[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9460-9467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4825]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO 064-1064; FRL-6236-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Missouri; St. Louis Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 1999.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Wayne Leidwanger at the 
Region VII address. Copies of the state submittal are available at the 
following addresses for inspection during normal business hours: 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Air Planning and 
Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; 
and the Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, Air Docket (6102), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, 
D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan Walker, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 726 Minnesota Avenue, 
Kansas City, Kansas 66101, (913) 551-7494.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Is the Statutory Requirement?

    The CAA, as amended in 1990, requires that certain ozone 
nonattainment areas adopt either ``basic'' or ``enhanced'' I/M 
programs, depending on the severity of the problem and the population 
of the area. An I/M program is a way to check whether the emission 
control system on a vehicle is working correctly and to repair those 
that are not. All new passenger cars and trucks sold in the United 
States must meet stringent pollution standards, but they can only 
retain this low pollution profile if the emission controls and the 
engine are functioning properly. I/M is designed to ensure that 
vehicles stay clean in actual customer use. Through periodic vehicle 
checks and required repairs for vehicles which fail the test, I/M 
encourages proper vehicle maintenance and discourages tampering with 
emission control devices.
    Since the CAA's inception in 1970, Congress has directed the EPA to 
set national ambient air quality standards for the six most common air 
pollutants, one of which includes ozone. The CAA requires these 
standards to be set at levels that protect public health and welfare 
with an adequate margin of safety and without consideration of cost. 
These standards provide information to the American people about 
whether the air in their community is healthful. Also, the standards 
present state and local governments with the targets they must meet to 
achieve clean air. St. Louis is currently designated as a nonattainment 
area with respect to ozone, i.e., an area which has not achieved the 
air quality standard for ozone.
    Moderate ozone nonattainment areas, e.g., St. Louis, fall under the 
``basic'' I/M requirements. However, moderate areas such as St. Louis 
have the option of implementing an enhanced I/M program. The state of 
Missouri chose to implement an ``enhanced'' I/M program in St. Louis as 
part of its overall plan for achieving emission reductions to attain 
the one-hour ozone standard.

II. What Are the I/M requirements?

    Missouri has developed its I/M program not only to meet the 
requirements of section 182(b)(4) of the CAA but also to meet the 
reasonable further progress requirements of section 182. Section 
182(b)(1) of the CAA requires states, with nonattainment areas 
classified as moderate and above for ozone, to develop a plan to reduce 
area-wide volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from a 1990 
baseline by 15 percent. However, the Act prohibits credit toward the 15 
percent reduction for correcting deficiencies in previously established 
basic I/M programs. Missouri decided to pursue an enhanced I/M program 
to help the state meet the 15 percent plan requirements.

[[Page 9461]]

    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 EPA'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 in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.350-
51.373.
    The Federal I/M rule establishes minimum performance standards for 
basic and enhanced I/M programs. The I/M regulations include 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; and on-
road testing.
    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 CAA Amendments.
    Although Missouri has submitted an enhanced I/M program, the EPA is 
proposing at this time 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, because those are the I/M requirements 
applicable to St. Louis. However, in order to assure the state develops 
an enhanced program for the other purposes mentioned above, the EPA's 
review also includes an analysis of the submission as it relates to 
requirements for enhanced I/M, because this will impact the credits 
which Missouri is projecting in its 15 percent rate-of-progress plan 
(ROPP).

III. What Is the Background on Missouri's Program?

    On January 1, 1984, the state of Missouri implemented a basic motor 
vehicle I/M program in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The St. Louis 
program is currently decentralized and is jointly administered by the 
Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources (MDNR).
    The EPA audited the St. Louis, Missouri, I/M program in 1985, 1987, 
and 1992. The audits found that the St. Louis I/M program experienced a 
significant shortfall in achieving the minimum required VOC emission 
reductions necessary for an acceptable basic I/M 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 that includes high-tech 
testing.
    As discussed in the EPA's I/M rule, states such as Missouri were 
required to submit a SIP including a schedule, analysis, description, 
legal authority, and adequate evidence of funding and resources for 
program implementation discussed in Sec. 51.372 (a)(1)-(a)(8). The SIP 
must correct any deficiencies in the current programs.
    Missouri could not adopt corrections to program deficiencies 
without additional legal authority. Therefore, on May 13, 1994, the 
MDNR received legislative authority to correct the deficiencies in the 
current basic I/M program and to implement a more cost-effective, 
enhanced I/M program (Senate Bill 590). The Missouri Air Conservation 
Commission (MACC) adopted the plan to implement enhanced I/M program 
requirements in the St. Louis nonattainment area, and the state 
submitted this SIP on September 1, 1994.
    Supplemental information was submitted by Missouri on May 25, 1995, 
with the 15 percent ROPP. On June 29, 1995, Missouri submitted 
additional documentation for the I/M SIP, and a permanent I/M 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 hindered Missouri's ability to develop several key 
aspects of the program. Consequently, on March 18, 1996, the EPA 
proposed to disapprove Missouri's I/M SIP submission, because the 
state's SIP did not meet the minimum requirement outlined in the EPA's 
I/M rule and no funding was available to implement the program. (See 61 
FR 10962.)
    During the 1997 legislative session, the Missouri legislators 
restored the funding for the I/M program. Therefore, on August 5, 1997, 
the MDNR submitted to EPA Region VII a SIP revision for St. Louis, 
Missouri's enhanced I/M program. The submittal included a letter from 
David Shorr, former Director of the MDNR, to Dennis Grams, Regional 
Administrator, requesting to amend the previous SIP to include the 
revisions. This revision provides a demonstration of adequate tools and 
resources, the primary reason for the proposed disapproval, and 
addresses other deficiencies outlined in the aforementioned disapproval 
notice. Additionally, on October 26, 1998, the state released a Request 
for Proposal (RFP) with the goal of attracting potential bidders to 
develop a contract to help Missouri meet the necessary I/M program 
requirements to supplement the SIP revision. On January 29, 1999, the 
state submitted the RFP as a supplement to the 1997 SIP.
    Because the 1997 SIP and subsequent submittal address the most 
critical deficiencies in the original 1994 submittal, the EPA is 
proposing to conditionally approve this SIP revision as set forth 
below.

IV. What Are the Regulatory Requirements and How Does the State's 
Plan Meet Those Requirements?

    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 document summarize the 
requirements of the Federal I/M regulations and address whether the 
elements of the state's submittal comply with the Federal rule. The 
specific requirements for I/M plan submissions are in 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart S, and a list of required elements are in 40 CFR 51.372. The 
EPA's decision for approval is solely based on the state's ability to 
meet the basic I/M requirements applicable to St. Louis, although the 
EPA has also reviewed the submittal for compliance with the 
requirements for an enhanced program, because the state ultimately 
wants to implement an enhanced program for emission reduction credit.

Applicability--40 CFR 51.350

    The EPA requires that the state demonstrate that (1) the program 
covers all portions of the nonattainment area required to have an I/M 
program and (2) the state submittal contains adequate legal authority. 
Senate Bill 590 effective August 28, 1994, and Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-
5.380 establish the program boundaries for Missouri's enhanced I/M 
program. Three counties in Missouri (Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. 
Louis) and St. Louis City are required to implement basic I/M programs 
in the St. Louis nonattainment area. Thus, this portion of the SIP is 
approvable.

[[Page 9462]]

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

    Section 51.351 contains the performance standard for enhanced I/M 
programs, and Sec. 51.352 contains the performance standard for basic 
I/M programs. In accord with the Federal I/M rule, Missouri's I/M 
program is designed and will be implemented to meet the minimum basic 
performance standard which is expressed as emission levels in area-wide 
average grams per mile for certain pollutants. The emission levels 
adopted by the state were properly modeled using MOBILE5a.
    However, the state has made several recent changes to the design of 
the program. For example, based on the RFP, Missouri is expected to 
exempt up to 40 percent of the fleet using a combination of clean-
screening techniques, such as remote sensing, vehicle emission 
profiling, and model year exemptions. Missouri must submit a mobile 
source calculation which includes the latest design parameters and 
revise its regulation to reflect the clean-screening component and 
other exemptions before the EPA can conclude that the state program 
meets the performance standard. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 
approve this portion of the SIP with final approval contingent on the 
state revising the MOBILE model to reflect the remote sensing devices 
(RSD) component, verifying that the program still meets applicable 
performance standards, and submitting a revised regulation reflecting 
the clean-screening component. The aforementioned provisions must be 
submitted as a SIP revision before the EPA takes final action on this 
proposal.

Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353

    As required by Federal regulation, enhanced I/M programs must be 
operated in a centralized, test-only format, unless the state can 
demonstrate that a decentralized program is equally as effective in 
achieving the enhanced performance standards. In addition, enhanced 
programs shall include an ongoing evaluation to quantify the emission 
reduction benefits of the program and to determine if the program is 
meeting the requirement of the CAA.
    Basic programs can be centralized, decentralized, or hybrid at the 
state's discretion but must demonstrate that the program meets or 
exceeds the emission reductions as described in Sec. 51.352.
    Missouri has the legal authority (Senate Bill 590) to implement a 
centralized, test-only network to meet the Federal requirements. In 
addition, the program exceeds emission reduction requirements for basic 
programs. Therefore, this portion of the SIP is approvable with regard 
to the basic program.
    Missouri provides a discussion in the SIP and the RFP pertaining to 
program evaluation. The SIP shows the random evaluation program will 
monitor 0.1 percent of 1971 and later model year vehicles. Vehicles 
selected for the program evaluation will be chosen to reflect the mixed 
fleet in the area. The SIP includes a discussion regarding program 
evaluation and includes a schedule for submittal of biennial evaluation 
reports from state-monitored or administered mass emission tests of at 
least 0.1 percent of the vehicles subject to inspection each year. 
Therefore, this portion of the SIP is approvable.

Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354

    As required by Federal regulation, Missouri's SIP includes a 
detailed budget plan that describes the source of funds for personnel, 
program administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. 
The SIP also details the number of personnel dedicated to the quality 
assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement, 
public education and assistance, and other necessary functions. The 
description of funding and resources is adequate for purposes of 
Sec. 51.354. Section 51.372 requires the state to demonstrate that 
adequate funding is available to meet the requirements described in 
this section. The SIP does meet the Federal requirements for evidence 
of adequate tools and resources under Secs. 51.372 and 51.354.

Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355

    The basic and enhanced I/M performance standards assume an annual 
test frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the 
performance standard is achieved. Missouri's enhanced I/M regulation 
provides for a biennial test frequency which still meets Federal 
requirements. The Missouri legislation provides the legal authority to 
implement the biennial program, and the state I/M regulation provides 
for enforcement of the biennial test frequency.
    The Missouri submittal meets the test frequency requirements for 
the basic program.

Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356

    The performance standards for enhanced I/M programs assume coverage 
of all 1968 and later model year light-duty vehicles (LDV) and light-
duty trucks (LDT) up to 8500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 
and includes vehicles operating on all fuel types. The performance 
standard for basic programs covers the same vehicles with the exception 
of LDTs. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary 
emission reductions are achieved. Missouri's submittal includes:
    1. Legal authority necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle 
coverage requirement.
    2. A detailed description of the number and types of vehicles to be 
covered by the program.
    3. A plan for how those vehicles are identified, including vehicles 
that are routinely operated in the area but may not be registered in 
the area.
    4. A description of any special exemptions, including the 
percentage and number of vehicles to be affected by the exemption.
    Missouri's enhanced I/M legislation requires coverage of all 1971 
and newer LDVs and LDTs up to 8500 pounds GVWR registered or required 
to be registered in the I/M program area. As of the date of the 
submittal, approximately 1,361,000 vehicles will be subject to enhanced 
I/M testing. The Missouri I/M regulation provides the regulatory 
authority to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage. Missouri will 
implement a clean-screen component as a means to cover up to 
approximately 40 percent of the vehicle fleet as described in the RFP. 
As discussed previously in this section, Missouri is allowed to use a 
level of coverage different from the prescribed I/M rule provided the 
program continues to achieve the necessary emission reductions.
    Missouri is authorized in its enabling legislation to impose fleet-
testing requirements and requirements for special exemptions by Federal 
I/M requirements. Fleet testing will be conducted at official, test-
only stations. Some fleets may opt to have I/M testing equipment 
installed at the fleet-testing facility that will be operated and 
maintained by the contractor at the fleet owner's expense (and 
connected to the on-line data system). Fleet programs are required to 
undergo the same testing requirements and quality assurance procedures 
as other subject vehicles. The state's plan for testing fleet vehicles 
is acceptable and meets the requirements of the Federal I/M regulation.

[[Page 9463]]

    We note that the state may ultimately need to revise its program in 
light of the EPA's developing policy document with regard to Federal 
fleets. However, the EPA believes that this issue does not affect the 
current approvability of the program. The EPA is not requiring states 
to implement 40 CFR 51.356(a)(4) dealing with Federal installations 
within I/M areas at this time. The Department of Justice has 
recommended to the EPA that this regulation be revised since it appears 
to grant states authority to regulate Federal installations in 
circumstances where the Federal government has not waived sovereign 
immunity. It would not be appropriate to require compliance with this 
regulation if it is not constitutionally authorized. The EPA will be 
revising this provision in the future and will review state I/M SIPs 
with respect to this issue when this new rule is final.
    The state regulation includes some special exemptions for a portion 
of the vehicle fleet which are detailed in the technical support 
document.
    This level of coverage appears to be approvable because the overall 
program design meets the performance standards. However, the clean-
screening program is not reflected in the previous SIP and could change 
the number of exemptions plus the level of coverage. Thus, the SIP will 
only meet the requirements of this section when Missouri accounts for 
the clean-screening exemptions. Missouri will be required to submit a 
revised vehicle coverage element before the EPA takes final action on 
this proposal.

Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR 51.357

    The Federal rule requires Missouri to have written test procedures 
and pass/fail standards to be established and followed for each model 
year and vehicle type included in the program. Test procedures and 
standards are detailed in 40 CFR 51.357 and in the EPA document 
entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality 
Control Requirements, and Equipment Specifications,'' EPA-400-F-92-001, 
dated July 20, 1998.
    The state's I/M regulation, Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.380, includes 
a description of the test procedures for a transient, idle, 
evaporative-system purge; evaporative-system pressure testing; and for 
a visual emission control device inspection. These test procedures 
conform to the EPA-approved test procedures 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 the contractor. The RFP 
provides the structure for the contractor to provide the necessary 
details when their bids are submitted. The EPA expects the details to 
be provided in the signed contract. Therefore, the EPA proposes to 
approve this portion of the SIP if the state submits satisfactory 
details of the program start-up, consistent with the parameters in the 
RFP, prior to final action on this proposal.

Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358

    As required by Federal law, the state submittal contains the 
written technical specifications for all test equipment to be used in 
the program. The specifications require the use of computerized test 
systems. The specifications also include performance features and 
functional characteristics of the computerized test systems that meet 
the applicable Federal I/M regulations and are approvable. The SIP 
meets the requirements of this section.

Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359

    In accord with the Federal requirements, the state submittal 
addresses the quality control provisions outlined in the I/M rule. The 
state will require the contractor to develop procedures, a 
specifications manual, and state-approved regulations that describe and 
establish quality control measures for the emission measurement 
equipment. Also, the contractor will be required to comply with the 
recordkeeping requirements and quality control measures. The state will 
be required to maintain the security of all documents used to establish 
compliance with the inspection requirements.
    The contractor will also develop a procedures manual to help the 
station operator, lane operator, waiver inspector, and computer 
operator by outlining their responsibilities.
    This portion of the 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 allow 
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. 
Basic I/M programs must require a minimum expenditure of $75 for pre-
1981 vehicles; $200 for 1981 and later vehicles shall be spent in order 
to qualify for a waiver. For enhanced I/M programs, an expenditure of 
at least $450 in repairs, adjusted annually to reflect the change in 
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as compared with the CPI for 1989, is 
required to qualify for a waiver.
    As required, Senate Bill 590 provides legislative authority to 
issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits, and administer and enforce 
the waiver system. The Missouri legislation sets a $75 waiver cost 
limit for 1980 and older model year vehicles, a $200 waiver cost limit 
for 1981 through 1996 model year vehicles, and $450 waiver cost limits 
for 1997 and newer model year vehicles. The state statute allows these 
amounts to be adjusted after December 2000 to be consistent with 
applicable EPA requirements for an enhanced I/M program. Thus, the 
state regulations do not currently include an annual adjustment of the 
cost limit to reflect the change in the CPI as compared with the CPI in 
1989. However, because Missouri elected to opt up to an enhanced 
program, they are only required to meet or exceed the basic I/M 
requirements. The program, as outlined, meets the Federal requirement 
for the basic program; therefore, this portion is approvable.
    The state submitted a revision to the SIP submittal regarding the 
waiver requirements on November 13, 1997. Missouri regulations include 
provisions that address waiver criteria and procedures, including cost 
limits, tampering and warranty-related repairs, quality control, and 
administration. These provisions meet the Federal requirements for a 
basic program. The state regulation requires repairs for 1981 and newer 
model year vehicles to be performed by a recognized repair technician. 
The state regulation does allow for compliance via diagnostic 
inspection and the policies and procedures outlined in the submittal to 
meet Federal I/M regulations (for enhanced I/M areas only). The SIP 
sets a maximum waiver rate and describes corrective action that would 
be taken if the waiver rate exceeds that committed to in the SIP. The 
SIP meets this portion of the regulation and is acceptable.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361

    The Federal regulation requires that compliance will 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. Senate Bill 590 provides the legal authority to operate a 
registration denial system. The Missouri SIP commits to a compliance 
rate of 96 percent which was used in the

[[Page 9464]]

performance standard modeling demonstration and is approvable. The 
submittal includes detailed information concerning the registration 
denial enforcement process, the identification of agencies responsible 
for performing each applicable activity, and a plan for testing fleet 
vehicles. In addition, the SIP commits to an enforcement level to be 
used for modeling purposes. Therefore, this portion of the SIP is 
approvable.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362

    In accord with Federal regulation, Missouri's SIP includes 
regulations, procedure manuals, supporting documents describing how the 
enforcement program oversight will be quality-controlled and quality-
assured, and the establishment of an information management system. 
Senate Bill 590 provides authority to enforce against persons who 
misrepresent themselves as an official emission inspection station; 
anyone who knowingly manufactures, conveys, or possesses any 
counterfeit documents; and anyone who knowingly operates a motor 
vehicle without displaying a valid emission inspection sticker. 
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 has 
a Memorandum of Understanding with MDOR and an RFP outlining the duties 
of the contractor to meet the requirements of this section. Several 
aspects of the section will be negotiated between the MDOR and the 
contractor.
    The SIP, however, lacks written procedures for personnel engaged in 
I/M document handling and processing, such as registration clerks or 
personnel involved in sticker dispensing and waiver processing, as well 
as written procedures for the auditing of their performance. 
Additionally, the SIP needs to include procedures for follow-up 
validity checks on out-of-area or exemption-triggering registration 
changes. Also, the SIP must include procedures for:
    1. Disciplining, retraining, or removing enforcement personnel who 
deviate from established requirements.
    2. Defranchising, revoking, or otherwise discontinuing the activity 
of the entity issuing registrations (in the case of non-government 
entities that process registrations).
    The RFP provides sufficient details necessary for the EPA to 
propose approval of the section. Full approval is contingent on the 
state submitting additional detail as described above prior to final 
action on this proposal.

Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363

    According to the Federal I/M rule, an ongoing quality assurance 
program must be implemented to discover, correct, and prevent fraud, 
waste, and abuse in the program. The Missouri submittal includes a 
quality assurance program that includes regulations and procedures 
describing methods for reviewing inspector records, performing 
equipment audits, and providing formal training to all state 
enforcement officials. Performance audits of inspectors will consist of 
both covert and overt audits. Senate Bill 590 provides authority to 
conduct audits of the inspection stations and requires the stations to 
furnish reports and forms that MDNR deems necessary to evaluate the 
program adequately.
    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. In addition, 
the state needs to ensure that there are a sufficient number of covert 
vehicles to allow frequent rotation to prevent detection by station 
personnel.
    The SIP and the RFP detail the quality assurance program and 
procedures. Many of the specific details regarding how the state will 
meet the aforementioned requirement are expected to be provided by the 
contractor. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of 
the SIP. Full approval is contingent on the state revising its SIP to 
address the previously discussed items for this program element prior 
to final action on this proposal.

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

    As required by Federal regulation, the Missouri submittal includes 
the legal authority to establish and to impose penalties against 
stations, contractors, and inspectors. The state I/M regulation, 
legislation, and RFP include penalty provisions for stations, 
contractors, and inspectors. Enforcement against registered stations or 
contractors and inspectors will include swift, sure, effective, and 
consistent penalties for violation of program requirements. The state 
submittal establishes minimum penalties for violations of program rules 
and procedures that can be imposed against stations, contractors, and 
inspectors. These penalties will be administered through the contract. 
The state I/M regulation gives the state auditor the authority to 
temporarily suspend station and inspector registrations immediately 
upon finding a violation. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve 
this portion of the SIP provided the state submits a signed contract 
containing the penalty provisions described in the SIP submitted prior 
to final action on this proposal.

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, as required under 40 CFR 51.359. The SIP outlines many 
functions to be carried out by the contractor. The EPA is proposing to 
approve this portion of the SIP provided the state submits the signed 
contract as a SIP revision prior to final action on this proposal.

Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR 51.366

    Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for 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 for each 
of the following programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control, 
and enforcement. These reports are to be submitted by July and will 
provide statistics during January to December of the previous year. A 
biennial report must be submitted to the EPA that 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. Missouri outlines the 
requirement for the contractors that appear to meet all of these 
Federal requirements. The SIP also commits to address all the items 
listed in Sec. 51.366.
    The RFP details the functions the contractor is expected to 
fulfill. Thus, the EPA expects the state will meet the requirements of 
this section when the contract is signed. As noted earlier, procedures 
for data collection, analysis, and reporting are critical and must be 
in place prior to start-up. Therefore, the EPA believes that in order 
to fully approve this element, the state must submit a contract 
detailing these

[[Page 9465]]

provisions consistent with the RFP prior to final action on this 
proposal.

Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR 51.366

    The Federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally 
trained and registered to perform inspections. The narrative in the 
submittal states that all inspectors are to receive formal training, be 
registered by MDNR or the operating contractor, and renew the 
registration every two years. As required in the I/M rule, Missouri 
provides a description of the training program and commits to require 
the contractor to develop a program that meets the requirements 
outlined in this section of the rule.
    The RFP, however, details the functions the contractor is expected 
to fulfill, such as developing and maintaining a procedural training 
manual. In addition, the contractor is responsible for administering a 
certification test requiring inspectors to receive a minimum score of 
80 percent. The RFP states that the contractor will prepare and submit 
the training manuals and other training program details after the 
contract is awarded. Thus, the EPA expects the state will meet the 
requirements of this section. The EPA cannot fully approve this portion 
of the SIP until the state and the contractor fulfill the 
aforementioned requirements. The state must address this provision 
prior to the EPA taking final action on the SIP.

Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR 51.368

    The Federal I/M regulation requires the SIP to include public 
information and consumer protection programs. State legislation 
requires Missouri to provide 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 RFP requires the contractor, in conjunction with the state, to 
develop a public information program. Besides educating the public 
about I/M, the state provides assistance to the motorist in obtaining 
warranty-covered repairs. However, the state needs to provide a 
consumer protection program to include provisions for a challenge 
mechanism, protection of whistle-blowers, and assistance to the 
motorist in obtaining warranty-covered repairs. With the exception of 
the aforementioned consumer protection requirements, the public 
information requirement is adequate and does meet Federal requirements. 
Since the consumer protection program contained in the SIP is not 
complete, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of the SIP 
contingent on the state fully meeting the aforementioned requirements 
prior to final action on this proposal.

Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369

    Effective repair work is 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 
lacks 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 RFP provides a discussion of the repair effectiveness program. 
Many of the functions will be fulfilled by the contractor. As described 
in the RFP, the selected contractor will establish a hotline to assist 
repair technicians and track the performance of repair facilities. In 
addition, the contractor will establish a toll-free hotline that will 
supply information on wait times, station locations, and general 
inspection and waiver information. The EPA expects the state will meet 
the requirements of this section once the contract is issued. However, 
the EPA cannot fully approve this portion of the SIP until the state 
and the selected contractor fulfill the aforementioned requirements. 
Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve this portion of the SIP 
contingent on the state submitting a signed contract prior to final 
action on this rulemaking.

Compliance with Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370

    The CAA and Federal regulations require states to establish methods 
to ensure that vehicles subject to I/M programs are included in an 
emission-related recall program. Vehicle owners must 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 that 
includes the information as required in 40 CFR 51.370(c). Missouri 
state inspection or registration database and quality control methods 
will help ensure recall repairs are properly documented and tracked. 
Therefore, this portion of the SIP is approvable.

On-Road Testing--40 CFR 51.371

    On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas only. The use of 
either RSD or roadside pullovers, including tailpipe emission testing, 
can be used to meet the Federal regulations. Enabling authority to 
implement the on-road testing program and enforce off-cycle inspection 
and repair requirements are contained in Missouri's legislation.
    The on-road testing requirements are optional for basic programs. 
Therefore, this item is not relevant to the EPA's proposed action with 
respect to the basic I/M requirement.

State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR 
51.372-373

    The Federal regulation requires enhanced I/M programs to be 
implemented in accord with 40 CFR 51.372-51.373. The Missouri submittal 
included the final state I/M regulation, an RFP detailing program 
elements, and legislative authority to implement the program. The SIP 
lacks the contractor's proposal, the signed contract between the state 
and the contractor, and procedural documents. These latter documents 
must be submitted prior to final approval.
    Section 51.372 requires states to demonstrate that adequate funding 
of the program is available. Section 51.372(a)(8) requires that the SIP 
contain evidence of adequate funding and resources to implement and 
continue operation of all aspects of the program. Funding needs to be 
available to accommodate personnel and equipment resources necessary to 
operate the program.
    The SIP indicates capital improvements of land, buildings, and 
inspection equipment are expected to be funded through a combination of 
revenue bonds and Federal funds. Currently, Missouri has proved that 
these funding sources are or will be available.
    The test fee or separately assessed per vehicle fee is to be 
collected, placed in a dedicated fund, and used to finance the program. 
Adequate funding will be available to begin and operate the program.
    Overall, Missouri's SIP has a detailed plan demonstrating that 
there are adequate funding sources available to carry out program 
requirements. The SIP has a detailed description of the equipment to be 
used to facilitate program implementation.

[[Page 9466]]

    Finally, although the SIP lacks a definitive start date, the RFP 
indicates that the program should begin by April 2000. The EPA expects 
that commitment to an actual start date, consistent with the schedule 
in the RFP, will be established when the contract is signed and that 
the state will submit the actual start date with the other submissions 
identified in this document. Based on the description in the SIP 
submittal of the activities which must be accomplished prior to program 
start-up, the EPA believes that the projected start date of April 2000 
would be as expeditious as practicable and that the program is not 
deficient because of the projected start date. (It is EPA policy that 
once the start date in the regulations has passed, SIPs are approvable 
if programs start as expeditiously as practicable.) Nevertheless, given 
that corrections to the basic program should have been implemented by 
January 1, 1994, the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this SIP 
pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the Act to ensure expeditious 
implementation. The EPA's conditional approval of the SIP would last 
until April 30, 2000. If the state does not begin implementation of the 
program by this date, the conditional approval would convert to a 
disapproval after a findings letter is sent to the state. This is an 
implied condition under the EPA's general approval authority of 
110(k)(3), not an explicit condition due to regulatory deficiency under 
110(k)(4). Therefore, it will not automatically convert to a 
disapproval but will only convert after the EPA transmits a findings 
letter to the state indicating that the program has not started.
    The EPA is also considering an alternative, in which the EPA would 
grant full approval of this SIP (provided the state corrects all of the 
previously identified deficiencies prior to final rulemaking). Under 
this approach, the state would still be obligated to start up the 
program by the date specified in the contract which the EPA believes 
should be no later than April 30, 2000. If the state then fails to 
begin the program by that date, the EPA would issue a finding under 
section 179(a)(4) of the Act that the state had failed to implement 
this SIP element and possibly also a SIP call to correct the SIP under 
110(k)(5). The EPA solicits comments on this approach as an alternative 
to conditional approval.
    In the case of either a finding that the condition had not been met 
or that the state had failed to implement the SIP, under section 
179(a)(2) the EPA must apply one of the sanctions set forth in section 
179(b) within 18 months of such finding. Section 179(b) provides two 
sanctions available to the Administrator: imposition of emission offset 
requirements and limitations on highway funding. In the EPA's August 4, 
1994, final sanctions rule (see 59 FR 39832), the sequence of mandatory 
sanctions for findings and disapprovals made pursuant to section 179 of 
the CAA was finalized. This rulemaking states that the emission offset 
sanction applies in an area 18 months from the date when the EPA makes 
a finding under section 179(a) with regard to that area. Furthermore, 
the highway funding restrictions apply in an area six months following 
application of the offset sanction. This nondiscretionary process for 
imposing and lifting sanctions is set forth at 40 CFR 52.31.

V. What Is the EPA's Conclusion and Proposed Action?

    The EPA's review of the material indicates that the state has 
adopted the substance of an adequate I/M program in accordance with the 
requirements of the Act. The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve 
the Missouri SIP revision for the St. Louis I/M program which was 
submitted on August 5, 1997, with the single condition that the program 
must begin operation by April 30, 2000, and provided the state submits 
no later than November 1999 a revised SIP, including a signed contract, 
which addresses the following items:
    1. Start date for testing vehicles.
    2. Details of the start-up for the first two years (Sec. 51.357).
    3. Enforcement provisions against contractors, stations, and 
inspectors (Sec. 51.364).
    4. Provisions for data collection (Sec. 51.365), analysis, and 
reporting (Sec. 51.366).
    5. Inspector training, certification, and licensing requirements 
(Sec. 51.366).
    6. Revised emission reduction estimates and vehicle coverage taking 
into account the clean-screening provisions (Secs. 51.351, 51.352, and 
51.356).
    7. Revised regulations reflecting the clean-screening provisions 
(Secs. 51.351 and 51.352).
    8. Procedures for program oversight including document handling and 
processing, audits, registration changes, disciplinary actions, and 
enforcement action involving non-government entities (Sec. 51.362).
    9. Corrections to the quality assurance program to address real-
time access to test station information and sufficient covert vehicles 
(Sec. 51.363).
    10. Consumer protection program (Sec. 51.368).
    11. Technical assistance program including performance monitoring 
requirements and repair technician training resources (Sec. 51.369).
    The EPA believes that allowing the state until November 1999 to 
address these remaining deficiencies provides adequate time for the 
state to adopt and submit a revised SIP. If the revisions address the 
issues outlined in this document without significant deviation from the 
descriptions of the program in the RFP and as described in this 
document and the technical support document, the EPA is proposing to 
proceed with final conditional approval of the I/M program. The EPA may 
repropose action on a portion of the I/M program if the state makes a 
submission which deviates significantly from these parameters or 
provides significant new data not previously made publicly available, 
to the extent necessary to ensure adequate public notice and 
opportunity for comment. Finally, if the state fails to make a complete 
submission by November, the EPA will not take final action on this 
proposal but rather will proceed with a proposed disapproval of the I/M 
SIP. The EPA solicits comments on this proposed action.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

B. E.O. 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, the 
EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that 
creates a mandate upon a state, local, or tribal government, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by those governments or the EPA consults with 
those governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 
requires the EPA to provide to the OMB a description of the extent of 
the EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected state, 
local, and tribal governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of 
any written communications from the governments, and a statement 
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 
requires the EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals

[[Page 9467]]

containing significant unfunded mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of Section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule.

C. E.O. 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866 and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that the 
EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on 
children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must 
evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule 
on children and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to 
other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not an 
economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866, 
and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that 
would have a disproportionate effect on children.

D. E.O. 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 
Governments, the EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by 
statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of 
Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct 
compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government 
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs 
incurred by the tribal governments, or the EPA consults with those 
governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires the 
EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires the EPA 
to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of Section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. 
This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, because SIP approvals under Section 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 create any new 
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the CAA, 
preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids the 
EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric 
Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, the 
EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent 
with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA to establish 
a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs 
of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 
approves preexisting requirements under state or local law, and imposes 
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

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.

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

    Dated: February 17, 1999.
Dennis Grams,
Regional Administrator, Region VII.
[FR Doc. 99-4825 Filed 2-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P