice and on other relevant matters. These comments 
will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of 
this notice.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP 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., the 
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, the 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.
    The EPA's disapproval of the state request under section 110 and 
subchapter I, Part D of the CAA does not affect any existing 
requirements applicable to small entities. Any preexisting Federal 
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect its state 
enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the submittal does 
not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, the EPA certifies 
that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove 
existing requirements or impose any new Federal requirement.
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted 
this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

Unfunded Mandates

    Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''),

[[Page 10968]]
signed into law on March 22, 1995, the 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.
    The proposed disapproval would have no impact on tribal governments 
as regulators. The EPA has also determined that the proposed 
disapproval would not impose any mandate on the private sector. 
Existing rules previously approved by the EPA remain in effect and 
would not be impacted by the disapproval. With respect to the impact on 
state and local governments, the state may choose, but is not required, 
to respond to a disapproval by revising and resubmitting the plan. In 
any event, the EPA estimates that the cost to state and local 
government of revising the plan would be less than $100 million in the 
aggregate.
    Therefore, the EPA has determined that this proposed 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, 
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 7, 1996.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-6235 Filed 3-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P