[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 94 (Thursday, May 15, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26745-26749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12790]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA 056-5023; FRL-5826-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Commonwealth of Virginia; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and 
Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting conditional interim approval of a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by Virginia. This revision 
establishes and requires the implementation of an enhanced inspection 
and maintenance (I/M) program in the following Virginia Counties: 
Arlington, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, Prince William, and Stafford, 
and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and 
Manassas Park. The intended effect of this action is to conditionally 
approve the Commonwealth's proposed enhanced I/M program for an interim 
period to last 18 months, based upon the Commonwealth's good faith 
estimate of the program's performance. This action is being taken under 
section 110 of the Clean Air Act and section 348 of the National 
Highway Systems Designation Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on June 16, 1997.

ADDRESSES: 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. They are also available for inspection at the Virginia 
Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, 
Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine L. Magliocchetti, by 
telephone at: (215) 566-2174, or via e-mail at: magliocchetticatherine 
@epamail.epa.gov. The mailing address is U.S. EPA Region III, 841 
Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Contents
II. Background
III. Public Comments/Response to Comments
IV. Conditional Interim Approval
V. Final Rulemaking Action
VI. Further Requirements for Full I/M SIP Approval
VII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Unfunded Mandates
    D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
    E. Petitions for Judicial Review

II. Background

    On November 6, 1996 (61 FR 57343), EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPR 
proposed conditional interim approval of Virginia's enhanced inspection 
and maintenance program, submitted to satisfy the applicable 
requirements of both the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the National Highway 
Systems Designation Act (NHSDA). The formal SIP revision was submitted 
by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on March 27, 1996.
    As described in that notice, the NHSDA directs 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 that 18-month period, 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 November 15, 1997, so that at least six months of 
operational program data can be collected to evaluate the interim 
programs. 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. If the 
Commonwealth fails to start its program according to this schedule, 
this conditional interim approval granted under the provisions of the 
NHSDA will convert to a disapproval after a finding letter is sent to 
the Commonwealth. Unlike the other specified conditions of this 
rulemaking, which are explicit conditions under section 110(k)(4) of 
the CAA and which will trigger an automatic disapproval should the 
Commonwealth fail to meet its commitments, the startdate provision will 
trigger a disapproval upon EPA's

[[Page 26746]]

notification to the Commonwealth by letter that the startdate has been 
missed. This letter will notify the Commonwealth that this rulemaking 
action has been converted to a disapproval and that the sanctions 
clocks associated with this disapproval has been triggered as a result 
of this failure. The startdate condition is not imposed pursuant to a 
commitment to correct a deficient SIP under section 110(k)(4); EPA is 
imposing the startdate condition under its general SIP approval 
authority of section 110 (k)(3), which does not require automatic 
conversion.
    The program evaluation to be used by the Commonwealth during the 
18-month interim period must be acceptable to EPA. The Environmental 
Council of States (ECOS) group has developed such a program evaluation 
process which includes both qualitative and quantitative measures, and 
this process has been deemed acceptable to EPA. For the quantitative 
long term measure, the core requirement is that a mass emission 
transient test (METT) be performed on 0.1% of the subject fleet, as 
required by the I/M Rule at 40 CFR 51.353 and 51.366. EPA has 
determined that METT evaluation testing is not precluded by NHSDA, and 
therefore, is still required to be performed by states implementing I/M 
programs under the NHSDA and the CAA.
    As per the NHSDA requirements, this conditional interim rulemaking 
will expire on November 16, 1998. A full approval of Virginia's final 
I/M SIP revision (which will include the Commonwealth's program 
evaluation and final adopted state regulations) is still necessary 
under section 110 and under sections 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. After 
EPA reviews the Commonwealth's submitted program evaluation and 
regulations, final rulemaking on the Commonwealth's full SIP revision 
will occur.
    Specific requirements of the Virginia enhanced I/M SIP and the 
rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will 
not be restated here.

III. Public Comments/Response to Comments

    No comments were received with regard to this notice during the 
comment period.

IV. Conditional Interim Approval

    Under the terms of EPA's November 6, 1996 proposed interim 
conditional approval rulemaking, the Commonwealth was required to make 
commitments (within 30 days) to remedy four major deficiencies with the 
I/M program SIP (as specified in the NPR), within twelve months of 
final interim approval. In a December 4, 1996 letter to EPA from Thomas 
H. Hopkins, Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental 
Quality, Virginia commits to satisfy the major deficiencies cited in 
the NPR, by dates certain specified in the letter. Since EPA is in 
receipt of the Commonwealth's commitments, EPA is today taking final 
conditional approval action upon the Virginia I/M SIP, under section 
110 of the CAA. As discussed in detail later in this notice, this 
approval is being granted on an interim basis, for an 18-month period 
under authority of the NHSDA.
    The conditions for approvability of the SIP are as follows:
    (1) The Commonwealth must perform and submit the new modeling 
demonstration that illustrates how its program will meet the relevant 
enhanced performance standard, by September 15, 1997 (a date specified 
by the Commonwealth in the commitment letter to EPA). The 
Commonwealth's revised modeling must correspond to the actual I/M 
program configuration, including actual test methods and start dates 
for all I/M program tests, actual cutpoints to be in-place for the 
evaluation year, and all other program assumptions as they exist in the 
SIP. EPA expects that Virginia's new modeling demonstration will be 
done using an approved EPA model in order to meet this condition. 
Virginia should refer to EPA's guidance on modeling to determine which 
version of the model is appropriate and suitable for Virginia's use in 
meeting this commitment.
    (2) The Commonwealth must submit to EPA as a SIP amendment, by 
September 15, 1997 (a date specified by the Commonwealth in the 
commitment letter to EPA), the final Virginia I/M regulation which 
requires a METT-based evaluation be performed on 0.1% of the subject 
fleet each year as per 40 CFR section 51.353(c)(3) and which meets all 
other program evaluation elements specified in 40 CFR section 
51.353(c), including a program evaluation schedule, a protocol for the 
testing, and a system for collection and analysis of program evaluation 
data.
    (3) By September 15, 1997 (a date specified by the Commonwealth in 
the commitment letter to EPA), Virginia must adopt and submit a final 
Virginia I/M regulation which requires and which specifies detailed, 
approvable test procedures and equipment specifications for all of the 
evaporative and exhaust tests to be used in the enhanced I/M program. 
The Commonwealth has committed to adopt approvable test procedures, 
standards and specifications for its two-mode ASM test. The draft 
regulations submitted to EPA with the commitment letter, containing the 
two-mode ASM procedures and specifications do not comply in all 
respects with EPA's ASM technical guidance EPA-AA-RSPD-IM-96-2. EPA 
expects that Virginia will remedy any remaining discrepancies between 
its regulation and approved EPA specifications by the September 15, 
1997 date.
    In addition to the above conditions, the Commonwealth must correct 
several minor, or de minimus, deficiencies related to CAA requirements 
for enhanced I/M. Although satisfaction of these deficiencies does not 
affect the conditional interim approval status of the Commonwealth's 
rulemaking, these deficiencies must be corrected in the final I/M SIP 
revision, to be submitted at the end of the 18-month interim period:
    (1) The SIP lacks a detailed description of the elements to satisfy 
the test frequency requirements required under 40 CFR section 
51.355(a), particularly regarding scheduling of vehicles for testing 
and the selection scheme for the biennial program inspections, as well 
as a description of how test frequency will be integrated with the 
registration denial motorist enforcement process;
    (2) The SIP does not fully account for all exceptions from testing 
in the emissions reductions analysis. The state must account for 
testing exceptions and account for them in their performance standard 
modeling demonstration, per 40 CFR section 51.356(b)(2);
    (3) Virginia must develop quality control procedures, test 
equipment specifications, quality control procedures manual, or other 
ordinance or documents to satisfy all the quality control requirements 
of 40 CFR section 51.359;
    (4) Virginia must amend its regulation to allow that waivers be 
issued only by a single contractor or by the Commonwealth, per 40 CFR 
section 51.360(c)(1);
    (5) The final SIP submittal must include the procedures document 
that adequately addresses the means by which the Commonwealth will 
comply with all the motorist compliance enforcement program oversight 
requirements set forth at 40 CFR section 51.362;
    (6) Virginia must complete and submit as a SIP revision to EPA 
procedures manuals for use by the Commonwealth's quality assurance 
auditors to conduct covert and overt audits for program oversight 
purposes, per 40 CFR section 51.363(e);

[[Page 26747]]

    (7) The Commonwealth must adopt, and submit as a SIP revision, a 
penalty schedule for inspectors and inspection stations, per 40 CFR 
section 51.364 (a) and (d);
    (8) Virginia's SIP, either the regulation or the test equipment 
specifications, must require that the specific data elements identified 
in 40 CFR section 51.365(a) be collected and reported to the 
Commonwealth on a real-time basis;
    (9) Virginia must finalize and submit the final ``Public 
Information Plan'' described in the SIP, to satisfy the requirements of 
40 CFR section 51.368 (a) and (b);
    (10) Virginia must formally submit the procedures and criteria to 
be used in meeting the repair performance monitoring requirements set 
forth in 40 CFR section 51.369(b) and a description of the repair 
technician training resources available in the community (when 
available), per 40 CFR section 51.369(c);
    (11) Virginia must submit detailed recall compliance procedures and 
a commitment to annually report recall compliance information to EPA, 
per the requirements of 40 CFR section 51.370;
    (12) Virginia must amend the SIP to include information regarding 
resource allocation for the on-road testing program, as well as methods 
for analyzing and reporting the results of on-road testing, per 40 CFR 
section 51.371. This may entail submittal of an on-road testing 
procedures manual or the request for proposals (RFP) for the contractor 
to be hired to operate the on-road testing program;
    (13) Virginia must list in its schedule of implementation 
milestones deadlines by which all procedures documents not yet part of 
the SIP are to be finalized and submitted to EPA.

V. Final Rulemaking Action

    EPA is conditionally approving the enhanced I/M program as a 
revision to the Virginia SIP, based upon certain conditions. This 
conditional approval satisfies the requirements of section 182(c)(3) of 
the CAA and the NHSDA for an enhanced I/M program. EPA also clarifies 
its proposal to approve the SIP under section 110 of the Clean Air Act 
as well. For the purposes of strengthening the SIP, EPA is also giving 
a limited approval under section 110 if the state fulfills all of its 
commitments within 12 months of this final rulemaking. This limited 
approval under section 110 will not expire at the end of the 18 month 
interim period. Thus, although an approved I/M SIP satisfying the 
requirements of section 182(c)(3) may no longer be in place after the 
termination of the interim SIP approval period provided by the NHSDA, 
this program will remain a part of the federally enforceable SIP.
    Should the Commonwealth fail to fulfill the conditions, other than 
the startdate condition which will be treated as described above, by 
the deadlines contained in each condition, the latest of which is no 
more than one year after the date of EPA's final interim approval 
action, this conditional, interim approval will convert to a 
disapproval pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(4). In that event, EPA would 
issue a letter to notify the Commonwealth that the conditions had not 
been met, and that the approval has converted to a disapproval.

VI. Further Requirements for Full I/M SIP Approval

    This approval is being granted on an interim basis for a period of 
18 months, under the authority of section 348 of the National Highway 
Systems Designation Act of 1995. At the end of this period, the 
approval will lapse. At that time, EPA must take final rulemaking 
action upon the Commonwealth's SIP, under the authority of section 110 
of the Clean Air Act. Final approval of the Commonwealth's plan will be 
granted based upon the following criteria:
    (1) The Commonwealth has complied with all the conditions of its 
commitment to EPA,
    (2) EPA's review of the Commonwealth's program evaluation confirms 
that the appropriate amount of program credit was claimed by the 
Commonwealth and achieved with the interim program,
    (3) Final program regulations are submitted to EPA, and
    (4) The Commonwealth's I/M program meets all of the requirements of 
EPA's I/M rule, including those de minimus deficiencies identified in 
this notice as minor for purposes of interim approval.

VII. Administrative Requirements

    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.

A. Executive Order 12866

    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.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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.
    Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new 
requirements, EPA certifies that it does not have a significant impact 
on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The 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 the State's failure to meet the commitment, it 
will not affect any existing state requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect 
its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal 
does not impose a new Federal requirement. 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 nor does it substitute a new federal requirement.

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule

[[Page 26748]]

that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to 
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private 
sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the 
most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. 
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising 
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by 
the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

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

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by July 14, 1997.
    Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this 
final rule to conditionally approve the Virginia I/M SIP, on an interim 
basis, does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of 
judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition 
for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the 
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged 
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See 307(b)(2) of the 
Administrative Procedures Act).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 2, 1997.
Thomas J. Maslany,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    Chapter I, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

    2. 52.2450 is amended by designating the existing text as paragraph 
(a) and by adding paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.2450    Conditional Approval.

* * * * *
    (b) The Commonwealth of Virginia's March 27, 1996 submittal for an 
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program is 
conditionally approved based on certain contingencies, for an interim 
period to last eighteen months. If the Commonwealth fails to start its 
program according to the schedule it provided, or by November 15, 1997 
at the latest, this conditional approval will convert to a disapproval 
after EPA sends a letter to the state. If the Commonwealth fails to 
satisfy the following conditions within 12 months of this rulemaking, 
this conditional approval will automatically convert to a disapproval 
as explained under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act. The conditions 
for approvability are as follows:
    (1) The Commonwealth must perform and submit the new modeling 
demonstration that illustrates how its program will meet the relevant 
enhanced performance standard, by September 15, 1997 (a date specified 
by the Commonwealth in the commitment letter to EPA). The 
Commonwealth's revised modeling must correspond to the actual I/M 
program configuration, including actual test methods and start dates 
for all I/M program tests, actual cutpoints to be in-place for the 
evaluation year, and all other program assumptions as they exist in the 
SIP. EPA expects that Virginia's new modeling demonstration will be 
done using an approved EPA model in order to meet this condition. 
Virginia should refer to EPA's guidance on modeling to determine which 
version of the model is appropriate and suitable for Virginia's use in 
meeting this commitment.
    (2) The Commonwealth must submit to EPA as a SIP amendment, by 
September 15, 1997 (a date specified by the Commonwealth in the 
commitment letter to EPA), the final Virginia I/M regulation which 
requires a METT-based evaluation be performed on 0.1% of the subject 
fleet each year as per 40 CFR 51.353(c)(3) and which meets all other 
program evaluation elements specified in 40 CFR 51.353(c), including a 
program evaluation schedule, a protocol for the testing, and a system 
for collection and analysis of program evaluation data.
    (3) By September 15, 1997 (a date specified by the Commonwealth in 
the commitment letter to EPA), Virginia must adopt and submit a final 
Virginia I/M regulation which requires and which specifies detailed, 
approvable test procedures and equipment specifications for all of the 
evaporative and exhaust tests to be used in the enhanced I/M program. 
The Commonwealth has committed to adopt approvable test procedures, 
standards and specifications for its two-mode ASM test. The draft 
regulations submitted to EPA with the commitment letter, containing the 
two-mode ASM procedures and specifications do not comply in all 
respects with EPA's ASM technical guidance EPA-AA-RSPD-IM-96-2. EPA 
expects that Virginia will remedy any remaining discrepancies between 
its regulation and approved EPA specifications by the September 15, 
1997 date.
    (c) In addition to the above conditions for approval, the 
Commonwealth must correct several minor, or de minimus deficiencies 
related to CAA requirements for enhanced I/M. Although satisfaction of 
these deficiencies does not affect the conditional approval status of 
the Commonwealth's rulemaking granted under the authority of Sec. 110 
of the Clean Air Act, these deficiencies must be corrected in the final 
I/M SIP revision prior to the end of the 18-month interim period 
granted under the National Highway Safety Designation Act of 1995:
    (1) The SIP lacks a detailed description of the elements to satisfy 
the test frequency requirements required under 40 CFR 51.355(a), 
particularly regarding scheduling of vehicles for testing and the 
selection scheme for the biennial program inspections, as well as a 
description of how test frequency will be integrated with the 
registration denial motorist enforcement process;
    (2) The SIP does not fully account for all exceptions from testing 
in the emissions reductions analysis. The state must account for 
testing exceptions and account for them in their performance standard 
modeling demonstration, per 40 CFR 51.356(b)(2);

[[Page 26749]]

    (3) Virginia must develop quality control procedures, test 
equipment specifications, quality control procedures manual, or other 
ordinance or documents to satisfy all the quality control requirements 
of 40 CFR 51.359;
    (4) Virginia must amend its regulation to allow that waivers be 
issued only by a single contractor or by the Commonwealth, per 40 CFR 
51.360(c)(1);
    (5) The final SIP submittal must include the procedures document 
that adequately addresses the means by which the Commonwealth will 
comply with all the motorist compliance enforcement program oversight 
requirements set forth at 40 CFR 51.362;
    (6) Virginia must complete and submit as a SIP revision to EPA 
procedures manuals for use by the Commonwealth's quality assurance 
auditors to conduct covert and overt audits for program oversight 
purposes, per 40 CFR 51.363(e);
    (7) The Commonwealth must adopt, and submit as a SIP revision, a 
penalty schedule for inspectors and inspection stations, per 40 CFR 
51.364 (a) and (d);
    (8) Virginia's SIP, either the regulation or the test equipment 
specifications, must require that the specific data elements identified 
in 40 CFR 51.365(a) be collected and reported to the Commonwealth on a 
real-time basis;
    (9) Virginia must finalize and submit the final ``Public 
Information Plan'' described in the SIP, to satisfy the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.368 (a) and (b);
    (10) Virginia must formally submit the procedures and criteria to 
be used in meeting the repair performance monitoring requirements set 
forth in 40 CFR 51.369(b) and a description of the repair technician 
training resources available in the community (when available), per 40 
CFR 51.369(c);
    (11) Virginia must submit detailed recall compliance procedures and 
a commitment to annually report recall compliance information to EPA, 
per the requirements of 40 CFR 51.370;
    (12) Virginia must amend the SIP to include information regarding 
resource allocation for the on-road testing program, as well as methods 
for analyzing and reporting the results of on-road testing, per 40 CFR 
51.371. This may entail submittal of an on-road testing procedures 
manual or the request for proposals (RFP) for the contractor to be 
hired to operate the on-road testing program;
    (13) Virginia must list in its schedule of implementation 
milestones deadlines by which all procedures documents not yet part of 
the SIP are to be finalized and submitted to EPA.
    (d) EPA is also approving this Enhanced I/M SIP revision under 
section 110(k), for its strengthening effect on the plan.

[FR Doc. 97-12790 Filed 5-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P