[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 193 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51638-51651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25398]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[PA091-4029b; FRL-5613-2]


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 interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a conditional interim approval of a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania. This revision establishes and requires the implementation 
of an enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in 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 Counties. The intended effect of this 
action is to propose conditional interim approval of an I/M program 
proposed by the Commonwealth, based upon the Commonwealth's good faith 
estimate, which asserts that the Commonwealth's network design credits 
are appropriate and the revision is otherwise in compliance with the 
Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is being taken under section 348 of 
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA) and section 
110 of the CAA. EPA is proposing a conditional approval because the 
Commonwealth's SIP revision is deficient with respect to the following 
requirements of the CAA and/or EPA's I/M program regulatory 
requirements: geographic coverage and program start dates, program 
evaluation, enhanced performance standard, test types, test procedures 
and emission standards, test equipment specifications and motorist 
compliance enforcement. If the Commonwealth commits within 30 days of 
this proposal to correct these deficiencies by a date certain within 1 
year of the final interim ruling, and corrects the deficiencies by that 
date, then this interim approval shall expire pursuant to the NHSDA and 
section 110 of the CAA on the earlier of 18 months from final interim 
approval, or on the date of EPA action taking final full approval of 
this program. If such commitment is not made within 30 days, EPA 
proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP revision. If the 
Commonwealth does make a timely commitment but the conditions are not 
met by the specified date within 1 year, EPA proposes that this 
rulemaking will convert to a final disapproval. EPA will notify the 
Commonwealth by letter that the conditions have not been met and that 
the conditional approval has converted to a disapproval. Furthermore, 
EPA proposes that the Commonwealth's program must start by no later 
than November 15, 1997 in the five county Philadelphia and four county 
Pittsburgh areas and must start by no later than November 15, 1999 in 
the remaining 16 counties. EPA also proposes that if the Commonwealth 
fails to start its program as defined in this notice on this schedule, 
the approval granted under the provisions of the NHSDA will convert to 
a disapproval after a finding letter is sent by EPA to the 
Commonwealth. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA has published 
an interim final determination to defer sanctions until either this 
conditional interim approval is converted to a disapproval, the interim 
approval lapses, the full SIP is approved or the full SIP is 
disapproved.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 4, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO 
Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode 3AT21, 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; 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 
Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 
17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn (215) 566-2176, at the EPA 
Region III address above or via e-mail at [email protected]. 
While information may be requested via e-mail, comments must be 
submitted in writing to the EPA Region III address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Impact of the National Highway System Designation Act on the Design 
and Implementation of Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Programs 
Under the Clean Air Act

    The NHSDA establishes two key changes to the enhanced I/M rule 
requirements previously developed by EPA. Under the NHSDA, EPA cannot 
require States to adopt or implement centralized, test-only IM240 
enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance programs as a means of 
compliance with sections 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. Also under the 
NHSDA, EPA cannot disapprove a State SIP revision, nor apply an 
automatic discount to a State SIP revision under sections 182, 184 or 
187 of the CAA, because the I/M program in such plan revision is 
decentralized, or a test-and-repair program. Accordingly, the so-called 
``50% credit discount'' that was established by the EPA's I/M Program 
Requirements Final Rule, (published November 5, 1992, and herein 
referred to as the I/M Rule) has been effectively replaced with a 
presumptive equivalency criteria, which places the emission reductions 
credits for decentralized networks on par with credit assumptions for 
centralized networks, based upon a State's good faith estimate of 
reductions as provided by the NHSDA and explained below in this 
section.
    EPA's I/M Rule established many other criteria unrelated to network 
design or test type for States to use in designing enhanced I/M 
programs. All other elements of the I/M Rule, and the statutory 
requirements established in the CAA, continue to be required of those 
States submitting I/M SIP revisions under the NHSDA. The NHSDA 
specifically requires that these submittals must otherwise comply in 
all respects with the I/M Rule and the CAA.
    The NHSDA also requires States to swiftly develop, submit, and 
begin implementation of these enhanced I/M programs, since the 
anticipated start-up dates developed under the CAA and EPA's rules have 
already been delayed. In requiring States to submit these plans

[[Page 51639]]

within 120 days of the NHSDA passage, in allowing these States to 
submit proposed regulations for this plan (which can be finalized and 
submitted to EPA during the interim period), by providing expiration of 
interim approval after 18 months and requiring final approval to be 
based on evaluation of data collected during operation of the program, 
it is clear that Congress intended for States to begin testing vehicles 
as soon as practicable.
    Submission criteria described under the NHSDA allows for a State to 
submit proposed regulations for this interim program, provided that the 
State has all of the statutory authority necessary to carry out the 
program. Also, in proposing the interim credits for this program, 
States are required to make good faith estimates regarding the 
performance of their enhanced I/M program. Since these estimates are 
expected to be difficult to quantify, the State need only establish 
that the proposed credits claimed for the submission have a basis in 
fact. A good faith estimate of a State's program may be an estimate 
that is based on any of the following: the performance of any previous 
I/M program; the results of remote sensing or other roadside testing 
techniques; fleet and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) profiles; 
demographic studies; or other evidence which has relevance to the 
effectiveness or emissions reducing capabilities  of  an  I/M program.
    This action is being taken under the authority of both the NHSDA 
and section 110 of the CAA. Section 348 of the NHSDA expressly directs 
EPA to issue this interim approval for a period of 18 months, at which 
time the interim program will be evaluated in concert with the 
appropriate State agencies and EPA. At that time, the Conference Report 
on section 348 of the NHSDA states that it is expected that the 
proposed credits claimed by the State in its submittal, and the 
emissions reductions demonstrated through the program data may not 
match exactly. Therefore, the Conference Report suggests that EPA use 
the program data to appropriately adjust these credits on a program 
basis as demonstrated by the program data.
    Furthermore, in taking action under section 110 of the CAA, it is 
appropriate to conditionally approve this submittal since there are 
some deficiencies with respect to CAA statutory and regulatory 
requirements (identified herein) that EPA believes must be and can be 
corrected by the State during the interim period.

B. Interim Approvals Under the NHSDA

    The NHSDA directs EPA to grant interim approval for a period of 18 
months to approvable I/M submittals under the NHSDA. The NHSDA also 
directs EPA and the States to review the interim program results at the 
end of 18 months, and to make a determination as to the effectiveness 
of the interim program. Following this demonstration, EPA will adjust 
any credit claims made by the State in its good faith effort to reflect 
the emissions reductions actually measured by the State during the 
program evaluation period. The NHSDA is clear that the interim approval 
shall last for only 18 months, and that the program evaluation is due 
to EPA by the end of that period. Therefore, EPA believes Congress 
intended for these programs to start-up as soon as possible, which EPA 
believes should be by November 15, 1997 at the latest, so that at least 
6 months of operational program data can be collected to evaluate the 
interim program. EPA believes that in setting such a strict timetable 
for program evaluations under the NHSDA, that Congress recognized and 
attempted to mitigate any further delay with the start-up of this 
program. For the purposes of this program, ``start-up'' is defined as a 
fully operational program which has begun regular, mandatory 
inspections and repairs, using the final test strategy and covering 
each of a State's required areas. EPA proposes that if the State fails 
to start its program on this schedule, the conditional interim approval 
granted under the provisions of the NHSDA will convert to a disapproval 
after a finding letter is sent to the State.
    The program evaluation to be used by the State during the 18 month 
interim period must be acceptable to EPA. EPA anticipates that such a 
program evaluation process will be developed by the Environmental 
Council of States (ECOS) group that is convening now and that was 
organized for this purpose. EPA further anticipates that in addition to 
the interim, short term evaluation, the State will conduct a long term, 
ongoing evaluation of the I/M program as required in 40 CFR 51.353 and 
51.366.

C. Process for Full Approvals of This Program Under the CAA

    As per the NHSDA requirements, this interim rulemaking will expire 
on the earlier of 18 months from the date of final interim approval, or 
the date of final full approval. A full approval of the State's final 
I/M SIP revision (which will include the State's program evaluation and 
final adopted state regulations) is still necessary under section 110 
and under section 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. After EPA reviews the 
State's submitted program evaluation, final rulemaking on the State's 
full SIP revision will occur.

II. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Submittal

    On March 22, 1996, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 
Protection submitted a revision to its SIP for an enhanced I/M program 
to qualify under the NHSDA. The revision was supplemented on June 27, 
1996 and July 29, 1996. The revision consists of enabling legislation 
that will allow the state to implement the I/M program, proposed 
regulations, a description of the I/M program (including a modeling 
analysis and description of program features), and a good faith 
estimate that includes the Commonwealth's basis in fact for the 
emission reduction claim of the program. The Commonwealth's credit 
assumptions are based only on the application of the Commonwealth's own 
good faith estimate of the effectiveness of its decentralized test and 
repair program and do not consider the 50% credit discount for all 
portions of the program that are based on a test-and-repair network.

A. Analysis of the NHSDA Submittal Criteria

Transmittal Letter
    On March 22, 1996, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted an 
enhanced I/M SIP revision to EPA, requesting action under the NHSDA and 
the CAA of 1990. On June 27, 1996 and July 29, 1996 supplements to the 
March 22, 1996 SIP revision were officially submitted to EPA. The 
official submittal of the March 22, 1996 revision and the supplements 
were made by the appropriate Commonwealth official, James M. Seif, 
Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and 
were addressed to the appropriate EPA official in the EPA Region III 
office.
Enabling Legislation
    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has legislation at 75 Pa.C.S. 
Sec. 4706 enabling the implementation of an enhanced I/M program.
Proposed Regulations
    On March 16, 1996, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proposed 
regulations in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 establishing an enhanced 
I/M program. The Commonwealth anticipates finalizing these regulations 
in early 1997.

[[Page 51640]]

Program Description
    The Commonwealth's proposed program includes annual testing of 1975 
and newer gasoline powered light-duty vehicles (LDGV) and light-duty 
trucks 1 & 2 (LDGT1 & LDGT2) up to 9,000 pounds gross vehicle weight 
rating (GVWR) in a test and repair network, utilizing: (1) one-mode 
Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) (ASM5015 or equivalent) emission 
testing and evaporative pressure and purge testing in the five county 
Philadelphia area and two speed idle emission testing in the remaining 
twenty counties, (2) visual inspection of the catalytic converter, fuel 
inlet restrictor, PCV and EGR on 1981 and newer vehicles in all twenty-
five I/M counties and (3) mandatory technician training and 
certification (TTC) in all twenty-five counties. The Commonwealth 
proposes to demonstrate that the pre-existing sticker enforcement 
mechanism is more effective than registration denial. The Commonwealth 
will contract out the quality control, quality assurance, data 
collection, data analysis and reporting, inspector training and 
certification, public outreach and on-road testing portions of the 
program.
Emission Reduction Claim and Basis for the Claim
    As stated in the March 22, 1996 SIP submittal and in the June 27, 
1996 supplement, the Commonwealth has claimed 100% credit for their 
test and repair network which is permitted under the interim approval 
process of NHSDA. The Commonwealth has 18 months from the date of the 
final interim approval to demonstrate and prove their claim.
    The Commonwealth's good faith estimate claims the additional credit 
through the following measures:

1. increased oversight through covert and overt audits;
2. additional on-road testing through remote sensing;
3. use of the State Police for more visible enforcement;
4. ability to collect and analyze data instantaneously so that swift 
enforcement action can be taken; and
5. improvements to automate data input activities that removes 
opportunity for inspector error or abuse.

B. Analysis of the EPA I/M Regulation and CAA Requirements

    EPA summarizes the requirements of the I/M rule as found in 40 CFR 
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) which is available from the Region 
III office, listed in the ADDRESSES section. Parties desiring 
additional details on the I/M rule are referred to 40 CFR 51.350-
51.373.
    As previously stated, the NHSDA left those elements of the I/M Rule 
that do not pertain to the network design or test type intact. Based 
upon EPA's review of Pennsylvania's submittal, EPA believes the 
Commonwealth has not complied with all aspects of the CAA and the I/M 
Rule. For certain sections of the I/M Rule or of the CAA identified 
below with which the Commonwealth has not yet fully complied, EPA 
proposes to conditionally approve the SIP if it receives a commitment 
from the Commonwealth to correct said deficiency. Before EPA can 
continue with the interim rulemaking process, the Commonwealth must 
make a commitment within 30 days of [insert publication date] to 
correct these major SIP elements by a date certain within 1 year of EPA 
interim approval. If the Commonwealth does not make this commitment, 
EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the Pennsylvania 
submittal. In addition, the Commonwealth must correct these major 
deficiencies by the date specified in the commitment or this proposed 
interim approval will convert to a disapproval under CAA section 
110(k)(4).
    EPA has also identified certain minor deficiencies in the SIP, 
which are itemized below. EPA has determined that delayed correction of 
these minor deficiencies will have a de minimis impact on the 
Commonwealth's ability to meet clean air goals. Therefore, the 
Commonwealth need not commit to correct these deficiencies in the short 
term, and EPA will not impose conditions on interim approval with 
respect to these deficiencies. The Commonwealth must correct these 
deficiencies during the 18 month term of the interim approval, as part 
of the fully adopted rules that the Commonwealth will submit to support 
full approval of its I/M SIP. So long as the Commonwealth corrects 
these minor deficiencies prior to final action on the Commonwealth's 
full I/M SIP, EPA concludes that failure to correct the deficiencies in 
the short term is de minimis and will not adversely affect EPA's 
ability to give interim approval to the proposed I/M program.

Applicability--40 CFR 51.350

    Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1))(A) of the CAA and 40 CFR 
51.350(a) require all states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) which 
contain Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) or parts thereof with a 
population of 100,000 or more to implement an enhanced I/M program. 
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 CAA and 40 CFR 51.350(2).
    Under the requirements of the CAA, the following 33 counties in 
Pennsylvania (in which the above listed MSAs are located) 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 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 51.350(b) and are exempt from participation in the 
program: Adams, Carbon, Columbia, Fayette, Monroe, Perry, Somerset and 
Wyoming. Consequently, the I/M rule 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 75 
Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 throughout the remainder of this notice) provides the 
legal authority to establish the geographic boundaries for the program. 
The program boundaries listed in an appendix to the SIP include the 25 
counties listed above and meet the federal I/M requirements under 40 
CFR 51.350. However, 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 states ``this program shall 
be established

[[Page 51641]]

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.'' 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 
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 proposed regulation, 67 Pa.Code Sec. 177.22, 
states ``the enhanced I/M program, as described in this chapter, will 
commence on a date designated by the Secretary by notice in the 
Pennsylvania Bulletin. The notice will provide affected motorists with 
at least 60 days notice''. EPA, therefore, proposes to conditionally 
approve the Pennsylvania SIP based on receiving the Commonwealth's 
commitment to publish a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by a date 
certain no later than September 15, 1997 which certifies the need for 
the I/M program and the geographic scope of the program. 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 I/M rule requires that the state program shall not sunset until 
it is no longer necessary. EPA interprets the federal I/M rule 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 therefore meets the I/M rule for purposes of interim 
approval.

Enhanced I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.351

    In accordance with the CAA and the I/M rule, 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 nitrogen oxides (NOX) and hydrocarbons (HC).
    The five county Philadelphia area, which includes the counties of 
Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia, must meet the 
high enhanced I/M performance standard for HC and NOX. The five 
county Philadelphia area does not qualify to use the low enhanced or 
the OTR low enhanced I/M performance standards. The program design 
parameters used in the modeling found in the SIP submittal demonstrate 
that the five county Philadelphia area does meet the high enhanced I/M 
performance standard. However, the proposed I/M regulations do not 
contain all the same program design parameters found in the modeling in 
the SIP submittal.
    EPA established an alternate, low enhanced I/M performance standard 
to provide flexibility for nonattainment areas that are required to 
implement enhanced I/M but which can meet the 1990 Clean Air Act 
emission reduction requirements for Reasonable Further Progress and 
attainment from other sources without the stringency of the high 
enhanced I/M performance standard (60 FR 48029). The Pittsburgh area, 
which includes the counties of Allegheny, Beaver, Washington and 
Westmoreland, qualifies for the low enhanced I/M performance standard 
but does not qualify for the OTR low enhanced performance standard. The 
program design parameters used in the modeling found in the SIP 
submittal demonstrate that the four county Pittsburgh area does meet 
the low enhanced I/M performance standard. However, the proposed I/M 
regulations do not contain all of the same program design parameters 
found in the modeling in the SIP submittal.
    The Commonwealth's program demonstrates compliance with the low 
enhanced performance standard established in 40 CFR 51.351(g). That 
section provides that states may select the low enhanced performance 
standard if they have an approved SIP for reasonable further progress 
in 1996, commonly known as a 15% reduction SIP. In fact, EPA approval 
of 15% plans has been delayed, and although EPA is preparing to take 
action on 15% plans in the near future, it is unlikely that EPA will 
have completed final action on most 15% plans prior to the time EPA 
believes it would be appropriate to give final interim approval to I/M 
programs under the NHSDA.
    In enacting the NHSDA, Congress evidenced an intent to have states 
promptly implement I/M programs under interim approval status to gather 
the data necessary to support state claims of appropriate credit for 
alternative network designs. By providing that such programs must be 
submitted within a four month period, that EPA could approve I/M 
programs on an interim basis based only upon proposed regulations, and 
that such approvals would last only for an 18 month period, it is clear 
that Congress anticipated both that these programs would start quickly 
and that EPA would act quickly to give them interim approval.
    Many states have designed a program to meet the low enhanced 
performance standard, and have included that program in their 15% plan 
submitted to EPA for approval. Such states anticipated that EPA would 
propose approval both of the I/M programs and the 15% plans on a 
similar schedule, and thus that the I/M programs would qualify for 
approval under the low performance standard. EPA does not believe it 
would be consistent with the intent of the NHSDA to delay action on 
interim I/M approvals until the agency has completed action on the 
corresponding 15% plans. Although EPA acknowledges that under its 
regulations full final approval of a low enhanced I/M program after the 
18 month evaluation period would have to await approval of the 
corresponding 15% plan, EPA believes that in light of the NHSDA it can 
take final interim approval of such I/M plans provided that the agency 
has determined as an initial matter that some type of approval of the 
15% plan is appropriate, and has issued some type of proposed approval 
of that 15% plan.
    The Commonwealth has submitted a 15% plan for the Pittsburgh area 
which includes the low enhanced I/M program. EPA is currently reviewing 
that program and plans to propose action on it shortly. EPA here 
proposes to approve the I/M program as satisfying the low enhanced 
performance standard

[[Page 51642]]

provided that EPA does propose some type of approval of the 15% plan 
containing that program. Should EPA propose approval of the 15% plan, 
EPA will proceed to take final interim conditional approval action on 
the I/M plan. EPA proposes in the alternative that if the agency 
proposes instead to disapprove the 15% plan, EPA would then disapprove 
the I/M plan as well because the state would no longer be eligible to 
select the low enhanced performance standard under the terms of 
51.351(g).
    EPA established an alternate, OTR low enhanced I/M performance 
standard, in order to provide OTR qualifying areas the flexibility to 
implement a broader range of I/M programs (61 FR 39039). This standard 
is designed for states in the OTR which are required to implement 
enhanced I/M in areas that are designated and classified as attainment, 
marginal ozone nonattainment or moderate ozone nonattainment with a 
population of under 200,000. The remaining areas of the Pennsylvania I/
M program other than the five county Philadelphia and four county 
Pittsburgh areas qualify for the OTR low enhanced performance standard. 
The program design parameters used in the modeling found in the SIP 
submittal demonstrate that the remaining areas meet the requirements of 
the OTR low enhanced I/M performance standard. However, the proposed I/
M regulations do not contain the same program design parameters found 
in the modeling in the SIP submittal.
    The Pennsylvania submittal includes the following program design 
parameters:
    Network type--decentralized, test and repair, modeled claiming 100% 
emission reduction credits.
    Start date--1997 for the five county Philadelphia and the four 
county Pittsburgh areas and 1999 for the remaining areas.
    Test frequency--annual.
    Model year/ vehicle type coverage--1975 and newer gasoline powered 
LDGV, LDGT1 & LDGT2.
    Exhaust emission test type--one-mode ASM (ASM5015 or equivalent) in 
five county Philadelphia area and BAR90 two speed idle test in the 
remaining twenty counties; the one-mode ASM testing was modeled 
utilizing the credit assigned for ASM2 testing.
    Emission standards--ASM: 0.8 gpm HC, 20.0 gpm CO, 2.0 gpm NOX; 
2 speed idle: 220 ppm HC, 1.2% CO, 999 ppm NOX.
    Emission control device--visual inspection of the catalytic 
converter, fuel inlet restrictor, EGR and PCV on 1981 and newer 
vehicles in all 25 counties.
    Evaporative system function checks--pressure and purge testing on 
1981 and newer vehicles in five county Philadelphia area.
    Stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)--20%.
    Waiver rate--3% for all model years.
    Compliance rate--96%.
    Evaluation dates--July 1999, 2002 and 2005 for five county 
Philadelphia area and July 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2007 for twenty 
remaining counties.
    Pennsylvania's modeling also included taking 100% credit for a 
mandatory technician training and certification (TTC) program in all 
twenty-five counties; however, Pennsylvania's proposed regulations does 
not provide for the TTC program.
    Because the Pennsylvania proposed I/M regulations are not the same 
as the program design parameters in the modeling and the modeling takes 
credit for features not in the proposed regulation, EPA is proposing to 
find that the enhanced I/M performance standard requirements are 
satisfied based on the condition that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
will submit to EPA within 12 months of the final interim ruling, the 
final Pennsylvania I/M regulations which reflect the program design 
parameters found in the modeling portion of the Pennsylvania I/M SIP. 
EPA, therefore, proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP 
based on receiving within 30 days the Commonwealth's commitment to 
submit to EPA by a date certain within nine months of the final interim 
ruling the final Pennsylvania I/M regulations which reflect the program 
design parameters found in the modeling portion of the Pennsylvania I/M 
SIP. If this condition is not met EPA will promptly issue a letter to 
the Commonwealth indicating that the conditional approval has been 
converted to a disapproval.
    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 
emission levels achieved by Pennsylvania were modeled using MOBILE5a. 
However, Pennsylvania utilized the two-mode ASM (ASM2) credit matrix in 
that model because a one-mode ASM (ASM1) credit matrix had not been 
released by EPA. Pennsylvania will be required to repeat the 
demonstration if EPA provides the appropriate one-mode ASM credit 
matrix as part of the MOBILE model.
    In order to determine whether the Commonwealth's I/M program meets 
the performance standard, the Commonwealth needed to submit modeling of 
its program to reflect that it met the performance standard. Because of 
delayed program start up and program reconfiguration, the existing 
modeling used by the Commonwealth to demonstrate compliance with the 
performance standard is no longer accurate, as it is based on start up 
and phase-in of testing and cut-points that do not reflect the current 
program configuration or start dates that the Commonwealth will 
actually implement. EPA believes, based on the available modeling, 
analysis of program elements in the SIP submittals and EPA's own 
extrapolation of expected emission reductions from the program, that 
the delayed program start up, as compared to that start up which was 
modeled by the Commonwealth, will not jeopardize the Commonwealth's 
ability to meet the performance standard. However, the Commonwealth 
must conduct new modeling using the actual program configuration to 
verify that the performance standard will in fact be met. For example, 
phase-in cutpoints corresponding to the test-type and correct program 
start up dates should be included in the new modeling.
    The Commonwealth must conduct and submit the necessary new modeling 
and demonstration that the program will meet the performance standard 
within one year from final conditional interim approval. If the 
Commonwealth fails to submit this new modeling within one year, EPA 
proposes that the conditional interim approval will convert to a 
disapproval upon a letter from EPA indicating that the Commonwealth has 
failed to timely submit the modeling and demonstration of compliance 
with the performance standard.
    In addition, the existing I/M rules require that the modeling 
demonstrate that the Commonwealth program has met the performance 
standard by fixed evaluation dates. The first such date is January 1, 
2000. However, few state programs will be able to demonstrate 
compliance with the performance standard by that date as a result of 
delays in program start up and phase-in of testing requirements. EPA 
believes that based on the provisions of the NHSDA, the evaluation 
dates in the current I/M rule have been superceded. Congress provided 
in the NHSDA for state development of I/M programs that would start 
significantly later than the start dates in the current I/M rule.

[[Page 51643]]

Consistent with congressional intent, such programs by definition will 
not achieve full compliance with the performance standard by the 
beginning of 2000.
    As explained above, EPA has concluded that the NHSDA superceded the 
start date requirements of the I/M rule, but that states should still 
be required to start their programs as soon as possible, which EPA has 
determined would be by November 15, 1997. Therefore, EPA believes that 
pursuant to the NHSDA, the initial evaluation date should be January 1, 
2002. This evaluation date will allow states to fully implement their 
I/M programs and complete one cycle of testing at full cut points in 
order to demonstrate compliance with the performance standard.

Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353

    The enhanced program must 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 CAA and the I/M rule. The 
SIP must 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 transient test of at 
least 0.1% of the vehicles subject to inspection each year, a 
description of the sampling methodology, the data collection and 
analysis system and the legal authority enabling the evaluation 
program.
    Both 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 and the Commonwealth's proposed I/M 
regulation provide for a decentralized, test and repair network. The 
Commonwealth has claimed 100% effectiveness for its test and repair 
network.
    In its SIP, the Commonwealth has committed to conducting one-mode 
ASM (ASM5015 or equivalent) or BAR90 2 speed idle testing in order to 
evaluate the program under the long term program demonstration. This 
does not comply with the evaluation protocol set by EPA in 40 CFR 
51.353(c). The Environmental Council of States (ECOS) has formed a 
committee to develop an evaluation protocol to be used by states in 
order to evaluate program effectiveness. ECOS has agreed that the 
states must follow the long term program evaluation found in 40 CFR 
51.353. 40 CFR 51.353 requires mass emission transient testing (METT) 
be performed on 0.1% of the subject fleet each year. The submittal also 
fails to commit to the other program evaluation elements as specified 
in 40 CFR 51.353(b)(1) and (c).
    EPA, therefore, proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania 
SIP based on receiving the Commonwealth's commitment within 30 days to 
submit to EPA by a date certain within nine months of the final interim 
ruling, the final Pennsylvania I/M regulation which requires METT be 
performed on 0.1% of the subject fleet each year as per 40 CFR 51.353 
(c)(3) and meets the program evaluation elements as specified in 40 CFR 
51.353(b)(1) and (c). If this condition is not met EPA will promptly 
issue a letter to the Commonwealth indicating that the conditional 
approval has been converted to a disapproval.

Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354

    The I/M rule requires the Commonwealth 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 it is demonstrated that the funding can be 
maintained. Reliance on funding from a 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.
    According to Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State Constitution 
currently 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 I/M 
rules 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 have been currently appropriated to 
meet program operation requirements.
    The SIP fails to detail the number of personnel and equipment 
dedicated to the quality assurance program, data collection, data 
analysis, program administration, enforcement, public education and 
assistance, on-road testing and other necessary functions, because a 
majority of these functions will be performed by a contractor and the 
Commonwealth has not released the request for proposals to address 
these program areas. This is a minor deficiency and must be corrected 
in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18 month 
interim period.
    Thus, the Commonwealth's submittal meets the adequate tools and 
resources requirements of the I/M rule for purposes of interim 
approval.

Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355

    The enhanced I/M performance standard in the I/M rule assumes an 
annual test frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the 
performance standard is achieved. The SIP must describe the test year 
selection scheme, how the test frequency is integrated into the 
enforcement process and must include the legal authority, regulations 
or contract provisions to implement and enforce the test frequency. The 
program must be designed to provide convenient service to the motorist 
and regular testing hours.
    Pennsylvania's proposed  enhanced I/M regulation provides for an 
annual test frequency. The Commonwealth has submitted modeling that 
demonstrates that the performance standard is met using the annual test 
frequency. 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 and the Commonwealth's proposed I/M 
regulation provide the legal authority to implement and enforce the 
annual test frequency. The Pennsylvania submittal meets the test 
frequency and convenience requirements of the I/M rules for purposes of 
interim approval.

Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 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

[[Page 51644]]

subject to the same test requirements using the same quality control 
standards as non-fleet vehicles and shall be inspected in the same type 
of test network as other vehicles in the State, according to the 
requirements of 40 CFR Sec. 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 I/M rule 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. Such exemptions shall be accounted for 
in the emissions reduction analysis.
    The Pennsylvania enhanced I/M program requires coverage of all 1975 
and newer gasoline powered 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, 5.9 million 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. 75 Pa.
    C.S. Sec. 4706 and the proposed 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 fleets with 15 or more 
vehicles can be inspected at a certified fleet inspection station. The 
Commonwealth's plan for testing fleet vehicles requires the vehicles to 
be subject to the same test requirements using the same quality control 
standards as non-fleet vehicles, according to the requirements of 40 
CFR Sec. 51.353(a). The fleet program is acceptable and meets the 
requirements of the I/M rule. 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.
    The Commonwealth's regulation provides for no special exemptions 
for vehicle coverage.
    The definition of light duty truck in the definitions section of 
Pennsylvania's proposed I/M regulation does not provide for coverage up 
to 9,000 pounds GVWR and conflicts with the modeling parameters found 
in the SIP. This is a minor deficiency and must be corrected in the 
final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18 month interim 
period.
    Thus, the Pennsylvania submittal meets the vehicle coverage 
requirements of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR Sec. 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 
Sec. 51.357 and in the EPA documents entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test 
Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and 
Equipment Specifications'', EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-93-1, dated April 1994 and 
``Acceleration Simulation Mode Test Procedures, Emission Standards, 
Quality Control Requirements, and Equipment Specifications'', EPA-AA-
RSPD-IM-96-2, dated July 1996. The I/M rule also requires vehicles that 
have been altered from their original certified configuration (i.e. 
engine or fuel switching) to be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.357(d).
    Pennsylvania has proposed an one-mode ASM (ASM5015 or equivalent) 
exhaust testing with evaporative system pressure and purge testing in 
the five county Philadelphia area. Pennsylvania is considering opting 
for the two-mode ASM test instead of the one-mode ASM test. 
Pennsylvania has been working with other states and the equipment 
manufacturers, in coordination with EPA, to develop their own 
procedures, specifications and standards for one and two-mode ASM 
testing. It is anticipated that these test procedures, specifications 
and standards will be released in late August 1996. Two speed idle 
exhaust testing will be required in the remaining 20 counties. A visual 
emission control inspection for the presence of the catalytic 
converter, fuel inlet restrictor, PCV and EGR valve on 1981 and newer 
model year vehicles will be required in all 25 counties.
    The Commonwealth's proposed regulation does not include a 
description of a test procedure which is acceptable to both the 
Commonwealth and EPA for two speed idle and one-mode ASM testing, for 
evaporative system pressure and purge testing and for a visual emission 
control device inspection. The Commonwealth's proposed regulation does 
not establish HC, CO, and CO2 pass/fail exhaust standards for the 
two speed idle test procedure and one-mode ASM test procedure. The 
Commonwealth regulation does not establish evaporative purge and 
pressure test standards which conform to EPA established standards. The 
final Pennsylvania I/M regulation must include the test procedures and 
emission standards for these items. The July 29, 1996 supplement 
submitted by Pennsylvania provides a commitment to include the test 
procedures for the 2 speed idle test and the one-mode ASM (ASM5015 or 
equivalent) in the final regulation; however, the Commonwealth fails to 
commit to test procedures for evaporative system pressure and purge 
tests and visual emission control device inspections.
    Pennsylvania's proposed regulation does not provide phase-in 
emission standards for one-mode ASM testing or two speed idle testing. 
EPA anticipates that the Commonwealth will provide for phase-in 
emission standards in the final state regulation. The final emission 
standards must be implemented at the beginning of the second test cycle 
so that the Commonwealth can obtain the full emission reduction program 
credit prior to the first program evaluation date. This is a minor 
deficiency and must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision 
submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period.
    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.
    EPA must receive the test procedures, specifications and standards 
before EPA can go forward with a final interim ruling. In light of the 
anticipated release of these test procedures, specifications and 
standards in late August 1996, the Commonwealth must submit the 
procedures, specifications and standards to EPA within 30 days of the 
proposed interim ruling.
    If, within 30 days of the proposed interim ruling, the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania submits to EPA test procedures and standards for one-
mode ASM (or two-mode ASM if the Commonwealth opts for two-mode ASM) 
and two speed idle testing which are acceptable to EPA, then EPA 
proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP based on 
receiving within 30 days of this proposed rule the

[[Page 51645]]

Commonwealth's commitment to submit to EPA by a date certain within 
twelve months of the final interim ruling, the final Pennsylvania I/M 
regulation which includes test procedures and emission standards which 
are acceptable to both the Commonwealth and EPA for the two speed idle 
test, one-mode ASM test (or two-mode ASM test), evaporative system 
purge and pressure tests and the visual emission control device 
inspection (referred to collectively in the remainder of this section 
of the notice as ``test procedures and standards''). If within 30 days 
of the proposed interim ruling the submittal requirement is not met or 
the state fails to commit within 30 days to submit final regulations 
which incorporate the ``test procedures and emission standards'' which 
are acceptable to both the Commonwealth and EPA by a date certain 
within twelve months from the final interim ruling then this notice 
proposes in the alternative to disapprove the Pennsylvania I/M SIP. If 
the condition to submit the final regulations which incorporate the 
``test procedures and emission standards'' which are acceptable to both 
the Commonwealth and EPA is not met by a date certain within twelve 
months from the final interim ruling EPA will promptly issue a letter 
to the Commonwealth indicating that the conditional approval has been 
converted to a disapproval.

Test Equipment--40 CFR Sec. 51.358

    Computerized test systems are required for performing any 
measurement on subject vehicles. The I/M rule 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's submittal contains the written technical 
specifications for the two speed idle test equipment but does not 
contain equipment specifications for the one-mode ASM (ASM5015 or 
equivalent) and the pressure and purge test equipment. Pennsylvania has 
been working with other States and the equipment manufacturers, in 
coordination with EPA, to develop their own procedures, equipment 
specifications and standards for one and two-mode ASM testing. It is 
anticipated that these test procedures, equipment specifications and 
standards will be released in late August 1996. Pennsylvania must 
submit ASM equipment specifications once they have been established. 
The proposed regulation does require the use of computerized test 
systems.
    EPA must receive the test procedures, equipment specifications and 
standards before EPA can go forward with a final interim ruling. In 
light of the anticipated release of these test procedures, equipment 
specifications and standards in late August 1996, the Commonwealth must 
submit the procedures, equipment specifications and standards to EPA 
within 30 days of the proposed interim ruling.
    If, within 30 days of the proposed interim ruling, the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania submits to EPA equipment specifications for one-mode 
ASM (or two-mode ASM if the Commonwealth opts for two-mode ASM) testing 
which are acceptable to EPA, then EPA proposes to conditionally approve 
the Pennsylvania SIP based on receiving within 30 days of this proposed 
rule the Commonwealth's commitment to submit to EPA by a date certain 
within twelve months of the final interim ruling, the final 
Pennsylvania I/M regulation which includes test equipment 
specifications which are acceptable to both the Commonwealth and EPA 
for the one-mode ASM test (or two-mode ASM test) and evaporative system 
purge and pressure tests. If within 30 days of the proposed interim 
ruling the submittal requirement is not met or the state fails to 
commit within 30 days to submit final regulations which incorporate the 
equipment specifications which are acceptable to both the Commonwealth 
and EPA for the one-mode ASM test (or two-mode ASM test) and 
evaporative system purge and pressure tests by a date certain within 
twelve months from the final interim ruling then this notice proposes 
in the alternative to disapprove the Pennsylvania I/M SIP. If the 
condition to submit the final regulations which incorporate the 
equipment specifications which are acceptable to both the Commonwealth 
and EPA for the one-mode ASM test (or two-mode ASM test) and 
evaporative system purge and pressure tests is not met by a date 
certain within nine months from the final interim ruling, EPA will 
promptly issue a letter to the Commonwealth indicating that the 
conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval.
    The proposed Pennsylvania regulation requires a data link system 
between the Commonwealth and each emission station; however it is not a 
real time data link. A real time data link is required as per 40 CFR 
Sec. 51.358(b)(2). This is a minor deficiency and must be corrected in 
the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18 month interim 
period.

Quality Control--40 CFR Sec. 51.359

    Quality control measures must 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 proposed regulation and the SIP submittal 
contain information which describe and establish quality control 
measures for all the emission measurement equipment except for one-mode 
ASM (or two-mode ASM if the Commonwealth opts for it). Recordkeeping 
requirements and measures to maintain the security of all documents 
used to establish compliance with the inspection requirements are 
included in the submittal. The Commonwealth intends to contract with a 
private vendor who will develop and implement, consistent with the 
proposed state regulations, the quality control requirements. The 
failure to provide quality control requirements for one-mode ASM (or 
two-mode ASM if the Commonwealth opts for it) is a minor deficiency and 
must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of 
the 18 month interim period.
    The Commonwealth's submittal meets the quality control requirements 
of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR Sec. 51.360

    The I/M rule 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 I/M rule allows for 
compliance via a diagnostic inspection after failing a retest on

[[Page 51646]]

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.
    75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 and the Pennsylvania proposed 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 
proposed I/M regulation includes provisions which address waiver 
criteria and procedures, including cost limits, tampering and warranty 
related repairs, quality control and administration.
    The Commonwealth has set a 3% maximum waiver rate, as a percentage 
of failed vehicles, for both pre-1981 and 1981 and later vehicles. The 
Commonwealth has committed to, as per 40 CFR Sec. 51.360, corrective 
actions to be taken if the waiver rate exceeds 3%. This waiver rate has 
been used in the performance standard modeling demonstration.
    The Commonwealth's proposed regulation allows emission inspection 
stations to issue waivers. The I/M rule, 40 CFR Sec. 51.360(c)(1), only 
allows the State or a single contractor to issue waivers. This is a 
minor deficiency and must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision 
submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period.
    The Pennsylvania submittal meets the waiver requirements of the I/M 
rule for purposes of interim approval.

Motorist Compliance Enforcements--40 CFR Sec. 51.361

    The I/M rule 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, which was operating prior to passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act 
Amendments, and it can be demonstrated that the alternative has been 
more effective than registration denial. Currently the I/M rule does 
not provide this alternative for newly implementing enhanced areas, 
including newly subject areas in a state with an I/M program in another 
part of the state. In a separate action expected to be taken shortly, 
EPA intends to take direct final action to amend 40 CFR Sec. 51.361 to 
allow in the alternative, the use of more effective pre-existing 
motorist compliance enforcement mechanism anywhere within a State. EPA 
proposes to approve Pennsylvania's use of sticker enforcement 
throughout the state, based on the state's demonstration of 
effectiveness described below, provided that EPA takes final action on 
this amendment prior to final approval of the Pennsylvania program.
    In addition, the SIP must 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.
    The Commonwealth proposes to use their pre-existing sticker 
enforcement mechanism in all 25 counties. The Commonwealth proposes to 
demonstrate that its existing sticker enforcement program is more 
effective than registration denial. Pennsylvania's proposed I/M 
regulation provides the legal authority to implement a sticker 
enforcement system. The Pennsylvania SIP commits to a compliance rate 
of 96% which was used in the performance standard modeling 
demonstration. EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania 
SIP based on receiving within 30 days from this notice a commitment 
from the Commonwealth to submit by a date certain no later than 
November 15, 1997, a demonstration that meets the requirements of 40 
CFR Sec. 51.361(b) (1) and (2) and demonstrates that the Pennsylvania's 
existing sticker enforcement system is more effective than registration 
denial enforcement. The demonstration must be received by EPA no later 
than November 15, 1997 because November 15, 1997 is the date by which 
the Pennsylvania enhanced I/M program must begin testing and EPA 
believes that the demonstration must be complete and submitted to EPA 
by the time testing is required to begin.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR Sec. 51.362

    The I/M rule 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 contains a commitment to contract with a 
private vendor which will develop a manual which addresses the quality 
assurance, quality control and information management of the motorist 
compliance enforcement oversight program. The submittal does not 
include the request for proposals (RFP) that adequately addresses how 
the private vendor will comply with the motorist compliance enforcement 
program oversight requirements. This is a minor deficiency and must be 
corrected in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18 
month interim period.

Quality Assurance--40 CFR Sec. 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 contains a commitment to contract with a 
private vendor who will be charged with developing a quality assurance 
program that meets all requirements of 40 CFR 51.363.
    Performance audits of inspectors will consist of both covert and 
overt audits.
    The submittal does not include a RFP that adequately addresses how 
the private vendor will comply with 40 CFR 51.363, does not include a 
procedures manual which adequately addresses the quality assurance 
program and does not require annual auditing of the quality assurance 
auditors as per 40 CFR 51.363(d)(2). These are minor deficiencies and 
must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of 
the 18 month interim period.
    The Pennsylvania submittal meets the quality assurance requirements 
of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

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

    Enforcement against licensed stations, contractors and inspectors 
must include swift, sure, effective, and consistent penalties for 
violation of program requirements. The I/M rule 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.

[[Page 51647]]

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 must 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 and inspectors. The 
penalty schedules for inspectors and stations which are found in the 
Commonwealth's proposed regulation meet the I/M rule requirements and 
are approvable. The Commonwealth's July 27, 1996 supplement to the SIP 
revision states that the Commonwealth auditor has the authority to 
temporarily suspend station and inspector licenses or certificates 
immediately upon finding a violation. The submittal includes 
descriptions of administrative and judicial procedures relevant to the 
enforcement process which meet the I/M rule and are approvable.
    The SIP does not include provisions to maintain and submit to EPA 
records of all warnings, civil fines, suspensions, revocations, 
violations and penalties against inspectors and stations. This is a 
minor deficiency and must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision 
submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period.
    The Pennsylvania submittal meets the enforcement against 
contractors, stations and inspectors requirements of the I/M rule for 
purposes of interim approval.

Data Collection--40 CFR 51.365

    Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation 
and enforcement of an I/M program. The I/M rule 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 51.359.
    The submittal states that the Commonwealth's data collection will 
be implemented by a private vendor and will be in accordance with 40 
CFR Secs. 51.365 and 51.366. The submittal also commits to gather and 
report the results of the quality control checks required under 40 CFR 
Sec. 51.359. The submittal does not include a RFP that adequately 
addresses how the private vendor will comply with 40 CFR Secs. 51.365 
and 51.366. This is a minor deficiency which must be corrected by 
submitting the portion of the RFP which adequately addresses data 
collection as part of the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end 
of the 18 month interim period.
    The Pennsylvania submittal meets the data collection requirements 
of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR Sec. 51.366

    Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring 
and evaluation of the program by the state and EPA. The I/M rule 
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 of each year and shall 
provide statistics for the period of January to December of the 
previous year. In addition, a biennial report must be submitted to EPA 
which adequately 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 states that data analysis and reporting 
will be implemented by a private vendor and provides a commitment that 
the reports submitted to EPA will provide summary data and other 
information as required under 40 CFR Sec. 51.366. The Commonwealth 
commits to submit annual reports on test data, quality assurance and 
quality control to EPA by July of the subsequent year. A commitment to 
submit a biennial report to EPA which adequately addresses reporting 
requirements set forth in 40 CFR Sec. 51.366(e) is also included in the 
SIP.
    The submittal does not include an RFP that adequately addresses how 
the private vendor will comply with 40 CFR Sec. 51.366. This is a minor 
deficiency which must be corrected by submitting the portion of the RFP 
which adequately addresses data analysis and reporting as part of the 
final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18 month interim 
period.
    The Pennsylvania submittal meets the data analysis and reporting 
requirements of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR Sec. 51.367

    The I/M rule 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 will hire a private vendor to 
implement the inspector training and certification program. The 
Commonwealth's proposed I/M regulation includes a description of the 
information covered in the training program, a requirement for both 
written and hands-on testing and a description of the certification 
process. However, the SIP fails to include requirements that the 
inspectors are to complete a refresher training course or pass a 
comprehensive skill examination prior to being recertified and does not 
include a commitment that the Commonwealth will monitor and evaluate 
the inspector training program delivery. These are minor deficiencies 
and must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the 
end of the 18 month interim period.
    The Pennsylvania submittal meets the inspector training and 
licensing or certification requirements of the I/M rule for purposes of 
interim approval.

Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR Sec. 51.368

    The I/M rule requires the SIP to include public information and 
consumer protection programs.
    The Commonwealth will hire a private vendor to implement the public 
information program which educates the public on I/M, state and federal 
I/M rules, air quality and the role of motor vehicles in the air 
pollution problem, and other items as described in the I/M rule. The 
submittal does not include an RFP that adequately addresses how the 
private vendor will comply with the public information requirements of 
40 CFR Sec. 51.368. This is a minor deficiency which must be corrected 
by submitting the portion of the RFP which adequately addresses the 
public information program as part of the final I/M SIP revision 
submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period.
    The Pennsylvania submittal meets the public information and 
consumer protection requirements of the I/M rule for purposes of 
interim approval.

Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR Sec. 51.369

    Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The I/M 
rule requires states to take steps to ensure

[[Page 51648]]

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 
I/M rule, and a description of the repair technician training resources 
available in the community.
    The Pennsylvania SIP requires the implementation of a technical 
assistance program. The Commonwealth will hire a private vendor to 
implement a technician hotline service. The Commonwealth will 
periodically inform the repair facilities of changes in the program, 
training courses, and common repair problems. The Commonwealth's 
proposed 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 51.369(c).
    The SIP does not include provisions that meet the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.368(a) and 51.369(b) for a repair facility performance 
monitoring program plan and for providing the motorist with diagnostic 
information based on the particular portions of the test that failed. 
These are minor deficiencies and must be corrected in the final I/M SIP 
revision submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period.
    The Pennsylvania submittal meets the improving repair effectiveness 
requirements of I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

Compliance with Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370

    The I/M rule requires the states to establish methods to ensure 
that vehicles that are subject to enhanced I/M and are included in a 
emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to 
completing the emission test and/or renewing the vehicle registration.
    75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 and the Commonwealth's proposed I/M regulation 
provide the legal authority to require owners to comply with emission 
related recalls before completing the emission test. The SIP includes 
procedures to be used to incorporate national database recall 
information into either the data collection contractors database or 
directly to the emission inspection station. The submittal includes a 
commitment to submit an annual report to EPA which includes the recall 
related information as required in 40 CFR 51.370(c).
    The Pennsylvania submittal meets the recall compliance requirements 
of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

On-road Testing--40 CFR 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 I/M rule. 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 75 
Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 and the Commonwealth's proposed I/M regulation. The 
SIP submittal requires the use of RSD or systematic roadside checks to 
test 20,000 vehicles per year in the I/M program area and will be 
implemented by a private vendor. A description of the program which 
includes test limits and criteria is found in the SIP.
    The submittal does not contain sufficient information on resource 
allocations, methods of analyzing and reporting the results of the 
testing and information on staffing requirements for both the 
Commonwealth and the private vendor. These are minor deficiencies and 
must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of 
the 18 month interim period.
    The Pennsylvania submittal meets the on-road testing requirements 
of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR 
Secs. 51.372-373

    The Pennsylvania submittal included the Commonwealth's proposed I/M 
regulations, legislative authority to implement the program, a modeling 
demonstration showing that the program design meets the performance 
standard, evidence of adequate funding and resources to implement the 
program, and a discussion of each of the required program design 
elements.
    75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 provides the legal authority to implement the 
program. However, 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 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.'' 75 
Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 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 proposed 
regulation, 67 Pa. Code Sec. 177.22, states ``the enhanced I/M program, 
as described in this chapter, will commence on a date designated by the 
Secretary by notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The notice will 
provide affected motorists with at least 60 days notice''. EPA, 
therefore, proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP based 
on receiving from the Commonwealth within 30 days of this notice a 
commitment to publish a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by a date 
certain no later than September 15, 1997 certifying the start date for 
the I/M program so that the program for the five county Philadelphia 
and four county Pittsburgh areas can start no later than November 15, 
1997 and so that the remaining 16 counties can start no later than 
November 15, 1999. If the Commonwealth does not meet the commitment, 
EPA will promptly issue a letter to the Commonwealth indicating that 
the conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval.

III. Discussion of Rulemaking Action

    Today's notice of proposed rulemaking begins a 30 day clock for the 
Commonwealth to make a commitment to EPA to correct the major elements 
of the SIP that EPA considers deficient, by a date certain, within 1 
year of interim approval. These elements are: geographic coverage and 
program start dates, program evaluation, enhanced performance standard, 
test types, test procedures and emission standards, test equipment 
specifications and motorist compliance enforcement. If the Commonwealth 
does not make such commitments within 30 days, EPA today is proposing 
in the alternative that this SIP revision be disapproved.
    In an April 13, 1995 letter EPA notified Pennsylvania that the 
conditional approval of the Pennsylvania enhanced I/M SIP revision had 
been converted to a disapproval (60 FR 47084). The letter triggered the 
18-month time clock for the mandatory application of sanctions under 
section 179(a) of the CAA. This 18-month sanction clock will expire on 
October 13, 1996 at which time 2:1 stationary sources offsets would be 
automatically imposed. In the Final Rules section of

[[Page 51649]]

today's Federal Register, 61 FR 51598, EPA has published an interim 
final determination to defer sanctions based on the determination that 
Pennsylvania has cured the SIP deficiency triggering the clock for the 
duration of EPA's rulemaking process on the I/M SIP revision. This 
interim determination will not stop the sanctions clock but will defer 
the implementation of sanctions until either the conditional interim 
approval is converted to a disapproval, the interim approval lapses, 
the full SIP is approved or the full SIP is disapproved.
    If the Commonwealth makes the required commitments within 30 days, 
EPA's conditional approval of the plan will last until the date by 
which the Commonwealth has committed to cure all of the deficiencies. 
EPA expects that within this period the Commonwealth will not only 
correct the deficiencies as committed to by the Commonwealth, but that 
the Commonwealth will also begin program start-up no later than 
November 15, 1997 in the five county Philadelphia and four county 
Pittsburgh areas. If the Commonwealth does not correct deficiencies and 
implement the interim program in said areas by no later than November 
15, 1997, EPA is proposing in this notice that the interim approval 
will convert to a disapproval upon a finding letter being sent by EPA 
to the Commonwealth.

IV. Explanation of the Interim Approval

    At the end of the 18 month interim period, the approval status for 
this program will automatically lapse pursuant to the NHSDA. It is 
expected that the Commonwealth will make a demonstration of the 
program's effectiveness using an appropriate evaluation criteria. As 
EPA expects that the Pennsylvania I/M program will have started by no 
later than November 15, 1997, the Commonwealth will have approximately 
6 months of program data that can be used for the demonstration. If the 
Commonwealth fails to provide a demonstration of the program's 
effectiveness to EPA within 18 months of the final interim rulemaking, 
the interim approval will lapse, and EPA will be forced to disapprove 
the Commonwealth's permanent I/M SIP revision. If the Commonwealth's 
program evaluation demonstrates a lesser amount of emission reductions 
actually realized than were claimed in the Commonwealth's previous 
submittal, EPA will adjust the Commonwealth's credits accordingly, and 
use this information to act on the Commonwealth's permanent I/M 
program.

V. Further Requirements for Permanent I/M SIP Approval

    At the end of the 18 month period, final approval of the 
Commonwealth's plan will be granted based upon the following criteria:
    1. The Commonwealth has complied with all the conditions of its 
commitment to EPA,
    2. EPA's review of the Commonwealth's program evaluation confirms 
that the appropriate amount of program credit was claimed by the 
Commonwealth and achieved with the interim program,
    3. Final program regulations are submitted to EPA, and
    4. The Commonwealth's I/M program meets all of the requirements of 
EPA's I/M rule, including those deficiencies identified herein as minor 
for purposes of interim approval.

VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Interim Submittal

    EPA's review of the Commonwealth's submittal indicates that with 
satisfaction of the conditions described above, the Commonwealth will 
have adopted an enhanced I/M program in accordance with the 
requirements of the NHSDA. EPA is proposing conditional interim 
approval of the Pennsylvania SIP revision for an enhanced I/M program 
and the supplements to that revision submitted on June 27, 1996 and 
July 29, 1996. 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 interim 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 conditional interim approval of this revision to 
the Pennsylvania SIP for an enhanced I/M program if a commitment is 
received from the Commonwealth within 30 days of the date of this 
proposal, to correct the identified deficiencies by a date certain 
within one year from the date of the final interim approval. The 
conditions for approvability are as follows:
    (1) By no later than September 15, 1997, 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 March 
22, 1996 SIP submittal), and certifies the commencement date of the 
enhanced I/M program. The commencement date for the five county 
Philadelphia and four county Pittsburgh areas must be no later than 
November 15, 1997 and the commencement date for the remaining 16 
counties must be no later than November 15, 1999;
    (2) The Commonwealth must submit to EPA as a SIP amendment by a 
date certain within twelve months of the final interim ruling, the 
final Pennsylvania I/M regulation which requires METT be performed on 
0.1% of the subject fleet each year as per 40 CFR Sec. 51.353(c)(3) and 
meets the program evaluation elements as specified in 40 CFR 
Sec. 51.353(b)(1) & (c);
    (3) By a date certain no later than November 15, 1997, the 
Commonwealth must submit a demonstration to EPA as an amendment to the 
SIP that meets the requirements of 40 CFR Sec. 51.361(b)(1) & (2) and 
demonstrates that Pennsylvania's existing sticker enforcement system is 
more effective than registration denial enforcement;
    (4) If, within 30 days of the proposed interim ruling, the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submits to EPA test procedures, 
specifications and standards for one-mode ASM (or two-mode ASM if the 
Commonwealth opts for two-mode ASM) and two speed idle testing which 
are acceptable to EPA, then EPA proposes to conditionally approve the 
Pennsylvania SIP if the Commonwealth adopts and submits to EPA as a SIP 
amendment by a date certain within twelve months of the final interim 
ruling, the final Pennsylvania I/M regulation which requires and 
specifies (and reflects the modeling assumptions found in the March 22, 
1996 submittal and July 29, 1996 supplement) the following: exhaust & 
evaporative test types and procedures which are acceptable to both the 
Commonwealth and EPA, visual inspection for presence and tampering of 
emission control devices, equipment specifications which are acceptable 
to both the Commonwealth and EPA, emission standards for both exhaust 
and evaporative testing which are acceptable to both the Commonwealth 
and EPA, and a technician training and certification (TTC) program.
    (5) The Commonwealth must perform and submit the necessary new 
modeling and demonstration that the program will meet the performance 
standard, within one year from final conditional interim approval. If 
the Commonwealth fails to

[[Page 51650]]

submit this new modeling within one year, EPA proposes that the 
conditional interim approval will convert to a disapproval upon a 
letter from EPA indicating that the Commonwealth has failed to submit, 
timely, the modeling and demonstration of compliance with the 
performance standard.
    The following minor deficiencies must be corrected in the final I/M 
SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period:
    (1) Detail the number of personnel and equipment dedicated to the 
quality assurance program, data collection, data analysis, program 
administration, enforcement, public education and assistance, on-road 
testing and other necessary functions as per 40 CFR Sec. 51.354;
    (2) The definition of light duty truck in the definitions section 
of the Pennsylvania I/M regulation must provide for coverage up to 
9,000 pounds GVWR;
    (3) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation must require implementation of 
the final full stringency emission standards at the beginning of the 
second test cycle so that the state can obtain the full emission 
reduction program credit prior to the first program evaluation date;
    (4) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation must require a real time data 
link between the state or contractor and each emission inspection 
station as per 40 CFR 51.358(b)(2);
    (5) Provide quality control requirements for one-mode ASM (or two-
mode ASM if the Commonwealth opts for it);
    (6) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation must only allow the 
Commonwealth or a single contractor to issue waivers as per 40 CFR 
51.360(c)(1);
    (7) The final I/M SIP submittal must include the RFP that 
adequately addresses how the private vendor will comply with the 
motorist compliance enforcement program oversight requirements as per 
40 CFR 51.362;
    (8) The final I/M SIP submittal must include the RFP that 
adequately addresses how the private vendor will comply with 40 CFR 
51.363, a procedures manual which adequately addresses the quality 
assurance program and a requirement that annual auditing of the quality 
assurance auditors will occur as per 40 CFR 51.363(d)(2);
    (9) The final I/M SIP submittal must include provisions to maintain 
and submit to EPA records of all warnings, civil fines, suspensions, 
revocations, violations and penalties against inspectors and stations 
as per 40 CFR 51.364;
    (10) The final I/M SIP submittal must include a RFP that adequately 
addresses how the private vendor will comply with 40 CFR 51.365 and 
51.366;
    (11) The Pennsylvania regulation must require that the inspectors 
complete a refresher training course or pass a comprehensive skill 
examination prior to being recertified and the final SIP revisions must 
include a commitment that the Commonwealth will monitor and evaluate 
the inspector training program delivery as per 40 CFR 51.367;
    (12) The final I/M SIP submittal must include a RFP that adequately 
addresses how the private vendor will comply with the public 
information requirements of 40 CFR 51.368;
    (13) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation must include provisions that 
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.368(a)and 51.369(b) for a repair 
facility performance monitoring program plan and for providing the 
motorist with diagnostic information based on the particular portions 
of the test that were failed; and
    (14) The final I/M SIP submittal must contain sufficient 
information to adequately address the on-road test program resource 
allocations, methods of analyzing and reporting the results of the on-
road testing and information on staffing requirements for both the 
Commonwealth and the private vendor for the on-road testing program.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    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.
    SIP approvals under Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D of the CAA 
do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that 
the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, the Administrator 
certifies 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 CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would 
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state 
action. The CAA 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).
    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 that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed/promulgated 
does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs 
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 
approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs 
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
result from this action.
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
    The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the 
Pennsylvania enhanced I/M SIP revision will be based on whether it 
meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the 
Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Section 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.


[[Page 51651]]


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

     Dated: September 12, 1996.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 96-25398 Filed 10-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P