[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 179 (Wednesday, September 16, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49436-49441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24730]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA 122-4078a; FRL-6160-6]


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 approves an August 21, 1998 State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to 
supplement its enhanced motor vehicle emissions inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) program SIP. The August 21, 1998 SIP revision 
submittal addresses the seven remaining minor, or de minimus, 
deficiencies cited in EPA's January 28, 1997 conditional interim 
approval of Pennsylvania's enhanced I/M program. In addition, 
Pennsylvania submitted a demonstration of the effectiveness of its 
decentralized network required under the National Highway Systems 
Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA). The intended effect of this action is 
to remove all remaining de minimus conditions imposed by EPA in its 
January 28, 1997 conditional interim approval of Pennsylvania's March 
1996 enhanced I/M SIP revision, and to approve the Commonwealth's 
decentralized network effectiveness demonstration. EPA is hereby 
removing the interim approval status of the Commonwealth's I/M SIP, 
granted under the NHSDA. However, as Pennsylvania must still provide 
specific information related to one condition of the January 28, 1997 
approval of its enhanced I/M program, the

[[Page 49437]]

Commonwealth's enhanced I/M SIP remains conditionally approved under 
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on November 16, 1998, 
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 
16, 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:

I. Background

    On January 28, 1997, EPA published in the Federal Register a final 
rulemaking action (62 FR 4004) granting conditional interim approval to 
Pennsylvania's enhanced I/M program SIP revision, submitted March 22, 
1996, under the authority of both the NHSDA 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 section 348 of the NHSDA, EPA 
was required to grant ``interim'' approval to such decentralized 
programs, for an 18-month period, at the end of which each affected 
state must 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, pursuant to Section 348 of the NHSDA, but 
also conditioned approval of that SIP upon the satisfaction of five 
major deficiencies and fourteen de minimus deficiencies. EPA's January 
28, 1997 conditional interim approval stipulated that the five major 
conditions must be corrected within one year of final interim approval, 
and that the de minimus conditions be addressed within eighteen months 
of final interim 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 28, 1998 to November 30, 
1998.
    Pursuant to EPA's January 28, 1997 rulemaking action, in order for 
the Commonwealth's SIP to be eligible for full approval, all de minimus 
conditions placed by EPA upon the Commonwealth's SIP must be remedied 
by the end of the 18-month interim approval period. The Commonwealth's 
NHSDA program effectiveness demonstration was due to be completed and 
submitted to EPA within the same time frame. The interim approval 
period for Pennsylvania expires August 28, 1998.
    On September 2, 1998, EPA published a direct final rulemaking 
action (DFR), which is separate from today's action. The purpose of 
that rulemaking action is to approve two Pennsylvania SIP revisions, 
which addressed four major and seven de minimus rulemaking conditions 
from EPA's January 28, 1997 conditional interim approval. EPA 
anticipates that the DFR published on September 2, 1998 will become 
effective (barring adverse comment) within 60 days of its publication 
date. The subject of today's rulemaking action is the Commonwealth's 
August 21, 1998 SIP revision which addresses the remaining seven de 
minimus conditions and the network design effectiveness demonstration.

II. Summary of Pennsylvania's August 21, 1998 SIP Revision 
Submittal

    On August 21, 1998, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted a 
revision to its SIP. In addition, on August 21, 1998 the Commonwealth 
submitted its I/M program network effectiveness demonstration. The SIP 
revision submittal also consists of contractual materials related to 
enhanced I/M oversight and program management services contract. These 
include the program oversight contract with the Commonwealth's I/M 
program manager, MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) in addition 
to portions of the Commonwealth's request for proposal (RFP) and 
portions of the contractor and subcontractor proposal responses. The 
SIP submittal also includes certain contract exhibits, relevant to the 
satisfaction of federal requirements applicable to the remaining de 
minimus conditions set forth in 40 CFR 52.2026. Finally, the SIP 
submittal contains some Pennsylvania state government procedures and 
other miscellaneous forms and documents.
    Also on August 21, 1998, the Commonwealth submitted its 
demonstration of the effectiveness of its decentralized program network 
(pursuant to the requirements of section 348 of the NHSDA) in order to 
qualify for the full ``credits'' claimed by Pennsylvania for the 
decentralized testing format of its enhanced I/M program. Such a 
demonstration is required (from states that chose to submit SIPs in 
March of 1996 to take advantage of NHSDA flexibility granted for 
decentralized I/M programs) at the end of the 18-month NHSDA interim 
approval period. The NHSDA demonstration is to be based upon the 
results of data collected during operation of the enhanced I/M program.
    The Commonwealth's August 21, 1998 SIP submittal is meant to 
address those seven remaining de minimus deficiencies identified by EPA 
in its January 28, 1997 interim conditional approval, which the 
Commonwealth had not yet addressed in any other I/M-related SIP 
revisions previously submitted to EPA.

III. EPA's Review of Pennsylvania's August 21, 1998 SIP Revision 
Submittal

    EPA views the Commonwealth's August 21, 1998 SIP revision as a 
separate, independent SIP amendment from all previous enhanced I/M SIP 
revisions--including the Commonwealth's original, March 22, 1996 NHSDA 
SIP revision. While Pennsylvania's August 21, 1998 SIP revision is 
related to the March 1996 submittal, as well as to other later 
Pennsylvania enhanced I/M-related SIP revisions submitted by the 
Commonwealth, it serves to supplement the Commonwealth's enhanced I/M 
program SIP--not to replace it. Therefore, EPA has placed this revision 
in a separate rulemaking docket from all previous Pennsylvania enhanced 
I/M SIP revisions, and EPA is today acting only upon the August 21, 
1998 SIP

[[Page 49438]]

revision. In doing so, EPA is not reopening its January 27, 1997 final 
rulemaking granting conditional interim approval of the Commonwealth's 
enhanced I/M SIP.

A. National Highway Systems Designation Act Demonstration

1. Summary of Pennsylvania's Demonstration
    Pursuant to section 348 of the NHSDA, in June of 1996 Pennsylvania 
submitted a ``good faith estimate'' to support its claims for 100% of 
the credit for its decentralized, test-and-repair program, when 
compared to a centralized, test-only network. EPA approved the 
Commonwealth's ``good faith estimate'', under authority of the NHSDA, 
on January 28, 1997 (62 FR 4004). Pennsylvania commenced its enhanced 
I/M program in October of 1997, and between October 1997 to April 1998, 
over 2,700 stations in the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas were 
brought into the enhanced I/M program. By the end of April of 1998, 
Pennsylvania's operating stations had successfully completed 
approximately 1.7 million enhanced emissions tests.
    Section 348 of the NHSDA required Pennsylvania to submit a 
demonstration, based upon program data collected during the interim 
approval period, to support its good faith estimate and to demonstrate 
that the credits claimed for the decentralized program were 
appropriate. On August 21, 1998, Pennsylvania submitted a report to 
EPA, entitled ``National Highway Systems Designation Act Good Faith 
Estimate, Description of Program Effectiveness'', that describes the 
Commonwealth's efforts to ensure that the program is operating as 
effectively as originally proposed.
    Pennsylvania's demonstration is partitioned into three sections. 
The first section describes the program implementation status. The 
second section reiterates the Commonwealth's NHSDA ``good faith 
estimate,'' originally submitted to EPA in June of 1996. The final 
section describes the steps Pennsylvania has made to implement the 
commitments made in the good faith estimate, and provides the program 
data that Pennsylvania has gathered during the interim approval period 
to support the good faith estimate.
    In general, the Commonwealth's demonstration supplies data to 
substantiate its emission reduction credit claims, including: an 
overview of number the stations conducting tests; information of 
individual emissions inspectors; a comparison of bar-coded vs. manual 
VIN entry methods as a database quality assurance measure; a summary of 
the state's overt and covert audit efforts; a summary of remedial 
activities triggered by audits; examples of the automated station 
record auditing performed monthly by the state and sorted by various 
relevant parameters; and program summary data from the start-up period 
of the program.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pennsylvania cautions that this data used in support its 
program effectiveness was gathered during start-up and phase-in 
period of the program. The data is based upon less-stringent phase-
in test standards, and is affected by other aspects of the program 
that are being phased in over the first program cycle, such as: 
repair technician training requirements, phased-in limits for the 
cost of testing waivers, and program enforcement that is directed 
heavily towards the use of compliance assistance as a means to 
educate inspectors and repair technicians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, Pennsylvania's demonstration contains program 
summary data for the period between October 1997 and April 1998. The 
data includes a summary of test results (stratified by vehicle model 
year) from inspection stations in both program areas. Specifically, 
this includes: the number of tailpipe tests performed using 
acceleration simulation mode (ASM) test method and the number performed 
using the two-speed idle test method, the number of vehicles initially 
passing and failing the applicable tailpipe test, the number of 
vehicles initially failing the gas cap test, and the number of vehicles 
initially failing the visual inspection. For vehicles initially failing 
the ASM tailpipe test, the results are further segregated by those 
failing for excessive hydrocarbon or carbon monoxide emissions versus 
those failing for nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. Finally, 
the Commonwealth's demonstration contains similar data for the first 
retest performed on vehicles that failed the initial test. The 
resultant data indicates that, for the period from October of 1997 to 
April of 1998, the overall Pennsylvania program failure rate for that 
period was approximately 10%. For that period, approximately 31% of all 
1970s model year vehicles, 21% of all 1980s vehicles, and 5% of all 
1990s vehicles failed the applicable ASM or two-speed idle tailpipe, or 
the gas cap check and visual inspection. Of the approximately 160,000 
vehicles that initially failed testing during that period, 
approximately 36% passed a retest within 30 days.
    The demonstration also contains data on the Commonwealth's quality 
assurance efforts to maintain the integrity of the decentralized 
testing network, for the period from October 1997 to April of 1998. 
This information includes the results of over 2,900 overt audits 
performed by Pennsylvania's program manager contractor, MCI--1,625 for 
the Philadelphia program area and 1,286 for the Pittsburgh program 
area. Overt audits may include such checks as: checks of station/
inspector compliance with administrative/record keeping requirements, 
oversight of inspector testing, and/or reference gas analyzer 
calibration (referred to hereafter as overt audits). Every emissions 
inspection station in Pennsylvania has received at least one overt 
audit. In addition, five-point gas audits are performed at least semi-
annually upon every emission analyzer at every licensed test station. 
The Commonwealth also performs regular, monthly record audits of every 
licensed station, which entail a computerized review of a station's 
and/or inspector's testing records/results. This information is sorted 
to focus on station performance related to certain testing elements, 
and then analyzed for trends that would warrant an overt or a covert 
audit. These record audits can be done without the station even 
knowing, through the Commonwealth's computerized test record database. 
The Commonwealth also encourages consumers to request a referee test to 
double check tests performed by inspectors.
    The Commonwealth also provided information on the results of over 
1,000 covert audits conducted over this period--567 in Philadelphia and 
482 in Pittsburgh. Covert audits entail an undercover visit to a 
station by a program compliance officer, in an unmarked car, to witness 
how testing is actually performed at testing stations. The results of 
the Commonwealth's overt and covert audits are included in the 
demonstration, and constitute a summary of specific violations of state 
requirements, as noted by state auditors. Information on the 
Commonwealth's use of this audit information is also included in the 
demonstration. Violations identified during record review audits or 
overt or covert audits are addressed by the Commonwealth either through 
compliance assistance or through formal enforcement actions. For the 
period from January 1, 1998 to July of 1998, 742 potential violations 
were referred for enforcement action. Of those, 406 were remedied 
through mandatory, 3-hour training classes to educate inspectors on 
conducting proper testing. Through July, Pennsylvania conducted over 
220 hearings, with 129 pending adjudication. As a result of hearings, 
97 stations were provided compliance assistance by the Commonwealth, 
six received written warnings, and 23

[[Page 49439]]

stations were assessed compliance points, fines, and/or suspensions. 
The Commonwealth intends to hold over 90 hearings in the next several 
months to deal with outstanding violations. As a result of the 
Commonwealth's compliance assistance effort in response to I/M program 
violations, the Commonwealth intends to extend its use to all 
inspectors participating in the enhanced I/M program.
2. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's NHSDA Demonstration
    The Commonwealth's good faith estimate from June 10, 1996 indicated 
the Commonwealth's commitment to design and operate a program with 
safeguards in place to limit improper testing in its test-and-repair 
network. Pennsylvania's ``good faith estimate'' listed numerous program 
elements which would be developed and implemented to ensure that its 
decentralized enhanced I/M program would achieve the predicted results. 
These enhancements to Pennsylvania's existing basic I/M program were 
designed to ensure the proper testing and repair of vehicles, and to 
discourage the circumvention of program requirements by inspectors. 
These measures included: a stringent oversight program making extensive 
use of overt and covert audits, the use of State Police for more 
visible station/inspector enforcement, the ability to collect and to 
analyze real-time data from decentralized stations, and improvements to 
automate station data input activities (e.g., through the use of bar 
code readers). EPA believes that these measures do provide a means to 
deter improper testing in the Commonwealth's enhanced program, in 
comparison to the Commonwealth's previously existing decentralized I/M 
program.
    EPA believes that the demonstration proves that the Commonwealth's 
qualitative assessment of its program can serve as a means for EPA to 
determine whether the decentralized program deserves the full credits 
associated with a similar centralized program. EPA therefore believes 
that the Commonwealth's data collected during the interim approval 
period, and compiled in the state's August 1998 NHSDA demonstration, 
indicate that the credits claimed by the Commonwealth for its 
decentralized program network are appropriate.
    EPA believes that the variety of data supplied encompasses those 
implementation issues that most significantly impact program 
effectiveness. The summary of test results also will allow EPA to 
determine whether the Commonwealth's experience deviates greatly from 
that of other, comparable I/M programs. Using its experience with such 
programs--and taking into consideration the fact that Pennsylvania's 
program is less than a year old and therefore is still in the process 
of correcting the sort of start-up problems that all new programs 
experience--EPA concludes that approval of the Pennsylvania's I/M 
program is appropriate at this time.

B. Review of the SIP for Satisfaction of the Remaining De Minimus 
Deficiencies

    The conditions that EPA has placed upon its interim approval of 
Pennsylvania's SIP are codified at 40 CFR 52.2026. On September 2, 
1998, EPA published a DFR approving two Pennsylvania SIP revisions (63 
FR 46664)--submitted on November 13, 1997 and February 24, 1998. 
Barring adverse public comment, the DFR will be effective sixty days 
from its publication date. Once effective, this action will strike four 
of the major conditions and seven of the de minimus conditions at 40 
CFR 52.2026 (a) and (b). Specifically it will eliminate conditions (1), 
(3), (4), and (5), currently codified at 40 CFR 52.2026(a) and de 
minimus deficiencies (2), (3), (4), (6), (11), (12), and (13), 
currently codified at 40 CFR 52.2026(b).
    The deficiencies addressed by the Commonwealth's August 21, 1998 
SIP revision [ordered below as they appear at 40 CFR 52.2026(b)], 
include the following 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;
    (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);
    (7) The final I/M SIP submittal must include the RFP, or other 
legally 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 the 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 40 CFR 51.366; and
    (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.
    The Commonwealth's August 21, 1998 submittal contains contractual 
materials that address and remedy all of the approval conditions listed 
above. EPA's detailed analysis of the August 21, 1998 SIP revision and 
its rationale for determining that these conditions have been satisfied 
is provided in a technical support document (TSD) prepared by EPA in 
support of this action. That document is available, upon request, from 
the EPA Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this action.

III. EPA's Rulemaking Action

    EPA has reviewed the Commonwealth's August 21, 1998 SIP revision 
and has determined that this SIP revision adequately remedies the seven 
de minimus rulemaking conditions listed in the above section of this 
action. EPA is approving the Commonwealth's August 21, 1998 SIP 
submittal as having satisfied those de minimus conditions set forth 
previously in this document. The purpose of this approval action is to 
remove those de minimus conditions (codified at 40 CFR 52.2026(b)) 
imposed by EPA's January 28, 1997 conditional interim approval of the 
Commonwealth's enhanced I/M SIP. This action also serves to approve 
Pennsylvania's demonstration of the effectiveness of its decentralized 
vehicle emissions testing program. EPA believes that the Commonwealth's 
data and supporting information to bolster its ``good faith estimate'' 
measures demonstrate that the emissions reductions credits claimed by 
the Commonwealth for its enhanced I/M SIP are appropriate.

[[Page 49440]]

    EPA imposed fourteen de minimus conditions in its January 28, 1997 
interim conditional approval of the Pennsylvania enhanced I/M SIP 
revision, submitted by Pennsylvania to EPA in March of 1996. As 
previously stated, EPA published a DFR on September 2, 1998 approving 
I/M-related SIP revisions submitted by the Commonwealth on November 13, 
1997 and February 24, 1998. That DFR removes seven of those de minimus 
conditions, while today's direct final rulemaking action (approving the 
Commonwealth's August 21, 1998 SIP) serves to remove the seven 
remaining de minimus conditions. As indicated in EPA's January 1997 
interim conditional approval, Pennsylvania needed to satisfy all the de 
minimus deficiencies by the end of the interim approval period (i.e., 
by August 28, 1998). Today's direct final rulemaking action, coupled 
with the direct final rulemaking published on September 2, 1998, serves 
to remove all of the de minimus conditions. EPA is also approving, by 
today's action, the Commonwealth's program network effectiveness 
demonstration, as required under the NHSDA. Because the Commonwealth 
has submitted an approvable demonstration and remedied all de minimus 
requirements, EPA is acting today to remove the interim approval status 
of the Commonwealth's I/M SIP.
    However, as Pennsylvania must still provide specific information by 
November 30, 1998 to address one of the conditions imposed by EPA's 
January 28, 1997 conditional approval under the Clean Air Act (i.e., 
the Commonwealth's choice of an EPA-approved methodology for conducting 
an on-going I/M program evaluation), the Commonwealth's enhanced I/M 
SIP remains conditionally approved under the Clean Air Act.
    As a result of the above actions, EPA is today granting final 
conditional approval to the Pennsylvania enhanced I/M program SIP, 
under the authority granted under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
    Today's action removes interim approval status from the 
Commonwealth's enhanced I/M SIP. With the exception of the condition 
requiring the Commonwealth to provide specific information, by November 
30, 1998 (with regard to its chosen methodology for performing its on-
going enhanced I/M program evaluation) both today's DFR and EPA's 
September 2, 1998 DFR serve to approve SIP revision submittals which 
address the conditions imposed in EPA's January 28, 1997 conditional 
approval of the Commonwealth's enhanced I/M SIP under the Clean Air 
Act.

Final Action

    EPA is approving the Commonwealth's August 21, 1998 SIP submittal 
as having fully satisfied 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). EPA is also approving the 
Commonwealth's demonstration, submitted for the purpose of proving that 
the credits granted for the Commonwealth's decentralized I/M program 
testing network were appropriate, based upon data collected from 
operation of the Commonwealth's enhanced I/M program. On the basis of 
the data contained in the Commonwealth's demonstration, EPA believes 
that Pennsylvania has sufficiently demonstrated that its decentralized 
program is capable of achieving emissions reductions similar to those 
associated with a similarly designed, centralized program.
    On September 2, 1998, EPA published a DFR approving I/M-related SIP 
revisions. Once effective, it removes four conditions placed upon the 
Commonwealth's enhanced I/M program SIP (as codified at 40 CFR 
52.2026), as well as seven de minimus conditions. Today's direct final 
rulemaking action to approve the Commonwealth's August 1998 SIP 
revision removes the seven remaining de minimus conditions imposed upon 
the Commonwealth's enhanced I/M program SIP (as codified at 40 CFR 
52.2026).
    If EPA receives adverse comments related to the removal of these de 
minimus deficiencies, during either the comment period provided in 
today's DFR action or that of the September 2, 1998 DFR action, EPA 
will publish a timely withdrawal of today's direct final rule and will 
inform the public that the rule will not take effect. All public 
comments received on both rulemaking actions will then be addressed in 
a subsequent rule based upon the proposed rule. Again, EPA will not 
institute a second public comment period upon either this, or the 
September 2, 1998 rule.
    Today's action removes the interim status of the Commonwealth's 
enhanced I/M SIP approval. Pennsylvania must provide specific 
information to address one remaining Clean Air Act condition, set forth 
at 40 CFR 52.2026(a)(2), the Pennsylvania enhanced I/M SIP continues to 
be conditionally approved under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
    For the purpose of clarity and to avoid confusion over the 
remaining conditions upon interim approval of Pennsylvania's plan, EPA 
is removing those de minimus conditions from 40 CFR 52.2026 which have 
been satisfied by the Commonwealth's August 21, 1998 SIP revision. EPA 
is reserving the sections of 40 CFR 52.2026 that correspond to these 
conditions, so as not to renumber any potentially outstanding 
conditions of approval listed in that section.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    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.

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. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office 
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not 
create a mandate on state, local or tribal governments. The rule does 
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the 
requirements of

[[Page 49441]]

section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, representatives of Indian tribal governments 
``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of 
regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely 
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. 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. EPA's approval action today maintains conditional approval 
status, granted by EPA in January 1997. Approval of a SIP submittal 
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not create 
any new requirements but simply approves 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)).

E. 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.

F. 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).

G. 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 16, 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 28, 1998.
Thomas C. Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, 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 revising the introductory 
paragraph to read as set forth below.
    3. Section 52.2026 is further amended by removing and reserving 
paragraphs (b) (1), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (14).


Sec. 52.2026  Conditional approval

    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's March 27, 1996 submittal of its 
enhanced motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance (I/M) 
program; as amended on June 27, 1996, July 29, 1996, November 1, 1996, 
November 13, 1997, February 24, 1998, and August 21, 1998; is 
conditionally approved pending satisfaction of paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-24730 Filed 9-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P