[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42888-42891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-20310]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN42-01-7267; FRL-6415-2]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed approval.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve 
an amendment to the carbon monoxide (CO) State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) for Minnesota. Minnesota submitted this amendment to the SIP to 
the EPA in four separate submittals, dated November 14, 1995, July 8, 
1996, September 24, 1996, and June 30, 1999.
    The submittals include revisions to the motor vehicle inspection 
and maintenance (I/M) program currently in operation in the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul CO nonattainment area. The revisions make changes 
to the State's I/M program, including model year coverage, vehicle 
waiver provisions, and other program deficiencies identified by the 
EPA. The revision also contains provisions for the discontinuation of 
the I/M program if EPA redesignates the area to attainment for CO.


[[Page 42889]]


DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by September 
7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone John 
Mooney at 312-886-6043 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    A copy of these SIP revisions are available for inspection at the 
following location: Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) Docket and 
Information Center (Air Docket 6102), room M1500, United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, 
(202) 260-7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Mooney, Regulation Development 
Section (AR-18J), Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6043.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) submitted its initial 
I/M submittals to EPA in November and December of 1993. As described 
below, the EPA conditionally approved Minnesota's initial submittal on 
October 13, 1994 (59 FR 51860). Subsequently, Minnesota submitted to 
the EPA four additional revisions to the State's I/M program. The 
changes proposed since 1993 reflect actions taken by the State 
Legislature pertaining to model year coverage, waiver provisions, and 
other program changes required by EPA's conditional approval.
    The information in this section is organized as follows:
    A. What SIP amendments is EPA proposing to approve?
    B. Why is EPA requiring the State to change its I/M program?
    C. How has the State addressed EPA's requirements?
    D. What does the State need to do to receive full approval?
    E. What happens if the Minneapolis/St. Paul area is redesignated to 
attainment for CO?

A. What SIP Amendments Is EPA Proposing To Approve?

    The following table outlines the revisions submitted by the State 
to EPA subsequent to the State's initial I/M submittal in 1993. The 
State's most recent submittal identifies those provisions of their 
earlier submittals that address EPA's conditional approval. In this 
submittal, the State also withdraws Part 7023.1010, Subp. 35(B), Part 
7023.1030, Subp. 11(B,C), and Part 7023.1055, Subp. 1 (E)(2) of the 
Minnesota Rules. The State is withdrawing these provisions because they 
have been superceded by recent amendments to the State I/M program. EPA 
proposes to approve the relevant portions of each of these submittals 
as requested by the State on June 30, 1999.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Date of submittal to EPA                  Items received
------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 14, 1995.........................  --Basic I/M performance
                                             standard modeling.
                                            --I/M legislation with
                                             changes to model year
                                             coverage.
                                            --Response to EPA's October
                                             13, 1994 conditional
                                             approval (59 FR 51860).
July 8, 1996..............................  --Notification of public
                                             hearing.
September 24, 1996........................  --Administrative materials
                                             for the November 14, 1995,
                                             and July 6, 1996
                                             submittals, including proof
                                             of public hearing.
June 30, 1999.............................  --Minnesota Statute Sections
                                             116.60 to 116.65 as amended
                                             by the 1999 Minnesota State
                                             Legislature.
                                            --Letter from the Minnesota
                                             Attorney General detailing
                                             the prevalence of statute
                                             over rules.
                                            --Letter from the Minnesota
                                             Pollution Control Agency
                                             (MPCA) requesting approval
                                             of I/M legislation, certain
                                             portions of Minnesota's I/M
                                             regulation, and performance
                                             standard modeling from
                                             earlier submittals. This
                                             letter also withdraws
                                             certain obsolete sections
                                             of the State's earlier
                                             submittals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

As requested by the State, the EPA is proposing to approve: Minnesota 
Statutes Sections 116.60 to 116.65; Minnesota Rules 7023.1010-7023.1105 
(except Part 7023.1010, Subp. 35(B), Part 7023.1030, Subp. 11(B,C), and 
Part 7023.1055, Subp. 1 (E)(2)); and technical materials showing that 
the program meets EPA's basic I/M performance standard, as well as the 
conditions of EPA's October 13, 1994 conditional approval.

B. Why Is EPA Requiring the State To Change Its I/M Program?

    Section 187(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act requires states with 
moderate CO nonattainment areas to improve existing I/M programs or 
implement new ones. EPA designated the Minneapolis/St. Paul area as a 
moderate CO nonattainment area on November 16, 1991 (56 FR 56694). 
Therefore, the State of Minnesota was required to develop a State 
Implementation Plan to meet the I/M requirements contained in the Clean 
Air Act, and in the corresponding regulations for I/M, codified at 40 
CFR Part 51, Subpart S.
    On November 10, 1992, the State submitted its initial I/M plan to 
the EPA, which it supplemented on November 12, 1993, and December 15, 
1993. On October 13, 1994, the EPA published a rulemaking action 
conditionally approving Minnesota's I/M plan. As part of this 
rulemaking action, the EPA identified a number of deficiencies in the 
State's plan and issued a conditional approval, which required that the 
State submit a revised plan within one year from the conditional 
approval date. A detailed discussion of EPA's rulemaking action can be 
found in the final rule at 59 FR 51860 (October 13, 1994). In 1995, the 
Minnesota Legislature amended its I/M program to make changes to the 
vehicle model years tested in the program. In 1999, the Minnesota 
Legislature amended its I/M program to address the deficiencies 
identified in EPA's October 13, 1994 rulemaking action (59 FR 51860). 
The State has submitted all of these changes in the series of 
submittals noted above.

C. How Has the State Addressed EPA's Requirements?

    EPA's conditional approval noted four specific deficiencies in 
Minnesota's I/M plan. All other parts of the plan comply with EPA's 
requirements. EPA's technical support documents dated June 23, 1994, 
September 7, 1994, and July 19, 1999 contain a more detailed analysis 
of the I/M review. The four deficiencies identified in EPA's 
conditional approval and the manner in which the State has addressed 
them follow:
1. The Requirement That Only Certified Automotive Repair Technicians 
Perform Repairs in Order for a Vehicle To Obtain a Waiver
    In its November 15, 1995 SIP submittal, the State described its

[[Page 42890]]

technician assistance program. In general, the State of Minnesota does 
not require certification or licensing in order to perform automotive 
repairs in the State. Minnesota offers a variety of assistance and 
training programs in the State and offers a Consumer Advocacy Program 
to technicians and the public as part of its I/M program. In addition, 
the State publishes a number of newsletters and a technician training 
curriculum specifically focused on automobile emissions. Further, the 
State publishes a Repair Report that lists names and addresses of 
repair facilities, average cost of repair, and the percentage of pass 
and fail inspections based on the number of vehicles repaired at the 
facility. All of these programs provide the public and the repair 
community with the opportunity for feedback and training necessary to 
improve repair effectiveness without a formal certification process. 
Minnesota has demonstrated that their system, despite the lack of a 
certification process, does not cause an increase in the waiver rate or 
a reduction in the emission reductions achieved by the program. The 
waiver rates in Minnesota remain consistent with those seen in similar 
areas around the country. Overall, the program continues to meet EPA's 
basic I/M performance standard, the computer model based analysis of 
the emissions impact of the program. As a result, EPA believes that the 
State has addressed this deficiency.
2. The Requirement That the State's Minimum Repair Cost Limit Be 
Actually Spent Before a Vehicle is Eligible To Receive a Waiver
    The legislation enacted during the 1999 Minnesota State 
Legislature, and submitted by the State on June 30, 1999, requires 
motorists to spend at least $75 in repair for vehicles manufactured 
before 1981, and $200 in repair for vehicles manufactured in 1981 and 
after in order to receive a waiver. Unlike prior statute, the new 
legislation does not allow repair estimates to qualify for waivers. 
This legislation is consistent with EPA's I/M regulations. It should be 
noted that this legislation conflicts with Minnesota State Rule 
7023.1055, Subp. 1(E)(2) promulgated by the MPCA. In its June 30, 1999 
submittal, the State submitted a letter from the Minnesota Attorney 
General which states that where a State statute is in conflict with a 
State rule, the statute takes precedence. Further, the State has 
formally withdrawn Rule 7023.1055, Subp. 1(E)(2) from its formal SIP 
submittal. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve the legislation.
3. The Requirement That Vehicles With Switched Engines Be Tested With 
Emissions Standards Based on the Model Year of the Chassis Rather than 
the Engine Year
    The legislation enacted during the 1999 Minnesota State 
Legislature, and submitted by the State on June 30, 1999, requires 
vehicles to be tested based on chassis model year, rather than engine 
model year. This legislation is consistent with EPA's I/M regulations. 
It should be noted that this legislation conflicts with Minnesota State 
Rule 7023.1010, Subp. 35(B), and Rule 7032.1030, Subp. 11(B,C). In its, 
June 30, 1999 submittal, the State submitted a letter from the 
Minnesota Attorney General which states that where a State statute 
conflicts with a State rule, the statute takes precedence. Further, the 
State has formally withdrawn Rule 7023.1010, Subp. 35(B), and Rule 
7032.1030, Subp. 11(B,C) from its formal SIP submittal. Therefore, EPA 
is proposing to approve the legislation.
4. The Requirement To Change the Re-inspection Procedure To Include a 
Determination That an Emission Control Device is the Correct Type for 
the Certified Configuration of the Vehicle Inspected
    In its November 14, 1995 submittal, the MPCA fully described its 
inspection procedures, noting that inspection staff perform visual 
checks to ensure that emissions system for vehicles are correctly 
configured. The EPA believes that this procedure is sufficient to meet 
the requirements of EPA's I/M regulations and is approvable.
    In 1995, the Minnesota Legislature passed a bill exempting cars 
five years old and newer from the I/M testing requirement. EPA's I/M 
regulations give States the flexibility to change various program 
elements, including model year coverage, as long as the overall program 
meets the EPA's basic I/M performance standard, which is a computer 
model based analysis of the emissions impact of the program. In its 
November 14, 1995, the MPCA included new I/M performance standard 
computer modeling reflecting the model year changes made by the 
Minnesota Legislature. The EPA has reviewed the State's computer 
modeling and finds that it complies with applicable modeling guidance. 
This modeling shows that the I/M program continues to meet EPA's basic 
I/M performance standard, even with the five model year exemption. 
Therefore, the changes made to the program are acceptable under EPA's 
I/M regulations.

D. What Does the State Need To Do To Receive Full Approval?

    The State has provided the necessary technical materials to meet 
EPA's I/M requirements. At present, however, the State has not held a 
public hearing and submitted its response to comments to the EPA as 
part of its SIP submittal. The State must submit this information to 
EPA to receive full approval of its I/M SIP. If the State submits this 
information during the public comment period on today's action, the 
State's SIP submittal will be deemed complete and the EPA will move 
forward to fully approve the revision.

E. What Happens if the Minneapolis/St. Paul Area Is Redesignated to 
Attainment for CO?

    As noted in EPA's technical support document for the State's CO 
redesignation request dated May 3, 1999, as well as in EPA's proposed 
approval of the State's redesignation request, the MPCA has performed 
computer photochemical modeling which shows that in the future the I/M 
program will not be necessary to attain or maintain the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO. In its redesignation 
request, the State also included the I/M program as a contingency 
measure if the program is subsequently needed to correct a violation of 
the CO NAAQS. The EPA has reviewed the modeling submitted with the 
redesignation and has found that it meets EPA's technical modeling 
criteria. The EPA has also reviewed the State's redesignation request 
and has found that it meets the redesignation requirements in the Clean 
Air Act and EPA guidance (see 64 FR 25855, May 13, 1999). As a result, 
once the Minneapolis/St. Paul CO nonattainment area is redesignated to 
attainment, the State may discontinue operation of its I/M program and 
request its removal from the SIP. If EPA does not approve the 
redesignation request for the area, I/M will remain as an applicable 
requirement and EPA will work with the State to ensure that all 
nonattainment control programs are implemented in accordance with the 
requirements of the Act.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

[[Page 42891]]

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under E.O. 12875, 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. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the OMB a 
description of the extent of 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 EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elective officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' This 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. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under E.O. 13084, 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 these communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of 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 EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected 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.'' This rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian 
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 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 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 does not 
involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety 
risks.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 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 direct final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because plan approvals 
under section 111(d) do not create any new requirements but simply 
approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, 
because the Federal 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 Clean Air Act (Act) 
preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of a State action. The Act forbids EPA 
to base its actions 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, 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, 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 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 pre-existing 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Carbon Monoxide.

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

    Dated: July 22, 1999.
Jerri-Anne Garl,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 99-20310 Filed 8-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P