[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15118-15125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8064]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DC036-2007; FRL-5988-6]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed conditional approval and withdrawal of proposed 
disapproval action.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of 
Columbia (the District) on November 27, 1997. This revision establishes 
and requires the implementation of an enhanced motor vehicle inspection 
and maintenance (I/M) program within the District. The intended effect 
of this action is to propose conditional approval of the District's 
enhanced

[[Page 15119]]

motor vehicle I/M program. EPA is proposing approval conditioned upon 
the District meeting the April 30, 1999 start date committed to and 
contained in its enhanced I/M SIP revision. EPA is also withdrawing its 
October 10, 1996 (61 FR 53166) proposed disapproval action of the 
enhanced I/M SIP revision submitted by the District of Columbia on July 
13, 1995 (supplemented March 27, 1996).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 29, 1998.

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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine L. Magliocchetti @ 215-566-
2174, at the EPA Region III address above, or via e-mail at 
magliocchetti.catherine @epamail.epa.gov. 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 about half of the ozone air pollution and nearly all of the 
carbon monoxide air pollution in United States cities, as well as toxic 
contaminants. 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 I/M Rule. Flexibility amendments to this rule, which 
provided for a low enhanced I/M performance standard for use in certain 
qualifying areas 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, and 
40 CFR 51.350(a), 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 comprised of 11 states and the District. 
Section 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 November 1992 I/M Rule establishes minimum performance 
standards for basic and enhanced I/M programs as 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;

[[Page 15120]]

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 
EPA rule changes, and the flexibility afforded by the National Highway 
Systems Designation Act of 1995 (NHA) EPA believes states should be 
afforded extra time to begin full implementation of their enhanced I/M 
programs. Since the 1995 deadline has now passed, EPA believes that 
state I/M programs must now start up as soon as practicable.

II. Background

    The District of Columbia is part of the OTR and is part of the 
Washington DC, MSA with a population of 100,000 or more. Section 
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 13, 1995 the District of Columbia Department of Consumer 
and Regulatory Affairs, now known as the Department of Health (DoH), 
submitted to EPA a SIP revision for an enhanced I/M program. On March 
27, 1996, DoH submitted a supplement 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. EPA's evaluation of this SIP revision submittal 
(including its supplement) concluded that it did not meet the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act, and subsequently EPA proposed 
disapproval of the SIP revision on October 10, 1996 (61 FR 53166). The 
rationale for EPA's disapproval can be found in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking, and will not be restated here. In response to EPA's 
proposed disapproval of the District's plan, DoH completely redesigned 
the District's enhanced I/M program. On November 25, 1997, DoH 
submitted to EPA another enhanced I/M SIP revision which replaced, 
completely, its earlier enhanced I/M submittal, and simultaneously 
requested that EPA withdrawal the October 1996 proposed disapproval. In 
preparing the latest SIP revision, DoH has attempted to address all of 
the programmatic deficiencies identified in the October 1996 proposed 
disapproval of the previously submitted SIP revision.
    EPA's summary of the requirements of the federal I/M rule as found 
in 40 CFR 51.350-51.373 and EPA's analysis of the District's November 
25, 1997 submittal is outlined below. A more detailed analysis of the 
District's submittal is contained in a Technical Support Document (TSD) 
dated March 10, 1998. For interested parties, the TSD is available upon 
request from the Region III office, listed in the ADDRESSES section 
above. Parties desiring additional details on the I/M rule are referred 
to the November 5, 1992 Federal Register notice (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR 
51.350-51.373, as well as the I/M Flexibility Amendments in the 
September 18, 1995 Federal Register notice (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 the District of Columbia's 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 enhanced I/M programs in certain areas. Based upon 
EPA's review of the District's submittal, EPA believes the District has 
complied with all aspects of the Act and the I/M rule. EPA is proposing 
approval, conditioned upon the District meeting the April 30, 1999 
start date committed to and contained in its enhanced I/M SIP revision. 
EPA is imposing this condition because while it agrees that the 
District's start date of April 30, 1999 is as expeditious as 
practicable given current circumstances, EPA also believes that it is 
imperative that this date be met with no further delay beyond the 
originally mandated federal date for start-up of enhanced I/M programs. 
Because the originally mandated start date has now passed, EPA proposes 
to condition approval of the District's I/M program on start-up as soon 
as practicable. In light of the current status of the District program, 
EPA concludes that April 30, 1999 is as soon as practicable to start 
the program in the District. EPA has reviewed the November 25, 1997 SIP 
revision, and has determined that the enhanced I/M program detailed in 
the SIP revision meets all of the other requirements of the CAA.

A. Applicability--40 CFR 51.350

    Section 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 District 
of Columbia is part of the OTR and is a part of the Washington, DC, 
MSA, which has a population in excess of 100,000. DC's enhanced I/M 
program will be implemented throughout the District.
    The District's I/M legislative authority (Title 40, Chapter 2) 
provides the legal authority to establish the geographic boundaries of 
the program. The program boundaries listed in Section 1 of the SIP 
revision are the inclusive zipcode listings for the entire District, 
and thus meet the federal I/M requirements under Sec. 51.350.
    The I/M rule requires that the state program shall not sunset until 
it is no longer necessary. EPA interprets the
I/M rule as stating that a SIP which does not sunset prior to the 
attainment deadline for each applicable area satisfies this 
requirement. DoH has previously informed EPA, through its November 13, 
1996 comment letter on the October 1996 proposed disapproval, that the 
legislation governing the District's I/M program will not sunset unless 
it is actively repealed or amended by the City Council. DoH therefore 
believes that the program is authorized up to and beyond the attainment 
date. EPA agrees with this assessment, since there is no sunset date 
provision attached to the enabling legislation. Therefore, EPA has 
determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of the 
requirements of Sec. 51.350 of the I/M rule.

B. 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 model I/
M program parameters: network type, start date, test frequency, model 
year coverage, vehicle type coverage, exhaust emission test type, 
emission standards, emission control device, evaporative system 
function checks, stringency, waiver rate, compliance rate and 
evaluation date. The emission

[[Page 15121]]

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 such as the 
District, the performance standard must be met for both NOX 
and HC.
    The District's submittal includes the following program design 
parameters:
    Network Type--Centralized, test-only.
    Start Date--April 1999.
    Test Frequency--Biennial.
    Model Year/Vehicle Type Coverage--All 1974 and newer light duty 
gasoline vehicles (LDGV); light duty gasoline trucks 1 & 2 (LDGT1, 
LDGT2); and heavy duty gasoline vehicles up to 26,000 lbs gross vehicle 
weight.
    Exhaust Emission Test Type--Transient test for 1984 and newer model 
year vehicles idle test for1983 and older model year vehicles.
    Emission Standards--Permanent transient test standards for 1984 and 
newer model year light duty vehicles: 0.8 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO, 2.0 gpm 
NOX. [Please refer to the District's I/M regulations (18 
DCMR 752) for transient test standards for other applicable model 
years]
    Emission Control Device--Pressure and purge check on all 1984 and 
newer model year vehicles.
    Stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)--40%.
    Waiver Rate--3% on pre- and post-1981 vehicles.
    Compliance Rate--96%.
    Evaluation Date--For HC and NOX: July 1, 2002.
    EPA has reviewed the District's modeling of the program and has 
determined that the design parameters are acceptable; and that the 
model performance standard has been met. EPA notes that an appropriate 
methodology was used by the District in accounting for a start-date 
month of April, which cannot be directly entered into the MOBILE model. 
For further information on the modeling approach, please consult the 
TSD. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all 
of the requirements of Sec. 51.351 of the I/M rule.

C. Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353

    The enhanced program must include an ongoing evaluation to quantify 
the emission reduction benefits of the program, and to determine if the 
program is meeting the requirements of the Act and the I/M rule. The 
SIP shall include details on the program evaluation and shall include a 
schedule for submittal of biennial evaluation reports.
    In response to the changing format of many enhanced I/M programs 
(resulting from increased flexibility under the I/M Flexibility Rule 
and the National Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995) EPA has 
committed to re-examining the requirements of this section of the I/M 
rule (see 63 FR 1362, January 9, 1998). EPA here notes that, as 
indicated in that rulemaking, whatever the outcome of this examination 
of alternative program evaluation methods, the original evaluation 
method will also be available to programs such as the District's that 
have opted for a centralized approach using IM240 equipment.
    The original approach calls for the SIP to include the collection 
of data from a state monitored or administered mass emission test of at 
least 0.1% of the vehicles subject to inspection each year, a 
description of the sampling methodology, a description of the data 
collection and analysis system and the legal authority enabling the 
evaluation program.
    In addition to these requirements, the state should also 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, in its biennial reports, provide local fleet emission 
factors in assessing the actual effectiveness of the I/M program.
    The District's submittal includes an ongoing program evaluation 
that meets the original I/M rule requirements. The District has the 
legal authority to conduct this testing under Title 40, Chapter 2. 
Therefore, EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has 
satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.353(d) of the I/M rule.

D. 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 it can be 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 November 25, 1997 SIP revision documents that sufficient funds, 
equipment and personnel for the I/M program are available. EPA has 
determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of the 
requirements of Sec. 51.354(d) of the I/M rule.

E. 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 District's statutory authority provides for a biennial test 
frequency, and meets the test frequency and convenience requirements of 
the I/M rule. Therefore, EPA has determined that the District of 
Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.355.

F. 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

[[Page 15122]]

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 I/M rule requires that the SIP shall include the legal 
authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle 
coverage requirement, a detailed description of the number and types of 
vehicles to be covered by the program and a plan for how those vehicles 
are to be identified including vehicles that are routinely operated in 
the area but may not be registered in the area, and a description of 
any special exemptions including the percentage and number of vehicles 
to be impacted by the exemption.
    The District's enhanced I/M program requires coverage of all 1974 
and newer LDGV, LDGT1 and LDGT2, and HDGV up to 26,000 pounds GVWR 
(gross vehicle weight rating), which are registered or required to be 
registered in the I/M program area. District regulations allow for the 
inspection of any vehicle that is operating in the public space of the 
District.
    As of the date of the SIP submittal, approximately 236,600 vehicles 
(118,300 vehicles annually) will be subject to enhanced I/M testing. 
Title 40, Chapter 2 and the District's I/M regulations provide the 
legal authority to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage 
requirement. The District's program provides for fleet self-testing, 
using the same testing requirements and the same quality control 
standards as the centralized component. The District's plan for testing 
fleet vehicles is acceptable and meets the requirements of the I/M 
rule. The District's regulation provides for special exemptions for 
antique vehicles (i.e., vehicles more than 25 years old) and vehicles 
that are 2 years old and newer. These are acceptable exemptions and 
have been appropriately accounted for in the District's modeling 
demonstration.
    EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all 
of the requirements of Sec. 51.356(b) of the I/M rule.

G. 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 
I/M rule 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.
    The District's regulations provide test procedures for transient 
emission and evaporative system purge and pressure testing in 
accordance with the requirements of the I/M rule. EPA has determined 
that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of 
Sec. 51.357(e) of the I/M rule.

H. Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358

    Computerized test systems are required for performing any 
measurement on subject vehicles. The
I/M rule requires that the State SIP submittal include written 
technical specifications for all test equipment used in the program. 
The specifications shall describe the emission analysis process, the 
necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance 
testing criteria and procedures.
    The District's submittal contains the written technical 
specifications for all 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 I/M 
rule and are approvable. Therefore, EPA has determined that the 
District of Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of 
Sec. 51.358(c) of the
I/M rule.

I. Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359

    Quality control measures shall insure that emission measurement 
equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection, 
calibration records, and control charts are accurately created, 
recorded and maintained.
    The District's submittal contains the appropriate regulations and 
technical manuals that 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. Therefore, EPA has 
determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of the 
requirements of Sec. 51.359(f) of the
I/M rule.

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

    The I/M rule allows for the issuance of a waiver, which is a form 
of compliance with the program requirements that allows a motorist to 
comply without meeting the applicable test standards. For enhanced I/M 
programs, an expenditure of at least $450 in repairs, adjusted annually 
to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as compared to 
the CPI for 1989, is required in order to qualify for a waiver. Waivers 
can only be issued after a vehicle has failed a retest performed after 
all qualifying repairs have been made. Any available warranty coverage 
must be used to obtain repairs before expenditures can be counted 
toward the cost limit. Tampering related repairs shall not be applied 
toward the cost limit. Repairs must be appropriate to the cause of the 
test failure. 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.
    The District's regulations and statutory authority 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 SIP revision includes 
provisions that address waiver criteria and procedures, including cost 
limits, tampering and warranty related repairs, quality control and 
administration. These provisions meet the I/M rule requirements and are 
approvable. The District has set a maximum waiver rate of 3% for both 
pre-1981 and 1981 and later vehicles. EPA has interpreted a section of 
the District's SIP revision to say that the District will take 
corrective action if the waiver rate exceeds 3%. The interpretation was 
needed to address what appears to be a typographical error in the 
District's submittal. The District used a 3% waiver rate in its 
performance standard modeling. EPA has determined that the District of 
Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.360(d) of the
I/M rule.

K. 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

[[Page 15123]]

to be used for modeling purposes and to be maintained in practice.
    Title 40, Chapter 2 provides the legal authority to implement a 
registration denial system. The District's program will use 
registration denial to enforce the program, if the vehicle is not in 
compliance with the inspection requirement. The District's regulations 
call for ticketing of any vehicle found with an expired registration 
sticker. In the District's submittal, DoH states that the fine for an 
expired registration is $300. EPA believes this penalty schedule 
constitutes a ``meaningful'' fine for noncompliance with the inspection 
program. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied 
all of the requirements of Sec. 51.361(c) of the I/M rule.

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

    The I/M rule requires that the enforcement program shall be audited 
regularly and shall follow effective program management practices, 
including adjustments to improve operation when necessary. The SIP 
shall include quality control and quality assurance procedures to be 
used to insure the effective overall performance of the enforcement 
system. An information management system shall be established that will 
characterize, evaluate and enforce the program.
    The District's program includes a strategy for effective auditing 
of the I/M program. The program's QA/QC procedures are outlined in the 
SIP revision, as is the program's information management system. EPA 
has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of the 
requirements of Sec. 51.362(c) of the I/M rule.

M. 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 that includes 
written procedure manuals on the above discussed items must be 
submitted as part of the SIP.
    The District's submittal contains procedures for conducting overt 
and covert audits. These audit results will be recorded and retained in 
station and inspector files. Performance audits of inspectors will 
consist of both covert and overt audits. The District will provide an 
adequate number of covert vehicles for the purposes of conducting 
audits, so as to avoid detection by the inspectors during audit 
procedures. Formal training is required for all program auditors and 
enforcement officials. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia 
has satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.363(e) of the
I/M rule.

N. 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 I/M Rule requires the 
establishment of minimum penalties for violations of program rules and 
procedures which can be imposed against stations, contractors and 
inspectors. The legal authority for establishing and imposing 
penalties, civil fines, license suspensions and revocations must be 
included in the SIP. 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.
    The District has provided evidence of authority and sufficient 
resources to impose penalties and a penalty schedule for enforcement 
against the District's inspectors. Since the program will be ``state-
operated'', other penalty schedules (e.g. contractor penalty schedules) 
are not required under this section. EPA notes that the penalty 
schedule provided by the District does differ from the federal 
requirements in terms of the types and severity of individual penalties 
that will be levied against inspectors for fraud, incompetency, or 
other misconduct. However, EPA has reviewed the District's penalty 
schedule and has determined that overall, it will adequately serve the 
intent of Sec. 51.364(d)(1) of the I/M rule and be equivalent to the 
minimum penalties specified in the I/M Rule.
    EPA has therefore determined that the District of Columbia has 
satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.364(d) of the I/M rule.

O. Data Collection--40 CFR 51.365

    Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation 
and enforcement of an I/M program. The I/M Rule requires data to be 
gathered on each individual test conducted and on the results of the 
quality control checks of test equipment required under 40 CFR 51.359. 
The District's regulation and RFP require the collection of data on 
each individual test conducted as well as quality control checks, and 
describe the type of data to be collected. The type of test data 
collected meets the I/M Rule requirements and is approvable.
    EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all 
of the requirements of Sec. 51.365 of the I/M rule.

P. 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 I/M Rule 
requires annual reports to be submitted that provide information and 
statistics and summarize activities performed for each of the following 
programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control and enforcement. 
These reports are to be submitted by July of each year, and shall 
provide statistics for the period of January to December of the 
previous year. A biennial report shall also be submitted to EPA which 
addresses changes in program design, regulations, legal authority, 
program procedures and any weaknesses in the program found during the 
two year period and how these problems will be or were corrected.
    The District SIP revision 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 
collected and analyzed and reported on meets the I/M rule requirements 
and is approvable. The District commits to submit annual reports on 
these programs to EPA by July of the subsequent reporting 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. 
EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of 
the requirements of Sec. 51.366(f) of the I/M rule.

[[Page 15124]]

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

    The I/M rule requires all inspectors to be formally trained and 
licensed or certified to perform inspections.
    The District's regulations requires all inspectors to receive 
formal training, and be certified by the DC Department of Public Works. 
The District's regulations and the SIP revision 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 
certification process. Recertification of inspectors is required every 
two years. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has 
satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.367(c) of the I/M rule.

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

    The I/M rule requires the SIP to include public information and 
consumer protection programs. The DC program includes both of these 
features. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has 
satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.368 of the I/M rule.

S. Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369

    Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The I/M 
rule 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 I/M rule, and a 
description of the repair technician training resources available in 
the community.
    The District's 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 the District's SIP revision. This 
monitoring will provide the motoring public a summary of local repair 
facilities' performances, and provide regular feedback to each facility 
on their repair performance and requires the submittal of a completed 
repair form at the time of retest. The District'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(c). EPA has determined that the District of 
Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.369(d) of the 
I/M rule.

T. 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 the District's regulation, owners are required to comply with 
emission related recalls before completing the emission test and 
renewing the vehicle registration. EPA notes that the District will 
readdress this requirement once EPA finalizes its policy and guidance 
on Recall Compliance. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia 
has satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.370(d) of the I/M 
rule.

U. 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 40, Chapter 2. The SIP submittal requires the use of RSD to test 
0.5% of the fleet per year and will be implemented by a contractor. A 
description of the program, which includes resource allocations, and 
methods of collecting, analyzing and reporting the results of the 
testing are detailed in the submittal. EPA has determined that the 
District of Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of 
Sec. 51.371(b) of the I/M rule.

V. State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 
CFR 51.372-52.373

    The District's submittal included the final I/M regulations, 
legislative authority to implement the program, and a detailed 
discussion on each of the required program design elements. The start 
date for implementation of full-stringency cutpoints will be April 30, 
1999.
    The District has adequately completed a modeling demonstration 
showing that the program design meets the performance standard, and the 
District has provided evidence of adequate funding and resources to 
implement the program. EPA has determined that the District has 
satisfied the requirements of Secs. 51.372(e) and 51.373.
    EPA's review of the material indicates that the District has 
adopted an enhanced I/M program in accordance with the requirements of 
the Act. EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the District's SIP 
revision that was submitted on November 25, 1997. The only condition of 
this proposed rulemaking is that the District begin full implementation 
of the enhanced I/M program on or before April 30, 1999. EPA is 
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on 
other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking 
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal 
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional 
office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the revision to the 
District of Columbia SIP submitted on November 27, 1997 for an enhanced 
I/M program. EPA's proposed approval is conditioned upon the District 
meeting the April 30, 1999 start date committed to and contained in its 
November 27, 1997 SIP revision submittal. EPA is also withdrawing its 
previously proposed disapproval action of an enhanced I/M SIP revision 
submitted by the District of Columbia on July 13, 1995 (supplemented 
March 27, 1996) because that action is no longer germane, given that 
the District's submittal of November 27, 1997 completely replaced those 
earlier submittals.
    After full consideration of any comments received on this proposed 
conditional approval, EPA shall take final rulemaking action. In the 
event that final conditional approval is granted, the conversion from 
conditional approval to full approval or to disapproval will be 
dependent upon whether or not the District meets the start date of 
April 30, 1999 committed to in the SIP revision. If the District starts 
the enhanced testing program on or before April 30, 1999, then any 
final conditional approval shall convert to a full approval of the SIP 
revision. If the District fails to fully implement

[[Page 15125]]

enhanced I/M testing in the District by April 30, 1999, EPA would 
notify the District by letter that the condition has not been met and 
that any final conditional approval has 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 notice would 
be published in the Federal Register announcing that the SIP revision 
has been disapproved.
    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.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    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 a 
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 proposed conditional approval is promulgated and 
subsequently is converted to a disapproval under section 110(k), based 
on the District's failure to meet the condition committed to in its 
submittal, 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 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 
conditional approval action being proposed 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 only proposes to approve 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.
    The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the 
District's enhanced I/M SIP revision will be based on whether it meets 
the requirements of the federal enhanced I/M regulations, section 
110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA 
regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

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

    Dated: March 19, 1998.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 98-8064 Filed 3-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P