[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 142 (Monday, July 24, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45526-45535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17749]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[FRL-6735-1]
RIN 2060-AI61


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's action revises the Motor Vehicle Inspection/
Maintenance (I/M) program 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.'' 
Today's action: Modifies the current enhanced 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; removes the I/M rule provision establishing the 
decentralized, test-and-repair credit discount; revises certain test 
procedure, standard, and equipment requirements to better accommodate 
alternative test types and program designs; streamlines the data 
collection, analysis, and reporting requirements to make them 
consistent with various alternative test and program types; makes minor 
revisions to the inspector training requirements also to accommodate 
various alternative test and program types; revises 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

[[Page 45527]]

information, reliably and practically; and expands 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: This rule will take effect August 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in the 
Public Docket No. A-99-19. 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 
Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs 
Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105; Telephone (734) 
214-4823.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposal
II. Authority
III. Public Participation
    A. Increased Flexibility
    B. Performance Standard Amendments
    C. Network Requirement Amendments
    D. Test Procedure and Related Amendments
    E. Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) versus Emissions Tests
    F. On-Road Testing Amendments
IV. Economic Costs and Benefits
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Administrative Designation
    B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    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
    I. Congressional Review Act

I. Summary of Rule

    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 today amending this rule 
to provide greater flexibility to states to tailor their I/M programs 
to better meet local needs. Specifically, today's action: (1) Amends 
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) deletes 40 CFR 51.353(b) which previously established 
the decentralized, test-and-repair credit discount, and revises 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) 
Revises 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 to the IM240 is 
comparability in terms of emission reduction potential, not necessarily 
equivalence, (b) revises the test equipment requirements at 40 CFR 
51.358 to make the definition of ``computerized test system'' 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) revises 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) revises 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) expands 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 today's action is to bring the rule up-to-date with 
current policy decisions, technological changes, 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 alternative 
vehicle testing options; (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). The detailed basis for each amendment was explained in the 
August 20, 1999 proposal and will not be repeated here except as 
appropriate in response to comments.

II. Authority

    Authority for the today's action 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).

III. Public Participation

    Written comments on the August 20, 1999 proposal were received from 
four sources prior to the close of the public comment period on 
September 20, 1999. In response to a request for an extension, on 
November 16, 1999, the public comment period was re-opened for seven 
days, and closed again on November 23, 1999. Between September 20, 1999 
and November 23, 1999, comments from one additional source were 
received, while one of the original commenters provided additional 
comments. The commenters were: Missouri Department of Natural Resources 
(MDNR), Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), the 
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), the 
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), and Environmental 
Systems Products, Inc. (ESP), which transmitted comments through the 
law firm of Hunton and Williams. Of the comments received, only ESP 
requested that some of the proposed amendments be withdrawn. The main 
issues raised by the commenters are summarized and addressed below:

[[Page 45528]]

A. Increased Flexibility

    All commenters--including ESP--indicated their general support for 
changing the I/M rule to provide states with greater flexibility to 
tailor I/M programs to meet their local needs. Only ESP suggested that 
in proposing its flexibility amendments, EPA had exceeded its authority 
and requested certain aspects of the proposal be withdrawn. The 
specific objections raised by ESP are addressed under the relevant 
headings below.

B. Performance Standard Amendments

1. Summary of Proposal
    The current I/M rule requires that enhanced I/M programs show 
through modeling that they can meet the relevant performance standard 
beginning with a 2000 evaluation date (which was considered the closest 
modeling equivalent to the Clean Air Act's November 15, 1999 milestone 
date for Reasonable Further Progress plans) and for each CAA milestone 
thereafter (also rounded to the nearest evaluation year) through to and 
including the relevant attainment date. Passage of the National Highway 
System Designation Act (NHSDA) in 1995--and EPA's own I/M flexibility 
amendments in 1995 and 1996--contributed to delays by many states 
required to implement enhanced I/M programs. EPA therefore proposed to 
change this requirement by delaying the first milestone to 2002 and 
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.
2. Summary of Comments
    Although all the commenters that chose to address this element of 
the proposal favored the change, EPA believes there may be some 
confusion with regard to which of the rule's dates is being changed. At 
least one commenter seems to suggest that the proposal changes the 
deadline by which biennial program evaluations are due under 40 CFR 
51.353(c) of the I/M rule. This is not the case.
3. Response to Comments
    EPA wants to take this opportunity to clarify that we are not 
proposing to change the deadline by which biennial program evaluations 
are due under 40 CFR 51.353(c) of the I/M rule and that we are not 
proposing to change that section of the rule in any way at this time. 
The first CAA-required biennial program evaluation continues to be due 
two years after the initial start date of mandatory testing; subsequent 
reports continue to be due every two years, thereafter. EPA has only 
proposed to change the performance standard modeling milestones under 
40 CFR 51.351 of the I/M rule. Therefore, in this final action EPA is 
changing the performance standard modeling milestones as proposed and 
as supported by all commenters that chose to address this element of 
the proposal.

C. Network Requirement Amendments

1. Summary of Proposal
    The current I/M rule provides for the automatic application of an 
emission reduction discount on programs that allow the same entity to 
both test and repair I/M subject vehicles. In 1995, the National 
Highway System Designation Act (NHSDA) prohibited the automatic 
discounting of such programs. Nevertheless, the NHSDA still allows EPA 
to adjust the credit it approves for such programs on a case-by-case 
basis, based upon program data. EPA therefore proposed to delete 40 CFR 
51.353(b) which first established the automatic credit discount for 
decentralized, test-and-repair I/M programs. Language was also included 
to clarify that a decentralized, test-and-repair I/M program submitted 
after the NHSDA's March 27, 1996 deadline for qualifying for an 18-
month interim approval can still be granted a 12-month conditional 
approval on a case-by-case basis.
2. Summary of Comments
    MDNR indicated that while it did not agree with the proposed 
changes based upon its belief that decentralized, test-and-repair 
programs are prone to inaccuracy and fraud, it nevertheless 
acknowledged the need for the change to comply with the NHSDA. NADA 
indicated that it has been pushing for this change since before passage 
of the original, 1992 I/M rule and therefore welcomed the proposed 
amendment. TNRCC suggested that EPA change the following statement 
concerning conditional approvals from the proposed amendment--``* * * 
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''--to ``* * * the State must demonstrate that the program is 
achieving the level of effectiveness claimed in the plan within 12 
months of the plan's final approval'' (emphasis added).
3. Response to Comments
    EPA is taking final action to delete the automatic discount as 
proposed. In addition, although EPA agrees with TNRCC that the text 
cited could be clarified, we believe the proposed revision actually 
increases confusion, and may lead states to believe that the required 
demonstration is not a condition for final approval, but rather 
something submitted after final approval is granted. Therefore, EPA 
will amend the cited language concerning conditional approvals to read 
as follows: ``* * * the State must demonstrate that the program is 
achieving the level of effectiveness claimed in the plan within 12 
months of the plan's final conditional approval before EPA can convert 
that approval to a final full approval.''

D. Test Procedure and Related Amendments

1. Summary of Proposal
    Although EPA has approved a variety of alternative tests for use in 
I/M programs--such as the gas cap test and the Acceleration Simulation 
Mode (ASM) test--the language in the current I/M rule with regard to 
test procedures and related requirements remains heavily biased toward 
the IM240. Also, the I/M rule as currently written frequently equates 
emission testing with ``tailpipe testing,'' thus barring by implication 
alternative designs that have been proposed to EPA that do not rely 
upon tailpipe testing to meet the applicable performance standard. For 
example, the State of Louisiana has proposed to meet the low enhanced 
I/M performance standard with a program that does not include a 
tailpipe test, employing, instead, a comprehensive visual inspection 
and evaporative system pressure testing on a wide range of vehicles, up 
to and including heavy-duty vehicles. EPA therefore proposed to amend 
the rule to delete language that suggests that non-tailpipe and non-
IM240 alternatives are barred from consideration. For the most part, 
these amendments are limited to deleting the words ``tailpipe'' and 
``IM240,'' and inserting the caveat ``where applicable,'' as needed. 
EPA also proposed replacing the requirement that alternative tests be 
equivalent to the tests they replace to a requirement that they be 
comparable in combination with other program parameters. Similar 
amendments were proposed 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. Lastly, EPA proposed to revise the test 
equipment requirements at 40 CFR 51.358 to make the regulatory 
definition of ``computerized test system'' less

[[Page 45529]]

prescriptive to allow alternatives like evaporative emission testing 
devices to qualify as ``computerized test systems.''
2. Summary of Comments
    MDNR did not favor changing ``equivalent'' to ``comparable,'' but 
acknowledged the need for the change. TNRCC suggested changing the 
proposed amendment language from a requirement that computerized 
analyzers ``shall be automated'' to a requirement that computerized 
test systems ``shall make automatic pass/fail decisions.'' AIAM and 
NADA supported the deletion of references to ``tailpipe'' and 
``IM240,'' and expanding the definition of ``computerized test 
systems.'' ESP pointed out that the CAA did not require ``computerized 
test systems,'' but ``computerized emission analyzers'' (emphasis 
added). ESP also suggested the proposal to change the criteria for 
accepting alternative tests from ``equivalent'' to ``comparable'' was 
in conflict with the CAA's requirement that I/M programs be centralized 
unless decentralized programs can be proven to be ``equally effective'' 
(emphasis added). Lastly, ESP suggested that EPA's proposed amendment 
of 40 CFR 51.357(a)(13) to remove a reference to correlation to the 
Federal Test Procedure (FTP) violates section 207(b) of the CAA, which 
requires that I/M tests be ``reasonably capable of being correlated'' 
to the FTP.
3. Response to Comments
    EPA agrees with the editorial change suggested by TNRCC and will 
also add the word ``emission'' to change ``computerized test systems'' 
to ``computerized emission test systems'' in response to ESP's comment. 
However, EPA does not agree that changing the criteria for accepting 
alternative tests from equivalence to comparability is in conflict with 
the CAA's equivalency demonstration for decentralized programs. 
Specifically, the proposal is to change a requirement for test type, 
not network design. The CAA's equivalency requirement applies only to 
the latter, and is silent on the former. The rule provisions on network 
design retain the requirement for equivalency. Lastly, EPA agrees with 
ESP that reasonable correlation to the FTP is a CAA-mandated 
requirement for alternative I/M tests and will restore the rule's 
reference to the FTP that was proposed to be deleted in the proposal.

E. Onboard Diagnostics (OBD) versus Emissions Tests

1. Summary of Proposal
    EPA has indicated its belief that OBD testing may one day replace 
tailpipe testing on OBD-equipped vehicles in several forums, including 
initially the preamble to the original 1992 I/M rule. Because many of 
the amendments necessary to allow evaporative system testing in lieu of 
tailpipe testing \1\ are similar to the regulatory changes which will 
be necessary prior to approving the replacement of tailpipe testing 
with OBD, in the preamble to the proposal, EPA again reiterated its 
belief that future I/M programs will rely increasingly on OBD-based 
testing. Also, because all state I/M programs are required to include 
OBD testing on vehicles so equipped beginning on January 1, 2001, EPA 
revised some of its generic I/M test requirements to reflect the fact 
that OBD is either included or exempted from a given requirement, based 
upon the nature of the OBD system. It was not, however, EPA's intention 
to make an affirmative determination that OBD alone can replace all 
other tests on OBD-equipped vehicles at this time. Nor do we intend to 
make a finding today that it would be technologically justified to do 
so. Those determinations will be addressed in a separate rulemaking 
that EPA intends to propose in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ States opting to rely upon evaporative system testing in 
lieu of tailpipe testing must still demonstrate that they meet the 
applicable I/M performance standard prior to EPA approving such a 
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of Comments
    Both AIAM and ESP seemed to interpret EPA's proposal as granting 
approval of OBD checks as a replacement for other I/M tests, effective 
at the same time as all the other changes proposed. NADA, on the other 
hand, seemed to read the proposal more as EPA intended--as an 
indication of the likely shape that future I/M programs will take. Both 
NADA and AIAM supported the idea of relying upon OBD checks for I/M 
purposes for vehicles so equipped, although AIAM also indicated that 
additional regulatory changes would be necessary for states to 
implement OBD-based I/M testing effectively.
    ESP vigorously opposed the idea of replacing traditional I/M tests 
with OBD-only checks and requested that EPA retract any portion of the 
proposal that would either allow this or create the impression that 
this was being allowed. In support of their opposition, they suggested 
the following: (1) OBD monitors individual components but does not 
directly measure emissions and therefore does not qualify as an 
emission test; (2) the CAA lists ``[c]omputerized emission analyzers'' 
and ``[i]nspection of emission control diagnostic systems'' separately, 
suggesting that the two approaches are different; and (3) the CAA's 
requirement that all enhanced I/M programs use ``[c]omputerized 
emission analyzers'' effectively prohibits the substitution of 
traditional I/M tests with checks of the OBD system. ESP also pointed 
out that the proposal's docket lacked data supporting the conclusion 
that OBD checks can replace other tests, and suggested that the public 
was not afforded an adequate opportunity to review the basis for EPA's 
proposal. Lastly, ESP maintained that EPA and the states do not have 
unlimited flexibility in designing I/M programs, specifically stating 
that ``[i]n the case of enhanced I/M programs, for example, tailpipe 
emission testing has long been considered an essential element of I/M 
programs, even under the Agency's low-enhanced I/M performance 
standard.''
3. Response to Comments
    As indicated in the ``Summary of Proposal'' above, EPA is not today 
making an affirmative determination that states can use OBD checks as a 
replacement for other I/M inspections on vehicles equipped with OBD. 
Such a determination would require a separate docket including 
technical support documentation assessing how much emission reduction 
credit OBD-only I/M testing of OBD-equipped vehicles warrants. Until 
that time, any area that seeks to rely upon OBD-only I/M testing of 
model year 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles may find it difficult to meet 
the applicable I/M performance standard or other CAA state 
implementation planning (SIP) goals for which I/M-related emission 
reduction credits are needed. The reason for this is because OBD-only 
I/M testing is not currently credited in the MOBILE emission factor 
model used for SIP development and evaluation. As a result, performing 
OBD-only I/M testing on 1996+ OBD-equipped vehicles would be the SIP 
equivalent of completely exempting those vehicles from the program.
    ESP is correct in its observation that the docket does not contain 
the data necessary to support such an affirmative determination. 
Efforts to gather and analyze that data are ongoing and although the 
preliminary results look promising, EPA is not in this rulemaking 
making a conclusion that OBD checks alone are an adequate replacement 
for other I/M tests for OBD-

[[Page 45530]]

equipped vehicles. EPA will in the near future publish a document 
addressing the results of our data analysis. This notice of proposed 
rulemaking would be subject to public comment, and would include a 
docket containing the data and analyses EPA considered in reaching its 
conclusion. Given the implementation deadline of January 1, 2001 for I/
M programs to begin OBD-based I/M testing, EPA expects to publish a 
notice of proposed rulemaking addressing OBD implementation in I/M 
programs very soon.
    This said, EPA agrees that at least one instance of proposed 
amendment language was premature with regard to OBD. EPA is therefore 
deleting the following, proposed caveat from 40 CFR 51.358(a): ``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) . . .'' This language was included in a 
section indicating the performance features of computerized emission 
test systems and is premature because EPA has not yet concluded that 
any such system can rely exclusively upon OBD checks. EPA is taking 
final action now on the other proposed flexibilities because they are 
necessary to allow states to adopt evaporative emission testing as 
their primary emission test in lieu of tailpipe emission testing.
    Concerning ESP's comments regarding the limits on EPA's flexibility 
with regard to I/M programs, EPA agrees that its authority is 
constrained by the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Regarding ESP's 
claims concerning the essential nature of tailpipe testing to such 
programs, however, we disagree. The CAA requires emission testing but 
does not specify tailpipe emission testing versus evaporative emission 
testing.
    Lastly, regarding ESP's implication that EPA and the states are 
similarly constrained by the CAA with regard to the flexibility it 
afforded each in the selection of I/M program elements, we offer the 
following clarification. While the CAA did impose certain minimum model 
year coverage requirements upon EPA in its development of the I/M 
performance standards, it did not specify such coverage requirements 
for the state programs designed to meet those performance standards. As 
a practical matter, states have more flexibility than EPA when it comes 
to determining which vehicles to cover by what test(s) in their I/M 
programs--provided they can still meet the relevant performance 
standard which EPA developed considering all subject vehicles. In fact, 
states routinely exempt the newest and/or oldest model year vehicles 
from testing, or otherwise exempt vehicles through a variety of clean-
screening strategies. EPA believes that it is erroneous to suggest that 
states do not have this flexibility available to them, or that 
exempting certain classes of vehicles from specific state I/M program 
elements is somehow in violation of the CAA.

F. On-Road Testing Amendments

1. Summary of Proposal
    The CAA 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, 
however, 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. EPA proposed to 
expand the range of options for meeting the on-road testing requirement 
to include non-tailpipe tests like evaporative system testing and also 
to include options like clean-screening which use RSD readings as one 
basis for exempting clean vehicles from the regular inspection (and do 
not, therefore, support the notion of out-of-cycle repairs).
2. Summary of Comments
    MDNR, TNRCC, and NADA all supported the proposed changes for on-
road testing requirements, citing the additional flexibility it allows 
states. TNRCC further suggested changing 40 CFR 51.371(b)(3) which 
states that ``emission reduction credit for on-road testing programs 
shall be granted for a program designed to obtain significant emission 
reductions over and above those already predicted to be achieved by 
other aspects of the I/M program.'' TNRCC suggested replacing the word 
``significant'' with ``measurable.''
3. Response to Comments
    EPA is taking final action as proposed and supported by the 
commenters. EPA agrees with TNRCC's suggestion and will incorporate 
that word change.

IV. Economic Costs and Benefits

    Today's action provides 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 action.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

    It has been determined that today's 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 this action 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 today's action 
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 action 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 today's action 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 today's action does not 
increase the preexisting burden of the existing rules which this action 
amends.

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

[[Page 45531]]

where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to 
the private sector, will be $100 million or more. Under section 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 today's action 
would impose any mandate at all as defined in section 101 of the 
Unfunded Mandates Act upon the state, local, or tribal governments, or 
the private sector, as explained above, this action 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 from those resulting from the currently existing I/M 
rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless 
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process 
of developing the proposed regulation.
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. On the contrary, the intent of 
today's final rule is to provide states greater flexibility with regard 
to pre-existing regulatory and statutory requirements for vehicle 
inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 
13045 because it is not economically significant under Executive Order 
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.
    Today's rule does not set new technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

I. Congressional Review Act

    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

[[Page 45532]]

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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

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

    Dated: July 5, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 51 of title 40 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is 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 paragraph 
(a) and by revising paragraphs (b), (f) introductory text, (f)(13), 
(g)(13) and (h)(11) to read as follows:


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 (g) 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 (h) 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 paragraph (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 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 final conditional approval before EPA can convert 
that approval to a final full 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

[[Page 45533]]

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.
    (b) [Reserved]
* * * * *

    5. Section 51.357 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3), (a)(4), 
(a)(6), (a)(11), and (a)(13) 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). 
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 show a 
reasonable correlation with the Federal Test Procedure and are capable 
of identifying comparable emission reductions from the I/M program as a 
whole, in combination with other program elements, as would be 
identified by the test(s) which they are intended to replace.
* * * * *

    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 emission test systems are required for performing an 
official emissions test on subject vehicles.
    (a) Performance features of computerized emission test systems. The 
emission test equipment shall be certified by the program, and newly 
acquired emission test systems shall be subjected to acceptance test 
procedures to ensure compliance with program specifications.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Shall make automatic pass/fail decisions;
    (ii) Shall be secured from tampering and/or abuse;
* * * * *
    (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 emission 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, 
paragraphs (a)(1), (c) and (d) and removing and reserving paragraph 
(a)(3) 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) General requirements. (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.
* * * * *
    (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

[[Page 45534]]

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) * * *
    (i) The use of test equipment and/or procedures;
* * * * *
    10. Section 51.365 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
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), and (b)(3), 
and by removing and reserving (a)(2)(vii), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(2)(ix), 
(a)(2)(x), (b)(3)(v), (b)(3)(vi), (b)(3)(vii), and (b)(3)(viii) 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).
    (vii) [Reserved]
    (viii) [Reserved]
    (ix) [Reserved]
    (x) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) The number of covert audits:
    (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) 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

[[Page 45535]]

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 
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) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (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 tailpipe or 
evaporative emission testing or a check of the onboard diagnostic (OBD) 
system for vehicles so equipped. The program shall collect, analyze and 
report on-road testing data.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (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 measurable emission reductions 
over and 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. 00-17749 Filed 7-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P