[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 161 (Friday, August 20, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45491-45500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21661]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-6421-1]


Additional Flexibility Amendments to Vehicle Inspection 
Maintenance Program Requirements; Proposed Amendment to the Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes several substantive and minor revisions 
to the Motor Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) requirements to 
provide additional flexibility to state I/M programs, both in response 
to the I/M provisions of the National Highway System Designation Act of 
1995 (NHSDA), and in compliance with the Clean Air Act requirement that 
EPA's guidance for such programs be ``from time to time revised.'' The 
proposed amendments would: modify the current I/M performance standard 
modeling requirements to reflect delays caused by the NHSDA, and to 
provide states greater flexibility in how they meet the performance 
standard; also in response to the NHSDA, remove the I/M rule provision 
establishing the decentralized, test-and-repair credit discount; revise 
certain test procedure, standard, and equipment requirements to better 
accommodate alternative test types and program designs. This revision 
also entails changing the data collection, analysis, and reporting 
requirements to make them consistent with various alternative test and 
program types; as well as minor revisions to the inspector training 
requirements; revise the requirements for consumer protection and 
improving repair effectiveness to limit the current requirement to 
provide diagnostic information to those programs and test types capable 
of producing such information, reliably and practically; expand the 
options for complying with the on-road testing requirement to 
accommodate more recent variations, such as clean screening and non-
tailpipe based, roadside tests.

DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received no later than 
September 20, 1999. No public hearing will be held unless a request is 
received in writing by September 7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in duplicate 
if possible) to Public Docket No. A-99-19. It is requested that a 
duplicate copy be submitted to David Sosnowski at the address in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below. The docket is located at 
the Air Docket, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall SW, Washington, DC 
20460. The docket may be inspected between 8:30 a.m. and 12 noon and 
between 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying docket material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sosnowski, Office of Mobile 
Sources, Regional and State Programs Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann 
Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (734) 214-4823.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Contents

II. Summary of Proposal
III. Authority
IV. Background of the Proposed Amendments
    A. Performance Standard Amendments
    B. Network Requirement Amendments
    C. Test Procedure and Related Amendments
    D. Consumer Protection and Repair Effectiveness Amendments
    E. On-Road Testing Amendments
V. Discussion of Major Issues
    A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments
    B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs
VI. Economic Costs and Benefits
VII. Public Participation
VIII. Administrative Requirements
    A. Administrative Designation
    B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Act
    E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership

[[Page 45492]]

    F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

II. Summary of Proposal

    Under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the 
Federal Register on November 5, 1992, (40 CFR part 51, subpart S) a 
rule related to state air quality implementation plans for Motor 
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs (hereafter referred 
to as the I/M rule; see 57 FR 52950). EPA is proposing today to further 
amend this rule to provide greater flexibility to states to tailor 
their I/M programs to better meet local needs, both now and in the 
future. With today's notice EPA proposes to: (1) Amend the enhanced I/M 
performance standard requirements at 40 CFR 51.351 to change the 
performance standard modeling requirement from demonstrating that the 
performance standard is met on 2000 and each subsequent milestone 
(through to and including the attainment deadline) to a requirement 
that the performance standard be met (within +/- 0.02 grams-per-mile) 
on 2002, and that the same or better level of emission reduction be 
demonstrated for the attainment deadline, rounded to the nearest year; 
(2) in response to the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 
(NHSDA) and to provide greater flexibility to the states with regard to 
network design options: (a) Delete 40 CFR 51.353(b) which previously 
established the decentralized, test-and-repair credit discount, and (b) 
revise the definition of test-only at 40 CFR 51.353(a) to allow test-
only stations to sell self-serve gasoline, pre-packaged oil, and any 
other items that are not directly related to automotive parts sales 
and/or service; (3) to better accommodate alternative test types and 
program designs: (a) Revise the test procedures and standards 
requirements at 40 CFR 51.357 to clarify that tailpipe exhaust testing 
is not a universal requirement for all I/M programs, that alternatives 
to the IM240 drive cycle are allowed under the requirements for 
transient testing, and that the standard for an acceptable alternative 
test is comparability, not necessarily equivalence, (b) revise the test 
equipment requirements at 40 CFR 51.358 to make the definition of 
``computerized analyzer'' less prescriptive and to relax the 
requirement for a real-time data link for those areas required to do I/
M, but which do not need to claim I/M emission reductions to meet their 
other, non-I/M CAA requirements, and (c) revise the data collection, 
analysis, and reporting requirements at 40 CFR 51.365 and 40 CFR 51.366 
to clarify that the specific elements to be collected and reported are 
only required where applicable to the test type employed, and to make 
the requirements less prescriptive with regard to the test types 
assumed; (4) revise the requirements for consumer protection at 40 CFR 
51.368 and improving repair effectiveness at 40 CFR 51.369 to limit the 
current requirement to provide diagnostic information to those programs 
and test types capable of producing such information, reliably and 
practically, and; (5) expand the options for complying with the on-road 
testing requirement at 40 CFR 51.371 by: (a) Removing language 
suggesting that such testing must be tailpipe-based, and (b) inserting 
language making the out-of-cycle repair requirement optional where on-
road testing is used as a clean-screen approach.
    The goal of these proposed amendments is to bring the rule up-to-
date with current policy decisions and statutory requirements, while 
also providing states the additional flexibility they need to tailor 
their I/M programs now to better meet their future needs. Among these 
future needs are: (1) The need to maximize program efficiency and 
customer convenience by capitalizing on newer vehicle testing options, 
such as on-board diagnostic (OBD) system testing; (2) the need to 
accommodate an in-use fleet turning over to newer, cleaner, and more 
durable vehicle technologies over time; and (3) the need to assess the 
role I/M should play in areas once they have attained the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

III. Authority

    Authority for the rule change proposed in this notice is granted to 
EPA by section 182 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et 
seq.) and by section 348 of the National Highway System Designation Act 
of 1995 (23 U.S.C. 101).

IV. Background of the Proposed Amendments

A. Performance Standard Amendments

    Section 182(c)(3)(B)(i) of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 
requires EPA to develop a performance standard for enhanced I/M areas 
to meet. EPA's I/M rule currently requires I/M programs to produce the 
same or better emission reductions as would be achieved by one of three 
possible enhanced I/M performance standards 1--the high 
enhanced, low enhanced, and OTR low enhanced I/M performance standards. 
Currently, states demonstrate meeting the relevant performance standard 
by modeling their desired program along side the performance standard 
program, and comparing both to a no-I/M-program scenario, using the 
most current version of EPA's mobile source emission factor model, 
MOBILE, and assuming local conditions for fuel type, average 
temperature, fleet age distribution, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 
accumulation, etc. The 1992 I/M rule required that enhanced I/M 
programs show they could meet the relevant performance standard 
beginning with a 2000 evaluation date (which was considered the closest 
modeling equivalent to the CAA's November 15, 1999 milestone date for 
Reasonable Further Progress) and for each CAA milestone thereafter 
(also rounded to the nearest evaluation year) through, to and including 
the relevant attainment date. EPA's policy for milestones beginning 
with 2003 and later was to consider the standard met if the projected 
emission reductions for the state's program came within 
0.02 grams-per-mile (gpm) of the performance standard's 
projected reductions, due to the uncertainty of modeled benefits for 
evaluation years after 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The current I/M rule actually contains four enhanced I/M 
performance standards as a result of a typographical oversight when 
EPA introduced its original flexibility amendments in 1995. EPA 
intended to delete the standard described in 40 CFR 51.351(a) and 
replace it with the standard described in paragraph (f) of that 
section. Unfortunately, both standards were retained. Along with the 
other actions proposed today, EPA proposes to correct this 
oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's proposal would change the current enhanced I/M performance 
standard requirements in three ways:
    First, today's proposal would change the requirement that enhanced 
I/M programs demonstrate meeting the performance standard beginning 
with 2000 and on each subsequent milestone through to and including 
attainment. Due to delays in program implementation arising from EPA's 
own 1995 and 1996 I/M flexibility amendments and the I/M provisions of 
the NHSDA, EPA proposes to push back the first required evaluation date 
by two years, to 2002. This proposed revision recognizes that as a 
result many programs delayed full implementation beyond a date that 
would allow for

[[Page 45493]]

meeting the performance standard before 2002.
    Second, EPA proposes to reduce the modeling burden on states by 
limiting the number of milestones modeled to a maximum of two: 2002 
and, for those areas with post-2002 attainment deadlines, the relevant 
CAA attainment deadline, rounded up to the nearest year. In the latter 
case--the attainment deadline milestone--the grams-per-mile (gpm) or 
percent reduction target for comparison would be the same as that 
modeled for the 2002 milestone; states would not be required to model 
the performance standard scenario for more than one evaluation date to 
establish the relevant gpm or percent reduction target. Rather, states 
must show that in the attainment year the area continues to show 
compliance with the performance standard as originally modeled for the 
2002 compliance date. The purpose of this proposal is to streamline the 
I/M rule's modeling requirements and provide additional flexibility to 
the states, while still insuring that state I/M programs demonstrate 
compliance with the relevant performance standard.
    Third, today's proposal would apply the current 2003 
0.02 gpm rounding policy one year earlier--to the 2002 
milestone. The original 2003 rounding policy was developed when it was 
discovered that, due to uncertainties related to long-term projections, 
even areas adopting EPA's recommended program appeared to be having 
trouble demonstrating compliance with the performance standard for 
post-2001 milestones, once local parameters such as vehicle age 
distribution were taken into consideration. Under the original I/M 
rule, there was no 2002 milestone. Instead, the ozone-based milestones 
began with 2000, followed by 2003; in between these was the carbon 
monoxide (CO) milestone of 2001, for those enhanced I/M areas in 
nonattainment for CO. The original 0.02 gpm rounding policy was 
actually a post-2001 policy, and was applied to what was then the first 
post-2001 milestone (i.e., 2003). With the delays caused by the I/M 
flexibility amendments and the NHSDA (discussed above), a new post-2001 
milestone became necessary. EPA believes it is therefore appropriate to 
apply the 0.02 gpm rounding policy to this new milestone, and proposes 
to formalize that change as part of today's proposed amendments.

B. Network Requirement Amendments

    Regarding I/M program network design requirements, the Clean Air 
Act as amended in 1990 does not prescribe a network for basic I/M 
programs while, at the same time, section 182(c)(3)(C)(vi) of the Act 
requires that enhanced I/M programs shall be operated ``on a 
centralized basis, unless the State demonstrates to the satisfaction of 
the Administrator that a decentralized program will be equally 
effective.'' In response to this provision, the 1992 I/M rule defined a 
decentralized network design that EPA deemed presumptively equivalent 
to a centralized program. The core difference between traditional 
centralized versus decentralized I/M programs--EPA then maintained--was 
the conflict-of-interest the latter were assumed to suffer from, 
because most such programs allowed the same individuals who tested the 
vehicle to also perform repairs and then retest the vehicle to 
determine the effectiveness of those repairs. It was therefore 
concluded that a decentralized program that separated these functions 
(i.e., a so-called ``test-only'' program) would be presumptively 
equivalent to a centralized program. In May 1994, EPA issued a policy 
document entitled, ``EPA Policy on Decentralized, Test-Only Stations,'' 
which interpreted the 1992 I/M rule as further barring decentralized, 
test-only stations from engaging in virtually all other for-profit 
activities other than testing, prohibiting (for example) the sale of 
convenience store type items. This prohibition was based upon the 
further assumption that decentralized stations would otherwise use the 
guarantee of a passing test as a way to attract customers to their 
other sales and services.
    In 1995, the substance of the Clean Air Act's enhanced I/M network 
requirement was amended by implication by Section 348(b) of the 
National Highway System Designation Act which specified that ``[t]he 
Administrator shall not disapprove or apply an automatic discount to a 
State implementation plan revision under section 182 or 187 of the 
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7511a; 7512a) on the basis of a policy, 
regulation, or guidance providing for a discount of emissions credits 
because the inspection and maintenance program in such plan revision is 
decentralized or a test-and-repair program.'' States opting for the 
NHSDA's flexibility were allowed to claim prospective emission 
reduction credit for their I/M SIPs based upon a ``good faith 
estimate,'' and were to be granted an interim approval which would 
lapse after 18 months if the credit claims were not substantiated by 
way of a program effectiveness demonstration. While states were given a 
limited time during which they could apply for interim approval under 
the NHSDA (i.e., by March 28, 1996), the Highway Act's prohibition 
against automatic, decentralized or test-and-repair discounts has no 
such expiration date and therefore remains in effect permanently.
    Today's proposal would amend the program network requirements at 40 
CFR 51.353 in two ways:
    First, the proposal would delete 40 CFR 51.353(b) which first 
established the automatic credit discount for decentralized, test-and-
repair I/M programs. This amendment is proposed in recognition of and 
compliance with the requirements of the National Highway System 
Designation Act of 1995.
    Second, the proposal would explicitly extend the definition of 
decentralized test-only to allow such stations to engage in the full 
range of sales not directly related to automotive parts sales or 
service, including but not limited to the sale of self-serve gasoline, 
pre-packaged oil, and other, non-automotive, convenience store items. 
This proposal is based upon EPA's determination that a literal reading 
of the 1992 I/M rule's definition does not support the broader 
prohibitions set by the subsequent, 1994 policy. Such prohibitions have 
been deemed irrelevant, post-NHSDA.

C. Test Procedure and Related Amendments

    Section 182(c)(3)(C)(i) of the 1990 Clean Air Act established the 
minimum requirements for enhanced I/M programs regarding test equipment 
by stating that such programs must include ``(c)omputerized emission 
analyzers, including on-road testing devices.'' The 1992 I/M rule, in 
interpreting this requirement, was driven by the assumption that all 
enhanced I/M programs would include IM240 tailpipe emission testing and 
most (i.e., those required for ozone nonattainment or transport areas) 
would also include evaporative system purge and pressure testing. As a 
result, the 1992 I/M rule's requirements for test procedures and 
standards at 40 CFR 51.357 and test equipment at 40 CFR 51.358 (as well 
as other, related requirements throughout the 1992 I/M rule) tend to be 
prescriptive to the point of excluding valid, alternative, non-IM240 
test methodologies. This is especially the case since EPA promulgated 
the I/M flexibility amendments in 1995 and 1996, and since passage of 
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, which, taken 
together, provided states the opportunity to explore a wide range of 
alternative test type and network design combinations not

[[Page 45494]]

anticipated under the 1992 I/M rule. For example, it is currently 
possible for some areas to design programs that meet the required 
enhanced I/M performance standard without any tailpipe testing at all, 
using, instead, a combination of alternative evaporative system 
pressure testing methods, onboard diagnostic system checks, and visual 
antitampering inspections. The problem is that the I/M rule, as 
currently written, includes several provisions effecting test 
procedures which assume tailpipe testing as a given, thus unnecessarily 
discouraging areas from pursuing a design option which otherwise meets 
the areas' needs and local conditions.
    In response to the above dilemma, today's proposal would revise the 
I/M rule in three areas:
    First, the proposal would revise the test procedure and standard 
requirements at 40 CFR 51.357 to clarify that tailpipe exhaust testing 
is not a universal requirement for all I/M programs and that 
alternatives to the IM240 drive cycle are allowed under the 
requirements for transient testing. These revisions would be achieved 
largely by deleting the words ``tailpipe'' and ``IM240,'' and inserting 
the caveat ``where applicable,'' as needed. Similar amendments would be 
made elsewhere in the regulatory text, to the extent that the existing 
text creates the impression that IM240 or tailpipe testing are absolute 
requirements, or that alternative test methods are otherwise barred.
    The proposal would also clarify that the standard for an acceptable 
alternative test is comparability, not necessarily equivalence. 
Establishing ``equivalence'' as the standard for acceptability has the 
effect of requiring that alternative tests individually get the same 
level of reductions as the test being replaced. EPA believes that this 
is an unnecessarily strict standard, and somewhat arbitrary if other 
program parameters can be adjusted so the overall performance standard 
is still met. That is, a slightly less effective test could still be 
acceptable if performed more frequently or on a larger number of 
vehicles to offset potential emission reduction losses due to the 
alternative test's being comparable, but not strictly equivalent.
    Second, the proposal would revise the test equipment requirements 
at 40 CFR 51.358 to make the regulatory definition of ``computerized 
analyzer'' less prescriptive to allow evaporative emission testing 
devices and onboard diagnostic computer (OBD) scanners to qualify as 
``computerized analyzers'' under the Act. The current regulatory 
definition of ``computerized analyzers'' focuses on a system centered 
on a traditional, personal computer, with keyboard input, etc. EPA 
believes this is no longer appropriate under the Clean Air Act, given 
the recent changes under the NHSDA discussed above. Under the broader 
definition proposed, the focus would concentrate on the existence of a 
central processing unit, and whether or not the criteria for making 
pass/fail decisions are automated. EPA also proposes to relax the 
requirement for a real-time data link for those areas required to do I/
M, but which do not need to claim I/M emission reductions to meet their 
other, non-I/M CAA requirements. This is proposed to provide 
flexibility to those areas which are not relying on I/M to meet their 
CAA goals and that have opted to employ stand-alone test equipment that 
is not readily connected to a centralized, real-time database. EPA 
believes a real-time data link is not necessary for these types of 
programs.
    Third, the proposal would revise the data collection, analysis, and 
reporting requirements at 40 CFR 51.365 and 40 CFR 51.366 to clarify 
that the elements to be collected and reported are only required where 
applicable to the program type in use in the area, and to make the 
requirements less prescriptive with regard to the test types assumed. 
These proposed revisions would also have the effect of streamlining 
this portion of the rule and would likely reduce the paperwork burden 
these reporting requirements place on states without compromising 
overall program effectiveness.

D. Consumer Protection and Repair Effectiveness Amendments

    Section 51.368(a) of the I/M rule currently requires that enhanced 
I/M programs provide motorists that fail the inspection with 
``software-generated, interpretive diagnostic information based on the 
particular portions of the test that were failed.'' Section 51.369(c) 
of the I/M rule requires that repair technicians receive training in 
diagnostic theory related to transient and evaporative emission test 
failures. In both cases, these requirements were developed based upon 
the assumption that enhanced I/M programs would be built around the 
IM240 test and would produce second-by-second emissions data that could 
be used as an important diagnostic tool, with certain component 
failures producing characteristic speed versus emission traces. Since 
the 1992 rule was promulgated, however, a wide-range of non-transient, 
alternative I/M tests have been approved for use in enhanced I/M 
programs. These tests do not produce the detailed kind of diagnostic 
information that is possible with a transient test like the IM240, 
though they are certainly capable of producing generic diagnostic 
information, based upon which tests and/or standards are failed. 
Therefore, today's proposal would revise the diagnostic information 
provisions at 40 CFR 51.368 and 40 CFR 51.369 to make the requirement 
to provide diagnostic information more generic and only required where 
applicable to the test type employed.

E. On-Road Testing Amendments

    Section 182(c)(3)(C)(i) of the 1990 Clean Air Act requires that 
enhanced I/M programs include ``on-road testing devices.'' In its 1992 
I/M rule, EPA indicated that this requirement could be met by either 
using remote sensing devices (RSD) or by conducting road-side pull-
over, tailpipe testing. In either case, vehicles which failed the test 
were required to get out-of-cycle repairs, the presumption being that 
the purpose of such testing was to identify dirty vehicles in need of 
such repairs.
    Today's proposal would revise the on-road testing requirements at 
40 CFR 51.371 in two ways:
    First, the proposal would remove language suggesting that the road-
side pull-over test must be a tailpipe test. The purpose of this change 
is to open up this requirement so that it can be met using alternative 
evaporative system pressure testing and/or OBD conducted at the 
roadside, consistent with changes in I/M program design discussed 
above.
    Second, the proposal would remove the requirement for out-of-cycle 
repairs where on-road testing is used as a pre-test clean screen 
method. The purpose of this change is to allow states to use 
alternative applications for RSD that have been developed since the 
1992 I/M rule was promulgated. These alternatives include an approach 
known as ``clean screening,'' where the goal is not to identify high 
polluting vehicles for out-of-cycle repairs, but rather to identify 
especially clean vehicles which can be exempted from the routine test. 
Since such clean screening programs do not generate emission reductions 
so much as run the risk of losing those reductions by falsely 
identifying (and therefore exempting) vehicles needing repairs as 
``clean,'' the proposal would also clarify that only on-road programs 
requiring out-of-cycle repairs are eligible to claim additional 
emission reduction credit for such pre-screening on-road testing.

[[Page 45495]]

V. Discussion of Major Issues

A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments

    Today's proposal introduces additional flexibilities which EPA 
believes are needed to allow states to adopt and/or revise their I/M 
programs in a way which helps them to meet local needs as smoothly as 
possible. Today's proposal is also aimed at removing certain 
restrictions in the 1992 I/M rule that would impede transition to the 
I/M of the future, which EPA believes will focus largely on OBD-based 
testing technologies available on 1996 and later model-year vehicles, 
as opposed to today's traditional tailpipe tests. Although today's 
proposal does have the potential for allowing some states to implement 
more modest I/M programs than would otherwise be the case, nothing in 
this notice should be construed as requiring or compelling states to 
downsize their programs. Furthermore, nothing in this notice changes 
the Clean Air Act's other requirements with regard to 15%, Reasonable 
Further Progress, or Attainment plans. Instead, this proposal is aimed 
at allowing states greater flexibility in deciding how to apportion the 
emission reductions they need, reflecting local needs and conditions to 
the best extent possible. In that regard, the intention of this 
proposal is to take the focus off ``I/M for the sake of I/M'' and 
return it where it belongs--on cleaning the air by whatever method 
makes the most sense.

B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs

    Only states that choose to utilize the additional flexibilities 
discussed in this notice will be affected by today's proposal to change 
the I/M rule. Modifications to a state's I/M program as a result of 
this rule change may require a SIP revision, if a plan has already been 
submitted and approved. Each case is likely to be different, depending 
upon the magnitude and direction of the change. It is important to note 
that today's proposal in no way increases the existing burden on 
states. States that currently comply, or are in the process of 
complying, with the existing I/M rule would only be affected by today's 
rule revisions if they so choose. Today's proposed amendments represent 
options (not obligations or requirements) for those states that choose 
to take advantage of the flexibilities proposed in today's notice.
    Should a state with an approved I/M program for which credit is 
being claimed as part of an approved Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) 
and/or Attainment SIP choose to revise its I/M program in such a way as 
to lower the emission reductions attributable to the I/M program, then 
such state will need to not only revise its I/M SIP but also its 
affected RFP and Attainment SIPs to address this shortfall. 
Specifically, the emission reduction losses due to the state's changes 
to its I/M program will have to be made up through the adoption and 
implementation of additional measures which will need to be 
incorporated as revisions to the affected RFP and Attainment SIPs. Such 
revisions will be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, and must be 
approved by the Administrator.

VI. Economic Costs and Benefits

    Today's proposed revisions provide states additional flexibility 
that lessens rather than increases the potential economic burden on 
states. Furthermore, states are under no obligation, legal or 
otherwise, to modify existing plans meeting the previously applicable 
requirements as a result of today's proposal.

VII. Public Participation

    EPA desires full public participation in arriving at final 
decisions in this rulemaking action. EPA solicits comments on all 
aspects of this proposal from all parties. Wherever applicable, full 
supporting data and detailed analysis should also be submitted to allow 
EPA to make maximum use of the comments. All comments should be 
directed to the Air Docket, Docket No. A-99-19.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

    It has been determined that these proposed amendments to the I/M 
rule do not constitute a significant regulatory action under the terms 
of Executive Order 12866 and this action is therefore not subject to 
OMB review. Any impacts associated with these revisions do not 
constitute additional burdens when compared to the existing I/M 
requirements published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (57 
FR 52950) as amended. Nor does the proposed amendment create an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or otherwise adversely 
affect the economy or the environment. It is not inconsistent with nor 
does it interfere with actions by other agencies. It does not alter 
budgetary impacts of entitlements or other programs, and it does not 
raise any new or unusual legal or policy issues.

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement

    There are no additional information requirements in this 
supplemental proposed rule which require the approval of the Office of 
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this proposal will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities and, therefore, is not subject to the requirement of a 
Regulatory Impact Analysis. A small entity may include a small 
government entity or jurisdiction. This certification is based on the 
fact that the I/M areas impacted by the proposed rulemaking do not meet 
the definition of a small government jurisdiction, that is, 
``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school 
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 
50,000.'' The basic and enhanced I/M requirements only apply to 
urbanized areas with population in excess of either 100,000 or 200,000 
depending on location. Furthermore, the impact created by the proposed 
action does not increase the preexisting burden of the existing rules 
which this proposal seeks to amend.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

    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 where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more. 
Under Sec. 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objective 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 impacted by the rule. To the extent that the rules 
being proposed by this action would impose any mandate at all as 
defined in Sec. 101 of the Unfunded Mandates Act upon the state, local, 
or tribal governments, or the private sector, as explained above, this 
proposed rule is not estimated to impose costs in excess of $100 
million. Therefore, EPA has not prepared a statement with respect to 
budgetary impacts. As noted above, this rule offers opportunities to 
states that would enable them to lower economic burdens

[[Page 45496]]

from those resulting from the currently existing I/M rule.

E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

    Under Executive Order 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, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to 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, any written communications 
from the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 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 section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to 
this rule.

F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly 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, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to 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, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
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. Today's rule does not create a mandate on tribal 
governments or create any additional burden or requirements for tribal 
government. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined 
under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety 
risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect 
on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency 
must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned 
rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable 
to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives 
considered by the Agency. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to 
those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such 
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to E.O. 
13045 because it is not economically significant under E.O. 12866 and 
because it is based on technology performance and not on health or 
safety risks.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary 
consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods, 
sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards 
bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary 
consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and 
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal 
agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations 
when an agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary 
consensus standards.
    These proposed amendments do not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Transportation.

    Dated: August 6, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 51 of title 40, 
chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended 
to read as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 51 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    2. Section 51.350 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 51.350  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) Requirements after attainment. All I/M programs shall provide 
that the program will remain effective, even if the area is 
redesignated to attainment status or the standard is otherwise rendered 
no longer applicable, until the State submits and EPA approves a SIP 
revision which convincingly demonstrates that the area can maintain the 
relevant standard(s) without benefit of the emission reductions 
attributable to the I/M program. The State shall commit to fully 
implement and enforce the program until such a demonstration can be 
made and approved by EPA. At a minimum, for the purposes of SIP 
approval, legislation authorizing the program shall not sunset prior to 
the attainment deadline for the applicable National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS).
* * * * *
    3. Section 51.351 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs 
(a), revisings (b), (f) introductory text, (f)(13), (g)(13) and (h)(11) 
to read as follows:

[[Page 45497]]

Sec. 51.351  Enhanced I/M performance standard.

    (a) [Reserved]
    (b) On-road testing. The performance standard shall include on-road 
testing (including out-of-cycle repairs in the case of confirmed 
failures) of at least 0.5% of the subject vehicle population, or 20,000 
vehicles whichever is less, as a supplement to the periodic inspection 
required in paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this section. Specific 
requirements are listed in Sec. 51.371 of this subpart.
* * * * *
    (f) High Enhanced Performance Standard. Enhanced I/M programs shall 
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), achieved from highway mobile sources as a result 
of the program. The emission levels achieved by the State's program 
design shall be calculated using the most current version, at the time 
of submittal, of the EPA mobile source emission factor model or an 
alternative model approved by the Administrator, and shall meet the 
minimum performance standard both in operation and for SIP approval. 
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 subject to enhanced I/M and subject areas in 
the Ozone Transport Region, the performance standard must be met for 
both oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 
except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section. Except as provided 
in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section, the model program elements 
for the enhanced I/M performance standard shall be as follows:
* * * * *
    (13) Evaluation date. Enhanced I/M program areas subject to the 
provisions of this paragraph shall be shown to obtain the same or lower 
emission levels as the model program described in this paragraph by 
January 1, 2002 to within +/-0.02 gpm. Subject programs shall 
demonstrate through modeling the ability to maintain this level of 
emission reduction (or better) through their attainment deadline for 
the applicable NAAQS standard(s).
    (g) * * *
    (13) Evaluation date. Enhanced I/M program areas subject to the 
provisions of this paragraph shall be shown to obtain the same or lower 
emission levels as the model program described in this paragraph by 
January 1, 2002 to within +/-0.02 gpm. Subject programs shall 
demonstrate through modeling the ability to maintain this level of 
emission reduction (or better) through their attainment deadline for 
the applicable NAAQS standard(s).
    (h) * * *
    (11) Evaluation date. Enhanced I/M program areas subject to the 
provisions of this paragraph shall be shown to obtain the same or lower 
VOC and NOx emission levels as the model program described in this 
paragraph by January 1, 2002 to within +/-0.02 gpm. Subject programs 
shall demonstrate through modeling the ability to maintain this level 
of emission reduction (or better) through their attainment deadline for 
the applicable NAAQS standard(s). Equality of substituted emission 
reductions to the benefits of the low enhanced performance standard 
must be demonstrated for the same evaluation date.
    4. Section 51.353 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (a) and by removing and reserving (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.353  Network type and program evaluation.

    Basic and enhanced I/M programs can be centralized, decentralized, 
or a hybrid of the two at the State's discretion, but shall be 
demonstrated to achieve the same (or better) level of emission 
reduction as the applicable performance standard described in either 
Sec. 51.351 or Sec. 51.352 of this subpart. For decentralized programs 
other than those meeting the design characteristics described in 
paragraph (a) of this section, the State must demonstrate that the 
program is achieving the level of effectiveness claimed in the plan 
within 12 months of the plan's approval. The adequacy of these 
demonstrations will be judged by the Administrator on a case-by-case 
basis through notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    (a) Presumptive equivalency. A decentralized network consisting of 
stations that only perform official I/M testing (which may include 
safety-related inspections) and in which owners and employees of those 
stations, or companies owning those stations, are contractually or 
legally barred from engaging in motor vehicle repair or service, motor 
vehicle parts sales, and motor vehicle sale and leasing, either 
directly or indirectly, and are barred from referring vehicle owners to 
particular providers of motor vehicle repair services (except as 
provided in Sec. 51.369(b)(1) of this subpart) shall be considered 
presumptively equivalent to a centralized, test-only system including 
comparable test elements. States may allow such stations to engage in 
the full range of sales not covered by the above prohibition, including 
self-serve gasoline, pre-packaged oil, or other, non-automotive, 
convenience store items. At the State's discretion, such stations may 
also fulfill other functions typically carried out by the State such as 
renewal of vehicle registration and driver's licenses, or tax and fee 
collections. Decentralized networks designed around these restrictions 
need not provide any additional demonstration to substantiate their I/M 
SIP emission reduction credit claims, with the exception of the 
biennial program evaluation required of all enhanced I/M programs and 
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (b) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    5. Section 51.357 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), 
(a)(6), (a)(11), and (a)(13) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.357  Test procedures and standards.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) An official test, once initiated, shall be performed in its 
entirety regardless of intermediate outcomes except in the case of 
invalid test condition, unsafe conditions, fast pass/fail algorithms, 
or, in the case of the on-board diagnostic (OBD) system check, unset 
readiness codes.
    (4) Tests involving measurement shall be performed with program-
approved equipment that has been calibrated according to the quality 
procedures contained in appendix A to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (6) Vehicles shall be retested after repair for any portion of the 
inspection that is failed on the previous test to determine if repairs 
were effective. To the extent that repair to correct a previous failure 
could lead to failure of another portion of the test, that portion 
shall also be retested. Evaporative system repairs shall trigger an 
exhaust emissions retest (in programs which conduct an exhaust emission 
test as part of the initial inspection).
* * * * *
    (11) Transient emission test. The transient emission test shall 
consist of mass emission measurement using a constant volume sampler 
(or an Administrator-approved alternative methodology for accounting 
for exhaust volume) while the vehicle is driven through a computer-
monitored driving cycle on a dynamometer. The driving cycle shall 
include acceleration, deceleration, and idle operating modes as 
specified in appendix E to this subpart (or an approved alternative).

[[Page 45498]]

The driving cycle may be ended earlier using approved fast pass or fast 
fail algorithms and multiple pass/fail algorithms may be used during 
the test cycle to eliminate false failures. The transient test 
procedure, including algorithms and other procedural details, shall be 
approved by the Administrator prior to use in an I/M program.
* * * * *
    (13) Approval of alternative tests. Alternative test procedures may 
be approved if the Administrator finds that such procedures would 
produce comparable emission reductions from the I/M program as a whole, 
in combination with other program elements.
* * * * *
    6. Section 51.358 is amended by revising the introductory text, 
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iv), 
(a)(3) introductory text, (a)(3)(iv), (a)(3)(vi), (a)(3)(ix), (b) 
introductory text, (b)(2) and (c) and by removing and reserving (b)(1) 
and (3) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.358  Test equipment.

    Computerized test systems are required for performing an official 
emissions test on subject vehicles.
    (a) Performance features of computerized test systems. With the 
exception of test procedures relying upon a vehicle's onboard 
diagnostic (OBD) system (which is certified as part of the overall 
vehicle certification process), the test equipment shall be certified 
by the program, and newly acquired systems shall be subjected to 
acceptance test procedures to ensure compliance with program 
specifications.
    (2) * * *
    (i) Shall be automated;
    (ii) Shall be secured from tampering and/or abuse;
    (iii) * * *
    (iv) Shall be capable of simultaneously sampling dual exhaust 
vehicles in the case of tailpipe-based emission test equipment.
    (3) The vehicle owner or driver shall be provided with a record of 
test results, including all of the items listed in 40 CFR part 85, 
subpart W as being required on the test record (as applicable). The 
test report shall include:
* * * * *
    (iv) The type(s) of test(s) performed;
* * * * *
    (vi) The test results, by test, and, where applicable, by 
pollutant;
* * * * *
    (ix) For vehicles that fail the emission test, information on the 
possible cause(s) of the failure.
    (b) Functional characteristics of computerized test systems. The 
test system is composed of motor vehicle test equipment controlled by a 
computerized processor and shall make automatic pass/fail decisions.
    (1) [Reserved]
    (2) Test systems in enhanced I/M programs shall include a real-time 
data link to a host computer that prevents unauthorized multiple 
initial tests on the same vehicle in a test cycle and to insure test 
record accuracy. For areas which have demonstrated the ability to meet 
their other, non-I/M Clean Air Act requirements without relying on 
emission reductions from the I/M program (and which have also elected 
to employ stand-alone test equipment as part of the I/M program), such 
areas may adopt alternative methods for preventing multiple initial 
tests, subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (3) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (c) SIP requirements. The SIP shall include written technical 
specifications for all test equipment used in the program and shall 
address each of the above requirements (as applicable). The 
specifications shall describe the testing process, the necessary test 
equipment, the required features, and written acceptance testing 
criteria and procedures.
    7. Section 51.359 is amended by revising the introductory text, and 
paragraph (a)(1), removing and reserving (a)(3) and revising (c) and 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.359  Quality control.

    Quality control measures shall insure that emission testing 
equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection, 
calibration records, and control charts are accurately created, 
recorded and maintained (where applicable).
    (a) * * * (1) The practices described in this section and in 
appendix A to this subpart shall be followed for those tests (or 
portions of tests) which fall into the testing categories identified. 
Alternatives or exceptions to these procedures or frequencies may be 
approved by the Administrator based on a demonstration of comparable 
performance.
    (2) * * *
    (3) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (c) Requirements for transient exhaust emission test equipment. 
Equipment shall be maintained according to demonstrated good 
engineering practices to assure test accuracy. Computer control of 
quality assurance checks and quality control charts shall be used 
whenever possible. Exceptions to the procedures and the frequency of 
the checks described in appendix A of this subpart may be approved by 
the Administrator based on a demonstration of comparable performance.
    (d) Requirements for evaporative system functional test equipment. 
Equipment shall be maintained according to demonstrated good 
engineering practices to assure test accuracy. Computer control of 
quality assurance checks and quality control charts shall be used 
whenever possible. Exceptions to the procedures and the frequency of 
the checks described in appendix A of this subpart may be approved by 
the Administrator based on a demonstration of comparable performance.
* * * * *
    8. Section 51.362 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and 
(b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.362  Motorist compliance enforcement program oversight.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Facilitation of accurate critical test data and vehicle 
identifier collection through the use of automatic data capture systems 
such as bar-code scanners or optical character readers, or through 
redundant data entry (where applicable);
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Maintain and ensure the accuracy of the testing database 
through periodic internal and/or third-party review;
* * * * *
    9. Section 51.363 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4)(vii), 
(b)(1), (c)(10), (d)(1)(i) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.363  Quality assurance.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (vii) Where applicable, access to on-line inspection databases by 
State personnel to permit the creation and maintenance of covert 
vehicle records.
    (b) * * *
    (1) Automated record analysis to identify statistical 
inconsistencies, unusual patterns, and other discrepancies;
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (10) A check of the pressure monitoring devices used to perform the 
evaporative canister pressure test(s); and
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 45499]]

    (i) The use of test equipment and/or procedures;
* * * * *
    10. Section 51.365 is amended by revising the introductory text, 
paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(23), (a)(24), (a)(25), and (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 51.365  Data collection.

    Accurate data collection is essential to the management, 
evaluation, and enforcement of an I/M program. The program shall gather 
test data on individual vehicles, as well as quality control data on 
test equipment (with the exception of test procedures for which either 
no testing equipment is required or those test procedures relying upon 
a vehicle's OBD system).
    (a) * * *
    (3) Test system number (where applicable);
* * * * *
    (23) Results of the evaporative system pressure test(s) expressed 
as a pass or fail;
    (24) Results of the evaporative system purge test expressed as a 
pass or fail along with the total purge flow in liters achieved during 
the test (where applicable); and
    (25) Results of the on-board diagnostic check expressed as a pass 
or fail along with the diagnostic trouble codes revealed (where 
applicable).
    (b) Quality control data. At a minimum, the program shall gather 
and report the results of the quality control checks required under 
Sec. 51.359 of this subpart, identifying each check by station number, 
system number, date, and start time. The data report shall also contain 
the concentration values of the calibration gases used to perform the 
gas characterization portion of the quality control checks (where 
applicable).
    11. Section 51.366 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i), 
(a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(iv), (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(vi), (b)(3)(i), 
(b)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.366  Data analysis and reporting.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Failing initially, per test type;
    (ii) Failing the first retest per test type;
    (iii) Passing the first retest per test type;
    (iv) Initially failed vehicles passing the second or subsequent 
retest per test type;
    (v) Initially failed vehicles receiving a waiver; and
    (vi) Vehicles with no known final outcome (regardless of reason).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Conducted with the vehicle set to fail per test type;
    (ii) Conducted with the vehicle set to fail any combination of two 
or more test types;
    (iii) Resulting in a false pass per test type;
    (iv) Resulting in a false pass for any combination of two or more 
test types;
* * * * *
    12. Section 51.367 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(vi) and 
(a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.367  Inspector training and licensing or certification.

* * * * *
    (a) * * * (1) * * *
    (vi) Test equipment operation, calibration, and maintenance (with 
the exception of test procedures which either do not require the use of 
special equipment or which rely upon a vehicle's OBD system);
* * * * *
    (3) In order to complete the training requirement, a trainee shall 
pass (i.e., a minimum of 80% of correct responses or lower if an 
occupational analysis justifies it) a written test covering all aspects 
of the training. In addition, a hands-on test shall be administered in 
which the trainee demonstrates without assistance the ability to 
conduct a proper inspection and to follow other required procedures. 
Inability to properly conduct all test procedures shall constitute 
failure of the test. The program shall take appropriate steps to insure 
the security and integrity of the testing process.
* * * * *
    13. Section 51.368 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 51.368  Public information and consumer protection.

    (a) Public awareness. The SIP shall include a plan for informing 
the public on an ongoing basis throughout the life of the I/M program 
of the air quality problem, the requirements of Federal and State law, 
the role of motor vehicles in the air quality problem, the need for and 
benefits of an inspection program, how to maintain a vehicle in a low-
emission condition, how to find a qualified repair technician, and the 
requirements of the I/M program. Motorists that fail the I/M test in 
enhanced I/M areas shall be offered a list of repair facilities in the 
area and information on the results of repairs performed by repair 
facilities in the area, as described in Sec. 51.369(b)(1) of this 
subpart. Motorists that fail the I/M test shall also be provided with 
information concerning the possible cause(s) for failing the particular 
portions of the test that were failed.
* * * * *
    14. Section 51.369 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and 
(c)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.369  Improving repair effectiveness.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) The application of emission control theory and diagnostic data 
to the diagnosis and repair of failures on the transient emission test 
and the evaporative system functional checks (where applicable);
    (3) Utilization of diagnostic information on systematic or repeated 
failures observed in the transient emission test and the evaporative 
system functional checks (where applicable); and
* * * * *
    15. Section 51.371 is amended by revising the introductory text, 
paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (b)(2) and (b)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 51.371  On-road testing.

    On-road testing is defined as testing of vehicles for conditions 
directly impacting the emission of HC, CO, NOx and/or 
CO2 emissions on any road or roadside in the nonattainment 
area or the I/M program area. On-road testing is required in enhanced 
I/M areas and is an option for basic I/M areas.
    (a) * * *
    (2) On-road testing is not required in every season or on every 
vehicle but shall evaluate the emission performance of 0.5% of the 
subject fleet statewide or 20,000 vehicles, whichever is less, per 
inspection cycle.
    (3) The on-road testing program shall provide information about the 
performance of in-use vehicles, by measuring on-road emissions through 
the use of remote sensing devices or by assessing vehicle emission 
performance through roadside pullovers including onboard diagnostic 
(OBD) system testing or other emission testing. The program shall 
collect, analyze and report on-road testing data.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The SIP shall include the legal authority necessary to 
implement the on-road testing program, including the authority to 
enforce off-cycle inspection and repair requirements (where 
applicable).
    (3) Emission reduction credit for on-road testing programs shall be 
granted for a program designed to obtain significant emission 
reductions over and

[[Page 45500]]

above those already predicted to be achieved by other aspects of the I/
M program. Emission reduction credit will only be granted to those 
programs which require out-of-cycle repairs for confirmed high-emitting 
vehicles identified under the on-road testing program. The SIP shall 
include technical support for the claimed additional emission 
reductions.

[FR Doc. 99-21661 Filed 8-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P