[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