[Federal Register: September 23, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 185)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 49680-49682] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 51 [FRL-5610-4] Minor Amendments to Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Direct final rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This rule changes a provision of the federal vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) rules relating to motorist compliance enforcement mechanisms for pre-existing programs. The current rule limits the use of pre-existing enforcement mechanisms, other than denial of vehicle registration, to those geographic areas previously subject to the I/M program. This rule change allows states to employ such effective pre-existing enforcement mechanisms as sticker enforcement in any area in the state adopting an I/M program. This amendment is consistent with the relevant requirements of the Clean Air Act. These changes will not result in any change in health and environmental benefits. DATES: This rule will take effect November 22, 1996 unless EPA receives adverse comments on a parallel proposal of this action, published elsewhere in this Federal Register, by October 23, 1996. Should EPA receive such comments, EPA will publish a subsequent document in the Federal Register withdrawing this direct final rule prior to the effective date. Anyone wishing to submit comments on the parallel proposal should do so at this time. ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in the Public Docket No. A-91-75. The docket is located at the Air Docket, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall SW, Washington, DC 20460. The docket may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and between 1:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket material. Electronic copies of the preamble and the regulatory text of this rulemaking are available on the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network Bulletin Board System (TTN BBS) and the Office of Mobile Sources' World Wide Web cite, http://ww.epa.gov/OMSWWW/. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leila Cook, Office of Mobile Sources, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (313) 741-7820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities Entities potentially regulated by the minor amendment to the I/M rule are those which adopt, approve, or fund I/M programs. Regulated categories and entities include: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Category Examples of regulated entities --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Local government.................... Local air quality agencies. State government.................... State air quality agencies responsible for I/M programs. Federal............................. EPA. government.......................... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware that could potentially be regulated by this I/M amendment. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your organization is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria of 40 CFR 51.361 of the I/M rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (40 CFR part 51, subpart S) rules relating to motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs (hereafter referred to as the I/M rule; see 57 FR 52950). EPA here amends those rules to broaden the geographic area in which preexisting enforcement mechanisms can be employed. Section 182(c)(3) of the Act establishes the statutory requirements for enhanced I/M programs. Subsection (c)(3)(C)(iv) requires the use of vehicle registration denial enforcement mechanisms except in certain cases. The statute allows the use of alternative enforcement mechanisms that are demonstrated to be more effective than vehicle registration denial for any program in operation before enactment of the 1990 amendments of the Act. In the 1992 I/M rules, EPA interpreted this statutory requirement to allow the use of pre-existing alternative enforcement mechanisms only in the same geographic area where the prior program had been implemented using that alternative 40 CFR 51.361. That regulation did not provide for the use of alternative enforcement mechanisms in [[Page 49681]] any areas within a state that had not previously had an I/M program, even where an effective alternative enforcement mechanism was in place elsewhere in the state. In addition, the 1992 I/M rule required preexisting alternative enforcement mechanisms to have been approved into the SIP. Based on experience implementing the I/M rule, EPA now believes that the provisions limiting the geographic scope of pre-existing enforcement mechanisms should be altered. EPA is amending 40 CFR 51.361 to allow, anywhere within a state, the use of more effective preexisting enforcement mechanisms that the state had previously used in only some portion of the state. In states where a pre-existing enforcement mechanism can be demonstrated to be more effective than registration denial, it would be incongruous to allow the use of that mechanism only in those areas that had previously employed the mechanism, but require areas within the state newly implementing I/M to use a registration denial system that had already been demonstrated to be less effective within the state. EPA believes that the amendment to section 51.361 is consistent with the Act. The statute does not impose a geographic limitation on the scope of applicability of pre-existing enforcement mechanisms. The statute merely requires that the I/M program have been in place prior to the 1990 amendments to the Act, and that the enforcement mechanism be demonstrated to be more effective than registration denial. EPA believes that where this demonstration can be made, expansion of the program, including the pre-existing enforcement mechanism, to other areas within the state is appropriate and consistent with the statute. Further, EPA is removing the requirement in Sec. 51.361 that preexisting enforcement mechanisms have been approved into the SIP. The statute requires only that such mechanism have been in operation prior to the 1990 amendments to the Act, and says nothing about SIP approval. Where a state can demonstrate that its pre-existing enforcement mechanism is more effective than registration denial, EPA believes it would be inconsistent with the statute to require use of the less effective registration denial system merely because the program previously in operation had not been approved into the SIP. Administrative Requirements Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, therefore, is not subject to the requirement of a Regulatory Impact Analysis. A small entity may include a small government entity or jurisdiction. A small government jurisdiction is defined as governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000. This certification is based on the fact that the I/M areas impacted by this rulemaking do not meet the definition of a small government jurisdiction, that is, governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000. This rule affects only the enforcement mechanism states may include in their I/M programs. Furthermore, the impact created by this action does not increase the pre-existing burden which this proposal seeks to amend. Unfunded Mandates Act 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 where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective 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 impacted by the rule. To the extent that the requirements in this action would impose any mandate at all as defined in Section 101 of the Unfunded Mandates Act upon the state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, as explained above, this rule is not estimated to impose costs in excess of $100 million. Therefore, EPA has not prepared a statement with respect to budgetary impacts. As noted above, this rule offers opportunities to states that would enable them to lower economic burdens from those resulting from the currently existing I/M rule. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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 General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. The rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Executive Order 12866 It has been determined that this amendment to the I/M rule is not a significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and has been waived from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements There are no information requirements in this final rule which requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Effective Date This rule will take effect on November 22, 1996, unless EPA receives adverse comment on a parallel document proposing these same changes published elsewhere in this Federal Register. EPA is using the direct final rulemaking procedure in this case because EPA believes that these amendments are noncontroversial and does not anticipate receiving any adverse comment. Should EPA receive any such comments, EPA will publish a subsequent document in the Federal Register withdrawing this direct final rule prior to the effective date. EPA will then publish another final rule responding to the comments received and taking final action on the parallel proposal. Anyone wishing to comment on the parallel proposal should do so at this time. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. [[Page 49682]] Dated: September 10, 1996. Carol M. Browner, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 51 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 51--[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. 2. Section 51.361 is amended by revising the introductory text and paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as follows: Sec. 51.361 Motorist compliance enforcement. Compliance shall 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. An enhanced I/M area may use an existing alternative if it demonstrates that the alternative has been more effective than registration denial. An enforcement mechanism may be considered an ``existing alternative'' only in states that, for some area in the state, had an I/M program with that mechanism in operation prior to passage of the 1990 Amendments to the Act. A basic I/M area may use an alternative enforcement mechanism if it demonstrates that the alternative will be as effective as registration denial. Two other types of enforcement programs may qualify for enhanced I/M programs if demonstrated to have been more effective than enforcement of the registration requirement in the past: Sticker-based enforcement programs and computer-matching programs. States that did not adopt an I/M program for any area of the state before November 15, 1990, may not use an enforcement alternative in connection with an enhanced I/M program required to be adopted after that date. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (i) For enhanced I/M programs, the area in question shall have had an operating I/M program using the alternative mechanism prior to enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. While modifications to improve compliance may be made to the program that was in effect at the time of enactment, the expected change in effectiveness cannot be considered in determining acceptability; * * * * * [FR Doc. 96-23652 Filed 9-20-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-M