Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation: Missouri; St. Louis Inspection and Maintenance Program, 11323-11326 [2015-04271]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
This administrative action also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
FR19885, April 23, 1997), because it is
not economically significant. This
administrative action does not involve
technical standards; 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. The
administrative action also does not
involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as
required by Executive Order 12898 (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This
administrative action does not impose
an information collection burden under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act (CRA)
(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. Section 808 allows
the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise
provided by the CRA if the agency
makes a good cause finding that notice
and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest. Today’s administrative action
simply codifies a provision which is
already in effect as a matter of law in
Federal and approved state programs. 5
U.S.C. 808(2). These announced actions
were effective upon EPA’s concurrence.
EPA will submit a report containing this
action 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 this action in the Federal
Register. This update to Texas’ SIP
Compilation is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
11323
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 19, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
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 SS—Texas
2. In § 52.2270(e), the table titled
‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory
Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory
Measures in the Texas SIP’’ is amended
by adding an entry at the end for ‘‘DFW
nine-county area ESL TCM to traffic
signalization TCMs’’.
The addition reads as follows:
■
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
§ 52.2270
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP
Name of SIP provision
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
*
*
DFW nine-county area ESL
TCM to traffic signalization
TCMs.
*
Dallas-Fort Worth: Dallas,
Tarrant, Collin, Denton,
Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman and Rockwall Counties.
[FR Doc. 2015–04269 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0399; FRL–9923–66–
Region 7]
Air Quality State Implementation
Plans; Approval and Promulgation:
Missouri; St. Louis Inspection and
Maintenance Program
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve revisions to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the State of Missouri relating to its
vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:05 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
State
submittal/
effective date
*
9/16/2010
EPA approval date
*
*
*
1/9/2014, 79 FR 1596 ........ DFW ESLs recategorized as
TCM 1/9/2014, substituted
withtraffic signalization
TCMs 11/3/2014.
M) Program. On August 16, 2007, and
December 7, 2007, the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) requested to amend the SIP to
replace the St. Louis centralized vehicle
test program, called the Gateway Clean
Air Program (GCAP), with a decentralized, OBD-only vehicle I/M
program called the Gateway Vehicle
Inspection Program (GVIP). In this
action, EPA is also approving three
additional SIP revisions submitted by
Missouri related to the state’s I/M
program including: Exemptions for
specially constructed vehicles or ‘‘kitcars,’’ exemptions for Plugin Hybrid
Electric Vehicles (PHEV), and rescission
of Missouri State Highway Patrol rules
from the Missouri SIP.
These revisions to Missouri’s SIP do
not have an adverse effect on air quality
as demonstrated in the technical
support document which is a part of
this docket. EPA’s approval of these SIP
revisions is being done in accordance
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comments
with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on
April 2, 2015.
DATES:
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R07–OAR–2014–0399. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Planning and Development Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa,
Kansas 66219. The Regional Office’s
official hours of business are Monday
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
11324
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
excluding Federal holidays. The
interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Brown, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at
913–551–7718, or by email at
brown.steven@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
or ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section
provides additional information by
addressing the following:
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a
SIP revision been met?
III. EPA’s response to comments.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
I. What is being addressed in this
document?
EPA is approving revisions to the St.
Louis vehicle I/M program to replace
the centralized, transient I/M240 vehicle
I/M program (GCAP) with the decentralized, OBD-only, vehicle I/M
program (GVIP). MDNR submitted to
EPA five SIP revision submissions to
address the vehicle I/M program
replacement and associated state rule,
plus one supplemental demonstration.
They are as follows:
On August 16, 2007, MDNR requested
that Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–5.380,
‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection’’
be rescinded and replaced with rule 10
CSR 10–5.381, ‘‘On-Board Diagnostics
Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection.’’ In
that same submittal letter, MDNR also
requested that Missouri Rule 10 CSR
10–5.375, ‘‘Motor Vehicles Emissions
Inspection Waiver’’ be rescinded. EPA is
not taking any action on 10 CSR 10–
5.375 as it is being replaced in its
entirety with the GVIP I/M program,
Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–5.381.
On December 14, 2007, MDNR
submitted the new GVIP plan and
performance standard demonstration to
show that the GVIP program meets the
basic requirements as described in 40
CFR part 51 subpart S. This submission
also requests that EPA approve the plan
to replace the GCAP I/M program with
the new GVIP program.
On December 21, 2007, Missouri
submitted a revision requesting that the
Missouri State Highway Patrol rules be
removed from the Missouri SIP because
the new rule, 10 CSR 10–5.381, does not
rely on the Missouri Highway Patrol
rules for enforcement. More details can
be found in the technical support
document that is a part of this docket.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:05 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
On January 2, 2009, MDNR submitted
a required supplemental demonstration
for I/M network type and program
evaluation as required by 40 CFR
51.353. This demonstration is required
within one year after the I/M program
begins.
On June 17, 2009, Missouri submitted
a revision to I/M rule 10 CSR 10–5.381
which includes minor clarification edits
and exempts specially constructed
vehicles or ‘‘kit-cars’’ from the rule.
On December 10, 2012, Missouri
submitted a revision to exempt Plugin
Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) from
the I/M program as codified in rule 10
CSR 10–5.381.
As part of our review, EPA performed
a separate analysis of all the state’s SIP
submissions and a cumulative air
quality analysis as documented in the
technical support document that is part
of this docket. EPA’s analysis shows
that these SIP revisions do not adversely
affect air quality in the St. Louis area
and are approvable.
II. Have the requirements for approval
of a SIP revision been met?
The state submission has met the
public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR
51.102. The submission also satisfied
the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. In addition, as
explained above and in more detail in
the technical support document which
is part of this docket, the revision meets
the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.
III. EPA’s Response to Comments
The public comment period on EPA’s
proposed rule opened December 28,
2014, the date of its publication in the
Federal Register, and closed on January
29, 2015. During this period, EPA
received five comments from one
anonymous commenter.
Comment 1: The commenter contends
that while no action is necessary with
regards to removing Missouri Rule 10
CSR 10–5.375 from the SIP because
Missouri is replacing the GCAP program
with the GVIP program, EPA incorrectly
stated that Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–
5.375 was not part of the SIP.
Response 1: EPA agrees with the
commenter that 10 CSR 10–5.375 was
included in list number 47 in 40 CFR
52.1320(e) under ‘‘Vehicle I/M
Program’’ and also should have been
listed in 40 CFR 52.1320(c) but was not.
EPA also agrees that no action is
necessary to remove 10 CSR 10–5.375
from the SIP as the GCAP I/M program
is being wholly replaced with the GVIP
I/M program. Therefore, no action is
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
necessary on Missouri’s request to
remove Missouri rule CSR 10–5.375
from the SIP.
Comment 2: The commenter contends
that the analysis performed to show that
the new I/M program meets the
performance standard did not account
for the removal of both the IM240 and
single speed idle test and therefore was
done improperly.
Response 2: Missouri is not required
to include a performance standard test
for IM240 and single speed idle testing
as Missouri is only required to meet the
Basic Performance Standard test set
forth by EPA. The reason for the
performance standard testing was to
give an indication of whether or not the
GVIP program would satisfy the
minimum requirements of EPA’s I/M
rule. The GVIP program’s modeling
parameters used by Missouri during this
Basic Performance Standard test
analysis were correctly identified and
performed adequately. The technical
support document (TSD) supplied in the
docket reviews the performance
standard test results and also includes a
section 110(l) modeling exercise that
compares the GCAP and GVIP I/M
programs emissions results.
Comment 3: The commenter states
that portions of the St. Louis area are
required to have an enhanced I/M
program as part of the 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan which covers the
second ten-year maintenance plan and
beyond. The commenter says that this
means that until Missouri has
demonstrated that the enhanced I/M
program is no longer necessary, and
EPA approves this demonstration, the
St. Louis area is still required to have an
enhanced I/M program.
Response 3: Under the 1-hour
standard, the St. Louis area was
classified as moderate non-attainment
and was only required to do a basic I/
M program. At the time the GCAP was
approved, its emission reductions were
compared to those that would be
achieved by the basic I/M performance
standard and were found to exceed the
performance standard. Because the
GCAP program met the applicable
performance standard as well as
providing the additional emission
reductions required under the
attainment plan, it was approved.
Today’s action, among other things, is
approving the replacement of the GCAP
program with the GVIP program which
has also been found to meet the
minimum basic program requirements
but also achieves greater emission
reductions than the GCAP program it
replaces as demonstrated by the section
110(l) analysis included in the TSD in
the docket for today’s action. The GVIP
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
program meets all the requirements
previously met by the GCAP when it
was approved into the SIP. Today’s
action does not weaken or remove the
I/M program from the SIP as
demonstrated in the TSD, contrary to
what is implied by the commenter.
Additionally, Missouri relies on the
GVIP program and it is specifically
relied upon in the St. Louis area’s 1997
8-hour ozone maintenance plan.
Comment 4: The commenter states
that Missouri’s emissions analysis uses
the outdated EPA mobile model,
MOBILE–6, and that because Missouri
submitted this SIP revision over five
years ago and EPA has not acted on it,
the burden should be on EPA to perform
an additional analysis utilizing the
updated EPA mobile model,
MOVES2014.
Response 4: EPA did perform an
additional modeling analysis utilizing
MOVES2014 to compare the GCAP and
GVIP I/M program differences for
control efficiency and emissions results
for the St. Louis area. The results show
that the GVIP program achieves greater
emission reductions than the GCAP
program. These results can be found in
the TSD which is part of this docket.
Comment 5: The commenter states
that EPA should perform an additional
modeling analysis that uses the
performance standard in the February
2014 guidance document EPA–420–B–
14–006. The commenter further states
that by using this guidance any analysis
will show that the removal of the IM240
test and single speed idle test will result
in a loss of NOX and VOC emission
reductions and that losses will need to
be compensated for with other emission
reduction measures.
Response 5: Additional performance
standard modeling is only required if
changes are made to an approved I/M
program prior to attaining the standard
for which the program was adopted
(section 4.0, EPA guidance document:
EPA–420–B–14–006). Missouri has
attained the standard(s) for which the
program was adopted. Once an area goes
from being a nonattainment area to an
attainment and maintenance area, the
only analysis required when changing
an I/M program is to estimate the
shortfall, if any, created by the change
as part of a required 110(l)
demonstration. The 110(l)
demonstration modeling contained in
the TSD, provided in the docket, was
performed using the February 2014
guidance cited in the comment and
shows that there was no shortfall
created by the change from the GCAP to
the GVIP which is being approved
through this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:05 Mar 02, 2015
Jkt 235001
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is taking final action to amend
the Missouri SIP to approve revisions to
St. Louis vehicle I/M program. While
these SIP revisions were submitted in
separate requests, they are direct
changes to the St. Louis Vehicle
Inspection Program and are being
addressed in one SIP action.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this rule, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of the Missouri rule 10–
5.381 ‘‘On Board Diagnostics Motor
Vehicle Emissions Inspection’’
described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below.’’ EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these
documents generally available
electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
for more information).
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11325
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 action 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 CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by May 4, 2015. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the
finality of this action 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).)
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
11326
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 41 / Tuesday, March 3, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
a. Removing the entry for ‘‘10–5.380’’;
b. Adding in numerical order the
entry for ‘‘10–5.381’’; and
■ c. Removing the chapter title
‘‘Missouri Department of Public Safety
Division 50-State Highway Patrol
Chapter 2—Motor Vehicle Inspection’’
and its entries for ‘‘50–2.010 through
50–2.420’’.
The addition reads as follows:
Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as set
forth below:
■
■
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.
Dated: February 18, 2015.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
Subpart AA—Missouri
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Environmental Protection
§ 52.1320
2. In § 52.1320(c) the table is amended
by:
■
*
Identification of Plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS
Missouri
citation
State
effective
date
Title
EPA approval date
Explanation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 5—Air Quality Regulations and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
*
10–5.381 ......
*
*
On-Board Diagnostics Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
For
additional information contact Cathy
Williams, Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov, (202)
418–2918.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[IB Docket No. 12–299; FCC 14–48]
Reform of Rules and Policies on
Foreign Carrier Entry Into the U.S.
Telecommunications Market
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; announcement of
effective date.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) announces that the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved, for a period of three years, the
information collection requirements
associated with the Commission’s
Report and Order, IB Docket No. 12–
299, FCC 14–48. This notice is
consistent with the Report and Order,
which stated that the Commission
would publish a document in the
Federal Register announcing OMB
SUMMARY:
Jkt 235001
This
document announces that, on February
10, 2015 and February 20, 2015, OMB
approved the information collection
requirements contained in the
Commission’s Report and Order, FCC
14–48, published at 79 FR 31873, June
3, 2014. The OMB Control Numbers are
3060–0686 and 3060–0944. The
Commission publishes this notice as an
announcement of the effective date of
the requirements. If you have any
comments on the burden estimates
listed below, or how the Commission
can improve the collections and reduce
any burdens caused thereby, please
contact Cathy Williams, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 1–
C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington,
DC 20554. Please include the OMB
Control Number, 3060–0686, in your
correspondence. The Commission will
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
*
The amendments to 47 CFR
1.767(a)(8), 1.768(g)(2), 63.11(g)(2) and
63.18(k), published at 79 FR 31873, June
3, 2014 are effective on March 3, 2015.
47 CFR Parts 1 and 63
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
DATES:
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
17:27 Mar 02, 2015
*
*
3/3/15 [Insert Federal Register citation].
approval and the effective date of the
requirements.
*
[FR Doc. 2015–04271 Filed 3–2–15; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
12/30/12
*
also accept your comments via email at
PRA@fcc.gov.
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to fcc504@
fcc.gov or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
Synopsis
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507),
the FCC is notifying the public that it
received OMB approval on February 10,
2015 and February 20, 2015, for the new
information collection requirements
contained in the Commission’s rules at
47 CFR 1.767(a)(8), 1.768(g)(2),
63.11(g)(2) and 63.18(k).
Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency
may not conduct or sponsor a collection
of information unless it displays a
current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act that does not
display a current, valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Numbers are
3060–0686 and 3060–0944.
The foregoing notice is required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
E:\FR\FM\03MRR1.SGM
03MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 3, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11323-11326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04271]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0399; FRL-9923-66-Region 7]
Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and
Promulgation: Missouri; St. Louis Inspection and Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Missouri relating to its vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance (I/M) Program. On August 16, 2007, and December 7,
2007, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) requested to
amend the SIP to replace the St. Louis centralized vehicle test
program, called the Gateway Clean Air Program (GCAP), with a de-
centralized, OBD-only vehicle I/M program called the Gateway Vehicle
Inspection Program (GVIP). In this action, EPA is also approving three
additional SIP revisions submitted by Missouri related to the state's
I/M program including: Exemptions for specially constructed vehicles or
``kit-cars,'' exemptions for Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV),
and rescission of Missouri State Highway Patrol rules from the Missouri
SIP.
These revisions to Missouri's SIP do not have an adverse effect on
air quality as demonstrated in the technical support document which is
a part of this docket. EPA's approval of these SIP revisions is being
done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 2, 2015.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0399. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's official hours of business
are Monday
[[Page 11324]]
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. The
interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Brown, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at 913-551-7718, or by email at
brown.steven@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:
I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. EPA's response to comments.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
I. What is being addressed in this document?
EPA is approving revisions to the St. Louis vehicle I/M program to
replace the centralized, transient I/M240 vehicle I/M program (GCAP)
with the de-centralized, OBD-only, vehicle I/M program (GVIP). MDNR
submitted to EPA five SIP revision submissions to address the vehicle
I/M program replacement and associated state rule, plus one
supplemental demonstration. They are as follows:
On August 16, 2007, MDNR requested that Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-
5.380, ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection'' be rescinded and replaced
with rule 10 CSR 10-5.381, ``On-Board Diagnostics Motor Vehicle
Emissions Inspection.'' In that same submittal letter, MDNR also
requested that Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-5.375, ``Motor Vehicles
Emissions Inspection Waiver'' be rescinded. EPA is not taking any
action on 10 CSR 10-5.375 as it is being replaced in its entirety with
the GVIP I/M program, Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-5.381.
On December 14, 2007, MDNR submitted the new GVIP plan and
performance standard demonstration to show that the GVIP program meets
the basic requirements as described in 40 CFR part 51 subpart S. This
submission also requests that EPA approve the plan to replace the GCAP
I/M program with the new GVIP program.
On December 21, 2007, Missouri submitted a revision requesting that
the Missouri State Highway Patrol rules be removed from the Missouri
SIP because the new rule, 10 CSR 10-5.381, does not rely on the
Missouri Highway Patrol rules for enforcement. More details can be
found in the technical support document that is a part of this docket.
On January 2, 2009, MDNR submitted a required supplemental
demonstration for I/M network type and program evaluation as required
by 40 CFR 51.353. This demonstration is required within one year after
the I/M program begins.
On June 17, 2009, Missouri submitted a revision to I/M rule 10 CSR
10-5.381 which includes minor clarification edits and exempts specially
constructed vehicles or ``kit-cars'' from the rule.
On December 10, 2012, Missouri submitted a revision to exempt
Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) from the I/M program as codified
in rule 10 CSR 10-5.381.
As part of our review, EPA performed a separate analysis of all the
state's SIP submissions and a cumulative air quality analysis as
documented in the technical support document that is part of this
docket. EPA's analysis shows that these SIP revisions do not adversely
affect air quality in the St. Louis area and are approvable.
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical
support document which is part of this docket, the revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.
III. EPA's Response to Comments
The public comment period on EPA's proposed rule opened December
28, 2014, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and
closed on January 29, 2015. During this period, EPA received five
comments from one anonymous commenter.
Comment 1: The commenter contends that while no action is necessary
with regards to removing Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-5.375 from the SIP
because Missouri is replacing the GCAP program with the GVIP program,
EPA incorrectly stated that Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10-5.375 was not part
of the SIP.
Response 1: EPA agrees with the commenter that 10 CSR 10-5.375 was
included in list number 47 in 40 CFR 52.1320(e) under ``Vehicle I/M
Program'' and also should have been listed in 40 CFR 52.1320(c) but was
not. EPA also agrees that no action is necessary to remove 10 CSR 10-
5.375 from the SIP as the GCAP I/M program is being wholly replaced
with the GVIP I/M program. Therefore, no action is necessary on
Missouri's request to remove Missouri rule CSR 10-5.375 from the SIP.
Comment 2: The commenter contends that the analysis performed to
show that the new I/M program meets the performance standard did not
account for the removal of both the IM240 and single speed idle test
and therefore was done improperly.
Response 2: Missouri is not required to include a performance
standard test for IM240 and single speed idle testing as Missouri is
only required to meet the Basic Performance Standard test set forth by
EPA. The reason for the performance standard testing was to give an
indication of whether or not the GVIP program would satisfy the minimum
requirements of EPA's I/M rule. The GVIP program's modeling parameters
used by Missouri during this Basic Performance Standard test analysis
were correctly identified and performed adequately. The technical
support document (TSD) supplied in the docket reviews the performance
standard test results and also includes a section 110(l) modeling
exercise that compares the GCAP and GVIP I/M programs emissions
results.
Comment 3: The commenter states that portions of the St. Louis area
are required to have an enhanced I/M program as part of the 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan which covers the second ten-year maintenance
plan and beyond. The commenter says that this means that until Missouri
has demonstrated that the enhanced I/M program is no longer necessary,
and EPA approves this demonstration, the St. Louis area is still
required to have an enhanced I/M program.
Response 3: Under the 1-hour standard, the St. Louis area was
classified as moderate non-attainment and was only required to do a
basic I/M program. At the time the GCAP was approved, its emission
reductions were compared to those that would be achieved by the basic
I/M performance standard and were found to exceed the performance
standard. Because the GCAP program met the applicable performance
standard as well as providing the additional emission reductions
required under the attainment plan, it was approved. Today's action,
among other things, is approving the replacement of the GCAP program
with the GVIP program which has also been found to meet the minimum
basic program requirements but also achieves greater emission
reductions than the GCAP program it replaces as demonstrated by the
section 110(l) analysis included in the TSD in the docket for today's
action. The GVIP
[[Page 11325]]
program meets all the requirements previously met by the GCAP when it
was approved into the SIP. Today's action does not weaken or remove the
I/M program from the SIP as demonstrated in the TSD, contrary to what
is implied by the commenter. Additionally, Missouri relies on the GVIP
program and it is specifically relied upon in the St. Louis area's 1997
8-hour ozone maintenance plan.
Comment 4: The commenter states that Missouri's emissions analysis
uses the outdated EPA mobile model, MOBILE-6, and that because Missouri
submitted this SIP revision over five years ago and EPA has not acted
on it, the burden should be on EPA to perform an additional analysis
utilizing the updated EPA mobile model, MOVES2014.
Response 4: EPA did perform an additional modeling analysis
utilizing MOVES2014 to compare the GCAP and GVIP I/M program
differences for control efficiency and emissions results for the St.
Louis area. The results show that the GVIP program achieves greater
emission reductions than the GCAP program. These results can be found
in the TSD which is part of this docket.
Comment 5: The commenter states that EPA should perform an
additional modeling analysis that uses the performance standard in the
February 2014 guidance document EPA-420-B-14-006. The commenter further
states that by using this guidance any analysis will show that the
removal of the IM240 test and single speed idle test will result in a
loss of NOX and VOC emission reductions and that losses will
need to be compensated for with other emission reduction measures.
Response 5: Additional performance standard modeling is only
required if changes are made to an approved I/M program prior to
attaining the standard for which the program was adopted (section 4.0,
EPA guidance document: EPA-420-B-14-006). Missouri has attained the
standard(s) for which the program was adopted. Once an area goes from
being a nonattainment area to an attainment and maintenance area, the
only analysis required when changing an I/M program is to estimate the
shortfall, if any, created by the change as part of a required 110(l)
demonstration. The 110(l) demonstration modeling contained in the TSD,
provided in the docket, was performed using the February 2014 guidance
cited in the comment and shows that there was no shortfall created by
the change from the GCAP to the GVIP which is being approved through
this action.
IV. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP to approve
revisions to St. Louis vehicle I/M program. While these SIP revisions
were submitted in separate requests, they are direct changes to the St.
Louis Vehicle Inspection Program and are being addressed in one SIP
action.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri
rule 10-5.381 ``On Board Diagnostics Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection'' described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below.'' EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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 action 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 4, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action 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).)
[[Page 11326]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 18, 2015.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et. seq.
Subpart AA--Missouri
0
2. In Sec. 52.1320(c) the table is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry for ``10-5.380'';
0
b. Adding in numerical order the entry for ``10-5.381''; and
0
c. Removing the chapter title ``Missouri Department of Public Safety
Division 50-State Highway Patrol Chapter 2--Motor Vehicle Inspection''
and its entries for ``50-2.010 through 50-2.420''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 52.1320 Identification of Plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Missouri citation Title effective EPA approval date Explanation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 5--Air Quality Regulations and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
10-5.381................ On-Board Diagnostics 12/30/12 3/3/15 [Insert Federal .......................
Motor Vehicle Register citation].
Emissions Inspection.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-04271 Filed 3-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
