[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