[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 198 (Thursday, October 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53166-53174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25983]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[DC031-2004; DC032-2005; FRL-5617-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
District of Columbia: Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed disapproval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing disapproval of a State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the District of Columbia on July 13, 1995 
and supplemented on March 27, 1996. This revision amends the District's 
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program required to be 
enhanced under the Clean Air Act. The intended effect of this action is 
to propose disapproval of the enhanced I/M program proposed by the 
District. This action is being taken under section 348 of the National 
Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA) and section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is proposing disapproval of the District's 
enhanced I/M SIP revision because it is deficient with respect to the 
requirements of the CAA and EPA's enhanced I/M program regulatory 
requirements.
    In taking action under section 110 of the CAA it is appropriate to 
propose disapproval of the District's enhanced I/M submittal because 
there are so many deficiencies with respect to CAA statutory and 
regulatory requirements described in more detail below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by November 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold (mailcode 3AT21), 
Chief, Ozone and Mobile Sources Section, United States Environmental 
Protection Agency--Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection by appointment during normal business 
hours at the U.S. EPA, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19107.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly A. Sheckler (215) 566-2178.

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 National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA) 
establishes two key changes to the enhanced I/M rule requirements 
previously developed by EPA. First, 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 section 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. Second, under the NHSDA, EPA 
cannot disapprove a State's SIP revision, nor apply an automatic 
discount to a State's SIP revision under section 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 types for states to satisfy 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 I/M program 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 within 
120 days of the NHSDA passage, allowing these states to submit proposed 
regulations for this plan (which can be finalized and submitted to EPA 
during the interim period) and by providing expiration of interim 
approval after 18 months of data collected during operation of program, 
it is clear that Congress intended for states to begin testing vehicles 
as soon as practicable.
    Submission criteria described under the NHSDA allow 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 provide 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 interim rulemaking for a period of 18 months. The Conference 
Report for 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.

[[Page 53167]]

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 program results at the end of 
18 months, and to make a determination as to the effectiveness of the 
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 at the latest, 12 months after the effective date of this 
interim rule, November 15, 1997 so that approximately 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, 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. If a state fails to start its program on this schedule, 
an 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

    The District must submit a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies 
identified herein as described below in order for EPA to withdraw this 
proposed disapproval action, and to move forward to propose and 
finalize approval of the District's enhanced I/M SIP revision under 
sections 110, 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA.

II. EPA'S Analysis of The District of Columbia's Submittal

    On July 13, 1995, the District of Columbia Department of Consumer 
and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) submitted revisions to its State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for an enhanced I/M program. On March 27, 
1996, the District submitted, as a supplement to the July 13, 1995 
submittal, a SIP revision requesting consideration under the NHSDA. The 
revision consists of: enabling legislation that will allow the District 
to implement a biennial I/M program (legal authorities to require the 
operation of the program through to the attainment year and beyond as 
necessary for maintenance of the standard and to dedicate funding to 
develop and implement the program were not provided); final regulations 
for portions of the program, and a brief description of the I/M 
program. The District's SIP narrative stated that credit assumptions 
were based upon a pilot demonstration conducted in the State of 
California and data from a remote sensing prescreen demonstration in 
Canada, credit for a technician training program as provided by EPA and 
the application of the District's own estimate of the effectiveness of 
its overall test only program.

A. Analysis of the NHSDA Submittal Criteria

Transmittal Letter
    On March 27, 1996, the District of Columbia submittal an enhanced 
I/M SIP revision to EPA, requesting action under the NHSDA and the CAA. 
The official submittal was made by the appropriate District official, 
Hampton Cross, Director of the Department of Consumer and Regulatory 
Affairs, and was addressed to the appropriate official in the EPA 
Region III Office.
Enabling Legislation
    The District of Columbia has legislation at ``Motor Vehicle 
Biennial Inspection Amendment Act of 1993'', D.C. Law 10-106, D.C. Code 
section 40.201 et seq., effective April 26, 1994. The SIP narrative 
provides a statement that Title 18 DCMR has no expiration date. 
Enabling legal authority for a registration denial enforcement system 
is not clearly provided in the SIP submittal although the SIP submittal 
cites such an enforcement mechanism. The SIP submittal is also 
deficient in that it lacks enabling authority to implement other 
requirements of the I/M program in accordance with the CAA. A detailed 
description of these deficiencies is provided below in the section by 
section analysis of the District's submittal.
Proposed Regulations
    Copies of the District of Columbia Register were provided which 
indicated some of the submitted regulations had gone to public notice 
and hearing. Public notices for amendments to Title 18 DCMR were 
published on April 15, 1994 and July 1, 1994. There is no evidence that 
the July 13, 1995 and March 27, 1996 SIP submittals were subject to 
public notice and hearing.
Program Description
    The District program is a centralized test only network. According 
to the submittal's program description, light duty vehicles and trucks 
and heavy duty vehicles model years 1968 and newer are covered by the 
program. Vehicle model year 1979 and older will be subject to an idle 
test. Vehicles model year 1980 and newer will be subject to a short 
transient test (BAR31). Vehicles will be prescreened using a remote 
sensing device. Vehicles failing the prescreen test will undergo the 
appropriate test based upon model year. Passing vehicles will be waived 
from the emission test. All vehicles are to be tested for gas cap 
integrity and a randomly selected group of vehicles will be inspected 
with a non-intrusive evaporative test system. A state-of-the-art 
technician training program will be added to the District program.
Emission Reduction Claim and Basis for the Claim
    The District's SIP revision assumes that BAR31 test is equivalent 
to IM240. No data or any basis in fact is provided in the District's 
submittal to support this claim. The District's proposed program 
provides for a prescreen using remote sensing. A reduction in emission 
credit for the prescreen is provided, however, the basis for the credit 
claim is not provided. The District's SIP submittal does not provide 
good faith estimates that the program meets the performance standard. 
Without a basis in fact, the proposed program does not provide any 
assurance that the necessary emission reductions will be achieved.

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 
51.350-51.372 and its analysis to the District's submittal below. A 
more detailed analysis of the District's submittal is contained in a 
Technical Support Document (TSD) available from the Region III office, 
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Parties

[[Page 53168]]

desiring additional details on the I/M rule are referred to 40 CFR 
51.350-51.372.
    As previously stated, the NHSDA left those elements of the I/M Rule 
that do not pertain to network design or test type intact. Based upon 
EPA's review of the District's submittal, EPA believes the District has 
not complied with all aspects of the NHSDA, CAA and the I/M Rule. For 
those sections of the I/M Rule, or of the CAA identified below, with 
which the District has not fully complied, the District must submit a 
revision to correct said deficiency.
    The District must correct these major deficiencies in order for EPA 
to provide approval 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 deminimis impact on the District's ability to 
meet clean air goals. Therefore, the District need not correct these 
deficiencies in the short term, and EPA will not disapprove the re-
submittal with respect to these deficiencies for purposes of interim 
approval under the NHSDA, if these are the only outstanding 
deficiencies. The District must correct the major deficiencies noted 
herein and submit a revised SIP revision for interim approval. However, 
even the minor deficiencies must be corrected prior to final full 
approval by EPA of the District's enhanced I/M SIP after the 18 month 
evaluation period.
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. The 
District is part of the OTR and is part of a MSA with a population of 
100,000 or more. The entire District is classified as a serious ozone 
nonattainment area and also is required to implement an enhanced I/M 
program as per section 182(c)(3) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.350(2). The 
District I/M regulation requires that the enhanced I/M program be 
implemented District wide. The District I/M legislative authority 
(referred to as DC Law 10-106, DC Code 40, Title 18 DCMR throughout the 
remainder of this notice) provides the legal authority to establish a 
statewide biennial vehicle emission testing program. The federal I/M 
regulation requires that the District's program not terminate until it 
is no longer necessary. A SIP revision which does not allow termination 
of the program prior to the attainment deadline for each applicable 
area satisfies this requirement. The District's I/M enabling authority 
itself does not address the length of time the program will be in 
effect. The program must continue until the attainment dates for all 
applicable nonattainment areas in the District. A statement in the SIP 
narrative indicates that the enabling legislation has no expiration 
date. The SIP submittal does not provide a list of ZIP codes of all 
areas covered by the I/M program. Therefore, the District's SIP does 
not meet the applicability requirements for geographical coverage. 
These are minor deficiencies and must be ultimately corrected for EPA 
to give final full approval.
Enhanced I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.351
    The enhanced I/M program must be designed and implemented to meet 
or exceed a minimum performance standard, which is expressed as 
emission levels in area-wide average grams per mile (gpm) for certain 
pollutants. The performance standard shall be established using local 
characteristics, such as vehicle mix and local fuel controls, and the 
following model I/M program parameters: network type, start date, test 
frequency, model year coverage, vehicle type coverage, exhaust emission 
test type, emission standards, emission control device, evaporative 
system function checks, stringency, waiver rate, compliance rate and 
evaluation date. The emission levels achieved by the state's program 
design shall be calculated using the most current version, at the time 
of submittal, of the EPA mobile source emission factor model. At the 
time of the District's submittal, the most current version was MOBILE 
5a. 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 oxide (NOX) and hydrocarbons (HC). In the case of 
carbon monoxide areas, the performance standard must be met for carbon 
monoxide (CO). The District's submittal must meet the enhanced I/M 
performance standard for HC, and NOX statewide.
    EPA established an alternative, 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). 40 CFR 51.351(g) 
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 15% plans. The District's 15% plan relies on credit 
from a high enhanced I/M program for 48% of the 15% reduction required. 
For this reason the District does not qualify for the low enhanced 
performance standard.
    EPA also established an alternate, Ozone Transport Region (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 District is 
classified as a serious ozone nonattainment area and therefore does not 
qualify for the OTR low enhanced I/M performance standard.
    The District's submittal includes the following program description 
and design parameters:

Network type--Centralized
Start date--1997
Test frequency--biennial
Model year/ vehicle type coverage--1968+ LDV, LDT, HDT
Exhaust emission test type--idle on pre-1980 vehicles; transient BAR31 
on 1980 and newer vehicles; all vehicles will be prescreened with 
remote sensing device to determine if subject to an emission test
Emission standards--8 HC, 20 CO, 2 NOX
Emission control device--yes
Evaporative system function checks--pressure 1983 +, purge 1977 +
Stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)--20%
Waiver rate--3%
Compliance rate--96%
Evaluation dates--2000, 2005, 2010

    The emission levels achieved according to the District's submittal 
were modeled using MOBILE5a. The modeling demonstration is insufficient 
to make a determination that it reflects the proposed program. Numerous 
errors on the start date of various program elements were modeled. The 
District's program assumes the BAR31 test as equivalent to IM240. No 
test specification and procedures are provided for the BAR31 test. No 
data to support the credit claim of equivalency for BAR31 is provided. 
The District's

[[Page 53169]]

submittal claims it uses data provided from a California pilot study. 
This data is not provided in the submittal. The remote sensing device 
(RSD) prescreen feature of the District's program is not accounted for 
by the current MOBILE model. Hand calculations are provided by the 
District for the RSD portion of the program. However, the reductions 
from using RSD and the credit claims are not supported by any data. The 
District's submittal's demonstration uses credit from a mechanics 
training program to make up the reduction loss from the use of RSD as a 
prescreen. The credit assumed for mechanics training is inconsistent 
with EPA policy. Furthermore, the modeling demonstration does not 
provide headings or labels identifying the MOBILE5a runs making it 
extremely difficult to perform a definitive review of the 
demonstration. The summary sheets in the District's submittal are 
inconsistent with the MOBILE5a runs. Another summary sheet lists all 
the evaluated cutpoints but does not indicate which cutpoints the 
District plans to use. The discrepancies with the program description 
and regulations render the modeling insufficient to make a 
demonstration that the District's proposed program meets the high 
enhanced performance standard. The District's submittal does not meet 
the enhanced I/M performance standards requirements of the federal I/M 
rule. This major deficiency is in part the basis for EPA's proposed 
disapproval of the District's I/M SIP.
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 federal I/M 
regulation. The SIP must include details on the program evaluation and 
must include a schedule for submittal of biennial evaluation reports, 
data from a state monitored or administered mass emission test of at 
least 0.1% of the vehicles subject to inspection each year, a 
description of the sampling methodology, the data collection and 
analysis system and the legal authority enabling the evaluation 
program.
    The District has not committed to meet the program evaluation 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.353 and no detailed description of the 
biennial program evaluation, including the schedule and methodology is 
provided in the submittal. 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 recommended 
that the states follow the long term program evaluation found in 40 CFR 
51.353. 40 CFR 51.353 requires that a mass emission transient testing 
(METT) be performed on 0.1% of the subject fleet each year. The 
District's submittal includes a commitment to provide EPA with a report 
two years after the program begins. However, in addition to the 
requirements of program evaluation under 40 CFR 51.353, the NHSDA 
provides that a state must submit a data analysis and revised SIP by 
the end of the 18 month period. The District does not commit to or 
provide any reference to this submittal. The District claims that data 
will be collected by conducting random procurement of subject vehicles 
and remote sensing for in-use vehicles, 2% random effectiveness of 
repairs on failing vehicles, RSD on minimum 10,000 vehicles per year, 
and covert inspections to evaluate inspectors. These methods are not 
consistent with the federal enhanced I/M rule and the ECOS agreement 
for the long term evaluation.
    Although the submittal describes a test-only network type, there is 
no regulation in the District that specifies that the program be 
operated in a centralized, test-only format. Furthermore, the 
District's SIP submittal includes regulations at section 605 of 18 DCMR 
that allow for re-inspection at repair stations. It is EPA's 
understanding that more recent regulations have been adopted for a full 
test-only network (initial test and re-test). The narrative of the 
District's submittal describes a test-only network with no mention of 
re-tests at repair stations. The District must address this discrepancy 
by submitting the revised versions of the regulations or providing a 
basis in fact and effectiveness analysis for the test and repair 
portion of the program. No regulations have been provided in the 
District's submittal which prohibit owners and/or employees of official 
I/M stations from referring vehicle owners to particular repair service 
providers. A regulation must be adopted that provides for this. This is 
a major deficiency and in part, is the basis for proposed disapproval 
of the District's I/M program.
Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354
    The federal regulation requires the District 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 the District's general fund is not 
acceptable unless doing otherwise would be a violation of its 
constitution. The SIP submittal must include a detailed budget plan 
which describes the source of funds for personnel, program 
administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP 
must also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality 
assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement, 
public education and assistance and other necessary functions.
    The District's submittal pending before EPA does not provide for 
enabling legal authority establishing a dedicated fund. No 
demonstration has been made that this would violate the District's 
authorities. Currently, the District government is undergoing a 
financial and administrative reorganization and many uncertainties 
exist. In relation to consumer protection, the SIP must provide 
assurance that adequate funding is available to develop and implement 
the program as proposed. Furthermore, funds need to be secured to 
implement and maintain the program through attainment. Lack of secured 
funding dedicated to the I/M program jeopardizes the ability of the 
program to meet the necessary emission reduction goals. The SIP needs 
to describe how the emission targets will be met, describe the 
resources to be used for all program operations (e.g. RSD prescreen, 
quality assurance checks, etc.), and include a final budget plan 
including description of equipment resources. The budget plan needs to 
provide a demonstration that the District has adequate resources to 
perform all program functions and insure future funding through 
operation of program until attainment is achieved. Therefore, the 
District submittal does not meet the adequate tools and resources 
requirements set forth in the federal I/M rule. This major deficiency 
in part is the basis for EPA's proposed disapproval of the District's 
I/M SIP.
Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355
    The enhanced I/M performance standard assumes an annual test 
frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the performance 
standard is achieved. The SIP shall describe the test year selection 
scheme, how the test frequency is integrated into the enforcement 
process and shall

[[Page 53170]]

include the legal authority, regulations or contract provisions to 
implement and enforce the test frequency. The program shall be designed 
to provide convenient service to the motorist by ensuring short wait 
times, short driving distances and regular testing hours.
    The District's submittal provides for a program of biennial testing 
in a centralized network. Many of the details related to this section 
must still be developed by the District before EPA can determine if the 
requirements are satisfied. Although the District expects sufficient 
testing facilities using RSD as a prescreen, to provide adequate 
convenience, there are no provisions for additional testing if 
participation is lower than expected. The SIP fails to provide an 
evaluation of how the RSD prescreen will ensure short wait times. 
Furthermore, the SIP does not provide a description of the test 
frequency, or regulations that ensure vehicles are tested at an assumed 
frequency, including sufficient safeguards in the enforcement system to 
ensure that vehicles are tested according to schedule. These are minor 
deficiencies which the District must ultimately correct for EPA to give 
final full 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 and heavy duty trucks up to 26,000 pounds GVWR, and includes 
vehicles operating on all fuel types. Other levels of coverage may be 
approved if the necessary emission reductions are achieved. Vehicles 
registered or required to be registered within the I/M program area 
boundaries and fleets primarily operated within the I/M program area 
boundaries and belonging to the covered model years and vehicle classes 
comprise the subject vehicles. Fleets may be officially inspected 
outside of the normal I/M program test facilities, if such alternatives 
are approved by the program administration, but shall be subject to the 
same test requirements using the same quality control standards as non-
fleet vehicles and shall be inspected in the same type of test network 
as other vehicles in the state, according to the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.353(a). Vehicles which are operated on Federal installations located 
within an I/M program area shall be tested, regardless of whether the 
vehicles are registered in the state or local I/M area.
    The federal I/M regulation requires that the SIP must 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 District's SIP submittal does not provide a description of the 
number and types (broken down by model year, fuel type, vehicle class, 
a weight class) of vehicles the program will cover. The regulations 
provide that vehicles model year 1968 and newer, up to a weight of 
26,000 gross vehicle weight, must undergo an emissions test. The 
District states in the SIP narrative text that it will provide self 
testing for fleets, (testing at the fleets facilities, or during 
special hours at the District stations), but no regulatory or legally 
enforceable provisions are established to provide for this testing. 
Although Federal fleets are subject to meet the same requirements as 
all District registered vehicles, the District plan does not provide a 
plan for testing of Federal vehicles. The SIP needs to provide a 
description of the Federal fleet inspection program area. The 
District's SIP submittal does not account for vehicles registered or 
required to be registered in the programs. The SIP needs to provide an 
estimate of unregistered vehicles. The District's SIP submittal claims 
that number of vehicles that operate in the District but are not 
registered in the District is insignificant. The District offers no 
plan to inspect and certify these vehicles. Data to support the 
District's claim of insignificance needs to be provided. In light of 
the fact that the District of Columbia is a major commuting community 
center for vehicles from suburban Maryland and Virginia, EPA questions 
whether such vehicles are truly insignificant. Furthermore, the program 
needs to provide provisions to account for these vehicles, whether or 
not they are insignificant. The SIP submittal and modeling do not 
provide a description and accounting of vehicles registered in the 
District but operating primarily outside the District. These are minor 
deficiencies that must ultimately be corrected for EPA final full 
approval.
Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR 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 
51.357 and in the EPA document entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test 
Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and 
Equipment Specifications'', EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-93-1, dated April 1994. The 
federal I/M 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 Sec. 51.357(d).
    The District regulation Title 18 DCMR provides one set of standards 
for all subject vehicles model years. The standards are in a grams per 
mile (gpm) format, achieved with a transient test. The District 
proposes to use an idle test on a certain percentage of the vehicle 
fleet. Standards will need to be adopted in a parts per million (ppm) 
format to accommodate the idle test. The District's program proposes to 
utilize a BAR31 test, remote sensing prescreen and evaporative test. No 
standards exist for remote sensing or the evaporative tests. Nor does 
the District provide standards for switched engines. Furthermore, full 
test procedures for all tests need to be provided.
    The District's SIP states that tests are not to be performed 
without prior repair, however, no regulations providing for such a 
requirement are provided. No provisions are provided to ensure that the 
vehicle owner has access to the test area to observe the entire 
inspection. No provision ensures that when a failure on one part of a 
test leads to failure on another part, the test procedure for a retest 
is done on the originally failed component and the second component as 
well. No provision is included which requires that an exhaust emission 
retest be required along with a retest of the evaporative system 
following an evaporative system failure and repair. No provisions are 
provided that require all criteria pollutants be measured on a retest 
after failure of a given pollutant. The District's submittal does not 
meet the Test Procedures and Standards requirements of the federal I/M 
rule. This major deficiency in part is the basis for EPA proposed 
disapproval of the District's I/M SIP.
Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358
    Computerized test systems are required for performing any 
measurement on subject vehicles. The federal I/M regulation requires 
that the state SIP submittal include written technical specifications 
for all test equipment used in the program. The specifications shall 
describe the

[[Page 53171]]

emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment, the required 
features, and written acceptance testing criteria and procedures. The 
District provides a draft Request for Bid (RFB) that details the test 
equipment specifications. Appendix 8 of the District's submittal, the 
draft RFB, provides for IM240 test equipment which the District 
proposes to use with a BAR31 test. The evaporative purge system 
specifications are not consistent with the requirements of EPA approved 
specifications for a purge system. Furthermore, no specifications exist 
for equipment used for the remote sensing prescreen. The District's 
submittal does not contain the written technical specifications for 
test equipment to be used in the program. These are minor deficiencies 
and must ultimately be corrected for EPA to give final full approval.
Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359
    Quality control measures shall insure that emission measurement 
equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection, 
calibration records, and control charts are accurately created, 
recorded and maintained.
    The District's submittal includes provisions which describe and 
establish quality control measures for the emission measurement 
equipment. However, the quality control procedures in Appendix 10 of 
the District's SIP submittal are incomplete. Specifically in section 
5.1.1 several blanks need to be filled in, figure 5-1 is missing, no 
RSD specifications are provided. For the idle test being conducted on 
pre-1980 vehicles no equipment specifications are provided (e.g. 
housing construction requirements to protect analyzer bench and 
electrical components from ambient temperature and humidity 
fluctuations, automatic purge of system after each test). These are 
minor deficiencies and must be ultimately corrected for EPA final full 
approval.
Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360
    The federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver, 
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows 
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. For 
enhanced I/M programs, an expenditure of at least $450 in repairs, 
adjusted annually to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) as compared to the CPI for 1989, is required in order to qualify 
for a waiver. Waivers can only be issued after a vehicle has failed a 
retest performed after all qualifying repairs have been made. Any 
available warranty coverage must be used to obtain repairs before 
expenditures can be counted toward the cost limit. Tampering related 
repairs shall not be applied toward the cost limit. Repairs must be 
appropriate to the cause of the test failure. Repairs for 1980 and 
newer model year vehicles must be performed by a recognized repair 
technician. The federal regulation allows for compliance via a 
diagnostic inspection after failing a retest on emissions and requires 
quality control of waiver issuance. The SIP must set a maximum waiver 
rate and must describe corrective action that would be taken if the 
waiver rate exceeds that committed to in the SIP.
    Although the District provides for the CAA waiver rate of $450.00 
plus CPI adjustment, the regulations as adopted by the District do not 
preclude the Mayor from changing the minimum waiver amount. At no time, 
can the minimum waiver amount be lowered. The District will need to 
amend its regulations to correct this deficiency. Time extensions are 
provided for in the District program; however, no criteria or 
procedures for issuance of these hardship waivers is provided. The 
District needs to provide provisions to address hardship waiver 
issuance criteria to support these waivers. These are minor 
deficiencies that ultimately must be corrected for EPA to give final 
full approval.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361
    The federal 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. 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.
    Although the District makes a statement in its SIP submittal that a 
registration denial system will be used, the full text of its 
legislative authority is not provided. No enforcement regulations or 
procedures are provided in the SIP submittal. The District needs to 
identify all agencies responsible for implementing the motorist 
compliance program. A description of and accounting for all classes of 
exempt vehicles needs to be provided. The SIP needs to include a 
description of the plan for testing vehicles, rental car fleets, leased 
vehicles, federal fleet vehicles, state and local government vehicles, 
and other subject vehicles. Section 3.5 of the District's SIP claims 
the current compliance rate and the effect of noncompliance due to 
loopholes, counterfeiting, and unregistered vehicles is insignificant. 
The District needs to explain why this is insignificant and the 
rationale for such statement. The District claims a 96% compliance 
rate, however, no commitment is provided that the District will 
maintain this enforcement level, at a minimum, in practice. No penalty 
schedule for noncompliance is provided. There is no requirement that 
noncompliance cases are not to be closed until compliance is 
demonstrated. No procedures are provided that prevent owners or lessors 
of vehicles from avoiding the testing program through the manipulation 
of the registration or titling requirements. No mechanism is provided 
for certifying vehicles that have met the testing requirements and have 
been passed or waived. Although the District requires that license tags 
and window stickers be used, linkage of sticker issuance and 
registration denial is not provided. Procedures must be established 
that clearly determine when a vehicle is tested under the biennial 
testing schedule. These are major deficiencies. The District's 
submittal does not meet the Motorist Compliance Enforcement 
requirements of the federal I/M rules. This in part the basis for EPA's 
proposed disapproval of the District's I/M SIP.
Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 51.362
    The federal I/M regulation requires that the enforcement program 
shall be audited regularly and shall follow effective program 
management practices, including adjustments to improve operation when 
necessary. The SIP shall include quality control and quality assurance 
procedures to be used to insure the effective overall performance of 
the enforcement system. An information management system shall be 
established which will characterize, evaluate and enforce the program. 
The submittal provides enforcement procedures to oversee the program to 
meet the requirements of this section.

[[Page 53172]]

Quality Assurance--40 CFR 51.363
    An ongoing quality assurance program must be implemented to 
discover, correct and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the program. 
The program must 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 District provides some quality 
assurance procedures. However, the procedures on covert audits are not 
provided. In addition, the quality assurance procedures for equipment 
audits do not include the remote sensing equipment. Equipment audits on 
the RSD equipment need to be performed. This is a minor deficiency. In 
addition, the procedures manual states the District will establish a 
training program for auditors and a program to audit, independently, 
the auditors performance. The federal I/M rule requires that auditors 
to be audited at least once a year. Appendix 10.7.3 of the District SIP 
submittal provides that auditors will be audited periodically, as 
needed. These are minor deficiencies and must be ultimately corrected 
for final full EPA approval.
Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364
    Enforcement against licensed stations, contractors and inspectors 
shall include swift, sure, effective, and consistent penalties for 
violation of program requirements. The federal I/M regulation requires 
the establishment of minimum penalties for violations of program rules 
and procedures which can be imposed against stations, contractors and 
inspectors. The legal authority for establishing and imposing 
penalties, civil fines, license suspensions and revocations must be 
included in the SIP. State quality assurance officials shall have the 
authority to temporarily suspend station and/or inspector licenses 
immediately upon finding a violation that directly affects emission 
reduction benefits, unless constitutionally prohibited. An official 
opinion explaining any state constitutional impediments to immediate 
suspension authority must be included in the submittal. The SIP 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 District provides a citation of its legislative authority to 
enforce against contractors, inspectors and stations. However, a copy 
of such legal authority is not provided. The District SIP does not 
contain a penalty schedule for noncompliance and list the offenses. The 
first offense must be no less than $100 or 5 times the inspection fee. 
The judicial procedures and the responsibilities of each person in the 
judicial process are not provided. No description of resources 
allocated to the judicial and enforcement process are provided. No 
legal authority and/or regulation exists that provides for the 
immediate suspension of station/inspector for a violation. The District 
needs regulations that (1) require inspectors to receive training or 
retraining where a violation or discovery of incompetence has occurred; 
(2) bar certified inspectors from any involvement in inspection while 
on penalty suspension; and, (3) provide auditors the authority to 
temporarily suspend station and inspectors licenses or certificates 
immediately upon finding a violation or equipment failure. The District 
SIP provides a commitment to report to EPA statistics on enforcement 
activities. The reports must at a minimum include all warnings, civil 
fines, suspensions, revocations, and violations. These are minor 
deficiencies and must be ultimately corrected before final full 
approval.
Data Collection--40 CFR 51.365
    Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation 
and enforcement of an I/M program. The federal I/M regulation requires 
data to be gathered on each individual test conducted and on the 
results of the quality control checks of test equipment required under 
40 CFR 51.359.
    The District provides a commitment to meet all of the data 
collection requirements of the federal I/M regulations. The District 
will need to provide these procedures upon completion to EPA as an 
official SIP revision. The District's SIP meets the requirements of the 
federal I/M rule for Data Collection.
Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR 51.366
    Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring 
and evaluation of the program by the state and EPA. The federal I/M 
regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide 
information and statistics and summarize activities performed for each 
of the following programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control 
and enforcement. These reports are to be submitted by July of each year 
and shall provide statistics for the period of January to December of 
the previous year. A biennial report shall be submitted to EPA which 
addresses changes in program design, regulations, legal authority, 
program procedures and any weaknesses in the program found during the 
two year period and how these problems will be or were corrected.
    The District's SIP commits to conform to the federal I/M 
regulations for data analysis and reporting procedures. The District's 
SIP meets the requirements of the federal I/M rule for data analysis 
and reporting.
Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR 51.367
    The federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally 
trained and licensed or certified to perform inspections. The 
District's narrative indicates that the requirements for inspector 
training and licensing or certification meet the federal I/M 
regulations. The District commits to maintain an inspector training 
program and to ensure it meets or exceeds the standards of 40 CFR 
51.367 (a). The training program will cover the materials specified in 
the federal I/M rule and are located in the District's regulation at 18 
DCMR 617.6. An adequate description of the program must be included. 
This is a minor deficiency and must be ultimately corrected for final 
full approval.
Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR 51.368
    The federal I/M regulation requires the SIP to include public 
information and consumer protection programs. The District's SIP 
submittal contains a public awareness plan to meet the requirements of 
this section.
Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369
    Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The 
federal regulation requires states to take steps to ensure that the 
capability exists in the repair industry to repair vehicles. The SIP 
must include a description of the technical assistance program to be 
implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria to be used in 
meeting the performance monitoring requirements of the federal 
regulation and a description of the repair technician training 
resources available in the community. The District's submittal claims 
an enhanced I/M

[[Page 53173]]

training center will be administered to meet the requirements of 
diagnostic and repair technician assistance. However, the lack of 
funding to support the development of the District's proposed enhanced 
state-of-the-art training center, remains a concern to EPA. The 
District's SIP submittal does not identify when the facility will be 
established and fully operational. The SIP submittal does not address 
the requirement for a technician hotline service. These are minor 
deficiencies and must be ultimately corrected for final full approval.
Compliance With Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370
    The federal regulation requires the states to establish methods to 
ensure that vehicles that are subject to enhanced I/M and are included 
in an emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to 
completing the emission test and/or renewing the vehicle registration.
    The District's submittal does not provide any recall provisions, 
including authority to require owners to show proof of compliance with 
recalls in order to complete inspections and receive registration. No 
commitment to submit to EPA annual reports on recall compliance is 
provided by the District. No quality control procedures are provided to 
track recall repairs. In light of EPA final regulations for recall 
notices, the District can commit to adopt the EPA approved recall rules 
upon promulgation. These are minor deficiencies and must be ultimately 
addressed for final full 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 federal regulations. 
The program must include on-road testing of 0.5% of the subject fleet 
or 20,000 vehicles, whichever is less, in the nonattainment area or the 
I/M program area. Motorists that have passed an emission test but are 
found to be high emitters as a result of an on-road test shall be 
required to pass an out-of-cycle test. The District's SIP submittal 
commits to test 0.5% of fleet, however no regulations/procedures are 
provided. The District's submittal needs to provide an adequate 
description of the on-road testing program. This is a minor deficiency 
and must be ultimately corrected for final full approval.
State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR 
51.372-373
    The submittal contains a schedule which is dependent on action by 
the Financial Control Board to secure funds. The general schedule has 3 
Phases: Design/Build/Operate Contract, Construction of SW Inspection 
Station, and Program Effectiveness Evaluation. In Phase 1 which begins 
in March 1996 and runs through to February 1997, the District plans to 
issue a request for proposal (RFP), evaluate the technical content of 
RFP and award a contract. In Phase 2 which begins in February 1997 and 
ends January 1998, the District plans to transfer District inspectors 
from the SE inspection station to the NE inspection station to continue 
basic I/M and safety inspection, build and renovate a new SW inspection 
station, train contractor inspectors and implement contractor control/
audit mechanisms. In Phase 3 which begins July 1996 and ends January 
1998, the District plans to design effectiveness evaluation criteria, 
test vehicles on IM240 and DC36 test procedures, evaluate test 
procedure effectiveness and evaluate repair effectiveness. The District 
needs to provide a schedule of testing of vehicles (phase-in and full), 
explanation of what vehicles will be tested (model years/number 
thereof), what test will be used, and when each test and program 
element goes into effect (e.g. RSD prescreen, evaporative test, 
technician training, full stringency cutpoints, etc.). The schedule 
provides that phase-in of new inspection equipment will begin by 
September 1997. The program must be fully implemented with all enhanced 
program features by November 15, 1997. The performance standard 
modeling start years are not consistent with the schedule provided by 
the District in this section. These are minor deficiencies and must be 
ultimately corrected for final full approval.

III. Discussion for Rulemaking Action

    EPA's review of the District's I/M SIP revision, which was 
submitted on July 13, 1995 and supplemented on March 27, 1996, finds 
that it does not meet all of the relevant requirements of the NHSDA or 
Clean Air Act, and EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues 
discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments 
will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the Addresses section of 
this notice.

Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to disapprove this revision to the District SIP 
for an enhanced I/M program. EPA is proposing to disapprove this action 
because the District's I/M program does not meet all of the 
requirements of the NHSDA, the Clean Air Act and the federal I/M rule.
    Today's notice proposes to disapprove the District's I/M SIP until 
such time as the District corrects the major elements of the SIP that 
EPA considers deficient.
    These major elements are:
    (1) The proposed I/M program does not provide for a dedicated 
funding mechanism to develop, implement and maintain the program 
through attainment of the ozone standard. The Clean Air Act requires 
that a dedicated fund be established. The District must demonstrate 
that adequate funding of the program is available. Alternative funding 
approaches are acceptable if it is demonstrated that the funding can be 
maintained. The District does not provide for enabling legislation 
establishing such secured funding.
    (2) The District uses unapproved test types and claims credit 
equivalency without a clear basis for those claims. The deficiencies in 
the credit claims of the District's I/M program include the following:
    (a) Assumes full IM240 emission reduction credit for BAR31 test 
without data to support this claim.
    (b) Uses remote sensing as a testing prescreen without providing 
data to support emission reductions and credit calculation.
    (c) Assumes full credit for a non-intrusive evaporative test with 
no data to support this assumption.
    (3) The submittal contains insufficiently demonstrates that the 
District's program meets the high enhanced performance standard, which 
is necessary for the District's air quality attainment plan. The 
demonstration is insufficient due to the test equivalency stated in (2) 
above and inaccurate calculation of emission reductions detailed in the 
section by section analysis.
    (4) The District's SIP submittal provides a citation for 
registration denial but the full text of the legislation is not 
provided. The District's program lacks regulatory requirements for a 
registration denial system.
    (5) The District's SIP is deficient in meeting the requirements of 
Network Type and Program Evaluation because it contains no commitment 
to evaluate the program using mass emission transient

[[Page 53174]]

testing on 0.1% of the subject fleet each year.
    (6) The SIP submittal is deficient in providing adopted regulations 
and procedures for each test type.
    Major deficiencies must be corrected with regard to sections, 
51.351, Enhanced I/M Performance Standard, 51.353, Network Type and 
Program Evaluation, 51,354, Adequate Tools and Resources, 51.357, Test 
Procedures and Standards, and 51.360, Motorist Compliance Enforcement.
    In addition, the District's submittal does not meet a number of 
miscellaneous requirements of the I/M rule. Specifically sections: 
51.350, Applicability, 51.355, Testing Frequency and Convenience, 
51.356, Vehicle Coverage, 51.358, Test Equipment, 51.359, Quality 
Control, 51.360 Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection, 
51.362 Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight, 51.363, 
Quality Assurance, 51.364 Enforcement against Contractors, Stations and 
Inspectors, 51.365 Data Collection, 51.366, Data Analysis and 
Reporting, 51.367 Inspection Training and Licensing or Certification, 
51.368, Public Information and Consumer Protection, 51.369, Improving 
Repair Technician Effectiveness, 51.370, Compliance with Recall 
Notices, 51.371, On-Road Testing, and 51.372, State Implementation Plan 
Transmittals. These deficiencies, described in more detail above in the 
section by section analysis, must be corrected before EPA could provide 
full approval for the District's I/M SIP revision.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan 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. Sections 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.
    EPA's disapproval of the District's request under Section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not affect any existing 
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal 
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect its state-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not 
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, EPA certifies that this 
disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because it does not remove existing 
requirements and impose any new Federal requirements.
    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandate 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 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 disapproval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated cost of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action maintains pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional cost to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.
    Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting 
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. 
This rule [is/is not] a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of 
the APA as amended.
    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 Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the 
District's 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 Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 19, 1996.
Michael M. McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 96-25983 Filed 10-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P