[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 2, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46664-46668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23324]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA 119-4074a; FRL-6148-3]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action serves to remove several conditions of EPA's 
January 28, 1997 interim final approval of the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for its 
enhanced motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance (I/M) 
program. The Commonwealth has amended its SIP (since EPA granted 
conditional interim approval of that plan) to address these 
deficiencies. EPA is removing these conditions by approving two related 
SIP revisions submitted by Pennsylvania. These revisions serve to 
bolster the Commonwealth's I/M SIP, and to strengthen its I/M program. 
The intended effect of this action is to remove several conditions 
placed by EPA upon the approval of the Commonwealth's SIP. However, as 
Pennsylvania has yet to address several other outstanding rulemaking 
conditions on this same SIP, the Commonwealth's I/M SIP will continue 
to be conditionally approved, in accordance with the Clean Air Act, 
until the Commonwealth satisfies the remaining conditions.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on November 2, 1998 without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 2, 1998. 
If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Marcia Spink, Associate 
Director, Office of Air Programs, Mailcode 3AP20, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air 
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 
1650 Arch Street--14th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and at 
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 
Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 
17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn, (215) 814-2176, or by e-
mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 28, 1997, EPA published in the Federal Register a 
document (62 FR 4004) granting conditional interim approval to 
Pennsylvania's enhanced I/M program SIP (submitted March 22, 1996)--
under the authority of both the National Highway Systems Designation 
Act of 1995, and the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. The NHSDA 
established key changes to previous EPA I/M requirements. Under the 
NHSDA, EPA could not disapprove, or automatically discount the 
effectiveness of, a state's I/M program solely because it utilized a 
decentralized testing network. Instead, on the basis of a ``good faith 
estimate'' by a state, the NHSDA allowed for presumptive equivalency of 
such decentralized networks to the benchmark of centralized programs. 
Under the NHSDA, EPA was to grant ``interim'' approval of such 
decentralized programs, for an 18-month period, at the end of which the 
state is required to submit an evaluation of the actual effectiveness 
of the enhanced program.
    In Pennsylvania's case, EPA granted interim approval of the 
enhanced I/M program SIP, but also conditioned approval of that SIP 
upon the satisfaction of five major deficiencies, and fourteen minor, 
or de minimus, deficiencies. EPA's January 28, 1997 interim conditional 
approval stipulated that the five major conditions were to be corrected 
within one year of approval, and that the de minimus conditions be 
addressed within eighteen months of approval. On January 9, 1998, EPA 
published (63 FR 1362) a final rule amending federal I/M requirements 
for ongoing evaluation methodologies for state I/M programs--one of the 
major deficiencies of Pennsylvania's program identified by EPA in its 
January 1998 interim conditional approval. EPA's I/M requirements rule 
change also served to amend the related condition of the Commonwealth's 
approval. As a result, the deadline for the Commonwealth to satisfy 
this condition was extended from February of 1998 to November 30, 1998.
    The NHSDA effectiveness demonstration described previously is also 
due at the end of the 18-month NHSDA, interim approval period. The 
Commonwealth's interim approval period granted under authority of the 
NHSDA expires on August 28, 1998.

Status of I/M Program SIP Revisions

    On November 13, 1997 and on February 24, 1998, the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania submitted formal revisions to its State Implementation 
Plan (SIP). These November 13, 1997 SIP revisions consist of 
Pennsylvania's revised, final I/M program regulations, as well as 
supporting information and materials. The February 24, 1998 SIP 
revision contains updated emissions benefit computer modeling to 
demonstrate that Pennsylvania's program meets federal performance-based 
standards for enhanced I/M programs. Both SIP revisions are intended to 
partially satisfy ``major'' and ``minor'', or de minimus, deficiencies 
identified by EPA in its January 28, 1997 interim conditional approval 
of the Commonwealth's March 22, 1996 I/M program SIP submittal.
    EPA views the November 13, 1997 and the February 24, 1998 SIP 
revisions as separate, independent SIP amendments from the enhanced I/M 
SIP revision submitted on March 22, 1996. While these two more recent 
SIP revisions are related to the March 1996 enhanced I/M SIP revision 
submitted by the Commonwealth, they serve to supplement and to 
strengthen the Commonwealth's enhanced I/M program SIP--not to replace 
it. EPA is today acting only upon the November

[[Page 46665]]

1997 and the February 1998 SIP revisions submitted by the Commonwealth 
to satisfy certain deficiencies of its conditionally approved enhanced 
I/M plan, and in so doing EPA is not reopening its January 27, 1997 
final rulemaking granting conditional interim approval of the 
Commonwealth's enhanced I/M SIP submitted on March 22, 1996.
    Since at the time of this rulemaking action, the Commonwealth has 
not yet addressed all of the outstanding deficiencies, nor has it 
submitted its NHSDA I/M network effectiveness demonstration, EPA cannot 
grant full interim approval at this time. That effectiveness 
demonstration is not due until August 28, 1998. Therefore, the 
Commonwealth's I/M SIP revision cannot receive full approval, and 
instead must maintain a form of conditional interim approval. The 
Commonwealth has indicated that it will submit its NHSDA effectiveness 
demonstration and a revision to address all remaining EPA-identified 
deficiencies prior to August 28, 1998. EPA will act upon those 
submittals in a separate, later rulemaking action.

Summary of Subject I/M SIP Revisions

    The November 13, 1997 SIP revision that is the subject of today's 
action contains Pennsylvania's enhanced I/M program regulations for all 
applicable areas of the Commonwealth, as well as supporting information 
provided to bolster and to better document the conditionally approved 
March 1996 I/M SIP submission. The regulations were revised, in part, 
to address deficiencies identified in EPA's January 1997 interim 
conditional approval of the plan. The supporting information in the 
November 1997 SIP revision also includes additional information for the 
Commonwealth's demonstration of the adequacy of windshield stickers as 
a means to ensure motorist compliance with the enhanced I/M program. In 
addition, a Pennsylvania Bulletin notice certifying the list of 
counties subject to enhanced I/M that would commence enhanced testing 
October 1, 1997 was included as part of that SIP revision. Also 
included, was a description of the Commonwealth's emissions waiver 
program, as well as a description of the Commonwealth's plan for 
providing consumers general information on the program and on the 
effectiveness of repair facilities in performing emissions-related 
repairs.
    The February 24, 1998 SIP amendment contain's Pennsylvania's 
modeling demonstration, which shows that its enhanced I/M programs (for 
each subject I/M program area) will achieve the desired emissions 
benefits by meeting federal performance-based standards.
    These two SIP revisions fully satisfy four of the five ``major'' 
conditions and seven of the fourteen de minimus conditions identified 
by EPA in its January 28, 1997 interim conditional approval of the 
Commonwealth's enhanced I/M program.
    The conditions that EPA has placed upon its interim approval of 
Pennsylvania's SIP are codified at 40 CFR 52.2026. Those conditions 
which the Commonwealth has satisfied in its November 1997 and February 
1998 SIP revisions are detailed below. This includes the following 
``major'' conditions:
    (1) By no later than September 15, 1997, a notice must be published 
in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by the Secretary of the Pennsylvania 
Department of Transportation which certifies that the enhanced I/M 
program is required in order to comply with federal law and also 
certifies the geographic areas which are subject to the enhanced I/M 
program (the geographic coverage must be identical to that listed in 
Appendix A-1 of the March 22, 1996 SIP submittal), and certifies the 
commencement date of the enhanced I/M program;
    (2) The Commonwealth must submit to EPA as a SIP amendment, by 
November 30, 1998, the final Pennsylvania I/M program evaluation plan 
requiring an approved alternative sound evaluation methodology to be 
performed on a minimum of 0.1 percent of the subject fleet each year as 
per 40 CFR 51.353(c)(3) and which meets the program evaluation elements 
as specified in 40 CFR 51.353(c). [Note: The Commonwealth submitted, in 
the November 13, 1997 SIP revision submittal, amendments to its 
enhanced I/M regulation requiring that the ongoing evaluation of its 
program be conducted as specified, above. By November 30, 1998, the 
Commonwealth must submit its actual program evaluation plan including 
the specific EPA-approved methodology it will use to conduct the 
ongoing program evaluation required under its I/M regulation. Submittal 
of that program evaluation plan is necessary to satisfy this condition 
fully.]
    (3) By no later than November 15, 1997, the Commonwealth must 
submit a demonstration to EPA as an amendment to the SIP that meets the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.361 (b)(1) and (b)(2) and demonstrates that 
Pennsylvania's existing sticker enforcement system is more effective 
than registration denial enforcement;
    (4) Within twelve months of EPA's final interim rulemaking action, 
Pennsylvania must adopt and submit a final Pennsylvania I/M regulation 
which requires and which specifies the following: exhaust test 
procedures, standards, and equipment specifications; and evaporative 
system functional test methods, standards and procedures; a visual 
inspection procedure for determining the presence of or tampering with 
of vehicle emission control devices; and a repair technician training 
and certification (TTC) program. The test methods and procedures 
established under the Commonwealth's I/M regulation must be acceptable 
to EPA, as well as to the Commonwealth. The test methods and standards 
provided for by the Commonwealth's final regulation must reflect the 
modeling assumptions found in the Commonwealth's final performance 
standard modeling demonstration (which must satisfy the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.351). Within the same time frame, detailed test equipment 
specifications and standards (which are acceptable to EPA, as well as 
to the Commonwealth) for all of the I/M evaporative and exhaust tests 
provided for by the Commonwealth's regulation (as described above) must 
be finalized and submitted as a SIP revision to EPA; and
    (5) The Commonwealth must perform the final modeling demonstration 
that its program will meet the relevant enhanced performance standard 
and submit it to EPA, within twelve months of EPA's final interim 
rulemaking.
    In addition to the above conditions for approval, the EPA required 
the Commonwealth to correct fourteen minor, or de minimus deficiencies, 
related to approval of the enhanced I/M program. EPA required that 
these ``minor'' deficiencies be corrected prior to the end of the 18-
month interim period granted to the Pennsylvania enhanced I/M SIP under 
the National Highway Safety Designation Act of 1995. The de minimus 
conditions that Pennsylvania satisfied in its November 1997 and 
February 1998 submittals are all detailed below and include:
    (1) This condition has not yet been addressed. To be addressed in a 
future SIP submittal, expected by August, 1998;
    (2) The definition of light duty truck in the definitions section 
of the final Pennsylvania I/M regulation must provide for coverage up 
to 9,000 pounds GVWR;
    (3) The final Pennsylvania I/M regulation must require 
implementation of the final full stringency emission standards at the 
beginning of the second

[[Page 46666]]

test cycle so that the state can obtain the full emission reduction 
program credit prior to the first program evaluation date;
    (4) The final Pennsylvania I/M regulation must require a real-time 
data link between the state or contractor and each emission inspection 
station as per 40 CFR 51.358(b)(2);
    (5) This condition has not yet been addressed. To be addressed in a 
future SIP submittal, expected by August, 1998;
    (6) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation must only allow the 
Commonwealth or a single contractor to issue waivers as per 40 CFR 
51.360(c)(1);
    (7) This condition has not yet been addressed. To be addressed in a 
future SIP submittal, expected by August, 1998;
    (8) This condition has not yet been addressed. To be addressed in a 
future SIP submittal, expected by August, 1998;
    (9) This condition has not yet been addressed. To be addressed in a 
future SIP submittal, expected by August, 1998;
    (10) This condition has not yet been addressed. To be addressed in 
a future SIP submittal, expected by August, 1998;
    (11) The final Pennsylvania I/M regulation must require that 
emissions inspectors complete a refresher training course or pass a 
comprehensive skill examination prior to being recertified and the 
final SIP revisions must include a commitment that the Commonwealth 
will monitor and evaluate the inspector training program delivery, per 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.367;
    (12) The final I/M SIP submittal must include a RFP, or other 
legally binding document, which adequately addresses how the 
Commonwealth's selected contractor will comply with the public 
information requirements of 40 CFR 51.368;
    (13) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation must include provisions that 
meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.368(a) and 51.369(b) for a repair 
facility performance monitoring program plan and for providing the 
motorist with diagnostic information based on the particular portions 
of the test that were failed; and
    (14) This condition has not yet been addressed. To be addressed in 
a future SIP submittal, expected by August, 1998.
    EPA has reviewed the Commonwealth's SIP revisions and determined 
that they address the above conditions. EPA's detailed review is 
contained in the technical support document (TSD) it prepared in 
support of this rulemaking action. The TSD is available, upon request, 
from the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 
document. EPA is approving the Commonwealth's November 13, 1997 and 
February 24, 1998 SIP submittals as having satisfied those conditions 
set forth above. The purpose of this approval action is to remove 
certain conditions EPA had placed upon the Commonwealth's SIP, which 
have been addressed by subsequent SIP revisions. EPA is therefore 
removing these conditions from EPA's conditional interim approval of 
the Pennsylvania I/M SIP.
    EPA is approving these SIP revisions without prior proposal because 
the Agency views this as a non-controversial SIP amendment and 
anticipates no adverse comments on this rulemaking action. However, in 
the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is 
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to 
approve the SIP revision should adverse or critical comments related to 
today's rulemaking be filed. This rule will be effective November 2, 
1998 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments 
by October 2, 1998.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal of the direct final rule informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA 
will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Only parties 
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If 
no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule 
will be effective on November 2, 1998 and no further action will be 
taken on the proposed rule.

Final Action

    EPA is approving the Commonwealth's November 13, 1997 and February 
24, 1998 SIP submittals as having fully satisfied four major conditions 
and seven de minimus conditions identified by EPA in its January 28, 
1997 interim conditional approval of the Pennsylvania enhanced I/M SIP 
[62 FR 4004]. Upon approval of these SIP revisions, there will still 
remain one major, and seven minor conditions on EPA's interim approval 
of the Commonwealth's enhanced I/M program SIP. Therefore, EPA is 
maintaining conditional interim approval of the Commonwealth's SIP, 
until Pennsylvania addresses all remaining deficiencies and submits a 
enhanced I/M program network effectiveness demonstration, as required 
under authority of the National Highway Systems Designation Act of 
1995.
    For the purpose of clarity and to avoid confusion over the 
remaining conditions upon interim approval of Pennsylvania's plan, EPA 
is removing those conditions from 40 CFR 52.2026 which have been 
satisfied by the Commonwealth's November 1997 and February 1998 SIP 
revisions. EPA is reserving the sections of 40 CFR 52.2026 that 
correspond to these conditions, so as not to renumber the outstanding 
conditions of approval listed in that section. The list of remaining 
conditions upon interim approval of Pennsylvania's enhanced I/M SIP 
will now read as follows:

``Major'' Conditions

    (1) 
    (2) The Commonwealth must submit to EPA as a SIP amendment, by 
November 30, 1998, the final Pennsylvania I/M program evaluation plan 
requiring an approved alternative sound evaluation methodology to be 
performed on a minimum of 0.1 percent of the subject fleet each year as 
per 40 CFR 51.353(c)(3) and which meets the program evaluation elements 
as specified in 40 CFR 51.353(c). The Commonwealth submitted, in the 
November 13, 1997 SIP revision submittal, amendments to its enhanced I/
M regulation requiring that the ongoing evaluation of its program be 
conducted as specified, above. By November 30, 1998, the Commonwealth 
must submit its actual program evaluation plan including the specific 
EPA-approved methodology it will use to conduct the ongoing program 
evaluation required under its I/M regulation.
    (3) 
    (4) 
    (5) 

``Minor''/De Minimus Conditions

    (1) The final I/M SIP submittal must detail the number of personnel 
and equipment dedicated to the quality assurance program, data 
collection, data analysis, program administration, enforcement, public 
education and assistance, on-road testing and other necessary functions 
as per 40 CFR 51.354;
    (2) 
    (3) 
    (4) 
    (5) The final I/M SIP submittal must provide quality control 
requirements for one-mode ASM (or two-mode ASM if the Commonwealth opts 
for it);
    (6) 
    (7) The final I/M SIP submittal must include the RFP, or other 
legally

[[Page 46667]]

binding document, which adequately addresses how the private vendor 
selected to perform motorist compliance enforcement responsibilities 
for the Commonwealth's program will comply with the requirements, as 
per 40 CFR 51.362;
    (8) The final I/M SIP submittal must include the RFP that 
adequately addresses how the private vendor will comply with 40 CFR 
51.363, a procedures manual which adequately addresses the quality 
assurance program and a requirement that annual auditing of the quality 
assurance auditors will occur as per 40 CFR 51.363(d)(2);
    (9) The final I/M SIP submittal must include provisions to maintain 
records of all warnings, civil fines, suspensions, revocations, 
violations and penalties against inspectors and stations, per the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.364;
    (10) The final I/M SIP submittal must include a RFP, or other 
legally binding document, which adequately addresses how the private 
vendor selected by the Commonwealth to perform data collection and data 
analysis and reporting will comply with all the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.365 and 51.366; and
    (11) 
    (12) 
    (13) 
    (14) The final I/M SIP submittal must contain sufficient 
information to adequately address the on-road test program resource 
allocations, methods of analyzing and reporting the results of the on-
road testing and information on staffing requirements for both the 
Commonwealth and the private vendor for the on-road testing program.
    Nothing in EPA's rulemaking 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 SIP shall be considered separately in light of specific 
technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation to 
relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

I. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review. The final rule is not subject 
to E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' because it is not an ``economically 
significant'' action under E.O. 12866.

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 approval of a SIP submittal under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not create any new requirements 
but simply approve requirements that a 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 a 
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.

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 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

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this direct final approval action for Pennsylvania's 
enhanced I/M SIP revision must be filed in the United States Court of 
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 2, 1998. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule pertaining to the 
Pennsylvania enhanced I/M SIP 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 section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 11, 1998.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

    40 CFR Part 52 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 et seq.

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

    2. Section 52.2026 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs

[[Page 46668]]

(a)(1), (3), (4), and (5), and paragraphs (b)(2), (3), (4), (6), (11), 
(12), and (13).
    3. Section 52.2026 is further amended by adding the following two 
sentences at the end of paragraph (a)(2):


Sec. 52.2026  Conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * * The Commonwealth submitted, in a November 13, 1997 SIP 
revision submittal, amendments to its enhanced I/M regulation requiring 
that the ongoing evaluation of its program be conducted as specified in 
this paragraph. By November 30, 1998, the Commonwealth must submit its 
actual program evaluation plan including the specific EPA-approved 
methodology it will use to conduct the ongoing program evaluation 
required under its I/M regulation.

[FR Doc. 98-23324 Filed 9-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P