[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47670-47674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22452]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA092/098-5044; FRL-6428-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Commonwealth of Virginia; Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are converting the conditional approval of Virginia's 
enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, which was 
granted on May 15, 1997 (62 FR 26746), to a full approval. The Virginia 
program was conditionally approved as a revision to its State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) in the rule published on May 15, 1997. The 
conditions for full approval were described in that rulemaking, and are 
also discussed in this document. We have determined that Virginia has 
met all of the conditions for a full approval of its enhanced I/M 
program, and that the Virginia program meets all the requirements of 
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 18, 1999, unless EPA receives 
adverse written comment by October 1, 1999. If adverse comment is 
received, we will

[[Page 47671]]

publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal 
Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone and 
Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 
You may inspect copies of the documents relevant to this action during 
normal business hours at the following locations: Air Protection 
Division, 14th floor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219. 
Please contact Catherine L. Magliocchetti at (215) 814-2174 if you wish 
to arrange an appointment to view the docket at the Philadelphia 
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine L. Magliocchetti, (215) 814-
2174, or by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Supplementary Information section is 
organized as follows:
    What action is EPA taking today?
    Who is affected by this action?
    Who will benefit from this action?
    What were the requirements for full approval of the Virginia 
program?
    How did Virginia fulfill these requirements for full approval?

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    In this action, we are converting our conditional approval of 
Virginia's I/M program as a revision to the SIP to a full approval. We 
are also approving Virginia's plan for conducting vehicle emissions 
evaluation testing in an alternative manner to Mass Emissions Transient 
Testing as described and provided for by 40 CFR 51.353. And, we are 
also approving Virginia's short-term evaluation credit demonstration, 
as required by provisions of the National Highway Systems Designation 
Act of 1995.

Who Is Affected by This Action?

    Residents of the following jurisdictions in Northern Virginia: the 
counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and Stafford; 
and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and 
Manassas Park. It is important to note that our action today does not 
impose any new requirements on Virginia residents; we are merely 
granting full federal approval (versus the conditional federal approval 
previously in place) to the Virginia law and regulations that are 
already in place at the state level to implement the enhanced I/M 
program in the Commonwealth. These laws and regulations were made part 
of the Virginia SIP by the final rule that was published on May 15, 
1997.

Who Will Benefit From This Action?

    The residents of Virginia will benefit from this program, which is 
designed to keep vehicles maintained and operating within pollution 
control standards. Since air pollution does not recognize political 
boundaries, neighboring states' residents will also benefit from 
implementation of this program, designed to prevent excessive vehicle 
pollution.

What Were the Requirements for Full Approval of the Virginia 
Program?

    As specified in the rulemaking published on May 15, 1997, final 
approval of Virginia's plan would be granted based upon the following 
four requirements:
    (1) Virginia complies with all the conditions of its commitment to 
EPA, (2) EPA's review of Virginia's program evaluation confirms that 
the appropriate amount of program credit was claimed by Virginia, and 
achieved with the interim program, (3) Final program regulations are 
submitted to EPA, and (4) Virginia's I/M program meets all of the 
requirements of EPA's I/M rule, including those deminimis deficiencies 
identified in the May 15, 1997 interim final rulemaking.

How Did Virginia Fulfill These Requirements for Full Approval?

    On June 16, 1998, Virginia submitted its revised SIP revision to 
EPA, correcting the major and deminimis conditions for full approval 
(items 1 and 4 above), as detailed in Table 1. This submittal also 
contained final program regulations, which fulfilled item 3. The 
requirement under item 2, review and approval of Virginia's interim 
program credit demonstration, was fulfilled by Virginia's February 2, 
1999 submittal which contained an analysis of the program credits, as 
demonstrated during the first 6 months of program operation.

        Table 1: Satisfaction of the Conditions for Full Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            How Virginia satisfied the
     Requirement for full approval                 requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Major Rulemaking Conditions--as summarized from the 5-15-97 rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Submit revised program modeling      As part of the June 16, 1998
 demonstrating compliance with the I/M    submittal, Virginia included
 performance standard, using actual in-   revised modeling that
 use program configuration for inputs.    demonstrated compliance with
                                          the enhanced I/M performance
                                          standard in all applicable
                                          jurisdictions, using
                                          appropriate program inputs.
(2) Submit the final program             On November 30, 1998, Virginia
 regulations, including a METT-based      submitted an amendment to its
 evaluation as required under 40 CFR      I/M SIP revision, consisting
 51.353. (NOTE: This condition was        of a proposed plan for
 subsequently amended in a July 9, 1998   conducting vehicle emissions
 rulemaking by EPA. This revision         evaluation testing in an
 extended the deadline for submittal of   alternative manner to Mass
 the evaluation plan to November 30,      Emissions Transient Testing as
 1998, and allowed for technologies       described and provided for by
 other than METT-based testing to be      the revised regulation under
 used in the program evaluation).         40 CFR 51.353. This submittal
                                          was supplemented by Virginia
                                          on February 22, 1999.
(3) Submit final regulations which       Final regulations were included
 require and detail approvable test       in the June 16, 1998
 procedures and equipment                 submittal, and included test
 specifications for all of the            procedures and equipment
 evaporative and exhaust tests to be      specifications for all
 used in the Virginia program.            evaporative and exhaust tests
                                          to be used in the Virginia
                                          program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Deminimis Rulemaking Conditions--as summarized from the 5-15-97 rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Satisfy the test frequency           As part of the June 16
 requirements under 40 CFR 51.355(a),     submittal, Virginia adopted
 and describe how test frequency will     and submitted regulations and
 be integrated into the registration      procedures that ensure proper
 denial motorist enforcement program.     enforcement system safeguards,
                                          including registration denial
                                          procedures and integrated
                                          scheduling of vehicle testing.

[[Page 47672]]

 
(2) Account for testing exemptions in    As part of the June 16
 the performance standard modeling        submittal, Virginia adequately
 demonstration, per 40 CFR 51.356(b)(2).  addressed the requirements of
                                          this section, and
                                          appropriately modeled the
                                          performance standards credits
                                          using acceptable compliance
                                          rates and vehicle exemption
                                          inputs.
(3) Satisfy the quality control          As part of the June 16
 requirements, per 40 CFR 51.359.         submittal, Virginia submitted
                                          its procedures for quality
                                          control and recordkeeping, in
                                          accordance with this section.
(4) Amend the Virginia regulation to     As part of the June 16
 comply with 40 CFR 51.360(c)(1).         submittal, Virginia included
                                          its regulation and plan for
                                          allowing issuance of the
                                          program waivers to be
                                          administered by the inspector,
                                          with oversight of the process
                                          by the DEQ. Virginia's
                                          description of, and reasoning
                                          for this plan are further
                                          detailed in an April 16, 1997
                                          letter from DEQ to EPA. Most
                                          importantly, VA commits to
                                          monitoring the waiver rate
                                          under this proposed plan, and
                                          to make changes to the waiver
                                          issuance system if the modeled
                                          waiver rate of 3% is exceeded.
                                          EPA believes this is a
                                          reasonable alternative to
                                          agency-issued waivers.
                                          Furthermore, EPA believes that
                                          in passing the NHSDA, Congress
                                          did not intend for this
                                          element of the 1992 I/M
                                          Program Requirements to
                                          pertain to decentralized
                                          programs such as the one in
                                          Virginia. Therefore, EPA will
                                          allow Virginia to implement
                                          this plan, with the noted
                                          precautionary oversight
                                          measures in place to prevent
                                          fraud and abuse of this unique
                                          waiver issuance system.
(5) Satisfy the motorist compliance      As part of the June 16
 enforcement program oversight            submittal, Virginia included
 requirements, per 40 CFR 51.362.         acceptable compliance
                                          enforcement program oversight
                                          procedures and documentation.
(6) Satisfy the quality assurance        As part of the June 16
 oversight requirements, per 40 CFR       submittal, Virginia included
 51.363(e).                               acceptable quality assurance
                                          oversight procedures and
                                          documentation.
(7) Satisfy the penalty schedule         As part of the June 16
 requirements, per 40 CFR 51.364(a) and   submittal, Virginia included a
 (d).                                     procedures document which
                                          includes an acceptable penalty
                                          schedule.
(8) Satisfy the data collection and      As part of the June 16
 reporting requirements, per 40 CFR       submittal, Virginia included
 51.365(a).                               the procedures and
                                          documentation that adequately
                                          address the data collection
                                          and reporting requirements of
                                          this section.
(9) Satisfy the public information       As part of the June 16
 requirements, per 40 CFR 51.383(a) and   submittal, Virginia included a
 (b).                                     Public Information Plan that
                                          adequately addresses the
                                          requirements of this section.
(10) Satisfy the repair performance      As part of the June 16
 monitoring requirements, per 40 CFR      submittal, Virginia included
 51.369.                                  the regulations and
                                          documentation that adequately
                                          address this requirement.
(11) Satisfy the recall compliance       As part of the June 16
 requirements, per 40 CFR 51.370.         submittal, Virginia committed
                                          to adopt final recall
                                          compliance requirements within
                                          6 months of final guidance
                                          from EPA. Since EPA has not
                                          provided this guidance to the
                                          states, EPA considers Virginia
                                          to have met all obligations up
                                          to date concerning this
                                          requirement.
(12) Satisfy the on-road testing         As part of the June 16
 requirements, per 40 CFR 51.371.         submittal, Virginia committed
                                          to obtain a contractor to
                                          perform the necessary duties
                                          for on-road testing by July
                                          1999.
(13) Submit a list of implementation     All implementation milestone
 milestone deadlines.                     deadlines have been met by
                                          Virginia, and are included as
                                          part of the June 16 submittal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA Action

    We are converting the conditional approval of Virginia's enhanced 
I/M SIP to full approval. An extensive discussion of Virginia's plan, 
and our rationale for its approval was provided in the previous final 
rule which conditionally approved the I/M SIP (see 62 FR 26745 and 61 
FR 57343), and our Technical Support Documents dated July 19, 1998 and 
September 4, 1996. This action to convert our conditional approval to 
full approval is being published without prior proposal because we view 
this as a noncontroversial revision and we anticipate no adverse 
comment. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register 
publication, we are proposing this action, should adverse written 
comments be filed. This action will be effective without further notice 
unless we receive relevant adverse comment by October 1, 1999. Should 
we receive adverse comments, we will publish a withdrawal and inform 
the public that this action will not take effect. Anyone interested in 
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such 
comments are received, you are advised that this action will be 
effective on October 18, 1999.
    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to 
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) 
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a 
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden 
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking 
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's 
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty 
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity 
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation 
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes 
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's 
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Section 
10.1-1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents 
and information about the content of those documents that are the 
product of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does 
not extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or 
developed before the commencement of a voluntary environmental 
assessment; (2) that are prepared independently of the assessment 
process; (3) that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial

[[Page 47673]]

danger to the public health or environment; or (4) that are required by 
law.
    On January 12, 1997, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the 
Privilege Law, Va. Code Section 10.1-1198, precludes granting a 
privilege to documents and information ``required by law,'' including 
documents and information ``required by federal law to maintain program 
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce 
federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less 
stringent than their federal counterparts. * * *'' The opinion 
concludes that ``[r]egarding section 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or 
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of 
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and 
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required 
by federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or 
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Section 10.1-1199, provides that 
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal 
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a 
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, 
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from 
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 
1997 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute 
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since 
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal 
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with 
federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and 
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its 
enhanced inspection and maintenance program consistent with the federal 
requirements. In any event, because EPA has also determined that a 
state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state 
enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement 
authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean 
Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to 
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, 
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 
enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise 
unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 12875

    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 EPA complies by consulting, E.O. requires EPA to 
provide to the Office of Management and Budget 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 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 elected 
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.'' 
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. Executive Order 13045

    E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is ``economically 
significant,'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) the environmental 
health or safety risk addressed by the rule has 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 final 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. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects 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. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget, 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, Executive Order 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.'' 
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 (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 final 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 Clean Air Act 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 
Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis

[[Page 47674]]

would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of 
state action. The Clean Air Act forbids 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, 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.
    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.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this approval of Virginia's Enhanced Inspection and 
Maintenance Program must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals 
for the appropriate circuit by November 1, 1999. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 16, 1999.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

    2. Section 52.2420 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(134) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (134) Revisions to the Virginia Regulations, Establishment of the 
Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Program in the Northern 
Virginia Area, submitted on June 16, 1998, November 30, 1998, February 
2, 1999 and February 22, 1999, by the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality:
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Letter of June 16, 1998 from the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality transmitting an Enhanced Vehicle Emissions 
Inspection Program for the Northern Virginia Area.
    (B) Regulations for the Enhanced Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection 
Program in the Northern Virginia Area: 9 VAC 5-91-10 et seq.
    (C) Letter of November 30, 1998 from the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality transmitting an Alternative Program Credit 
Evaluation Program.
    (D) Letter of February 2, 1999 from the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality, transmitting an Evaluation of Virginia's 
Enhanced I/M Program Credits.
    (E) Letter of February 22, 1999 from the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality, supplementing the November 30, 1998 transmittal.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Remainder of June 16, 1998 submittal,
    (B) Remainder of November 30, 1998 submittal, as supplemented on 
February 22, 1999, and
    (C) Remainder of February 2, 1999 submittal.


Sec. 52.2450  [Amended]

    3. In section 52.2450, paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) are removed and 
reserved.

[FR Doc. 99-22452 Filed 8-31-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U