[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 144 (Thursday, July 25, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39032-39037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18922]



[[Page 39031]]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 51



_______________________________________________________________________



Inspection/Maintenance Flexibility Amendments (Ozone Transport Region); 
Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 144 / Thursday, July 25, 1996 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 39032]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-5541-3]
RIN 2060-AG11


Inspection/Maintenance Flexibility Amendments (Ozone Transport 
Region)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Supplemental final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's action revises the motor vehicle Inspection/
Maintenance (I/M) requirements by adding a special low enhanced 
performance standard for qualified areas in Ozone Transport Regions 
(OTR). This additional performance standard applies to certain 
attainment, marginal and moderate areas in the OTR. The purpose of this 
action is to allow OTR qualifying areas the flexibility to implement a 
broader range of I/M programs than is currently permitted.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will take effect on September 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in the 
Public Docket No. A-95-08. The docket is located at the Air Docket, 
Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall SW, Washington, DC 20460. The docket 
may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and between 1:30 p.m. 
until 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying docket material. Electronic copies of the preamble and the 
regulatory text of this rulemaking are available on the Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network 
Bulletin Board System (TTN BBS) and the Office of Mobile Sources' World 
Wide Web cite, http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leila Cook, Office of Mobile Sources, 
National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann 
Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (313) 741-7820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Contents
II. Summary of Rule
III. Authority
IV. Public Participation
    A. Increased Flexibility
    B. Clarification of 200,000 Population Requirement
    C. Duplicate Requirements
    D. Emission Reduction Credits
    E. Comparability of Basic Programs
    F. Effectiveness of RSD
    G. Retests for RSD Failures
    H. OBD Tests
    I. Other Comments
V. Economic Costs and Benefits
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Administrative Designation
    B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Act
    E. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

II. Summary of Rule

    Under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act), 42 U.S.C.7 
401 et seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published 
in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (40 CFR part 51, subpart S) 
rules related to plans for Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/
M) programs (hereafter referred to as the I/M rule; see 57 FR 52950). 
Today, EPA is revising this rule to provide greater flexibility to 
certain Ozone Transport Region (OTR) areas.
    Section 182 of the Act is prescriptive regarding the various 
elements that are required as part of an enhanced Inspection/
Maintenance (I/M) performance standard. It also provides states with 
flexibility in meeting the numerical performance standards for enhanced 
or basic I/M programs. States in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) 
requested additional flexibility in implementing I/M in areas which are 
in attainment, which are areas designated and classified as marginal 
ozone areas, or which are designated and classified as moderate ozone 
areas under 200,000 in population. These three types of areas would be 
exempt from all I/M requirements but for their location in the OTR. 
These areas are included in the OTR enhanced I/M requirements to help 
achieve overall attainment and maintenance goals for the region, which 
includes serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas.
    With today's action, EPA is establishing an additional enhanced I/M 
performance standard for qualified areas in the Northeast OTR, 
hereafter referred to as the OTR low enhanced performance standard. The 
emission reduction targets for this program are less than both the low 
enhanced performance standard and the basic performance standard. There 
are two qualifications to be eligible for the OTR low enhanced 
performance standard. First, the standard applies only in attainment 
areas, marginal ozone nonattainment areas and certain moderate ozone 
nonattainment areas under 200,000 in an OTR. Moderate areas of that 
size that were not previously required to, or had not in fact, 
implemented a basic I/M program under the pre-1990 Act can take 
advantage of the OTR low enhanced performance standard. The savings 
clause in section 182(a)(2)(B)(i) requires areas that had or were 
required to have I/M programs before 1990 to retain programs of at 
least that stringency. Because, as explained below, EPA believes the 
Act requires an enhanced I/M program to be an enhancement over 
otherwise applicable I/M requirements, areas subject to basic I/M or 
the savings clause cannot adopt a less stringent program. Any moderate 
area with urbanized areas having a total population of over 200,000 
would also be required to implement basic I/M under section 182(b)(4) 
and therefore is ineligible for the OTR low enhanced performance 
standard. Second, the OTR low enhanced program must be supplemented by 
other measures in order to achieve emission reductions equal to or 
greater than that which would have occurred had a regular low enhanced 
I/M program been implemented (as defined by 40 CFR 51.351(g), see 60 FR 
48029). This is because the primary goal of the Act in establishing the 
OTR provisions and requiring enhanced I/M in areas with a population of 
100,000 or more in the OTR was to contribute to regional attainment. 
EPA believes that an area should be able to qualify for the additional 
flexibility provided under the OTR low enhanced standard only if it 
achieves, in some other way, the additional reductions that the 
otherwise applicable low enhanced I/M program would achieve. Thus, the 
total emission reductions from the OTR low enhanced I/M program plus 
the additional measures must equal the tonnage reduction that a regular 
low enhanced program would have generated. However, since local 
reductions are not the crucial factor, a state may bubble surplus 
reductions from other areas not required to implement I/M in the state. 
For example, a state could implement a statewide reformulated gasoline 
(RFG) program plus an OTR low enhanced I/M program in subject areas or 
statewide and potentially achieve comparable reductions to a regular 
low enhanced program because of the additional reductions RFG would 
achieve in areas not otherwise required to have RFG. Equality of 
emission reductions must be demonstrated over a time period which 
aligns with the attainment deadlines of all OTR areas: from 2000 
through 2007. Note that an I/M program that meets the OTR low enhanced 
performance standard must be implemented even if other measures could 
achieve comparable emission reductions because the Act specifically

[[Page 39033]]

requires an enhanced I/M program in metropolitan areas with 100,000 
population in the OTR. Also, measures to fill the gap between OTR low 
and regular low enhanced I/M may not be otherwise required by the Clean 
Air Act.
    The OTR low enhanced performance standard model program is composed 
of the following elements: Annual testing of 1968 and newer light duty 
vehicles and light duty trucks, OBD checks for 1996 and newer vehicles, 
remote sensing of 1968-1995 vehicles, catalyst checks on 1975 and newer 
vehicles, and PCV valve checks on pre-1975 vehicles. These elements 
collectively satisfy the Act's requirements for an enhanced I/M program 
performance standard. As with other performance standards, EPA does not 
necessarily recommend implementing this particular program but rather 
encourages states to design a program that will achieve equal or 
greater emission reductions than the performance standard while 
providing for the specific needs of the area.
    In the proposal, EPA noted that the emission reduction targets 
generated by this model program could not yet be precisely modeled but 
EPA estimated the targets to be less than those for the basic I/M 
program standard (which are approximately 6.3% for HC, 10.8% for CO, 
and 0.7% for NOX). EPA expects to issue draft guidance on remote 
sensing credits in the Summer of 1996. As soon as a final guidance is 
issued, an analysis of the emission reduction targets generated by this 
model program will be placed in the docket. Even though the estimated 
emission reduction targets for the OTR low enhanced standard are less 
than those for basic I/M, EPA believes this standard meets the 
requirement of the Act for ``enhanced'' I/M. There are two important 
facts to consider in this regard: first, neither the Act nor the 
legislative history specifies that the emission reduction targets for 
enhanced I/M must be greater than basic in all cases. EPA believes the 
Act provides the agency latitude in establishing multiple performance 
standards to meet a wide range of state and local needs and conditions. 
Second, the areas eligible to take advantage of this performance 
standard were not required to nor did they implement I/M programs prior 
to 1990. So, in all cases, this standard establishes a program target 
that is indeed enhanced relative to what was present or required for 
the area before enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments or is 
otherwise required after the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. EPA did not 
receive any public comments disagreeing with this legal interpretation.
    As is the case with all performance standard model programs, EPA 
does not necessarily recommend implementation of the model program, 
since it is constrained in composition by law (e.g., EPA recommends not 
testing cars until they reach 4 years of age and recommends biennial 
testing as more cost-effective; by contrast, all of the enhanced I/M 
performance standards are required by the Act to reflect a model 
program that includes annual testing of all vehicles). In that the 
emission reduction targets for the OTR low enhanced performance 
standard are below the basic level, the standard provides the broadest 
possible latitude in program design. For example, some states in the 
OTR have existing decentralized, safety inspection programs. 
Comprehensive visual checks of emission control devices, a gas cap 
pressure test, the Act-mandated OBD check, and the Act-mandated on-road 
testing could be added to these programs which should then meet the OTR 
low enhanced standard, as long as a proper enforcement mechanism was in 
place. Many other possibilities exist for program designs that could 
also meet this performance standard.
    While the OTR low enhanced performance standard is less demanding 
than the existing performance standard applicable to the affected 
areas, today's action still ensures that enhanced I/M programs in these 
areas meet all statutory criteria for EPA approval. A state's OTR low 
enhanced program is required, under section 182(c)(3)(C) of the Clean 
Air Act, to include computerized analyzers and on-road testing devices; 
computerized equipment and on-road testing devices are required by the 
current rule and apply to the OTR low enhanced program. A state's OTR 
low enhanced program shall also include a regulatory framework for 
waivers, if waivers are to be issued, and an enforcement system through 
registration denial, (except for any program in operation before 
November 15, 1990 whose enforcement mechanism has been demonstrated to 
be more effective than registration denial). Today's amendments leave 
requirements in this regard the same as for other enhanced I/M areas. 
As mandated by the Act, in an OTR low enhanced program, vehicle 
emissions shall be tested annually unless biennial testing will equal 
or exceed the reductions that can be obtained from annual inspections. 
A program could combine biennial inspections on the vehicles equipped 
with on-board diagnostic computers (OBD) with biennial evaporative 
system checks to achieve the necessary additional reductions. The OTR 
low enhanced performance standard is based on centralized inspections 
of OBD-equipped vehicles and on-road remote sensing testing; EPA 
believes that this meets the specific requirement that the performance 
standard be based on centralized testing.
    Today's action also establishes quality assurance requirements for 
OTR low enhanced I/M programs that are commensurate with the emission 
reductions which the programs are intended to achieve. In particular, 
current rules require enhanced I/M programs to be evaluated by 
conducting test-only IM240s on a random representative sample of the 
fleet (a minimum of 0.1%) to verify that the emission reductions are 
occurring. EPA believes that the emission reductions from an OTR low 
enhanced program are small enough that this level of effort is not 
justified. The routine quality assurance requirements of the original 
I/M rule are also not necessarily appropriate in light of the low level 
of benefits of the program.
    This action also modifies the geographic exclusion rule for 
counties within Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the Ozone 
Transport Region. The modification allows states to exclude counties 
that comprise less than 1% of the population of the MSA from program 
coverage. Inclusion of such a small fraction of the population is not 
worth the significant cost of expanding geographic coverage of the 
program to include such a county.
    This action requires that the implementation date for full testing 
in areas opting for the OTR low performance standard be no later than 
the latest date by which full testing can commence and still achieve 
sufficient reductions for all OTR areas to meet the performance 
standard by the Act's attainment and reasonable further progress 
deadlines, including the end of 1999 attainment date for serious ozone 
nonattainment areas. This will generally mean a start date no later 
than January 1, 1999, for annual testing programs, although EPA will 
accept field testing commencing as late as July 1, 1999 if the full I/M 
reductions can be achieved by the serious area attainment deadline. 
Note that the performance standard model program assumes a start date 
of January 1, 1999 because EPA believes Congress intended that the 
performance standard be based on at least one complete annual test 
cycle. With the requirement to offset the emissions difference between 
OTR low and regular low enhanced with other measures, this

[[Page 39034]]

date ensures that attainment in the region is not impaired.
    Today's action also serves to provide other flexibilities to non-
OTR states in designing quality assurance programs. The intent is to 
allow alternative quality assurance procedures that are as effective as 
or better than those specified in the original I/M rule.

III. Authority

    Authority for the action proposed in this notice is granted to EPA 
by section 182 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et 
seq.).

IV. Public Participation

A. Increased Flexibility

    All the commenters agreed with EPA's effort to provide states with 
greater flexibility and almost all felt that the new OTR low enhanced 
performance standard was necessary to meet the unique needs of states 
within the Ozone Transport Region.

B. Clarification of 200,000 Population Requirement

1. Summary of Proposal
    The proposal allowed attainment areas, marginal ozone nonattainment 
areas and moderate ozone nonattainment areas with a 1980 Census 
population of less than 200,000 in the urbanized area to use the new 
OTR low enhanced performance standard.
2. Summary of Comments
    One commenter asked for clarification of how the 200,000 urbanized 
area population criteria would be applied. Specifically, the commenter 
asked whether the population criteria applied to urbanized areas within 
each Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or urbanized areas within the 
entire attainment or non-attainment area.
3. Response to Comments
    Within the OTR, enhanced I/M programs are required in MSA's with 
populations of 100,000 or more. However, the OTR, like the rest of the 
country, is also subject to the basic I/M requirements that an 
urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more that is classified 
as moderate ozone nonattainment must implement a basic I/M program. 
Thus, moderate ozone areas in the OTR with an MSA population of greater 
than 100,000 but an urbanized area population of less than 200,000 are 
eligible for the OTR low enhanced performance standard. In contrast, 
moderate ozone areas with MSA populations of greater than 100,000 and 
urbanized area populations of greater than 200,000 must meet the basic 
performance standard. If a state within the OTR falls into this later 
category which has to implement a basic I/M program in the urbanized 
area (with a population of 200,000 or more) it can still implement an 
OTR low enhanced program in any portion of the MSA which falls into an 
urbanized area with a population of less than 200,000.

C. Duplicate Requirements

1. Summary of Proposal
    The proposal did not exempt states that implement an OTR low 
enhanced performance program from most of the general requirements for 
enhanced I/M programs in the original I/M rule.
2. Summary of Comments
    Two commenters addressed this issue. The first felt that the 
inclusion of on-road testing and OBD testing in the OTR low enhanced 
performance standard is duplicative of the on-road and OBD testing 
requirements in the original rule, 40 CFR 51.351 (b) and (c). The 
second commenter felt that several sections of the I/M rule dealing 
with data collection and data analysis and reporting, 40 CFR 51.365 and 
51.366, should not be applicable to OTR low enhanced programs.
3. Response to Comments
    The Clean Air Act requires OBD as part of any basic or enhanced 
performance standard. Additionally, RSD is required as part of any 
enhanced I/M performance standard. Section 51.351(b) requires that on-
road testing of either 0.5% of the subject vehicle population or 20,000 
vehicles (whichever is less) be included in any enhanced I/M 
performance standard. The OBD requirements were reserved by EPA in the 
original I/M rule and are expected to be published in 1996. EPA 
cautions commenters to remember that performance standards merely 
establish the minimum target a certain program must meet. They do not 
conclusively establish the elements of the program. Thus, the 
Sec. 51.351(h)(6) establishment of RSD and OBD as the exhaust emission 
test types under the OTR low enhanced performance standard is not a 
duplication of Secs. 51.351 (b) and (c) because these are separate 
standards which OTR low areas do not otherwise have to meet.
    EPA agrees with the comment that certain portions of sections 
51.365 and 51.366 regarding data collection, analysis and reporting are 
inapplicable to OTR low enhanced performance states. Certain ``high'' 
enhanced program elements, such as evaporative system checks, will not 
apply in an OTR low enhanced program. However, the Clean Air Act and 
the I/M rule require each state to report emissions reductions 
achieved, based on data collected during the inspection and repair of 
vehicles. Furthermore, depending on the program design which these 
areas elect to implement, varying types of data and reporting might or 
might not apply. Obviously a state cannot collect, analyze and report 
data which its program does not generate. Therefore, while the data 
collection and reporting requirements of sections 51.365 and 51.366 
must still apply to OTR low enhanced areas, states need only submit 
program-applicable data and reports.

D. Emission Reduction Credits

1. Summary of Proposal
    The preamble for the proposal acknowledged that EPA had not 
finalized emission reduction credits for the OTR low enhanced 
performance standard because EPA is still in the process of finalizing 
the credits for RSD. However, the preamble did note that EPA expected 
these benefits to be less than those achieved by the basic performance 
standard.
2. Summary of Comments
    Several commenters noted that it is difficult for a state to 
finalize an OTR low enhanced program until EPA issues emission 
reduction credits for the program.
3. Response to Comments
    EPA is preparing to issue a draft guidance on RSD credits in the 
Summer of 1996. After the draft guidance is issued, EPA will take 
public comments before issuing final guidance. While EPA cannot give a 
specific date by which final guidance will be issued, stakeholders can 
be assured that EPA realizes the importance of issuing RSD credits and 
is working to issue them as soon as possible.

E. Comparability of Basic Programs

    1. In the proposal, EPA stated that the emission reductions from 
the new OTR low enhanced performance standard will actually be less 
than the emission reductions obtained from a basic I/M program. EPA 
noted that the Act in no way prohibits the creation of multiple 
enhanced performance standards to meet a wide variety of state and 
local needs and conditions. In fact, the Clean Air Act does not require 
emission reductions targets for enhanced I/M programs to be greater 
than those for basic programs. Furthermore, all the areas eligible to 
use the OTR low enhanced performance standard were

[[Page 39035]]

not required and did not implement I/M programs before 1990. Thus, the 
OTR low enhanced performance standard is an enhancement for these areas 
compared to what was required and present before the 1990 amendments to 
the Act.
2. Summary of Comments
    One commenter believes that any existing basic program in an 
attainment or marginal non-attainment area should meet the OTR low 
enhanced performance standard. This commenter did not believe that 
existing programs should have to be supplemented to meet the new 
performance standard.
3. Response to Comments
    From an emission reduction point of view, any existing basic 
program that meets the basic performance standard will also meet the 
emission reduction targets established by the OTR low enhanced 
performance standard. The only changes existing programs will have to 
make is to include any element which is required for an enhanced 
program which it currently does not include; for instance, OBD checks 
and 0.5% on-road testing.

F. Effectiveness of RSD

1. Summary of Rule
    The performance standard created by today's action requires RSD 
testing of 1968 to 1995 vehicles beginning in 1999.
2. Summary of Comments
    One commenter was very concerned that RSD testing will actually 
increase consumer inconvenience if RSD has a high false failure rate. 
If this is the case and the state requires retests for vehicles that 
fail the RSD test, many consumers may be needlessly required to go to a 
test station to get another emission test.
3. Response to Comments
    The goal of this action is to increase flexibility to the states so 
that they can design an I/M program which they feel is most effective 
for their area and convenient for their citizens. This performance 
standard merely establishes the target level of emission reductions 
that an OTR low enhanced program must achieve and in no way mandates 
the type of test a state must implement. Thus, states concerned about 
false failures need not rely heavily on RSD testing. States may 
implement any type of test they choose so long as it meets the emission 
reduction target of the OTR low enhanced performance standard. The 
requirement to perform on-road testing on at least 0.5% of the fleet 
remains, although RSD is not required for this purpose.

G. Retests for RSD Failures

1. Summary of Proposal
    The OTR low enhanced performance standard requires RSD testing of 
1968-1995 vehicles with a carbon monoxide standard of 7.5%. A vehicle 
must have two separate readings above 7.5% to establish a failure 
thereby requiring a retest.
2. Summary of Comments
    One commenter noted their opinion that RSD is useful at targeting 
vehicles with excess emissions but that RSD cannot substitute for a 
traditional tail-pipe exhaust test. Therefore, the commenter believed 
that RSD must be used in conjunction with a traditional exhaust 
emissions re-test.
3. Response to Comments
    EPA agrees with this comment but again points out that this rule 
only establishes a performance standard and is not guidance or a 
mandate for RSD usage. EPA believes that it would be unwise for states 
to require emission related repairs based solely on an RSD reading. 
Indeed, EPA believes that states are aware of this and will perform 
confirmatory emission re-tests using proven methods on vehicles that 
fail RSD in order to avoid useless repairs.

H. OBD tests

1. Summary of Rule
    Among other requirements, the OTR low enhanced performance standard 
requires a start date of January 1, 1999 and OBD tests on all 1996 and 
newer vehicles.
2. Summary of Comments
    One state commented that it was reluctant to require repairs based 
solely on OBD test failure in 1999 because of the relative newness of 
OBD technology. The state commented that it preferred to wait and not 
require repairs based on OBD test failure until there is more data 
available on OBD's effectiveness at correctly identifying emission 
component failures.
3. Response to Comments
    EPA proposed an OBD rule in the Federal Register on August 18, 1995 
(60 FR 43092). Currently, EPA is finalizing the OBD rule which is 
expected to be published in the Summer of 1996. In the OBD rule, EPA 
will address the concerns of this and several other comments about the 
novelty of OBD and the need for a phase-in period prior to requiring 
repairs.

I. Other Comments

    EPA received several other comments which dealt with I/M issues 
that were not specific to this rulemaking. EPA responded to these 
unrelated comments in a response document which it placed in the 
docket.

V. Economic Costs and Benefits

    Today's revisions provide states additional flexibility that 
lessens rather than increases the potential burden on states. 
Furthermore, states are under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to 
modify existing plans meeting the previously applicable requirements as 
a result of today's action.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

    It has been determined that this amendment to the I/M rule is not a 
significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866 
and has been waived from OMB review. Any impacts associated with these 
revisions do not constitute additional burdens when compared to the 
existing I/M requirements published in the Federal Register on November 
5, 1992 (57 FR 52950) as amended. Nor do today's amendments create an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or otherwise 
adversely affect the economy or the environment. It is not inconsistent 
with, nor does it interfere with, actions by other agencies. It does 
not alter budgetary impacts of entitlements or other programs, and it 
does not raise any new or unusual legal or policy issues.

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement

    There are no information requirements in this supplemental final 
rule which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this action will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities and, therefore, is not subject to the requirement of a 
Regulatory Impact Analysis. A small entity may include a small 
government entity or jurisdiction. A small government jurisdiction is 
defined as ``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of 
less than 50,000.'' This certification is based on the fact that the I/
M areas

[[Page 39036]]

impacted by this rulemaking do not meet the definition of a small 
government jurisdiction, that is, ``governments of cities, counties, 
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, 
with a population of less than 50,000.'' Furthermore, the impact 
created by this action does not increase the pre-existing burden which 
this proposal seeks to amend.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more. 
Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule and is 
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to 
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that 
may be significantly impacted by the rule.
    To the extent that the rules in this action would impose any 
mandate at all as defined in Section 101 of the Unfunded Mandates Act 
upon the state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, as 
explained above, this rule is not estimated to impose costs in excess 
of $100 million. Therefore, EPA has not prepared a statement with 
respect to budgetary impacts. As noted above, this rule offers 
opportunities to states that would enable them to lower economic 
burdens from those resulting from the currently existing I/M rule.

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting 
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. 
This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the 
APA as amended.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Transportation.

    Dated: July 16, 1960.
Fred Hansen,
Acting Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 51 of title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 740l-7671q.

    2. Section 51.350 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and by 
adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.350  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * (1) In an ozone transport region, the program shall cover 
all counties within subject MSAs or subject portions of MSAs, as 
defined by OMB in 1990, except largely rural counties having a 
population density of less than 200 persons per square mile based on 
the 1990 Census and counties with less than 1% of the population in the 
MSA may be excluded provided that at least 50% of the MSA population is 
included in the program. This provision does not preclude the voluntary 
inclusion of portions of an excluded county. Non-urbanized islands not 
connected to the mainland by roads, bridges, or tunnels may be excluded 
without regard to population.
* * * * *
    (5) Notwithstanding the limitation in paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section, in an ozone transport region, states which opt for a program 
which meets the performance standard described in Sec. 51.351(h) and 
claim in their SIP less emission reduction credit than the basic 
performance standard for one or more pollutants, may apply a geographic 
bubble covering areas in the state not otherwise subject to an I/M 
requirement to achieve emission reductions from other measures equal to 
or greater than what would have been achieved if the low enhanced 
performance standard were met in the subject I/M areas. Emissions 
reductions from non-I/M measures shall not be counted towards the OTR 
low enhanced performance standard.
* * * * *
    3. Section 51.351 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 51.351  Enhanced I/M performance standards.

* * * * *
    (h) Ozone Transport Region Low-Enhanced Performance Standard. An 
attainment area, marginal ozone area, or moderate ozone area with a 
1980 Census population of less than 200,000 in the urbanized area, in 
an ozone transport region, that is required to implement enhanced I/M 
under section 184(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, but was not previously 
required to or did not in fact implement basic I/M under the Clean Air 
Act as enacted prior to 1990 and is not subject to the requirements for 
basic I/M programs in this subpart, may select the performance standard 
described below in lieu of the standard described in paragraph (f) or 
(g) of this section as long as the difference in emission reductions 
between the program described in paragraph (g) and this paragraph are 
made up with other measures, as provided in Sec. 51.350(b)(5). 
Offsetting measures shall not include those otherwise required by the 
Clean Air Act in the areas from which credit is bubbled. The program 
elements for this alternate OTR enhanced I/M performance standard are:
    (1) Network type. Centralized testing.
    (2) Start date. January 1, 1999.
    (3) Test frequency. Annual testing.
    (4) Model year coverage. Testing of 1968 and newer vehicles.
    (5) Vehicle type coverage. Light duty vehicles, and light duty 
trucks, rated up to 8,500 pounds GVWR.
    (6) Exhaust emission test type. Remote sensing measurements on 
1968-1995 vehicles; on-board diagnostic system checks on 1996 and newer 
vehicles.
    (7) Emission standards. For remote sensing measurements, a carbon 
monoxide standard of 7.5% (with at least two separate readings above 
this level to establish a failure).
    (8) Emission control device inspections. Visual inspection of the 
catalytic converter on 1975 and newer vehicles and visual inspection of 
the positive crankcase ventilation valve on 1968-1974 vehicles.
    (9) Waiver rate. A 3% waiver rate, as a percentage of failed 
vehicles.
    (10) Compliance rate. A 96% compliance rate.
    (11) Evaluation dates. Enhanced I/M program areas subject to the 
provisions of this paragraph shall be shown to obtain the same or lower 
VOC and NOX emission levels as the model program described in this 
paragraph by January 1, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2007. Equality of 
substituted emission reductions to the benefits of the low enhanced 
performance standard must be demonstrated for the same evaluation 
dates.
    4. Section 51.353 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as 
follows:

[[Page 39037]]

Sec. 51.353  Network type and program evaluation.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Areas that qualify for and choose to implement an OTR low 
enhanced   I/M program, as established in Sec. 51.351(h), and that 
claim in their SIP less emission reduction credit than the basic 
performance standard for one or more pollutants, are exempt from the 
requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. The 
reports required under Sec. 51.366 of this part shall be sufficient in 
these areas to satisfy the requirements of Clean Air Act for program 
reporting.
* * * * *
    5. Section 51.364 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 51.364  Enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors.

* * * * *
    (e) Alternative quality assurance procedures or frequencies that 
achieve equivalent or better results may be approved by the 
Administrator. Statistical process control shall be used whenever 
possible to demonstrate the efficacy of alternatives.
    (f) Areas that qualify for and choose to implement an OTR low 
enhanced I/M program, as established in Sec. 51.351(h), and that claim 
in their SIP less emission reduction credit than the basic performance 
standard for one or more pollutants, are not required to meet the 
oversight specifications of this section.
    6. Section 51.373 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 51.373  Implementation deadlines.

* * * * *
    (f) Areas that choose to implement an enhanced I/M program only 
meeting the requirements of Sec. 51.351(h) shall fully implement the 
program no later than July 1, 1999. The availability and use of this 
late start date does not relieve the area of the obligation to meet the 
requirements of Sec. 51.351(h)(11) by the end of 1999.

[FR Doc. 96-18922 Filed 7-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P