[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 125 (Thursday, June 30, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15982]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: June 30, 1994]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA38-1-6207; FRL-5005-8]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and 
Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed conditional approval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania. This revision establishes and requires the implementation 
of an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program 
in the counties of Allegheny, Beaver, Berks, Blair, Bucks, Cambria, 
Centre, Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Lackawanna, 
Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer, Montgomery, 
Northampton, Philadelphia, Washington, Westmoreland and York. The 
intended effect of this action is to propose conditional approval of 
the Pennsylvania enhanced motor vehicle I/M program. This action is 
being taken under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Thomas J. Maslany, Director, Air, 
Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. 
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the Air, Radiation, 
and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 and the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Air 
Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, 
Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Kelly L. Bunker, (215) 597-4554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    Motor vehicles are significant contributors of volatile organic 
compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) 
emissions. An important control measure to reduce these emissions is 
the implementation of a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) 
program. Despite being subject to the most rigorous vehicle pollution 
control program in the world, cars and trucks still create about half 
of the ozone air pollution and nearly all of the carbon monoxide air 
pollution in United States cities, as well as toxic contaminants. Of 
all highway vehicles, passenger cars and light-duty trucks emit most of 
the vehicle-related carbon monoxide and ozone-forming hydrocarbons. 
They also emit substantial amounts of nitrogen oxides and air toxics. 
Although the U.S. has made progress in reducing emissions of these 
pollutants, total fleet emissions remain high. This is because the 
number of vehicle miles travelled on U.S. roads has doubled in the last 
20 years to 2 trillion miles per year, offsetting much of the 
technological progress in vehicle emission control over the same two 
decades. Projections indicate that the steady growth in vehicle travel 
will continue. Ongoing efforts to reduce emissions from individual 
vehicles will be necessary to achieve our air quality goals.
    Today's cars are absolutely dependent on properly functioning 
emission controls to keep pollution levels low. Minor malfunctions in 
the emission control system can increase emissions significantly, and 
the average car on the road emits three to four times the new car 
standard. Major malfunctions in the emission control system can cause 
emissions to skyrocket. As a result, 10 to 30 percent of cars are 
causing the majority of the vehicle-related pollution problem. 
Unfortunately, it is rarely obvious which cars fall into this category, 
as the emissions themselves may not be noticeable and emission control 
malfunctions do not necessarily affect vehicle driveability.
    Effective I/M programs, however, can identify these problem cars 
and assure their repair. I/M programs ensure that cars are properly 
maintained in customer use. I/M produces emission reduction results 
soon after the program is put in place.
    EPA projects that ``enhanced'' I/M programs in the most polluted 
cities around the country would cut vehicle emissions by 28 percent, at 
a cost of about $12.50 per vehicle per year. This represents a major 
step toward the Clean Air Acts's requirement that the most seriously 
polluted cities achieve a 24 percent overall emissions reduction by 
2000.
    The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act) requires that most 
polluted cities adopt either ``basic'' or ``enhanced'' I/M programs, 
depending on the severity of the problem and the population of the 
area. The moderate ozone nonattainment areas, plus marginal ozone areas 
with existing or previously required I/M programs, fall under the 
``basic'' I/M requirements. Enhanced programs are required in serious, 
severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas with urbanized 
populations of 200,000 or more; CO areas that exceed a 12.7 parts per 
million (ppm) design value1 with urbanized populations of 200,000 
or more; and all metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 
100,000 or more in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The air quality design value is estimated using EPA 
guidance. Generally, the fourth highest monitored value with 3 
complete years of data is selected as the ozone design value because 
the standard allows one exceedance for each year. The highest of the 
second high monitored values with 2 complete years of data is 
selected as the carbon monoxide design value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Basic'' and ``enhanced'' I/M programs both achieve their 
objective by identifying vehicles that have high emissions as a result 
of one or more malfunctions, and requiring them to be repaired. An 
``enhanced'' program covers more of the vehicles in operation, employs 
inspection methods which are better at finding high emitting vehicles, 
and has additional features to better assure that all vehicles are 
tested properly and effectively repaired.
    The Act requires states to make changes to improve existing I/M 
programs or to implement new ones for certain nonattainment areas. 
Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed EPA to publish updated 
guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of 
the Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. The 
Act further requires each area required to have an I/M program to 
incorporate this guidance into the SIP. Based on these requirements, 
EPA promulgated I/M regulations on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950, 
codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.350-51.373).
    Under sections 182(c)(3), 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1) of the Act, any 
area having a 1980 Bureau of Census-defined urbanized area population 
of 200,000 or more and either: (1) designated as serious or worse ozone 
nonattainment or (2) moderate or serious CO nonattainment areas with a 
design value greater than 12.7 ppm shall implement enhanced I/M in the 
1990 Census-defined urbanized area. The Act also established the ozone 
transport region (OTR) in the northeastern United States which includes 
the States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 
Maryland and Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia. Sections 
182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act require the implementation of 
enhanced I/M programs in all metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) 
located in the OTR which have a population of 100,000 or more people.
    The Act requires basic I/M programs to be implemented in the 1990 
Census-defined urbanized area of the following nonattainment areas: (1) 
any area which is classified as moderate or worse ozone nonattainment 
and is not required to implement enhanced I/M or (2) any area outside 
the OTR that is classified as serious or worse ozone nonattainment or 
moderate or serious CO nonattainment with a design value greater than 
12.7 ppm and having a 1990 Census-defined urbanized area population of 
less than 200,000. Any areas classified as marginal ozone nonattainment 
or moderate CO nonattainment with a design value of 12.7 ppm or less 
shall continue operating existing programs that are part of an approved 
SIP as of November 15, 1990 or implement any previously required 
program, and shall update the program to meet the basic I/M 
requirements set forth in Secs. 51.350-51.373.
    The I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for 
basic and enhanced I/M programs as well as requirements for the 
following: network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and 
resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test 
procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and 
compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement; 
motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance; 
enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors; data 
collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and 
licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection; 
improving repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road 
testing; SIP revisions; and implementation deadlines. The performance 
standard for basic I/M programs remains the same as it has been since 
initial I/M policy was established in 1978, pursuant to the 1977 
amendments to the Clean Air Act. The performance standard for enhanced 
I/M programs is based on a high-technology transient test, known as 
IM240, for new technology vehicles (i.e, those with closed-loop control 
and, especially, fuel injected engines), including a transient loaded 
exhaust short test incorporating hydrocarbons (HC), CO and NOx 
cutpoints, an evaporative system integrity (pressure) test and an 
evaporative system performance (purge) test. For enhanced I/M programs, 
all requirements must initially be implemented by January 1, 1995 
except that areas switching from an existing test-and-repair network to 
a test-only network may phase in that change between January 1995 and 
January 1996.

II. Background

    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is part of the OTR and contains 
the following MSAs or parts thereof with a population of 100,000 or 
more: Allentown-Bethlehem, Altoona, Beaver, Erie, Harrisburg Lebanon-
Carlisle, Johnstown, Lancaster, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, 
Reading, Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, Sharon, State College, Williamsport, 
and York. Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act require all 
states in the OTR region which contain MSAs or parts thereof with a 
population of 100,000 or more, to submit a SIP revision for an enhanced 
I/M program. Section 51.372(b)(2) of the federal I/M regulation 
required affected states to submit full I/M SIP revisions that met the 
requirements of the Act by November 15, 1993.
    On November 5, 1993, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Resources (PADER) submitted to EPA a SIP revision for an enhanced I/M 
program. The revision included a copy of the final enhanced I/M 
regulation, 67 Pennsylvania (PA) Code Chapter 178; the Pennsylvania I/M 
Request for Proposals (RFP); the Pennsylvania I/M legislation, Act 166; 
and supporting documents. On March 30, 1994, PADER submitted an 
addendum to the SIP which included portions of the selected I/M 
contractor's proposal. The I/M regulations were adopted by the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on June 3, 1993 and become effective on 
January 1, 1995. EPA's I/M regulations require state I/M rules to be 
effective by November 15, 1993. However, EPA believes that the 
effective date of the Pennsylvania enhanced I/M program is approvable 
for two reasons. First, it would be a futile act to require the 
Commonwealth to amend its regulations to require an earlier effective 
date at this time. It would normally take Pennsylvania more than the 
six months remaining before the effective date of January 1, 1995 to 
complete the administrative process to amend the regulations. Secondly, 
an earlier effective date would not change any of the requirements of 
the regulations. Pennsylvania has already initiated all of the steps 
required under the federal I/M regulations to be conducted prior to 
January 1, 1995 under independent authority. The January 1, 1995 
effective date will allow the Commonwealth to fully implement the 
enhanced I/M program consistent with the requirements of the federal I/
M rule. Therefore, EPA concludes that the delay in the effective date 
of the Pennsylvania I/M rule is deminimis, and EPA proposes to approve 
the January 1, 1995 effective date.
    EPA summarizes the requirements of the federal I/M regulations as 
found in 40 CFR part 51.350-51.373 and its analysis of the 
Commonwealth's submittal below. A more detailed analysis of the 
Commonwealth's submittal is contained in a Technical Support Document 
(TSD) dated May 18, 1994, which is available from the Region III 
office, listed in the ADDRESSES section. Parties desiring additional 
details on the federal I/M regulation are referred to the November 5, 
1992 Federal Register notice (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR part 51.350-
51.373.

III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania Enhanced I/M Program

    As discussed above, sections 182(c)(3), 184(b)(1)(A), 187(a)(6) and 
187(b)(1) of the Act require that states adopt and implement 
regulations for an enhanced I/M program in certain areas. The following 
sections of this notice address some specific elements of the 
Commonwealth's submittal. Parties desiring more specific information 
should consult the TSD.

Applicability--40 CFR Part 51.350

    Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 40 CFR part 
51.350(a) require all states in the OTR which contain MSAs or parts 
thereof with a population of 100,000 or more to implement an enhanced 
I/M program. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is part of the OTR and 
contains the following MSAs or parts thereof with a population of 
100,000 or more: Allentown-Bethlehem, Altoona, Beaver, Erie, 
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, Johnstown, Lancaster, Philadelphia, 
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Reading, Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, Sharon, State 
College, Williamsport, and York. The Philadelphia area is classified as 
a severe ozone nonattainment area and also required to implement an 
enhanced I/M program as per section 182(c)(3) of the Act and 40 CFR 
part 51.350(2). In addition, the Philadelphia area of Pennsylvania is 
designated as moderate nonattainment for CO with a design value of less 
than 12.7 ppm. As per 40 CFR part 51.350(3), any area classified as 
moderate CO nonattainment with a design value of 12.7 ppm or less shall 
continue operating I/M programs that were part of an approved SIP as of 
November 15, 1990 and shall update those programs as necessary to meet 
the basic I/M program requirements.
    Under the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the following 33 
counties in Pennsylvania (which are located in the above listed MSAs) 
would be subject to the enhanced I/M program requirements: Adams, 
Allegheny, Beaver, Berks, Blair, Bucks, Cambria, Carbon, Centre, 
Chester, Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Fayette, 
Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer, 
Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Perry, Philadelphia, Somerset, 
Washington, Westmoreland, Wyoming and York. However, under the federal 
I/M regulations, specifically 40 CFR part 51.350(b), some rural 
counties having a population density of less than 200 persons per 
square mile based on the 1990 census can be excluded from program 
coverage provided that at least 50% of the MSA population is included 
in the program. The following eight counties in the Commonwealth 
qualify for the exemption discussed in 40 CFR part 51.350(b) and are 
exempt from participation in the program: Adams, Carbon, Columbia, 
Fayette, Monroe, Perry, Somerset and Wyoming. Consequently, the 
Pennsylvania I/M regulation requires that the enhanced I/M program be 
implemented in 25 counties in the Commonwealth. The 25 counties are as 
follows: Allegheny, Beaver, Berks, Blair, Bucks, Cambria, Centre, 
Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Lackawanna, Lancaster, 
Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer, Montgomery, Northampton, 
Philadelphia, Washington, Westmoreland and York.
    The Pennsylvania I/M legislative authority (referred to as Act 166 
throughout the remainder of this notice) provides the legal authority 
to establish the geographic boundaries. The program boundaries listed 
in an appendix to the SIP include the 25 counties listed above and meet 
the federal I/M requirements under section 51.350. However, part of 
this provision states ``this program shall be established in all areas 
of this Commonwealth where the secretary certifies by publication in 
the Pennsylvania Bulletin that a system is required in order to comply 
with Federal law. Any area, counties, county or portion thereof 
certified to be in the program by the secretary must be mandated to be 
in the program by Federal law.'' Act 166 requires ``at least 60 days 
prior to the implementation of any enhanced emission inspection program 
developed under this subsection, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
certify by notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin that an enhanced 
emission inspection program will commence''. The Pennsylvania I/M 
regulation states that the program begins 60 days after publication of 
the notice. It is stated in the Pennsylvania I/M SIP that ``it is not 
possible at this time to furnish a copy of that notice since it will be 
published in calendar year 1994.'' The SIP goes on to state that ``when 
that notice has appeared in the Bulletin, the Department shall furnish 
a copy to the EPA as an amendment to this SIP''. EPA interprets this 
language as a commitment on the part of the Commonwealth to publish the 
bulletin notice and submit it as an amendment to the SIP by December 
31, 1994. EPA is proposing to find that the geographic applicability 
requirements are satisfied based on the condition that the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania will submit to EPA by December 31, 1994 the 
Pennsylvania Bulletin notice certifying the geographic coverage. EPA, 
therefore, proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP based 
on the Commonwealth's commitment to publish the notice certifying the 
need for the I/M program and the geographic scope of the program by 
December 31, 1994. The geographic coverage certified in the notice must 
include the 25 counties listed above or EPA will consider the 
commitment not met and will promptly issue a letter to the Commonwealth 
indicating that the conditional approval has been converted to a 
disapproval.
    The federal I/M regulation requires that the state program shall 
not sunset until it is no longer necesary. EPA interprets the federal 
regulation as stating that a SIP which does not sunset prior to the 
attainment deadline for each applicable area satisfies this 
requirement. The Pennsylvania I/M regulation provides for the program 
to continue past the attainment dates for all applicable nonattainment 
areas in the Commonwealth and is therefore approvable.

Enhanced I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR Part 51.351

    The enhanced I/M program must be designed and implemented to meet 
or exceed a minimum performance standard, which is expressed as 
emission levels in area-wide average grams per mile (gpm) for certain 
pollutants. The performance standard shall be established using local 
characteristics, such as vehicle mix and local fuel controls, and the 
following model I/M program parameters: network type, start date, test 
frequency, model year coverage, vehicle type coverage, exhaust emission 
test type, emission standards, emission control device, evaporative 
system function checks, stringency, waiver rate, compliance rate and 
evaluation date. The emission levels achieved by the state's program 
design shall be calculated using the most current version, at the time 
of submittal, of the EPA mobile source emission factor model. At the 
time of the Pennsylvania submittal the most current version was 
MOBILE5a. Areas shall meet the performance standard for the pollutants 
which cause them to be subject to enhanced I/M requirements. In the 
case of ozone nonattainment areas, the performance standard must be met 
for both NOx and HC. The Pennsylvania submittal must meet the 
enhanced I/M performance standard for HC and NOx in all subject I/
M areas in the Commonwealth.
    The Pennsylvania submittal includes the following program design 
parameters:

Network type--centralized, test-only
Start date--January 1995
Test frequency--biennial
Model year/vehicle type coverage--all 1968 and newer light duty 
gasoline vehicles (LDGV), light duty gasoline trucks 1 & 2 (LDGT1, 
LDGT2) up to 9,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)
Exhaust emission test type--transient test for 1977 and newer model 
year vehicles, idle testing for 1968 to 1976 model year vehicles
Emission standards--permanent transient test standards (1983 and newer 
vehicles): 0.8 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO, 2.0 gpm NOx from 1/1/97 through 
12/31/01, 0.6 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO and 1.5 gpm NOx from 1/1/02 and 
after. Please refer to the Pennsylvania I/M regulations found in the 
June 19, 1993 edition of the Pennsylvania Bulletin for idle standards 
and for transient test standards for other applicable model years
Emission control device--visual inspection of fuel inlet restrictor and 
catalytic converter on all 1984 and newer vehicles
Evaporative system function checks--pressure and purge check on all 
1977 and newer vehicles
Stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)--20%
Waiver rate--3% on pre and post 1981 vehicles
Compliance rate--96%
Evaluation dates--For HC and NOx: 7/1/99, 7/1/02 and 7/1/05 for 
Philadelphia area and 7/1/99 for other other areas

    The Pennsylvania program design parameters meet the federal I/M 
regulations and are approvable.
    The emission levels achieved by the Commonwealth were modeled using 
MOBILE5a. The modeling demonstration was performed correctly, used 
local characteristics and demonstrated that the program design will 
meet the minimum enhanced I/M performance standard, expressed in gpm, 
for HC, and NOx, for each milestone and for the attainment 
deadline. The Philadelphia area was required to meet the basic I/M 
program requirements because of the areas' CO nonattainment 
classification. The modeling demonstration shows that the program meets 
the enhanced I/M performance standard and in so doing is exceeding the 
basic I/M program requirements. The modeling demonstration is 
approvable.

Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR Part 51.353

    Enhanced I/M programs shall be operated in a centralized test-only 
format, unless the state can demonstrate that a decentralized program 
is equally effective in achieving the enhanced I/M performance 
standard. The enhanced program shall include an ongoing evaluation to 
quantify the emission reduction benefits of the program, and to 
determine if the program is meeting the requirements of the Act and the 
federal I/M regulation. The SIP shall include details on the program 
evaluation and shall include a schedule for submittal of biennial 
evaluation reports, data from a state monitored or administered mass 
emission test of at least 0.1% of the vehicles subject to inspection 
each year, description of the sampling methodology, the data collection 
and analysis system and the legal authority enabling the evaluation 
program.
    Both Act 166 and the Commonwealth's I/M regulation provide for a 
centralized, test-only network. Pennsylvania's centralized, test-only 
network type is approvable. The submittal includes an ongoing program 
evaluation which meets the federal I/M regulations. However, Act 166 
and the Commonwealth regulation prohibit the contractor from having any 
business interest in a vehicle repair facility in the Commonwealth but 
does not prohibit such interest in the entire continental United 
States. EPA interprets section 51.353 of the federal regulation as 
prohibiting this business interest without geographic limitation. EPA 
is aware that as a matter of fact the present contractor for 
Pennsylvania's enhanced I/M program does not have any vehicle repair 
facility business interests in any other state, and is in fact 
prohibited from such interests as per contracts with several other 
state enhanced I/M programs. Based on this knowledge, EPA is proposing 
to find that this requirement is met with the contingency that the 
present contractor or any future contractors for the Pennsylvania I/M 
program will not at any time in the future have any business interest 
in a vehicle repair facility anywhere in the continental United States. 
EPA proposes to approve the Pennsylvania SIP on this basis. EPA's 
proposed approval is contingent on implementation of the program 
consistent with this finding. Should the contractor for the 
Pennsylvania I/M program at any time acquire any prohibited repair 
business interest EPA will rescind its approval and disapprove the SIP.

Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR Part 51.354

    The federal regulation requires the state to demonstrate that 
adequate funding of the program is available. A portion of the test fee 
or separately assessed per vehicle fee shall be collected, placed in a 
dedicated fund and used to finance the program. Alternative funding 
approaches are acceptable if demonstrated that the funding can be 
maintained. Reliance on funding from the state or local General Fund is 
not acceptable unless doing otherwise would be a violation of the 
state's constitution. The SIP shall include a detailed budget plan 
which describes the source of funds for personnel, program 
administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP 
shall also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality 
assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement, 
public education and assistance and other necessary functions.
    The Pennsylvania State Constitution prohibits monies received from 
test fees or any other fees received to be deposited in a proprietary 
account. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PADOT), which 
implements the I/M program, has no means to fund the I/M program and 
must rely on future uncommitted annual appropriations from the General 
Assembly. The federal I/M regulations allow for this funding method if, 
as in Pennsylvania, doing otherwise would be a violation of the State 
Constitution. The submittal demonstrates that sufficient funds, 
equipment and personnel have been appropriated to meet program 
operation requirements.
    The SIP indicates that the average per vehicle cost for oversight 
of the program will be 59 cents per vehicle. Other states are planning 
to spend roughly $4 per vehicle for oversight of an enhanced I/M 
program. EPA is concerned that Pennsylvania's level of oversight 
committed may be too low. However, the federal regulation does not set 
a prescribed amount to be spent for oversight. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to approve the current level of funding for program 
oversight. But, EPA will monitor program implementation closely to 
ensure that the current level of funding devoted to oversight is 
sufficient.
    The Commonwealth's submittal meets the adequate tools and resources 
requirements set forth in the federal I/M regulations and is 
approvable.

Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR Part 51.355

    The enhanced I/M performance standard assumes an annual test 
frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the performance 
standard is achieved. The SIP shall describe the test year selection 
scheme, how the test frequency is integrated into the enforcement 
process and shall include the legal authority, regulations or contract 
provisions to implement and enforce the test frequency. The program 
shall be designed to provide convenient service to the motorist by 
ensuring short wait times, short driving distances and regular testing 
hours.
    The Pennsylvania enhanced I/M regulation provides for a biennial 
test frequency. The Commonwealth has submitted modeling that 
demonstrates that the performance standard is met using the biennial 
test frequency. Act 166 and the Commonwealth's I/M regulation provide 
the legal authority to implement and enforce the biennial test 
frequency. The Pennsylvania I/M Request for Proposals (RFP), and the 
Pennsylvania I/M contractors' proposal (hereafter the contractors' 
proposal) provide sufficient evidence that convenient services will be 
provided to the motorist. The Pennsylvania submittal meets the test 
frequency and convenience requirements of the federal I/M regulations 
and is approvable.

Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR Part 51.356

    The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs assumes coverage 
of all 1968 and later model year light duty vehicles and light duty 
trucks up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, and includes vehicles operating on all 
fuel types. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary 
emission reductions are achieved. Vehicles registered or required to be 
registered within the I/M program area boundaries and fleets primarily 
operated within the I/M program area boundaries and belonging to the 
covered model years and vehicle classes comprise the subject vehicles. 
Fleets may be officially inspected outside of the normal I/M program 
test facilities, if such alternatives are approved by the program 
administration, but shall be subject to the same test requirements 
using the same quality control standards as non-fleet vehicles and 
shall be inspected in independent, test-only facilities, according to 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51.353(a). Vehicles which are operated 
on Federal installations located within an I/M program area shall be 
tested, regardless of whether the vehicles are registered in the state 
or local I/M area.
    The federal I/M regulation requires that the SIP shall include the 
legal authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle 
coverage requirement, a detailed description of the number and types of 
vehicles to be covered by the program and a plan for how those vehicles 
are to be identified including vehicles that are routinely operated in 
the area but may not be registered in the area, and a description of 
any special exemptions including the percentage and number of vehicles 
to be impacted by the exemption.
    The Pennsylvania enhanced I/M program requires coverage of all 1968 
and newer LDGV, LDGT1 and LDGT2 up to 9,000 pounds GVWR which are 
registered or required to be registered in the I/M program area. As of 
the date of the SIP submittal, 5,815,580 vehicles will be subject to 
enhanced I/M testing. The Commonwealth's regulation does not currently 
include vehicles operating on all fuel types but Pennsylvania commits 
to adding the required testing of these vehicles once EPA promulgates 
regulations on alternative fueled vehicle I/M testing. Act 166 and the 
Pennsylvania I/M regulation provide the legal authority to implement 
and enforce the vehicle coverage. This level of coverage is currently 
approvable because it provides the necessary emission reductions to 
meet the performance standard.
    Pennsylvania's program provides that large fleets will make special 
testing arrangements with the Pennsylvania I/M contractor. This will 
include appointments scheduled during non-peak hours using a dedicated 
lane, testing scheduled after hours and the establishment of a test 
lane at a large fleet location if such a fleet determines that this 
would be a more cost effective approach for their particular needs. 
Small fleets will be tested on a first-come, first-served basis at the 
regular test stations in the same manner as a privately-owned vehicle. 
The Commonwealth's plan for testing fleet vehicles is acceptable and 
meets the requirements of the federal I/M regulation. The 
Commonwealth's regulation requires vehicles which are operated on 
Federal installations located within an I/M program area to be tested, 
regardless of whether the vehicles are registered in the state or local 
I/M area, and is approvable.
    The Commonwealth's regulation provides for no special exemptions.

Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR Part 51.357

    Written test procedures and pass/fail standards shall be 
established and followed for each model year and vehicle type included 
in the program. Test procedures and standards are detailed in 40 CFR 
part 51.357 and in the EPA document entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test 
Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and 
Equipment Specifications'', EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-93-1, dated April 1994. The 
federal I/M regulation also requires vehicles that have been altered 
from their original certified configuration (i.e. engine or fuel 
switching) to be tested in the same manner as other subject vehicles.
    The Commonwealth's regulation includes a description of the test 
procedure for idle emission and evaporative system pressure testing and 
for a visual emission control device inspection which conform to EPA 
approved test procedures and are approvable.
    The Commonwealth regulations provide a general description of the 
test procedure for transient emission and evaporative system purge 
testing. However, the Commonwealth regulations do not provide specific 
transient and purge test procedures as described in the EPA document 
entitled ``High Tech I/M Test Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality 
Control Requirements, and Equipment Specifications'', EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-
93-1, April 1994. The Pennsylvania SIP states that the regulation will 
be amended by January 1995 to include the test procedures found in the 
July 1993 version of the EPA document referenced above. EPA interprets 
this language as a commitment on the part of the Commonwealth to amend 
the Commonwealth regulations by December 31, 1994 to incorporate the 
test procedures from the EPA document. Since the release of the July 
1993 version of the EPA document, a final version, dated April 1994, 
has been released which contains minor changes from the July 1993 
version. EPA believes that the Commonwealth can incorporate the minor 
changes from the final version into their regulation amendments. 
Section 178.205(2) of the Commonwealth's regulation allows the 
Commonwealth to approve alternate purge procedures if they are shown to 
be equivalent or better than Commonwealths' existing purge test 
procedure. EPA's concern is that this provision does not require EPA 
approval before implementation of the alternate test procedure in the 
Commonwealth's program. EPA is proposing to find that the test 
procedure requirements of the federal regulation are satisfied based on 
the condition that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will submit to EPA 
by December 31, 1994 the amended Commonwealth's regulation 
incorporating the transient and evaporative purge test procedures from 
the final version of the EPA I/M document referenced above and 
requiring EPA approval prior to the use of any alternate purge test 
procedure. EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP 
based on the Commonwealth's commitment to amend its regulations 
consistent with this finding. The effective date of these regulation 
amendments must coincide with the start date of the enhanced I/M 
program. If the Commonwealth fails to fulfill this condition by 
December 31, 1994, EPA will consider the commitment not met and will 
promptly issue a letter to the Commonwealth indicating that the 
conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval.
    The Commonwealth regulation establishes HC, CO, and CO2 pass/
fail exhaust standards for the idle test procedure for each applicable 
model year and vehicle type. The idle exhaust standards adopted by the 
Commonwealth conform to EPA established standards and are approvable.
    The Pennsylvania regulation applies one set of start-up transient 
emission standards and two sets of permanent transient emission 
standards for all vehicle types, i.e. LDGT, LDGT1, LDGT2 and Tier 1 
vehicles. The Commonwealth regulation fails to provide Phase 2 
standards for all vehicle types and model years. The net result of this 
is that the Commonwealth emission standards that apply to LDGT1 and 
LDGT2 vehicles are more stringent than federal requirement, which is 
approvable; however, the Commonwealth emission standards applied to 
Tier 1 vehicles in the Commonwealth's regulation do not meet the 
minimum federal requirements. The SIP states that the Commonwealth will 
be amending their regulation to replace the existing standards with the 
standards found in the July 1993 version of the EPA I/M document 
referenced above and further states that the changes can be 
accomplished by the end of calendar year 1994. EPA interprets this 
language as a commitment on the part of the Commonwealth to amend the 
Commonwealth's regulation by December 31, 1994 to incorporate the 
emission standards from the EPA document. Since the release of the July 
version of the EPA document, a final version, dated April 1994, has 
been released which contains minor changes from the July 1993 version. 
EPA believes that the Commonwealth can incorporate the minor changes 
from the final version into their regulation amendments. EPA is 
proposing to find that the test standard requirements of the federal 
regulation are satisfied based on the condition that the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania will submit to EPA by December 31, 1994 the amended 
Commonwealth's regulation incorporating the Tier 1 and Phase 2 emission 
standards from the final version of EPA I/M document referenced above. 
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP based on 
the Commonwealth's commitment to revise its regulations consistent with 
this finding. The effective date of these regulation amendments must 
coincide with the start date of the enhanced I/M program. If the 
Commonwealth fails to fulfill this condition by December 31, 1994, EPA 
will consider the commitment not met and will promptly issue a letter 
to the Commonwealth indicating that the conditional approval has been 
converted to a disapproval.
    EPA intends to promulgate the test procedures and related 
requirements found in the final version of the EPA I/M document 
referenced above as official I/M tests in part 85 of the CFR. Any 
changes made during the rulemaking process, which EPA believes would be 
minimal, should also be made in the Pennsylvania regulation.
    The Commonwealth regulation establishes evaporative purge and 
pressure test standards which conform to EPA established standards and 
are approvable.
    The Pennsylvania regulation provides start-up emission standards 
for the transient test that apply during calendar year 1995 and 1996. 
The schedule for implementation of these start-up emission standards is 
approvable. The Pennsylvania regulation provides for two sets of 
permanent emission standards for the transient test, one set which 
applies from 1997 through 2001 and the second set which applies in 
calendar year 2002 and on. The schedule for implementation of the 
permanent standards is approvable and was used in the performance 
standard modeling demonstration.
    The Commonwealth's regulation also requires vehicles that have been 
altered from their original certified configuration (i.e. engine or 
fuel switching) to be tested in the same manner as other subject 
vehicles.

Test Equipment--40 CFR Part 51.358

    Computerized test systems are required for performing any 
measurement on subject vehicles. The federal I/M regulation requires 
that the state SIP submittal include written technical specifications 
for all test equipment used in the program. The specifications shall 
describe the emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment, 
the required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and 
procedures.
    The Commonwealth submittal contains the written technical 
specifications for all test equipment to be used in the program. The 
specifications require the use of computerized test systems. The 
specifications also include performance features and functional 
characteristics of the computerized test systems which meet the federal 
I/M regulations and are approvable.

Quality Control--40 CFR Part 51.359

    Quality control measures shall insure that emission measurement 
equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection, 
calibration records, and control charts are accurately created, 
recorded and maintained.
    The Commonwealth's submittal contains the RFP and the contractors' 
proposal which describe and establish quality control measures for the 
emission measurement equipment, record keeping requirements and 
measures to maintain the security of all documents used to establish 
compliance with the inspection requirements. This portion of the 
Commonwealth's submittal complies with the quality control requirements 
set forth in 40 CFR part 51.359 and is approvable. 
Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR Part 51.360 
    The federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver, 
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows 
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. For 
enhanced I/M programs, an expenditure of at least $450 in repairs, 
adjusted annually to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) as compared to the CPI for 1989, is required in order to qualify 
for a waiver. Waivers can only be issued after a vehicle has failed a 
retest performed after all qualifying repairs have been made. Any 
available warranty coverage must be used to obtain repairs before 
expenditures can be counted toward the cost limit. Tampering related 
repairs shall not be applied toward the cost limit. Repairs must be 
appropriate to the cause of the test failure. Repairs for 1980 and 
newer model year vehicles must be performed by a recognized repair 
technician. The federal regulation allows for compliance via a 
diagnostic inspection after failing a retest on emissions and requires 
quality control of waiver issuance. The SIP must set a maximum waiver 
rate and must describe corrective action that would be taken if the 
waiver rate exceeds that committed to in the SIP.
    Act 166 and the Pennsylvania I/M regulation provide the necessary 
authority to issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits, administer and 
enforce the waiver system, and set a $450 cost limit and allow for an 
annual adjustment of the cost limit to reflect the change in the CPI as 
compared to the CPI in 1989. The Pennsylvania regulation, RFP, and the 
contractors' proposal include provisions which address waiver criteria 
and procedures, including cost limits, tampering and warranty related 
repairs, quality control and administration. These provisions meet the 
federal I/M regulations requirements and are approvable. The 
Pennsylvania I/M regulation requires repairs for 1980 and later model 
year vehicles to be performed by a recognized repair technician. The 
Commonwealth's regulation allows for compliance via diagnostic 
inspection and the policies and procedures outlined in the submittal 
meet federal I/M regulations and are approvable. The Commonwealth's 
regulation does not allow for time extensions. The Commonwealth has set 
a maximum waiver rate of 3% for both pre-1981 and 1981 and later 
vehicles and has described corrective actions to be taken if the waiver 
rate exceeds 3%. This waiver rate has been used in the performance 
standard modeling demonstration and is approvable. The waiver 
provisions of the SIP meet federal requirements and are approvable.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR Part 51.361

    The federal regulation requires that 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 either sticker-based enforcement 
programs or computer-matching programs if either of these programs were 
used in the existing program and it can be demonstrated that the 
alternative has been more effective than registration denial. For newly 
implementing enhanced areas, including newly subject areas in a state 
with an I/M program in another part of the state, there is no provision 
for enforcement alternatives in the Act. The SIP shall provide 
information concerning the enforcement process, legal authority to 
implement and enforce the program, and a commitment to a compliance 
rate to be used for modeling purposes and to be maintained in practice.
    Both Act 166 and the Pennsylvania I/M regulation provide the legal 
authority to implement a registration denial system. The Pennsylvania 
SIP commits to a compliance rate of 96% which was used in the 
performance standard modeling demonstration and is approvable. The 
submittal includes detailed information concerning the registration 
denial enforcement process which meets the federal I/M regulation 
requirements and is approvable.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR Part 51.362

    The federal I/M regulation requires that the enforcement program 
shall be audited regularly and shall follow effective program 
management practices, including adjustments to improve operation when 
necessary. The SIP shall include quality control and quality assurance 
procedures to be used to insure the effective overall performance of 
the enforcement system. An information management system shall be 
established which will characterize, evaluate and enforce the program.
    The Pennsylvania SIP describes in general how the enforcement 
program oversight is quality controlled and quality assured and 
includes the establishment of an information management system.
    The SIP includes a commitment to develop the procedures document 
which will detail the specifics of the implementation of the oversight 
program by the fall of 1994. The SIP includes a commitment to submit 
this procedures document as an amendment to the SIP. EPA proposes 
conditional approval of the Pennsylvania SIP with the condition that 
the Commonwealth meet its commitment that the motorist compliance 
enforcement program oversight procedures manual be submitted as a SIP 
amendment within one year from the date of publication of the Federal 
Register notice which conditionally approves the SIP.

Quality Assurance--40 CFR Part 51.363

    An ongoing quality assurance program shall be implemented to 
discover, correct and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the program. 
The program shall include covert and overt performance audits of the 
inspectors, audits of station and inspector records, equipment audits, 
and formal training of all state I/M enforcement officials and 
auditors. A description of the quality assurance program which includes 
written procedure manuals on the above discussed items must be 
submitted as part of the SIP.
    The Pennsylvania submittal describes the quality assurance program 
and includes regulations and supporting documents which describe 
procedures for implementing inspector, records and equipment audits as 
well as providing formal training to all Commonwealth enforcement 
officials. Performance audits of inspectors will consist of both covert 
and overt audits. The SIP states that a quality assurance procedure 
manual is under development which will be consistent with federal 
regulation and will include written procedures for performing covert 
and overt audits. EPA interprets this as a commitment to develop the 
procedures manual and submit it to EPA as a SIP revision. EPA proposes 
to conditionally approve the SIP based on its finding that the SIP 
meets the quality assurance requirements of the federal regulation with 
the condition that the Commonwealth meet its commitment that the 
quality assurance program procedures manual will be submitted as a SIP 
amendment within one year from the date of publication of the Federal 
Register notice which conditionally approves the SIP.

Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR Part 
51.364

    Enforcement against licensed stations, contractors and inspectors 
shall include swift, sure, effective, and consistent penalties for 
violation of program requirements. The federal I/M regulation requires 
the establishment of minimum penalties for violations of program rules 
and procedures which can be imposed against stations, contractors and 
inspectors. The legal authority for establishing and imposing 
penalties, civil fines, license suspensions and revocations must be 
included in the SIP. State quality assurance officials shall have the 
authority to temporarily suspend station and/or inspector licenses 
immediately upon finding a violation that directly affects emission 
reduction benefits, unless constitutionally prohibited. An official 
opinion explaining any state constitutional impediments to immediate 
suspension authority must be included in the submittal. The SIP shall 
describe the administrative and judicial procedures and 
responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which 
agencies, courts and jurisdictions are involved, who will prosecute and 
adjudicate cases and the resources and sources of those resources which 
will support this function.
    The Pennsylvania submittal includes the legal authority to 
establish and impose penalties against stations, contractors and 
inspectors. The penalty schedules for inspectors and stations which are 
found in the Commonwealth's regulation meet the federal I/M regulation 
requirements and are approvable. The penalty schedule for contractors 
is approvable with one contingency. 67 PA Code Sec. 178.602(b), 
entitled Schedule of Penalties for Emission Inspection Contractors, 
states that ``the contractor shall be subject to the terms and 
conditions of the Contractor Responsibility Program and may be subject 
to penalties and sanctions thereunder in addition to or in lieu of 
those imposed under this section or the contract''. The Contractor 
Responsibility Program (CRP) is not a statute but rather a Governors' 
Office Management Directive and is found in the SIP in Addendum I of 
the RFP. The Management Directive does not list specific monetary 
penalties to be assessed to the contractor but rather provides for 
suspension or debarment of the contractor. EPA is concerned that the 
penalties imposed under the CRP could be less stringent than those in 
the Commonwealth's I/M regulation. The Commonwealth has indicated that 
it intends to use this authority only to impose penalties that are more 
stringent than those in the Commonwealth's regulation. Therefore, EPA 
is proposing to approve the penalty schedule against contractors which 
is found in section 178.602(b) of the Commonwealth's regulation with 
the contingency that penalties assessed against the contractor under 
the CRP in lieu of the penalties in the Commonwealth's I/M regulation 
must be equal to or more stringent than those in the Commonwealth's I/M 
regulation. However, should Pennsylvania at any time assess penalties 
less stringent than those in the regulation EPA will rescind its 
approval and disapprove the SIP.
    The Commonwealth's I/M regulation gives the state auditor the 
authority to temporarily suspend station and inspector licenses or 
certificates immediately upon finding a violation. The submittal 
include descriptions of administrative and judicial procedures relevant 
to the enforcement process which meet federal I/M regulations and are 
approvable.

Data Collection--40 CFR Part 51.365

    Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation 
and enforcement of an I/M program. The federal I/M regulation requires 
data to be gathered on each individual test conducted and on the 
results of the quality control checks of test equipment required under 
40 CFR part 51.359.
    The Commonwealth's regulation and RFP require the collection of 
data on each individual test conducted and describe the type of data to 
be collected. The type of test data collected meets the federal I/M 
regulation requirements and is approvable. The submittal also commits 
to gather and report the results of the quality control checks required 
under 40 CFR part 51.359 and is approvable.

Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR Part 51.366

    Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring 
and evaluation of the program by the state and EPA. The federal I/M 
regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide 
information and statistics and summarize activities performed for each 
of the following programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control 
and enforcement. These reports are to be submitted by July and shall 
provide statistics for the period of January to December of the 
previous year. A biennial report shall be submitted to EPA which 
addresses changes in program design, regulations, legal authority, 
program procedures and any weaknesses in the program found during the 
two year period and how these problems will be or were corrected.
    The Pennsylvania I/M SIP provides for the analysis and reporting of 
data for the testing program, quality assurance program, quality 
control program and the enforcement program. The type of data to be 
analyzed and reported on meets the federal I/M regulation requirements 
and is approvable. The Commonwealth commits to submit annual reports on 
these programs to EPA by July of the subsequent year. A commitment to 
submit a biennial report to EPA which addresses reporting requirements 
set forth in 40 CFR part 51.366(e) is also included in the SIP.

Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR Part 51.376

    The federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally 
trained and licensed or certified to perform inspections.
    The Pennsylvania I/M regulation requires all inspectors to receive 
formal training, be certified by the PADOT and renew the certification 
every two years. The Commonwealth's I/M regulation, the RFP and the 
contractors' proposal include a description of and the information 
covered in the training program, a description of the required written 
and hands-on tests and a description of the certification process. The 
SIP meets the federal I/M regulation requirements for inspector 
training and certification and is approvable.

Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR Part 51.368

    The federal I/M regulation requires the SIP to include public 
information and consumer protection programs. The RFP and the 
contractors' proposal include a public information program which 
educates the public on I/M, state and federal regulations, air quality 
and the role of motor vehicles in the air pollution problem, and other 
items as described in the federal rule. The consumer protection program 
includes provisions for a challenge mechanism, protection of whistle 
blowers and providing assistance to motorists in obtaining warranty 
covered repairs. The public information and consumer protection 
programs contained in the SIP submittal meet the federal regulations 
and are approvable.

Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR Part 51.369

    Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The 
federal regulation requires states to take steps to ensure that the 
capability exists in the repair industry to repair vehicles. The SIP 
must include a description of the technical assistance program to be 
implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria to be used in 
meeting the performance monitoring requirements required in the federal 
regulation and a description of the repair technician training 
resources available in the community.
    The Pennsylvania I/M regulation, the RFP, and the contractors' 
proposal require the implementation of a technical assistance program 
which includes a hot line service to assist repair technicians and a 
method of regularly informing the repair facilities of changes in the 
program, training courses, and common repair problems. A repair 
facility performance monitoring program is also included in the 
Commonwealth's I/M regulation, the RFP, and the I/M contractors' 
proposal which includes providing the motorist whose vehicle fails the 
test a summary of local repair facilities performances, provides 
regular feedback to each facility on their repair performance and 
requires the submittal of a completed repair form at the time of 
retest. The performance monitoring program design meets the criteria 
described in the federal regulation and is approvable. The 
Commonwealth's regulation provides for the establishment and 
implementation of a repair technician training program which, at a 
minimum, covers the four types of training described in 40 CFR part 
51.369(c) of the federal regulation. The repair effectiveness program 
described in the SIP meets the federal regulation and is approvable.

Compliance With Recall Notices--40 CFR Part 51.370

    The federal regulation requires the states to establish methods to 
ensure that vehicles that are subject to enhanced I/M and are included 
in an emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to 
completing the emission test and/or renewing the vehicle registration.
    Act 166 and the Commonwealth's I/M regulation provide the legal 
authority to require owners to comply with emission related recalls 
before completing the emission test and renewing the vehicle 
registration. The SIP includes procedures to be used to incorporate 
national database recall information into the Commonwealth's inspection 
database and quality control methods to insure recall repairs are 
properly documented and tracked. The submittal includes a commitment to 
submit an annual report to EPA which includes the recall related 
information as required in 40 CFR part 51.370(c). The recall compliance 
program contained in the SIP submittal meets the federal requirements 
and is approvable.

On-Road Testing--40 CFR Part 51.371

    On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas. The use of 
either remote sensing devices (RSD) or roadside pullovers including 
tailpipe emission testing can be used to meet the federal regulations. 
The program must include on-road testing of 0.5% of the subject fleet 
or 20,000 vehicles, whichever is less, in the nonattainment area or the 
I/M program area. Motorists that have passed an emission test and are 
found to be high emitters as a result of an on-road test shall be 
required to pass an out-of-cycle test.
    Legal authority to implement the on-road testing program and 
enforce off-cycle inspection and repair requirements is contained in 
Act 166 and the Commonwealth's I/M regulation. The SIP submittal 
requires the use of RSD to test 20,000 vehicles per year in the I/M 
program area and will be implemented by the contractor. A description 
of the program which includes test limits and criteria, resource 
allocations, and methods of collecting, analyzing and reporting the 
results of the testing are detailed in the submittal. The on-road 
testing program described in the SIP meets federal requirements and is 
approvable.

State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR 
Part 51.372-373

    The Pennsylvania submittal included the Commonwealth's final I/M 
regulations, legislative authority to implement the program, a final 
RFP, portions of the contractor's proposal, the signed contract between 
the Commonwealth and the contractor, a modeling demonstration showing 
that the program design meets the performance standard, evidence of 
adequate funding and resources to implement the program, and a detailed 
discussion on each of the required program design elements. The 
submittal states that all inspectors and stations will be certified by 
December 22, 1994 and the start date for implementation of full-
stringency cutpoints will be January 1, 1997. The submittal also 
includes a commitment to include onboard diagnostic checks in the I/M 
program within 2 years after promulgation of onboard diagnostic check 
regulations for I/M programs.
    Act 166 provides the legal authority to implement the program. 
However, part of this provision states ``this program shall be 
established in all areas of this Commonwealth where the secretary 
certifies by publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin that a system is 
required in order to comply with Federal law.'' Act 166 requires ``at 
least 60 days prior to the implementation of any enhanced emission 
inspection program developed under this subsection, the Secretary of 
Transportation shall certify by notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin 
that an enhanced emission inspection program will commence''. The 
Pennsylvania I/M regulation states that the program begins 60 days 
after publication of the notice. It is stated in the Pennsylvania I/M 
SIP that ``it is not possible at this time to furnish a copy of that 
notice since it will be published in calendar year 1994.'' The SIP goes 
on to state that ``when that notice has appeared in the Bulletin, the 
Department shall furnish a copy to the EPA as an amendment to this 
SIP''. EPA interprets this language as a commitment on the part of the 
Commonwealth to publish the bulletin notice announcing the start date 
of the program and submit it as an amendment to the SIP by December 31, 
1994. EPA also interprets this language to mean that the program will 
commence no later than March 1, 1995. Although the federal I/M 
regulation requires programs to commence on January 1, 1995, EPA 
believes that Pennsylvania can test the appropriate number of vehicles 
in calendar year 1995 and that therefore a two-month delay in the start 
date is de minimis. EPA is therefore proposing to find that the SIP 
submission and implementation deadline requirements set forth in the 
federal I/M regulation are substantially satisfied based on the 
condition that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will submit to EPA by 
December 31, 1994 the Pennsylvania Bulletin notice certifying the need 
for the program and that the program begins sixty days after the date 
of the Pennsylvania Bulletin notice. EPA is proposing to conditionally 
approve the Pennsylvania SIP based on the Commonwealth's commitment to 
meet this condition. If the Pennsylvania Bulletin notice is not 
received by December 31, 1994, EPA will consider the commitment not met 
and will promptly issue a letter to the Commonwealth indicating that 
the conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval.
    EPA's review of the material indicates that with the conditions and 
contingencies described above the Commonwealth has adopted an enhanced 
I/M program in accordance with the requirements of the Act. EPA is 
proposing to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision and 
the addendum to the revision for an enhanced I/M program, which were 
submitted on November 5, 1993 and March 30, 1994, respectively, subject 
to the conditions and contingencies described above. EPA is soliciting 
public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other 
relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final 
action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking 
procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional office 
listed in the Addresses section of this notice.

Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this revision to the 
Pennsylvania SIP for an enhanced I/M program based on certain 
contingencies. The conditions for approvability are as follows: (1) by 
December 31, 1994 a notice must be published in the Pennsylvania 
Bulletin by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation which 
certifies that the enhanced I/M program is required in order to comply 
with federal law, certifies the geographic areas which are subject to 
the enhanced I/M program (the geographic coverage must be identical to 
that listed in Appendix A-1 of the November 5, 1993 SIP submittal), and 
certifies the commencement date of the enhanced I/M program. This 
notice must be submitted to EPA as an amendment to the SIP by December 
31, 1994; (2) by December 31, 1994 the Commonwealth must revise and 
submit to EPA as a SIP amendment, the amendments to the Pennsylvania I/
M regulation, 67 PA Code Chapter 178.202-205, which require EPA 
approval prior to implementation of any alternate purge test procedure 
and incorporate the transient emission standards for Tier 1 vehicles, 
the Phase 2 standards for all vehicle types and model years, and the 
transient and evaporative purge test procedures found in the final 
version of the EPA document entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test Procedures, 
Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and Equipment 
Specifications'', EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-93-1, April 1994, (3) within one year 
from the date that EPA conditionally approves the Pennsylvania I/M SIP, 
the Commonwealth must submit the PADOT procedures manual for motorist 
compliance enforcement program oversight as an amendment to the SIP and 
(4) within one year from the date that EPA conditionally approves the 
Pennsylvania I/M SIP, the Commonwealth must submit the PADOT procedures 
manual for quality assurance as an amendment to the SIP. The 
contingencies for approvability are as follows: (1) if penalties are 
assessed against the contractor under the Contractor Responsibility 
Program in lieu of the penalties in 67 PA Code Sec. 178.602(b) of the 
Pennsylvania I/M regulation, the penalties must be equal to or more 
stringent than those in the Commonwealth's I/M regulation and (2) the 
present contractor or any future contractors for the Pennsylvania I/M 
program may not have any business interest in a vehicle repair facility 
anywhere in the continental United States.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Act do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the Commonwealth is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new 
requirements, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on 
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship under the Act, preparation of a flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of Commonwealth action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to 
base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. 
U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    If the Commonwealth fails to meet any of the conditions of this 
approval action, the EPA Regional Administrator would directly make a 
finding, by letter, that the conditional approval had converted to a 
disapproval and the clock for imposition of sanctions under section 
179(a) of the Act would start as of the date of the letter. 
Subsequently, a notice would be published in the Federal Register 
announcing that the SIP revision has been disapproved.
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
section 110(k), based on the Commonwealth's failure to meet the 
commitment, it will not affect any existing Commonwealth requirements 
applicable to small entities. Federal disapproval of the Commonwealth's 
submittal does not affect its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's 
disapproval of the submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement. 
Therefore, EPA certifies that this disapproval action does not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it 
does not remove existing requirements nor does it substitute a new 
federal requirement.
    Under Executive Order 12866, this action is not significant. It has 
not been submitted to OMB for review.
    The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the 
Pennsylvania I/M SIP revision will be based on whether it meets the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) of the Clean Air Act, as 
amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: June 23, 1994.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 94-15982 Filed 6-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P