[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 212 (Thursday, October 31, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56183-56194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27882]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[MD037-3008, MD037-3009; FRL-5642-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
State of Maryland; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Conditional Approval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing conditional approval of a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. 
This revision establishes and requires the implementation of an 
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in the 
counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, 
Frederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, Prince George's, Queen Anne's, 
and Washington, and the City of Baltimore. The intended effect of this 
action is to propose conditional approval of the Maryland enhanced 
motor vehicle I/M program. EPA is proposing conditional approval 
because Maryland's SIP revision is deficient in

[[Page 56184]]

some manner with respect to requirements of the CAA and EPA's I/M 
program regulations. EPA regards the following deficiencies of the 
Maryland program as those most significantly affecting its operation: 
lack of legal authority, performance standard remodeling, and finalized 
program regulations. EPA expects that Maryland will work quickly to 
remedy these items. EPA also cites below other flaws of the program. 
While these areas are less significant to the program's immediate 
success, they still need to be corrected so as to achieve the program's 
full air quality potential. This action is taken under Section 110 of 
the 1990 Clean Air Act (the Act, or CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 2, 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 and 
the Maryland Department of the Environmental, 2500 Broening Highway, 
Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine L. Magliocchetti @ 215-566-
2174, 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 
Region III office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    Motor vehicles are significant contributors of volatile organic 
compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) 
emissions. An important control measure to reduce these emissions is 
the implementation of a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) 
program. Despite being subject to the most rigorous vehicle pollution 
control program in the world, cars and trucks still create toxic 
contaminants, about half of the ozone air pollution and nearly all of 
the carbon monoxide air pollution in United States cities. Of all 
highway vehicles, passenger cars and light-duty trucks emit most of the 
vehicle-related carbon monoxide and ozone-forming hydrocarbons. They 
also emit substantial amounts of nitrogen oxides and air toxics. 
Although the U.S. has made progress in reducing emissions of these 
pollutants, total fleet emissions remain high. This is because the 
number of vehicle miles traveled on U.S. roads has doubled in the last 
20 years to 2 trillion miles per year, offsetting much of the 
technological progress in vehicle emission control over the same two 
decades. Projections indicate that the steady growth in vehicle travel 
will continue. Ongoing efforts to reduce emissions from individual 
vehicles will be necessary to achieve our air quality goals.
    Today's cars are absolutely dependent on properly functioning 
emission controls to keep pollution levels low. Minor malfunctions in 
the emission control system can increase emissions significantly, and 
the average car on the road emits three to four times the new car 
standard. Major malfunctions in the emission control system can cause 
emissions to skyrocket. As a result, 10 to 30 percent of cars are 
causing the majority of the vehicle-related pollution problem. 
Unfortunately, it is rarely obvious which cars fall into this category, 
as the emissions themselves may not be noticeable and emission control 
malfunctions do not necessarily affect vehicle driveability.
    Effective I/M programs, however, can identify these problem cars 
and assure their repair. I/M programs ensure that cars are properly 
maintained during customer use. I/M produces emission reduction results 
soon after the program is put in place.
    The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act) requires that most 
polluted cities adopt either ``basic'' or ``enhanced'' I/M programs, 
depending on the severity of the problem and the population of the 
area. The moderate ozone nonattainment areas, plus marginal ozone areas 
with existing or previously required I/M programs, fall under the 
``basic'' I/M requirements. Enhanced programs are required in serious, 
severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas with urbanized 
populations of 200,000 or more; CO areas that exceed a 12.7 parts per 
million (ppm) design value 1 with urbanized populations of 200,000 
or more; and all metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 
100,000 or more in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ``Basic'' and ``enhanced'' I/M programs both achieve their 
objectives by identifying vehicles that have high emissions as a result 
of one or more malfunctions, and requiring them to be repaired. An 
``enhanced'' program covers more of the vehicles in operation, employs 
inspection methods that are better at finding high emitting vehicles, 
and has additional features to better assure that all vehicles are 
tested properly and effectively repaired.
    The Act requires states to make changes to improve existing I/M 
programs or to implement new ones for certain nonattainment areas. 
Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed EPA to publish updated 
guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of 
the Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. The 
Act further requires each area required to have an I/M program to 
incorporate this guidance into the SIP. Based on these requirements, 
EPA promulgated I/M regulations on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950, 
codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.350-51.373), herein 
referred to as the November 1992 I/M Rule. Flexibility amendments to 
this rule, which provided for a low enhanced I/M performance standard 
were published on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48029) and additional I/M 
flexibility amendments for qualified areas in the OTR were published on 
July 25, 1996 (61 FR 39031).
    Under sections 182(c)(3), 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1) of the Act, any 
area having a 1980 Bureau of Census-defined urbanized area population 
of 200,000 or more and that is either: (1) designated as serious or 
worse ozone nonattainment or (2) moderate or serious CO nonattainment 
areas with a design value greater than 12.7 ppm, shall implement 
enhanced I/M in the 1990 Census-defined urbanized area. The Act also 
established the ozone transport region (OTR) in the northeastern United 
States which includes the States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, 
Maryland, Delaware, and Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia. 
Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act require the 
implementation of enhanced I/M programs in all metropolitan statistical 
areas (MSAs) located in the OTR that have a population of 100,000 or 
more people.
    The I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for 
basic and enhanced I/M programs as

[[Page 56185]]

well as requirements for the following: Network type and program 
evaluation; adequate tools and resources; test frequency and 
convenience; vehicle coverage; test procedures and standards; test 
equipment; quality control; waivers and compliance via diagnostic 
inspection; motorist compliance enforcement; motorist compliance 
enforcement program oversight; quality assurance; enforcement against 
contractors, stations and inspectors; data collection; data analysis 
and reporting; inspector training and licensing or certification; 
public information and consumer protection; improving repair 
effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road testing; SIP 
revisions; and implementation deadlines. The performance standard for 
enhanced I/M programs is based on a high-technology transient test, 
known as IM240, for new technology vehicles (i.e, those with closed-
loop control and, especially, fuel injected engines), including a 
transient loaded exhaust short test incorporating hydrocarbons (HC), CO 
and NOx cutpoints, an evaporative system integrity (pressure) test and 
an evaporative system performance (purge) test.
    Under the November 1992 I/M Rule enhanced I/M programs were 
required to initially begin phased-in implementation by January 1, 
1995, with final full implementation slated for January 1, 1996. Due to 
recent EPA rule changes, and the flexibility afforded by the National 
Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995 (NHA), EPA believes, as 
explained below, that all states should be afforded extra time to begin 
full implementation of their enhanced I/M programs.

II. Background

    The State of Maryland is part of the OTR and contains the following 
MSAs or parts thereof with populations of 100,000 or more: Baltimore; 
Washington, DC; Hagerstown; and the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 
Consolidated MSA. Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act 
require all states in the OTR region which contain MSAs or parts 
thereof with populations of 100,000 or more, to submit a SIP revision 
for an enhanced I/M program.
    On July 11, 1995 the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) 
submitted to EPA a SIP revision for an enhanced I/M program. This SIP 
revision included a copy of the final enhanced I/M regulations, the 
Maryland Transportation Article at Title 23, Subtitle 2 (herein 
referred to as Subtitle 2 of the Maryland Transportation Article); the 
Maryland I/M Request for Proposals (RFP); the Maryland I/M legislation, 
and supporting documents. On March 27, 1996, MDE submitted an amendment 
to this SIP revision, in response to changes to the federal program 
requirements resulting from new federal legislation governing enhanced 
I/M programs, and EPA rule changes to the program. Maryland originally 
had submitted fully adopted state regulations in the July 11, 1995 
revision. Parts of the Maryland I/M regulations were reproposed by 
Maryland because of the flexibility afforded from the federal and state 
legislative changes, and Maryland's amendment to the SIP revision 
contains proposed regulatory changes to Maryland's program. As a 
condition of this rulemaking, Maryland will need to fully adopt and 
submit final regulations to EPA.
    EPA's summary of the requirements of the federal I/M rule as found 
in 40 CFR 51.350 through 51.373, and EPA's analysis of Maryland's 
submittal are outlined below. A more detailed analysis of Maryland's 
submittal is contained in a Technical Support Document (TSD) dated 
September 3, 1996 which is available from the Region III office, listed 
in the ADDRESSES section. Parties desiring additional details on the 
federal I/M regulation are referred to the November 5, 1992 Federal 
Register document (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR 51.350 through 51.373, as 
well as the I/M Flexibility Amendments in the September 18, 1995 
Federal Register document (60 FR 48029) and the additional I/M 
flexibility amendments for qualified areas in the OTR, published on 
July 25, 1996 at (61 FR 39031).

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

    As discussed above, sections 182(c)(3), 184(b)(1)(A), 187(a)(6) and 
187(b)(1) of the Act require that States adopt and implement 
regulations for an enhanced I/M program in certain areas. Based upon 
EPA's review of Maryland's submittal, EPA believes Maryland has not 
complied with all aspects of the Act and the I/M rule. For certain 
sections of the I/M rule and/or of the Act, which are identified below 
and with which Maryland has not yet fully complied, EPA proposes to 
conditionally approve the SIP revision if EPA receives a commitment 
from Maryland to correct said deficiencies. Before EPA can continue 
with the rulemaking process, Maryland must make a commitment within 30 
days of October 31, 1996 to correct these deficiencies by a date 
certain within 1 year of EPA's conditional approval. If Maryland does 
not make this commitment, EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove 
the Maryland I/M SIP revision. In addition, Maryland must correct these 
deficiencies by the date specified in the commitment, or the 
conditional approval will convert to a disapproval under the Act 
section 110(k)(4).

Applicability--40 CFR 51.350

    Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.350(a) 
require all states in the OTR which contain MSAs or parts thereof with 
populations of 100,000 or more to implement an enhanced I/M program. 
The State of Maryland is part of the OTR and contains the following 
MSAs or parts thereof with populations of 100,000 or more: Baltimore; 
Washington, DC; Hagerstown; and the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton 
Consolidated MSA. The Baltimore; Washington, DC; and Philadelphia areas 
are also classified as serious or worse nonattainment areas and are 
also required to implement an enhanced I/M program as per section 
182(c)(3) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.350(2).
    Under the requirements of the Act, the following 14 jurisdictions 
in Maryland (which are located in the above listed MSAs) are subject to 
the enhanced I/M program requirements: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, 
Carroll, Calvert, Cecil, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard, 
Montgomery, Prince George's, Queen Anne's, and Washington counties, and 
the City of Baltimore.
    The Maryland I/M legislative authority (Subtitle 2 of the Maryland 
Transportation Article) provides the legal authority to establish the 
geographic boundaries of the program. The program boundaries listed in 
Appendix C of the SIP revision are the inclusive zipcode listings for 
all of the jurisdictions listed above, and meet the federal I/M 
requirements under Sec. 51.350.
    The federal I/M regulation requires that the state program shall 
not sunset until it is no longer necessary. EPA interprets the federal 
regulation as stating that a SIP which does not sunset prior to the 
attainment deadline for each applicable area satisfies this 
requirement.
    Maryland's legislative authority for this program states in section 
23-208 that unless changed by Act of the legislature the program shall 
sunset on December 31, 2001, which is before Baltimore's severe 
nonattainment deadline of November 15, 2005. However, section 23-202 of 
the legislative authority apparently

[[Page 56186]]

supersedes section 23-208, stating that this program shall remain in 
effect for as long as required by federal law. EPA needs confirmation 
from the State Attorney General's Office that section 23-202 applies to 
Maryland's program, and whether section 23-202 constitutes an Act of 
the legislature extending the sunset date in section 23-208. Therefore, 
EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP based upon a 
commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to either provide such an 
opinion from the State Attorney General's Office that clearly says that 
Maryland's interpretation of the sunset date is no earlier than 
November 15, 2005; or in the absence of such an opinion, to commit to 
provide EPA with new legislative authority that allows for such an 
extended sunset date of the program. Maryland's commitment must provide 
for either, (a) the opinion, or (b) the authority, to be provided to 
EPA by a date certain within 1 year of the final conditional ruling. If 
Maryland fails to make the commitment, EPA proposes in the alternative 
to disapprove this SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the 
date specified, EPA proposes to convert this rulemaking to a 
disapproval at that time by letter.

Enhanced I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.351

    In accordance with the Act and with 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 modeling 
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. Areas 
shall meet the performance standard for the pollutants which cause them 
to be subject to enhanced I/M requirements. In the case of ozone 
nonattainment areas, the performance standard must be met for both 
NOX and HC. The Maryland submittal must meet the enhanced I/M 
performance standard for HC and NOX in all subject I/M areas.
    The Maryland submittal includes a modeling demonstration of the 
performance standard that uses the following program design parameters. 
EPA here notes that not all of Maryland's parameter assumptions are 
acceptable, and as a condition of this rulemaking Maryland must remodel 
its program and demonstrate compliance with the I/M performance 
standard:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Parameter                        Maryland's program           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network type.................  Centralized, test-only.                  
Start date...................  1984 (existing program); 1989 and 1997   
                                (new pressure and purge testing         
                                elements).                              
Test frequency...............  Biennial (i.e. every two years).         
Model year/vehicle type        1968 and newer model year (1968 +) light 
 coverage.                      duty gasoline vehicles (LDGV); light    
                                duty gasoline trucks 1 & 2 (LDGT1,      
                                LDGT2); heavy duty gasoline vehicles up 
                                to 26,000 lbs gross vehicle weight      
                                (HDGV).                                 
Exhaust emissions test type..  IM240, transient test type for all model 
                                year vehicles in program.               
Emission standards...........  0.8 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO, 2.0 gpm NOX up    
                                until January 1, 1999; 0.6 gpm HC, 15   
                                gpm CO and 1.5 gpm NOX after December   
                                31, 1998. [Also, transient standards can
                                be found in the Maryland I/M            
                                regulations; June 10, 1994 edition of   
                                the Maryland Bulletin.]                 
Emission control device        Pressure and purge check on all model    
 visual inspection.             year vehicles.                          
Evaporative system function    Pressure decay test  1968 +     
 checks.                        vehicles.                               
                               Purge test  1984 + vehicles.    
Stringency rate pre-1981       40%.                                     
 vehicle failure).                                                      
Waiver rate..................  3%.                                      
Compliance rate..............  100%.                                    
Evaluation dates.............  July 1999, July 2002, July 2005.         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since Maryland used inappropriate assumptions in modeling the 
program, Maryland's modeling demonstration was not performed correctly, 
and submittal of a proper modeling demonstration by Maryland is a 
condition for full approval of the SIP revision. Therefore, Maryland 
must remodel the program using valid assumptions and verify for EPA 
that the I/M program in Maryland meets or exceeds the model I/M program 
performance standard. This demonstration must prove that the Maryland 
program design will meet the minimum enhanced I/M performance standard, 
expressed in gpm, for HC, and NOx, for the years 2002 and 2005 for 
all areas of Maryland covered by the program. These evaluation years 
represent a change from the originally required dates of 1999, 2002 and 
2005. EPA believes that new modeling of the program should not include 
a 1999 evaluation year, due to changes in program implementation 
schedules as per the National Highway Systems Designations Act of 1995. 
Other program assumptions should be carefully verified by Maryland when 
this demostration is made to EPA. A more detailed discussion of the 
program design parameters can be found in the Technical Support 
Document (TSD), dated September 3, 1996, compiled by EPA in evaluating 
Maryland's program. Maryland should refer to the TSD for further 
instructions on remodeling of the program as designed.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based on receiving within 30 days of the publication of this document, 
Maryland's commitment to submit to EPA by a date certain, within 1 year 
of the final conditional rulemaking, a modeling demonstration of the 
program using the appropriate assumptions and methodology (which are 
further discussed in more detail in the TSD). If Maryland fails to make 
the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. 
If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the date specified, EPA 
proposes to convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by 
letter.

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

[[Page 56187]]

program, and to determine if the program is meeting the requirements of 
the Act and the federal I/M regulation. The SIP shall include details 
on the program evaluation and shall include a schedule for submittal of 
biennial evaluation reports, data from a state monitored or 
administered mass emission test of at least 0.1% of the vehicles 
subject to inspection each year, description of the sampling 
methodology, the data collection and analysis system and the legal 
authority enabling the evaluation program. In addition to these 
requirements, the state should also be prepared, in accordance with 
this section of the I/M rule, to provide in the biennial report, the 
results of undercover surveys of inspector effectiveness related to 
identifying vehicles in need of repair. Also, the state should be 
prepared in its biennial reports to provide local fleet emission 
factors in assessing the actual effectiveness of the I/M program.
    The submittal includes an ongoing program evaluation that meets the 
federal I/M regulation requirements. EPA believes that Maryland has the 
authority to implement this portion of the program under its general 
authority for the program.

Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354

    The federal regulation requires the state to demonstrate that 
adequate funding of the program is available. A portion of the test fee 
or separately assessed per vehicle fee shall be collected, placed in a 
dedicated fund and used to finance the program. Alternative funding 
approaches are acceptable if demonstrated that the funding can be 
maintained. Reliance on funding from the state or local General Fund is 
not acceptable unless doing otherwise would be a violation of the 
state's constitution. The SIP shall include a detailed budget plan 
which describes the source of funds for personnel, program 
administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP 
shall also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality 
assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement, 
public education and assistance and other necessary functions.
    The July 1995 SIP revision documented sufficient funds, equipment 
and personnel have been appropriated to meet program operation 
requirements for 1995 and 1996. However, no update on the program's 
financial figures were provided with the SIP revision amendment made in 
March 1996. In the 1995 submittal, a test fee of $17 was set by 
Maryland and the contractor to cover the operation costs of the 
program, and approximately $6 from each fee which was to cover 
Maryland's administrative costs for quality control and assurance. 
Since the test fee was capped at $14 by a change in the program's 
enabling legislation, the quality control budget for this program 
appears to have been cut by one half. Therefore, as a condition of this 
rulemaking, Maryland should commit to providing updated budget 
information to EPA for the years 1997 and 1998, including a detailed 
explanation of the number of personnel dedicated to quality assurance, 
data analysis, program administration, and enforcement. Further, 
Maryland should give its budget allotment for the equipment resources 
that will be needed to run an effective quality assurance program, 
including facilities and computer costs required for data analysis, 
processing and reporting.
    EPA understands that Maryland has made certain provisions to 
account for changes cited above in the program's budget structure and 
test fee, and EPA is merely requesting an update of the program's 
budgetary documentation in order to satisfy this condition.
    Maryland's submittal has not provided the necessary documentation 
for this section to show that Maryland meets the adequate tools and 
resources requirements set forth in the federal I/M regulations and is 
therefore, not approvable.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to obtain and/or 
demonstrate to EPA that adequate funding and tools exist to execute the 
I/M program in accordance with this section of the I/M rule, by a date 
certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA 
proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to 
meet the condition by the date specified, EPA proposes to convert this 
rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by letter.

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 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 Maryland enhanced I/M regulation provides for a biennial test 
frequency. Maryland's Transportation Article and Maryland's I/M 
regulation provide the legal authority to implement and enforce the 
biennial test frequency. The Maryland I/M Request for Proposals (RFP), 
and the Maryland I/M contractors's bid response provide sufficient 
evidence that convenient services will be provided to the motorist.
    The Maryland submittal meets the test frequency and convenience 
requirements of the federal I/M regulations and is approvable.

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 subject to the same test requirements 
using the same quality control standards as non-fleet vehicles and 
shall be inspected in independent, test-only facilities, according to 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.353(a). Vehicles which are operated on 
Federal installations located within an I/M program area shall be 
tested, regardless of whether the vehicles are registered in the State 
or local I/M area.
    The federal I/M regulation requires that the SIP shall include the 
legal authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle 
coverage requirement, a detailed description of the number and types of 
vehicles to be covered by the program and a plan for how those vehicles 
are to be identified including vehicles that are routinely operated in 
the area but may not be registered in the area, and a description of 
any special exemptions including the percentage and number of vehicles 
to be impacted by the exemption.
    The Maryland enhanced I/M program requires coverage of all 1977 and 
newer

[[Page 56188]]

LDGV, LDGT1 and LDGT2, and HDGV up to 26,000 pounds GVWR which are 
registered or required to be registered in the I/M program area. As of 
the date of the SIP submittal, 1.4 million vehicles per year (2.8 
million biennially) will be subject to enhanced I/M testing. Maryland's 
regulation does not currently include vehicles operating on all fuel 
types but Maryland commits to adding the required testing of these 
vehicles once EPA promulgates regulations on alternative fueled vehicle 
I/M testing. Subtitle 2 of the Transportation Article and the Maryland 
I/M regulation provide the legal authority to implement and enforce the 
vehicle coverage.
    Maryland's program provides for fleet self-testing for the first 
year of the program, using the same testing requirements and the same 
quality control standards as the contractor-run component. Maryland's 
plan for testing fleet vehicles is acceptable and meets the 
requirements of the federal I/M regulation. Maryland's regulation 
requires vehicles which are operated on Federal installations located 
within an I/M program area to be tested, regardless of whether the 
vehicles are registered in the State or local I/M area, and is 
approvable.
    Maryland's regulation provides for special exemptions for fire, 
rescue, and ambulance equipment owned or leased by State or local 
governments, and for rescue squad, voluntary fire department or 
ambulance company vehicles registered as emergency vehicles. Also 
exempted are motorcycles, gasoline trucks greater than 26,000 lbs, 
Class E and F trucks and tractors, Class H school vehicles, Class L 
historic vehicles, Class N street rods, Class P passenger buses, diesel 
and electric vehicles, all model year 1976 and older model years, and 
military tactical vehicles. These exemptions are acceptable under this 
section of the I/M requirements.
    The SIP revision does not include a full description of the State's 
plan for how subject vehicles will be identified. Also, Maryland does 
not describe the mechanism for identification of vehicles that are 
routinely operated in the program area but that may not be registered 
in the area. The SIP does not provide an estimate of the number of 
unregistered vehicles operating in the program area. Maryland should 
ensure that all elements of this section of the I/M rule are addressed 
for SIP purposes, and for the purpose of implementing an effective 
program.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to provide an 
explanation of how all subject vehicles in the program will be 
identified, and cure all of the deficiencies related to this section of 
the I/M rule as explained above, by a date certain within 1 year. If 
Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative 
to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the 
date specified, EPA proposes to convert this rulemaking to a 
disapproval at that time by letter.

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 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.
    Maryland regulations and Section VII of the RFP provide written 
test procedures for transient emission and evaporative system purge and 
pressure testing in accordance with the requirements of the I/M rule. 
However, proposed changes to Maryland regulations will prohibit the 
invasive testing procedures previously recommended by EPA and 
originally adopted by Maryland. The proposed non-invasive gas-cap only 
check does not have written procedures given in the SIP revision 
amendment. EPA notes that Maryland was unable to provide written 
procedures for this element in the March submittal since this test is 
different from the pressure test originally slated for Maryland's 
program. EPA also understands that Maryland did not have gas-cap test 
procedures avaiable at the time of the March 1996 submittal, as a 
result of legislative changes at Maryland and federal level. However, 
Maryland should now be able to quickly encorporate testing procedures 
for this element into its program, and provide these specifications as 
part of its SIP revision to EPA. EPA cautions Maryland however, that 
this type of pressure check does not achieve the emission reduction 
credit of that in EPA's pressure test regulations. Maryland anticipates 
non-invasive purge and pressure procedures will be developed in the 
future, and commits to adopting non-invasive purge procedures when they 
become available.
    The Maryland regulation provides for two sets of permanent emission 
standards for the transient test, one set which applies from 1997 
through 1998; and a second set of more stringent standards that will 
apply in calendar year 1999 and later. The schedule for implementation 
of the permanent standards is approvable and should be used in the 
performance standard modeling demonstration.
    Maryland regulations do not meet the requirements of the I/M rule 
on several counts. Maryland must include by regulation, a provision to 
prohibit against prior repair or adjustment to vehicles at the testing 
facilities at the time the inspection is being performed. Maryland 
should also include as part of its SIP revision, all applicable state 
regulations that address testing of vehicles with switched engines and 
regulations that address vehicles with no certified engine 
configuration.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to amend 
Maryland's regulation to prohibit repair or adjustment at testing 
facilities and cure all of the deficiencies related to this section of 
the I/M rule as explained above, by a date certain within 1 year. If 
Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative 
to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the 
date specified, EPA proposes to convert this rulemaking to a 
disapproval at that time by letter. Under this commitment, Maryland 
must adopt pressure test procedures beyond the gas-cap check if 
Maryland is to take credit for pressure testing in its modeling 
demonstration of the performance standard.
    EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP based on 
Maryland's commitment to amend its regulations at the time when non-
invasive procedures become available from EPA. Maryland need not submit 
a commitment to adopt purge procedures, since one is already contained 
in the SIP revision amendment.

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 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,

[[Page 56189]]

the required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and 
procedures.
    Maryland's submittal contains the written technical specifications 
for all emission test equipment to be used in the program. The 
specifications require the use of computerized test systems. The 
specifications also include performance features and functional 
characteristics of the computerized test systems which meet the federal 
I/M regulations and are approvable. EPA believes that Maryland has 
adequately addressed the requirement to update emission test equipment, 
in order to accommodate new technology vehicles and changes to the 
program, through the annual reporting requirement found in Maryland's 
SIP revision.
    Maryland's program is deficient with respect to the gas-cap check 
referenced in COMAR 11.14.08.12, which does not have written 
specifications as required by the I/M rule, and therefore must be made 
a condition of this rulemaking. EPA again notes that Maryland was 
unable to provide specifications for this element in the March 
submittal since this test is different from the pressure test 
originally slated for Maryland's program. EPA also understands that 
Maryland did not have gas-cap test specifications available at the time 
of the March 1996 submittal, as a result of legislative changes at the 
state and federal level. However, Maryland should now be able to 
quickly incorporate testing specifications for this element into its 
program, and provide these specifications as part of its SIP revision 
to EPA.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to incorporate 
written gas-cap check testing procedures into Maryland's regulations, 
by a date certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the 
commitment EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If 
Maryland fails to meet the condition by the date specified, EPA 
proposes to convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by 
letter.

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.
    Maryland's submittal contains the State's regulations, the RFP and 
the contractor's bid response, which together describe and establish 
quality control measures for the emission measurement equipment, record 
keeping requirements and measures to maintain the security of all 
documents used to establish compliance with the inspection 
requirements. Maryland believes, and EPA agrees that the unique 
identification number given on each vehicle inspection report (VIR) is 
an adequate measure that Maryland uses to maintain counterfeit 
resistant compliance documents. Further, the VIRs issued to each lane 
inspector are accounted for on a numbered basis, and lane inspectors 
are responsible for the number of compliance documents issued while on 
duty.
    Maryland's SIP revision meets all of this section's requirements, 
and is approvable with respect to those r.

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. 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.
    Subtitle 2 of Maryland's Transportation Article, and the Maryland 
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 Maryland regulation, the RFP, and the contractor's bid response 
include provisions that address waiver criteria and procedures, 
including cost limits, tampering and warranty related repairs, quality 
control and administration. These provisions meet the federal I/M 
regulations requirements and are approvable. In cases of economic 
hardship, time extensions are allowed under the program, but the length 
of the extension may not exceed one test cycle. Maryland has set a 
maximum waiver rate of 3% for both pre-1981 and 1981 and later vehicles 
and has Stated that corrective action will be taken if the waiver rate 
exceeds 3%. Maryland should use this waiver rate in the performance 
standard modeling demonstration.
    The Maryland SIP revision does not specify the criteria that it 
will use to determine economic hardship, and it is unclear to EPA if 
Maryland intends to grant full waivers from compliance with the program 
as a result of economic hardship, or if Maryland only intends to issue 
time extensions for the purpose of compliance with the program. 
Therefore, as a condition of approval, Maryland should provide further 
documentation for this area, and fully explain the criteria that 
Maryland will use to issue these exemptions or extensions.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to fully document 
this aspect of the program and establish, if necessary, criteria for 
granting hardship exemptions by regulation or procedures manual and 
cure all of the deficiencies related to this section of the I/M rule as 
explained above, by a date certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to 
make the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the 
SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the date specified, EPA 
proposes to convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by 
letter.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361

    The federal regulation requires that compliance shall be ensured 
through the denial of motor vehicle registration in enhanced I/M 
programs unless an exception for use of an existing alternative is 
approved. The SIP shall provide information concerning the enforcement 
process, legal authority to implement and enforce the program, and a 
commitment to a compliance rate to be used for modeling purposes and to 
be maintained in practice.
    Title 23, Subtitle 2, of the Maryland Transportation Article and 
the Maryland I/M regulation provide the legal authority to implement a 
registration denial system. Maryland's program will use a registration 
suspension mechanism, followed by registration denial if the vehicle is 
not in compliance with the inspection requirement on the subsequent 
registration renewal period.

[[Page 56190]]

    As a condition of this approval, Maryland needs to provide EPA with 
a description of the compliance enforcement program for those vehicles 
routinely operated in, but not necessarily registered in the program 
area. The Maryland SIP revision does state that MVA routinely 
identifies such vehicles, but more information is needed as to how this 
targeting and enforcement takes place in Maryland. Maryland needs to 
track and limit the use of out-of-state exemptions as well. An 
explanation as to the handling of out-of-state vehicles should be 
provided to EPA as a condition of this rulemaking. Further, Maryland 
needs to describe the mechanism for encouraging the enforcement of 
vehicle transfer requirements when vehicle owners move into the I/M 
area. For the purposes of remodeling the program's demonstration of 
meeting the I/M performance standard, Maryland will need to either use 
the default value of 96% for the compliance rate (as documented in the 
July 1995 SIP revision submitted to EPA), or provide further 
documentation to EPA that proves Maryland's subsequent claim of 100% 
compliance is more appropriate for modeling purposes. Maryland's 
modeling demonstration should include an assessment of noncompliance 
due to loopholes, counterfeiting and unregistered vehicles in the area, 
as well as the number of vehicles operating in the area without valid 
registrations. Maryland should include estimates of compliance losses 
and the impact of fixes to the compliance enforcement program based 
upon a detailed analysis of actual program data. Maryland must also 
commit to a minimum enforcement level to be used in modeling and 
maintained in operation of the program. Maryland needs to supply EPA 
with documentation that motorists are routinely cited for noncompliance 
with the registration requirement of Maryland's law.
    Under Maryland's regulation, those motorists who choose not to 
comply with the inspection requirement will have their vehicle 
registrations suspended. The I/M rule requires that penalties for 
noncompliance with the program be mandatory and meaningful. 
Noncompliance with the Maryland program subjects a motorist to up to 
$500 in penalties. While EPA does consider this penalty meaningful when 
compared to the minimum waiver expenditure of $450 in 1998, Maryland 
should adjust the penalty for noncompliance to a higher rate in later 
years, when the waiver limit is adjusted to include the CPI increase. 
In this way, noncompliance with the program will continue to be at 
least as costly as compliance with the program. Further, EPA 
understands that in lieu of a court appearance for a registration 
suspension, a motorist may plead guilty and pay $250 plus court costs, 
and accept a misdemeanor conviction under State law. EPA needs 
clarification from Maryland as to whether a motorist's vehicle is 
impounded when a motorist is cited for driving with a suspended 
registration. Maryland should clarify if this is the case, and if so, 
EPA considers the $250 fine coupled with seizure of the vehicle as an 
adequate and meaningful measure for the purposes of this section.
    Also per the I/M rule, Maryland is required to have an external, 
readily visible means of determining a vehicle's compliance with the 
registration requirement. While Maryland does not provide such 
information in its SIP revision, EPA recognizes that such an element is 
present in Maryland's registration process. EPA expects that Maryland 
will continue the practice of issuing month/year stickers to affix to a 
vehicle's license plate for the purpose of externally identifying 
complying vehicles. Maryland will need to keep this practice instituted 
for as long as the I/M program is operational in order for this program 
to remain approvable. Should Maryland discontinue or change this 
practice, Maryland will need to notify EPA as to the replacement 
enforcement mechanism that will be used for this requirement, or EPA 
may find that Maryland has failed to implement the program.
    Maryland also needs to supply EPA with proof that all types of 
fraud are prevented at the time of vehicle registration, especially 
through manipulation of registration or titling requirements. All 
exemption-triggering elements to a vehicle's registration should be 
confirmed through physical examination of the vehicle. Maryland does 
require valid documentation to prove address changes into or out of the 
I/M program areas, however, there is no evidence in the SIP revision 
that Maryland visually verifies exemption-triggering registration 
status for vehicles. This is an important facit of the program 
implementation, and Maryland will need to submit a commitment to 
correct this provision for the purposes of compliance with this 
section.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to demonstrate 
that an acceptable enforcement compliance program exists in accordance 
with this section of the I/M rule and cure all of the deficiencies 
related to this section of the I/M rule as explained above, by a date 
certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA 
proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to 
meet the condition by the date specified, EPA proposes to convert this 
rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by letter.

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 Maryland SIP does not describe how the enforcement program 
oversight is quality controlled and quality assured. The SIP revision 
does not include the procedures document that will detail the specifics 
of the implementation of the oversight program. Maryland should include 
a description of the program's information management activities, as 
well as the written procedures for the activities of enforcement 
personnel involved in monitoring the program, and the procedures used 
for auditing the enforcement personnel. The penalties associated with 
testing stations' missing program documents should also be included in 
Maryland's quality assurance program, and should reflect the ``street 
value'' of such items (i.e. test fee plus the minimum waiver 
expenditure).
    Maryland needs to specify how and when periodic auditing and 
analysis of the testing database will occur. Comparison of the testing 
and enforcement database needs to be done to determine program 
effectiveness and to trigger additional enforcement activities if 
irregularities are found in the system. Compliance of the in-use fleet 
should be assessed through parking lot surveys and road-side pullovers.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to demonstrate 
that an acceptable enforcement compliance oversight program exists in 
accordance with this section of the I/M rule and cure all of

[[Page 56191]]

the deficiencies related to this section of the I/M rule as explained 
above, by a date certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the 
commitment EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If 
Maryland fails to meet the condition by the date specified, EPA 
proposes to convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by 
letter.

Quality Assurance--40 CFR 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 Maryland submittal commits to establishing separate procedures 
for conducting overt and covert audits. These audits results should be 
recorded and retained in station and inspector files. As a condition of 
this rulemaking, Maryland should provide EPA with this documentation. 
Performance audits of inspectors will consist of both covert and overt 
audits. Maryland does not specify in the SIP revision the minimum 
number of covert vehicles that will be employed to conduct covert 
auditing.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to establish 
acceptable auditing procedures in accordance with this section of the 
I/M rule and cure all of the deficiencies related to this section of 
the I/M rule as explained above, by a date certain within 1 year. If 
Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative 
to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the 
date specified, EPA proposes to convert this rulemaking to a 
disapproval at that time by letter.

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 shall 
describe the administrative and judicial procedures and 
responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which 
agencies, courts and jurisdictions are involved, who will prosecute and 
adjudicate cases and the resources and sources of those resources which 
will support this function.
    Maryland does not provide a penalty schedule for enforcement 
against Maryland's contractor, stations and inspectors. The program 
does not give descriptions of the administrative and judicial 
procedures and responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process. 
There is no listing of the responsible agencies, courts, and 
jurisdictions involved in the enforcement procedures, nor are the 
prosecuting and adjudicating parties identified. No funding allocations 
are described in the SIP revision for this section. Maryland should 
ensure that penalties against the contractor and individual inspectors 
conform with Sec. 51.364 of the I/M rule. These penalties should 
include suspensions, retainage of pay, and retraining of inspectors who 
exhibit improper conduct. The oversight agency should have the 
authority to impose penalties against the contractor, even if the 
contractor had no direct knowledge of the inspector's violation.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to provide for an 
acceptable penalty schedule in accordance with this section of the I/M 
rule and cure all of the deficiencies related to this section of the I/
M rule as explained above, by a date certain within 1 year. If Maryland 
fails to make the commitment EPA proposes in the alternative to 
disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the condition by the date 
specified, EPA proposes to convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at 
that time by letter.

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 Sec. 51.359. Maryland's regulation and RFP require the 
collection of data on each individual test conducted and describe the 
type of data to be collected. The type of test data collected meets the 
federal I/M regulation requirements and is approvable.
    The submittal also commits to gather and report the results of the 
quality control checks required under 40 CFR 51.359 and is approvable.

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 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 Maryland I/M SIP provides for the analysis and reporting of 
data for the testing program, quality assurance program, quality 
control program and the enforcement program. The type of data to be 
analyzed and reported on meets the federal I/M regulation requirements 
and is approvable. Maryland commits to submit annual reports on these 
programs to EPA by July of the subsequent year. A commitment to submit 
a biennial report to EPA which addresses reporting requirements set 
forth in 40 CFR 51.366(e) is also included in the SIP.

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 Maryland I/M regulation requires all inspectors to receive 
formal training, and be certified by the MVA. Maryland's I/M 
regulation, the RFP and the contractors' proposal include a description 
of and the information covered in the training program, a description 
of the required written and hands-on tests and a description of the

[[Page 56192]]

certification process. However, recertification of inspectors is not 
required by Maryland regulation. As a condition of this rulemaking, 
Maryland must ensure that inspectors are required to be recertified at 
least every two years.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to ensure by 
State regulation that recertification of inspectors is required at 
least every 2 years and cure all of the deficiencies related to this 
section of the I/M rule as explained above, by a date certain within 1 
year. If Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA proposes in the 
alternative to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to meet the 
condition by the date specified, EPA proposes to convert this 
rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by letter.

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.
    Maryland must provide for the protection of whistle blowers and 
needs to document how it intends to follow up on complaints by the 
public or others involved in the program.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to provide for 
the protection of whistle blowers in the program and to provide a plan 
for how public complaints are handled by the State of Maryland, by a 
date certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the commitment 
EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland 
fails to meet the condition by the date specified, EPA proposes to 
convert this rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by letter.

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 required in the federal 
regulation and a description of the repair technician training 
resources available in the community.
    The Maryland SIP revision requires the implementation of a 
technical assistance program which includes a hot line service to 
assist repair technicians and a method of regularly informing the 
repair facilities of changes in the program, training courses, and 
common repair problems. A repair facility performance monitoring 
program is also included in Maryland's I/M regulation, the RFP, and the 
I/M contractors' proposal which includes providing the motorist whose 
vehicle fails the test a summary of local repair facilities 
performances, provides regular feedback to each facility on their 
repair performance and requires the submittal of a completed repair 
form at the time of retest. The performance monitoring program design 
meets the criteria described in the federal regulation and is 
approvable. Maryland's regulation provides for the establishment and 
implementation of a repair technician training program which, at a 
minimum, covers the four types of training described in 40 CFR 51.369 
of the federal regulation.
    The repair effectiveness program described in the SIP meets the 
federal regulation and is approvable.

Compliance With Recall Notices--40 CFR 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 a emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to 
completing the emission test and/or renewing the vehicle registration.
    Under Maryland's regulation, owners are required to comply with 
emission related recalls before completing the emission test and 
renewing the vehicle registration. The SIP includes procedures to be 
used to incorporate national database recall information into 
Maryland's inspection database and quality control methods to insure 
recall repairs are properly documented and tracked. The submittal 
includes a commitment to submit an annual report to EPA which includes 
the recall related information as required in 40 CFR 51.370(c).
    Maryland has complied with all elements of this section, and it is 
approvable.

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 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 
Title 23, Subtitle 2, of the Maryland Transportation Article and 
Maryland's I/M regulation. The SIP submittal requires the use of RSD to 
test 20,000 vehicles per year in the I/M program area and will be 
implemented by the contractor. A description of the program which 
includes test limits and criteria, resource allocations, and methods of 
collecting, analyzing and reporting the results of the testing are 
detailed in the submittal. The on-road testing program described in the 
SIP meets federal requirements and is approvable.

State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR 
51.372 through 52.373

    The Maryland submittal included the State's final I/M regulations, 
legislative authority to implement the program, a final RFP, portions 
of the contractor's proposal, the signed contract between the State and 
the contractor, and a detailed discussion on each of the required 
program design elements. The start date for implementation of full-
stringency cutpoints will be June 1, 1997. These cutpoints will be 
further tightened by the State in calendar year 1999 and beyond. 
Onboard diagnostic (OBD) checks will be required for 1994 vehicle model 
years and later, which are equipped with OBD equipment.
    While Maryland did not resubmit I/M program design changes under 
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA), some 
elements of that legislation do affect the manner in which EPA is 
ruling on Maryland's SIP revision. The NHSDA directed EPA to grant 
interim approval for a period of 18 months to approvable I/M submittals 
under this Act. 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 at 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 on or before

[[Page 56193]]

November 15, 1997, 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 believes that for equity reasons even states that ultimately 
decided not to take advantage of the NHSDA should be able to start 
their programs in the same time frame. Because of the recent enactment 
of the NHSDA, many states, including Maryland, delayed implementation 
of their programs while analyzing the provisions of the NHSDA and 
determining whether or not to take advantage of its provisions. EPA 
believes that states such as Maryland that ultimately decided not to 
make a submission under the NHSDA should not be penalized in relation 
to states that did make such a submission with respect to start date 
requirements. These states should also start their programs as soon as 
currently possible in light of the delays occasioned by the NHSDA. 
Maryland has indicated that it intends to start its program by June 1, 
1997. Therefore, as with submissions under the NHSDA, EPA proposes that 
if Maryland fails to start its program as soon as possible, or by 
November 15, 1997 at the latest, the proposed approval will convert to 
a disapproval at that time after a finding letter is sent to Maryland.
    Maryland has not adequately completed a modeling demonstration 
showing that the program design meets the performance standard, and 
Maryland must provide evidence of adequate funding and resources to 
implement the program in the years 1997 and 1998. As explained above in 
previous sections of this discussion, as a condition of this 
rulemaking, Maryland will need to sufficiently meet the requirements of 
the I/M rule for these two areas. As a further condition, Maryland will 
need to fully adopt and submit to EPA, final regulations for the 
program.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Maryland SIP 
based upon a commitment from Maryland within 30 days, to adopt and 
submit final regulations to EPA and cure all of the deficiencies 
related to this section of the I/M rule as explained above, by a date 
certain within 1 year. If Maryland fails to make the commitment EPA 
proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP. If Maryland fails to 
meet the condition by the date specified, EPA proposes to convert this 
rulemaking to a disapproval at that time by letter.
    EPA's review of the material indicates that with the conditions 
described above, Maryland has adopted an enhanced I/M program in 
accordance with the requirements of the Act. EPA is proposing to 
conditionally approve the Maryland SIP revision and the addendum to the 
revision for an enhanced I/M program, which were submitted on July 11, 
1995 and March 27, 1996, respectively, subject to the conditions 
described above. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues 
discussed in this document 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 document.

Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this revision to the 
Maryland SIP for an enhanced I/M program based on certain 
contingencies. The conditions for approvability of this SIP revision 
are explained in detail under each applicable section of the I/M rule 
discussion found above.
    EPA proposes to conditionally approve this SIP if Maryland commits 
within 30 days of this proposal to correct the deficiencies identified 
in this document by a date certain within 1 year of the final 
conditional ruling. If Maryland corrects the deficiencies by that date, 
and submits a new SIP revision, EPA will conduct rulemaking to fully 
approve the revision. Each of the conditions must be fulfilled by 
Maryland and submitted to EPA as an amendment to Maryland's I/M SIP 
revision. If such commitment is not made with 30 days, EPA proposes in 
the alternative to disapprove the SIP revision. If Maryland 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 Maryland by letter that the 
conditions have not been met and that the conditional approval has 
converted to a disapproval. Furthermore, EPA proposes that Maryland's 
program must start no later than November 15, 1997. EPA also proposes 
that if Maryland fails to start its program as defined in this document 
and on this schedule, the conditional approval will convert to a 
disapproval after a finding letter is sent to Maryland.
    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 Act 
do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that 
Maryland is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does 
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act, 
preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
section 110(k), based on Maryland's failure to meet the commitment, it 
will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of Maryland's submittal would not affect 
its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal 
would not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies 
that should this approval convert to a disapproval, this disapproval 
action would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities because it would not remove existing requirements nor 
would it substitute a new federal requirement.
    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 the 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

[[Page 56194]]

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 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 Maryland 
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.
    If Maryland fails to meet any of the conditions of this approval 
action, the EPA Regional Administrator would directly make a finding, 
by letter, that the conditional approval had converted to a disapproval 
and the clock for imposition of sanctions under section 179(a) of the 
Act would start as of the date of the letter. Subsequently, a document 
would be published in the Federal Register announcing that the SIP 
revision has been disapproved.
    The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the Maryland 
I/M SIP revision will be based on whether it meets the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA 
regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: October 16, 1996.
Stanley L. Laskowski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 96-27882 Filed 10-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P