[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57744-57748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23084]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[UT-001-0021a, UT-001-0041a; FRL-7264-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Utah; Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program; Utah County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State 
Implementation Plan revision submitted by the Governor of Utah on 
December 7, 2001. This SIP submittal consists of a revision to Utah's 
rule R307-110-34 and section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/
M) Program, Part D, Utah County. This SIP submittal satisfies one of 
the conditions of EPA's June 9, 1997 interim approval of Utah County's 
improved vehicle I/M program SIP. The other condition of EPA's interim 
approval was submittal of a demonstration that Utah County's 
decentralized I/M program can obtain the same emission reduction 
credits as a centralized I/M program. The State submitted such a 
demonstration on May 20, 1999. These submittals meet the requirements 
of section 348 of the National Highway System Designation

[[Page 57745]]

Act, which allows States to claim additional credit for their 
decentralized I/M programs. In this case, Utah has demonstrated that 
Utah County's improved vehicle I/M program is entitled to 100% 
emissions reduction credit.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on November 12, 2002 without 
further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by October 15, 
2002. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform 
the public the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, 
Air and Radiation Program, Mail code 8P-AR, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, 
Denver, Colorado, 80202. Copies of the documents relevant to this 
action are available for public inspection during normal business hours 
at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202 and 
copies of the Incorporation by Reference material are available at the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code 
6102T, Washington, DC 20460. Copies of the State documents relevant to 
this action are available for public inspection at the Utah Department 
of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 150 North 1950 West, 
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerri Fiedler, EPA, Region VIII, (303) 
312-6493.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``our,'' or ``us'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of EPA's Actions
II. Background
    A. What Is Utah County's Improved Vehicle Inspection and 
Maintenance Program?
    B. What Is I/M Program Credit?
    C. Summary of EPA's June 9, 1997 Interim Final Rule
III. Evaluation of Utah County's NHSDA Equivalency Demonstration, 
Dated May 20, 1999
IV. Evaluation of Utah's Rule R307-110-34 and Section X, Vehicle 
Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah County, Dated 
December 7, 2001
    A. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
    B. Evaluation of the State's Regulation
V. Final Action
VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Summary of EPA's Actions

    We are taking direct final rulemaking action to approve a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Governor of Utah on 
December 7, 2001. This SIP revision updates Utah's rule R307-110-34 and 
section X, Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah 
County, which satisfies one of the conditions of our June 9, 1997 
interim approval of Utah County's improved vehicle I/M program, 
effective December 30, 1997 (62 FR 31349 and 63 FR 414). The other 
condition of our interim approval was submittal of a demonstration that 
Utah County's decentralized I/M program can obtain the same emission 
reduction credits as a centralized I/M program. Utah submitted this 
demonstration on May 20, 1999. These submittals meet the requirements 
of section 348 of the National Highway System Designation Act (NHSDA), 
which allows States to claim additional credit for their decentralized 
I/M programs. Utah County implements a test and repair I/M network and 
has demonstrated that its program achieves the same effectiveness as a 
test-only network and qualifies for full credit under the NHSDA.

II. Background

    On November 6, 1991, we designated Utah County, Utah as a moderate 
non-attainment area for the carbon monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) (56 FR 56694). Therefore, under section 182 of 
the Clean Air Act (Act) Utah County is required to implement an I/M 
program that is at least as effective as the Federal Basic I/M 
performance standard as specified in 40 CFR 51.352. Vehicle I/M 
programs are designed to reduce motor vehicle emissions by requiring 
vehicles to periodically pass a tailpipe emissions test or, depending 
on the model year of the vehicle, a check of the On-Board Diagnostic 
(OBD) system. Vehicle emissions are reduced when vehicles are repaired 
in order to pass these tests.

A. What Is Utah County's Improved Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 
Program?

    Utah County's improved vehicle I/M program is a basic, 
decentralized, test and repair network. The network consists of 140 
permitted stations which test all 1968 and newer model year light duty 
vehicles, light duty trucks, and heavy duty trucks registered in Utah 
County. Motorcycles, electric powered vehicles, farm vehicles and 
equipment, construction equipment and other off-road vehicles are 
exempt from the I/M program. The program also includes technician 
training, I/M repair station certification, illegal registration 
investigation, repair effectiveness assessments, stringent waiver 
requirements, and remote sensing program implementation. Utah County 
also implements an anti-tampering component of the I/M program which 
entails checking the air pump systems, catalytic converters, exhaust 
gas re-circulation (EGR) valves, evaporative systems, positive pressure 
crankcase valves (PCV), and gas caps. Utah County's improved vehicle I/
M program exceeds the Federal Basic I/M performance standard 
established in 40 CFR part 51, subpart S (``Inspection/Maintenance 
Program Requirements for CO non-attainment areas.'')

B. What Is I/M Program Credit?

    When areas submit SIPs for our approval, we evaluate the 
effectiveness of the control measures and determine the amount of 
emissions that can be reduced upon full implementation of these 
measures. The more effective the I/M program, the more credit we would 
give a State towards achieving the emissions reductions needed to show 
attainment or maintenance.
    We allow States to customize their I/M program and award different 
credits for different programs. Audits conducted by the General 
Accounting Office in 1991, revealed that decentralized programs (test 
and repair networks) were not as effective as centralized programs 
(test-only networks). This was due to higher tampering rates and the 
inherent conflict of interest in allowing garages to inspect their own 
emission repairs. When we released the mobile emissions model, Mobile5, 
we automatically discounted the amount of emissions reduction credit 
areas could claim for decentralized I/M programs by 50%. This 50% 
emission reduction credit is the default value in Mobile5.

C. Summary of EPA's June 9, 1997 Interim Final Rule

    On June 9, 1997, we published in the Federal Register an interim 
final rule (62 FR 31349) approving Utah County's improved I/M program 
SIP revision, submitted March 15, 1996. This March 15, 1996 SIP 
revision was submitted under the authority of both the NHSDA and the 
Act. The effective date of this rule was later corrected to December 
30, 1997 to be consistent with the Congressional Review Act (63 FR 
414). The NHSDA included a key change to our previously developed I/M 
program

[[Page 57746]]

requirements. Section 348 of the NHSDA allows I/M programs to bypass 
the 50% emissions reduction credit that is automatically given to 
decentralized I/M programs. Instead, on the basis of a good faith 
estimate by a State, the NHSDA allows for presumptive equivalency of 
such decentralized networks to the benchmark of centralized programs. 
Under section 348 of the NHSDA, we are required to grant interim 
approval to such decentralized programs, for an 18-month period, at the 
end of which each affected state must submit an evaluation of the 
actual effectiveness of the improved program.
    Our June 9, 1997, interim final rule (62 FR 31349) established two 
requirements that Utah County would have to meet before we would grant 
full final approval of Utah County's improved I/M program:
    (a) The submittal of an evaluation confirming that the program 
achieved the appropriate amount of program credit claimed by the State/
County, and
    (b) The submittal of final program regulations for our approval.

III. Evaluation of Utah County's NHSDA Equivalency Demonstration, Dated 
May 20, 1999

    As noted above, pursuant to section 348 of the NHSDA, in March of 
1996, Utah submitted a ``good faith estimate'' to support its claims 
for 100% emissions reduction credit for its decentralized test and 
repair program, when compared to a centralized test-only network. 
Section 348 of the NHSDA required Utah to submit a demonstration, based 
upon program data collected during the interim approval period, to 
support its good faith estimate and to demonstrate that the credits 
claimed for the decentralized program were appropriate. On May 20, 
1999, Utah submitted a report to us entitled, ``Evaluation of the Utah 
County Inspection/Maintenance Program,'' that describes Utah's efforts 
to ensure that the program is operating as effectively as originally 
proposed.
    Utah's evaluation compares Utah County's decentralized I/M program 
to Phoenix, Arizona's centralized I/M program. The first step was for 
Utah County to develop a correlation between a two-speed idle test, 
used in Utah County, and an I/M240 test, as implemented in Phoenix. 
Utah County procured 454 vehicles and subjected them to an I/M240 test 
in a laboratory from December 1998 through May 1999. Then, they took 
the two-speed idle test results from September 1997 through December 
1998 from Utah County's database. Using ``Development of a Proposed 
Procedure for Determining the Equivalency of Alternative Inspection and 
Maintenance Programs,'' prepared for U.S. EPA, by Sierra Research, July 
22, 1997, and a memo from Lee Cook, Regional and State Programs 
Division, Office of Mobile Sources, to I/M Stakeholders titled, 
``Guidance on Alternative I/M Program Evaluation methods,'' Utah was 
able to develop a correlation between the two different tests and 
calculate an average emissions level. Next, Utah took a random, 2% 
sample of Phoenix's database, from 1997, converted the data to correct 
for altitude, fuel, and calendar year, and calculated an average 
emissions level. Utah was then able to calculate and compare the 
benefits of each I/M program using Mobile5.
    The results of the analysis show that for light duty gasoline 
vehicles, the Utah County emission estimates are similar to Phoenix's 
emission estimates and the percent emission reductions are comparable. 
Utah's evaluation contains audit results of Utah County's program in 
Appendix A, ``Utah County's Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)/
State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) I/M 
Evaluation Factor Results.'' ECOS/STAPPA conducted both overt and 
covert audits of Utah County's program. Overt, or administrative, 
audits consisted of verifying certifications, documentation and 
calibration of test equipment. The results of the overt audits showed 
that centralized networks faired better than decentralized networks. 
However, none of the infractions were of a serious nature. Types of 
problems encountered were analyzer malfunctions, printer ribbons 
needing to be changed, and missing emission manuals. All infractions 
were corrected upon written or verbal correction notices.
    The covert, or undercover, audits consisted of setting the vehicle 
to fail beforehand by removing the catalytic converter, or tampering 
with the air system, and taking the vehicle to be tested. The test-only 
stations passed failing vehicles 31% of the time, whereas the test and 
repair stations passed failing vehicles or performed improper repairs 
only 16% of the time. ECOS/STAPPA concluded that based on these audits, 
there is no difference between the emissions inspections performed by 
either type of testing facility.
    Utah County has demonstrated that its decentralized I/M program 
provides equal emission reductions when compared to a centralized test-
only program. Utah submitted this analysis to us on May 20, 1999. We 
find Utah's analysis to be adequate and conclude that 100% credit is 
appropriate.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a July 26, 1999, letter to Ms. Ursula Trueman, we 
indicated our view that the Utah County evaluation was adequate and 
that we would be able to grant final approval of 100% emission 
reduction credit upon our final approval of a State-adopted SIP 
revision embodying the Utah County improved I/M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Evaluation of Utah's Rule R307-110-34 and Section X, Vehicle 
Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah County, Dated December 
7, 2001

A. What Is the State's Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?

    Section 110(k) of the Act addresses our action on submissions of 
revisions to a SIP. The Act requires States to observe certain 
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to 
us. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act requires that each SIP revision be 
adopted by the State, after reasonable notice and public hearing, and 
prior to the revision being submitted by a State to us.
    The Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) held a public hearing on June 21, 
2001, to include Rule R307-110-34 and section X, Vehicle Inspection and 
Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah County in the Utah SIP. The UAQB 
adopted the revisions on August 1, 2001. This SIP revision became State 
effective on October 2, 2001, and was submitted by the Governor of Utah 
to us on December 7, 2001.
    We have evaluated the Governor's submittal and have determined that 
the State met the requirements for reasonable notice and public hearing 
under section 110(a)(2) of the Act. As required by section 110(k)(1)(B) 
of the Act, we reviewed the SIP revision materials for conformance with 
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V and determined 
that the Governor's submittal was administratively and technically 
complete. We sent our completeness determination on February 20, 2002 
(letter from Jack W. McGraw, Acting Regional Administrator, to Governor 
Michael O. Leavitt).

B. Evaluation of the State's Regulation

    Utah's Rule R307-110-34 and section X, Vehicle Inspection and 
Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah County, consist of program 
improvements such as technician training, I/M repair station 
certification, illegal registration investigation, repair effectiveness 
assessments, stringent waiver requirements, and remote sensing program 
implementation. Furthermore, Utah County has improved their vehicle

[[Page 57747]]

I/M program by changing to Utah 2000 analyzers for emissions, requiring 
emission inspectors to check the On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) systems in 
1996 and newer vehicles, and downloading data daily from the emission 
analyzers. We have reviewed the State's submittal and find that it 
meets our requirements for a Basic I/M program as well as the 
requirements of section 348 of the NHSDA. We note that the Governor's 
December 7, 2001, submittal supercedes and replaces the version of Utah 
County's I/M program that we approved on March 8, 1989 (54 FR 9796). 
The Governor had submitted other revisions to R307-110-34 prior to 
December 7, 2001, that we never approved and note that the Governor's 
December 7, 2001, submittal also supersedes and replaces these other 
revisions to R307-110-34.

V. Final Action

    We are approving the State of Utah's December 7, 2001 SIP submittal 
which consists of a revision to Utah's Rule R307-110-34 and section X, 
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah County. We are 
also approving the State's May 20, 1999 demonstration that its 
decentralized I/M program is capable of achieving emissions reductions 
equivalent to a centralized I/M program. With our approval of these 
submittals, our June 9, 1997, interim approval of Utah County's 
improved vehicle I/M program becomes a full approval, and Utah County 
can claim 100% emissions reduction credit for their improved vehicle I/
M program.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view 
this action as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments 
are filed. This rule will be effective November 12, 2002 without 
further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by October 
15, 2002. If we receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule, in the Federal Register, informing 
the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all 
public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. 
We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any 
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no such 
comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be 
effective on November 12, 2002, and no further action will be taken on 
the proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an 
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 
be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those 
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

VI. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 12, 2002. 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.


[[Page 57748]]


    Dated: August 13, 2002.
Patricia D. Hull,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.


    Part 52, Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 et seq.

Subpart TT--Utah

    2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(50) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (50) The Governor of Utah submitted Rule R307-110-34 and Section X, 
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah County as part 
of the Utah State Implementation Plan on December 7, 2001.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Rule R307-110-34 and Section X, Vehicle Inspection and 
Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah County, including appendices 1 
through 6, as adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on August 1, 2001, 
effective October 2, 2001, published in the Utah State Bulletin issue 
of September 1, 2001.
    (ii) Additional Material.
    (A) Letter dated December 7, 2001 from Governor Michael O. Leavitt 
submitting Utah County's inspection and maintenance program state 
implementation plan revision.
    (B) Evaluation of the Utah County Inspection/Maintenance Program, 
dated May 20, 1999.

    3. Section 52.2348 is amended by redesignating the existing 
paragraph as paragraph (a). adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2348  National Highway Systems Designation Act Motor Vehicle 
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs.

* * * * *
    (b) On May 20, 1999, the State of Utah submitted an evaluation of 
the Utah County inspection and maintenance program. On December 7, 
2001, the Governor of Utah submitted Rule R307-110-34 and Section X, 
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, Part D, Utah County. These 
submittals satisfy the interim approval requirements specified under 
section 348 of the National Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995 (62 
FR 31351, 63 FR 414). Under the authority of section 110 of the Clean 
Air Act, EPA is removing the interim status of Utah County's improved 
inspection and maintenance program and granting Utah County full final 
approval of their improved inspection and maintenance program.

[FR Doc. 02-23084 Filed 9-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P