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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA38-1-6207; FRL-5005-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed conditional approval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. This revision establishes and requires the implementation

of an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program

in the counties of Allegheny, Beaver, Berks, Blair, Bucks, Cambria,

Centre, Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Lackawanna,

Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer, Montgomery,

Northampton, Philadelphia, Washington, Westmoreland and York. The

intended effect of this action is to propose conditional approval of

the Pennsylvania enhanced motor vehicle I/M program. This action is

being taken under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 1, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Thomas J. Maslany, Director, Air,

Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.

Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal business hours at the Air, Radiation,

and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,

841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 and the

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Air

Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Kelly L. Bunker, (215) 597-4554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Motor vehicles are significant contributors of volatile organic

compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxide (NOx)

emissions. An important control measure to reduce these emissions is

the implementation of a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program. Despite being subject to the most rigorous vehicle pollution

control program in the world, cars and trucks still create about half

of the ozone air pollution and nearly all of the carbon monoxide air

pollution in United States cities, as well as toxic contaminants. Of

all highway vehicles, passenger cars and light-duty trucks emit most of

the vehicle-related carbon monoxide and ozone-forming hydrocarbons.

They also emit substantial amounts of nitrogen oxides and air toxics.

Although the U.S. has made progress in reducing emissions of these

pollutants, total fleet emissions remain high. This is because the

number of vehicle miles travelled on U.S. roads has doubled in the last

20 years to 2 trillion miles per year, offsetting much of the

technological progress in vehicle emission control over the same two

decades. Projections indicate that the steady growth in vehicle travel

will continue. Ongoing efforts to reduce emissions from individual

vehicles will be necessary to achieve our air quality goals.

Today's cars are absolutely dependent on properly functioning

emission controls to keep pollution levels low. Minor malfunctions in

the emission control system can increase emissions significantly, and

the average car on the road emits three to four times the new car

standard. Major malfunctions in the emission control system can cause

emissions to skyrocket. As a result, 10 to 30 percent of cars are

causing the majority of the vehicle-related pollution problem.

Unfortunately, it is rarely obvious which cars fall into this category,

as the emissions themselves may not be noticeable and emission control

malfunctions do not necessarily affect vehicle driveability.

Effective I/M programs, however, can identify these problem cars

and assure their repair. I/M programs ensure that cars are properly

maintained in customer use. I/M produces emission reduction results

soon after the program is put in place.

EPA projects that ``enhanced'' I/M programs in the most polluted

cities around the country would cut vehicle emissions by 28 percent, at

a cost of about $12.50 per vehicle per year. This represents a major

step toward the Clean Air Acts's requirement that the most seriously

polluted cities achieve a 24 percent overall emissions reduction by

2000.

The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act) requires that most

polluted cities adopt either ``basic'' or ``enhanced'' I/M programs,

depending on the severity of the problem and the population of the

area. The moderate ozone nonattainment areas, plus marginal ozone areas

with existing or previously required I/M programs, fall under the

``basic'' I/M requirements. Enhanced programs are required in serious,

severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas with urbanized

populations of 200,000 or more; CO areas that exceed a 12.7 parts per

million (ppm) design value1 with urbanized populations of 200,000

or more; and all metropolitan statistical areas with a population of

100,000 or more in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region.

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

\1\ The air quality design value is estimated using EPA

guidance. Generally, the fourth highest monitored value with 3

complete years of data is selected as the ozone design value because

the standard allows one exceedance for each year. The highest of the

second high monitored values with 2 complete years of data is

selected as the carbon monoxide design value.

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

``Basic'' and ``enhanced'' I/M programs both achieve their

objective by identifying vehicles that have high emissions as a result

of one or more malfunctions, and requiring them to be repaired. An

``enhanced'' program covers more of the vehicles in operation, employs

inspection methods which are better at finding high emitting vehicles,

and has additional features to better assure that all vehicles are

tested properly and effectively repaired.

The Act requires states to make changes to improve existing I/M

programs or to implement new ones for certain nonattainment areas.

Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed EPA to publish updated

guidance for state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of

the Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. The

Act further requires each area required to have an I/M program to

incorporate this guidance into the SIP. Based on these requirements,

EPA promulgated I/M regulations on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950,

codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.350-51.373).

Under sections 182(c)(3), 187(a)(6) and 187(b)(1) of the Act, any

area having a 1980 Bureau of Census-defined urbanized area population

of 200,000 or more and either: (1) designated as serious or worse ozone

nonattainment or (2) moderate or serious CO nonattainment areas with a

design value greater than 12.7 ppm shall implement enhanced I/M in the

1990 Census-defined urbanized area. The Act also established the ozone

transport region (OTR) in the northeastern United States which includes

the States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode

Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,

Maryland and Northern Virginia and the District of Columbia. Sections

182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act require the implementation of

enhanced I/M programs in all metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs)

located in the OTR which have a population of 100,000 or more people.

The Act requires basic I/M programs to be implemented in the 1990

Census-defined urbanized area of the following nonattainment areas: (1)

any area which is classified as moderate or worse ozone nonattainment

and is not required to implement enhanced I/M or (2) any area outside

the OTR that is classified as serious or worse ozone nonattainment or

moderate or serious CO nonattainment with a design value greater than

12.7 ppm and having a 1990 Census-defined urbanized area population of

less than 200,000. Any areas classified as marginal ozone nonattainment

or moderate CO nonattainment with a design value of 12.7 ppm or less

shall continue operating existing programs that are part of an approved

SIP as of November 15, 1990 or implement any previously required

program, and shall update the program to meet the basic I/M

requirements set forth in Secs. 51.350-51.373.

The I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for

basic and enhanced I/M programs as well as requirements for the

following: network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and

resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test

procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and

compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement;

motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance;

enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors; data

collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and

licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection;

improving repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road

testing; SIP revisions; and implementation deadlines. The performance

standard for basic I/M programs remains the same as it has been since

initial I/M policy was established in 1978, pursuant to the 1977

amendments to the Clean Air Act. The performance standard for enhanced

I/M programs is based on a high-technology transient test, known as

IM240, for new technology vehicles (i.e, those with closed-loop control

and, especially, fuel injected engines), including a transient loaded

exhaust short test incorporating hydrocarbons (HC), CO and NOx

cutpoints, an evaporative system integrity (pressure) test and an

evaporative system performance (purge) test. For enhanced I/M programs,

all requirements must initially be implemented by January 1, 1995

except that areas switching from an existing test-and-repair network to

a test-only network may phase in that change between January 1995 and

January 1996.

II. Background

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is part of the OTR and contains

the following MSAs or parts thereof with a population of 100,000 or

more: Allentown-Bethlehem, Altoona, Beaver, Erie, Harrisburg Lebanon-

Carlisle, Johnstown, Lancaster, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley,

Reading, Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, Sharon, State College, Williamsport,

and York. Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act require all

states in the OTR region which contain MSAs or parts thereof with a

population of 100,000 or more, to submit a SIP revision for an enhanced

I/M program. Section 51.372(b)(2) of the federal I/M regulation

required affected states to submit full I/M SIP revisions that met the

requirements of the Act by November 15, 1993.

On November 5, 1993, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Resources (PADER) submitted to EPA a SIP revision for an enhanced I/M

program. The revision included a copy of the final enhanced I/M

regulation, 67 Pennsylvania (PA) Code Chapter 178; the Pennsylvania I/M

Request for Proposals (RFP); the Pennsylvania I/M legislation, Act 166;

and supporting documents. On March 30, 1994, PADER submitted an

addendum to the SIP which included portions of the selected I/M

contractor's proposal. The I/M regulations were adopted by the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on June 3, 1993 and become effective on

January 1, 1995. EPA's I/M regulations require state I/M rules to be

effective by November 15, 1993. However, EPA believes that the

effective date of the Pennsylvania enhanced I/M program is approvable

for two reasons. First, it would be a futile act to require the

Commonwealth to amend its regulations to require an earlier effective

date at this time. It would normally take Pennsylvania more than the

six months remaining before the effective date of January 1, 1995 to

complete the administrative process to amend the regulations. Secondly,

an earlier effective date would not change any of the requirements of

the regulations. Pennsylvania has already initiated all of the steps

required under the federal I/M regulations to be conducted prior to

January 1, 1995 under independent authority. The January 1, 1995

effective date will allow the Commonwealth to fully implement the

enhanced I/M program consistent with the requirements of the federal I/

M rule. Therefore, EPA concludes that the delay in the effective date

of the Pennsylvania I/M rule is deminimis, and EPA proposes to approve

the January 1, 1995 effective date.

EPA summarizes the requirements of the federal I/M regulations as

found in 40 CFR part 51.350-51.373 and its analysis of the

Commonwealth's submittal below. A more detailed analysis of the

Commonwealth's submittal is contained in a Technical Support Document

(TSD) dated May 18, 1994, which is available from the Region III

office, listed in the ADDRESSES section. Parties desiring additional

details on the federal I/M regulation are referred to the November 5,

1992 Federal Register notice (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR part 51.350-

51.373.

III. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania Enhanced I/M Program

As discussed above, sections 182(c)(3), 184(b)(1)(A), 187(a)(6) and

187(b)(1) of the Act require that states adopt and implement

regulations for an enhanced I/M program in certain areas. The following

sections of this notice address some specific elements of the

Commonwealth's submittal. Parties desiring more specific information

should consult the TSD.

Applicability--40 CFR Part 51.350

Sections 182(c)(3) and 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 40 CFR part

51.350(a) require all states in the OTR which contain MSAs or parts

thereof with a population of 100,000 or more to implement an enhanced

I/M program. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is part of the OTR and

contains the following MSAs or parts thereof with a population of

100,000 or more: Allentown-Bethlehem, Altoona, Beaver, Erie,

Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, Johnstown, Lancaster, Philadelphia,

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Reading, Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, Sharon, State

College, Williamsport, and York. The Philadelphia area is classified as

a severe ozone nonattainment area and also required to implement an

enhanced I/M program as per section 182(c)(3) of the Act and 40 CFR

part 51.350(2). In addition, the Philadelphia area of Pennsylvania is

designated as moderate nonattainment for CO with a design value of less

than 12.7 ppm. As per 40 CFR part 51.350(3), any area classified as

moderate CO nonattainment with a design value of 12.7 ppm or less shall

continue operating I/M programs that were part of an approved SIP as of

November 15, 1990 and shall update those programs as necessary to meet

the basic I/M program requirements.

Under the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the following 33

counties in Pennsylvania (which are located in the above listed MSAs)

would be subject to the enhanced I/M program requirements: Adams,

Allegheny, Beaver, Berks, Blair, Bucks, Cambria, Carbon, Centre,

Chester, Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Fayette,

Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer,

Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Perry, Philadelphia, Somerset,

Washington, Westmoreland, Wyoming and York. However, under the federal

I/M regulations, specifically 40 CFR part 51.350(b), some rural

counties having a population density of less than 200 persons per

square mile based on the 1990 census can be excluded from program

coverage provided that at least 50% of the MSA population is included

in the program. The following eight counties in the Commonwealth

qualify for the exemption discussed in 40 CFR part 51.350(b) and are

exempt from participation in the program: Adams, Carbon, Columbia,

Fayette, Monroe, Perry, Somerset and Wyoming. Consequently, the

Pennsylvania I/M regulation requires that the enhanced I/M program be

implemented in 25 counties in the Commonwealth. The 25 counties are as

follows: Allegheny, Beaver, Berks, Blair, Bucks, Cambria, Centre,

Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Lackawanna, Lancaster,

Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer, Montgomery, Northampton,

Philadelphia, Washington, Westmoreland and York.

The Pennsylvania I/M legislative authority (referred to as Act 166

throughout the remainder of this notice) provides the legal authority

to establish the geographic boundaries. The program boundaries listed

in an appendix to the SIP include the 25 counties listed above and meet

the federal I/M requirements under section 51.350. However, part of

this provision states ``this program shall be established in all areas

of this Commonwealth where the secretary certifies by publication in

the Pennsylvania Bulletin that a system is required in order to comply

with Federal law. Any area, counties, county or portion thereof

certified to be in the program by the secretary must be mandated to be

in the program by Federal law.'' Act 166 requires ``at least 60 days

prior to the implementation of any enhanced emission inspection program

developed under this subsection, the Secretary of Transportation shall

certify by notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin that an enhanced

emission inspection program will commence''. The Pennsylvania I/M

regulation states that the program begins 60 days after publication of

the notice. It is stated in the Pennsylvania I/M SIP that ``it is not

possible at this time to furnish a copy of that notice since it will be

published in calendar year 1994.'' The SIP goes on to state that ``when

that notice has appeared in the Bulletin, the Department shall furnish

a copy to the EPA as an amendment to this SIP''. EPA interprets this

language as a commitment on the part of the Commonwealth to publish the

bulletin notice and submit it as an amendment to the SIP by December

31, 1994. EPA is proposing to find that the geographic applicability

requirements are satisfied based on the condition that the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania will submit to EPA by December 31, 1994 the

Pennsylvania Bulletin notice certifying the geographic coverage. EPA,

therefore, proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP based

on the Commonwealth's commitment to publish the notice certifying the

need for the I/M program and the geographic scope of the program by

December 31, 1994. The geographic coverage certified in the notice must

include the 25 counties listed above or EPA will consider the

commitment not met and will promptly issue a letter to the Commonwealth

indicating that the conditional approval has been converted to a

disapproval.

The federal I/M regulation requires that the state program shall

not sunset until it is no longer necesary. EPA interprets the federal

regulation as stating that a SIP which does not sunset prior to the

attainment deadline for each applicable area satisfies this

requirement. The Pennsylvania I/M regulation provides for the program

to continue past the attainment dates for all applicable nonattainment

areas in the Commonwealth and is therefore approvable.

Enhanced I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR Part 51.351

The enhanced I/M program must be designed and implemented to meet

or exceed a minimum performance standard, which is expressed as

emission levels in area-wide average grams per mile (gpm) for certain

pollutants. The performance standard shall be established using local

characteristics, such as vehicle mix and local fuel controls, and the

following model I/M program parameters: network type, start date, test

frequency, model year coverage, vehicle type coverage, exhaust emission

test type, emission standards, emission control device, evaporative

system function checks, stringency, waiver rate, compliance rate and

evaluation date. The emission 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. At the

time of the Pennsylvania submittal the most current version was

MOBILE5a. 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, the performance standard must be met

for both NOx and HC. The Pennsylvania submittal must meet the

enhanced I/M performance standard for HC and NOx in all subject I/

M areas in the Commonwealth.

The Pennsylvania submittal includes the following program design

parameters:

Network type--centralized, test-only

Start date--January 1995

Test frequency--biennial

Model year/vehicle type coverage--all 1968 and newer light duty

gasoline vehicles (LDGV), light duty gasoline trucks 1 & 2 (LDGT1,

LDGT2) up to 9,000 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)

Exhaust emission test type--transient test for 1977 and newer model

year vehicles, idle testing for 1968 to 1976 model year vehicles

Emission standards--permanent transient test standards (1983 and newer

vehicles): 0.8 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO, 2.0 gpm NOx from 1/1/97 through

12/31/01, 0.6 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO and 1.5 gpm NOx from 1/1/02 and

after. Please refer to the Pennsylvania I/M regulations found in the

June 19, 1993 edition of the Pennsylvania Bulletin for idle standards

and for transient test standards for other applicable model years

Emission control device--visual inspection of fuel inlet restrictor and

catalytic converter on all 1984 and newer vehicles

Evaporative system function checks--pressure and purge check on all

1977 and newer vehicles

Stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)--20%

Waiver rate--3% on pre and post 1981 vehicles

Compliance rate--96%

Evaluation dates--For HC and NOx: 7/1/99, 7/1/02 and 7/1/05 for

Philadelphia area and 7/1/99 for other other areas

The Pennsylvania program design parameters meet the federal I/M

regulations and are approvable.

The emission levels achieved by the Commonwealth were modeled using

MOBILE5a. The modeling demonstration was performed correctly, used

local characteristics and demonstrated that the program design will

meet the minimum enhanced I/M performance standard, expressed in gpm,

for HC, and NOx, for each milestone and for the attainment

deadline. The Philadelphia area was required to meet the basic I/M

program requirements because of the areas' CO nonattainment

classification. The modeling demonstration shows that the program meets

the enhanced I/M performance standard and in so doing is exceeding the

basic I/M program requirements. The modeling demonstration is

approvable.

Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR Part 51.353

Enhanced I/M programs shall be operated in a centralized test-only

format, unless the state can demonstrate that a decentralized program

is equally effective in achieving the enhanced I/M performance

standard. The enhanced program shall include an ongoing evaluation to

quantify the emission reduction benefits of the program, and to

determine if the program is meeting the requirements of the Act and the

federal I/M regulation. The SIP shall include details on the program

evaluation and shall include a schedule for submittal of biennial

evaluation reports, data from a state monitored or administered mass

emission test of at least 0.1% of the vehicles subject to inspection

each year, description of the sampling methodology, the data collection

and analysis system and the legal authority enabling the evaluation

program.

Both Act 166 and the Commonwealth's I/M regulation provide for a

centralized, test-only network. Pennsylvania's centralized, test-only

network type is approvable. The submittal includes an ongoing program

evaluation which meets the federal I/M regulations. However, Act 166

and the Commonwealth regulation prohibit the contractor from having any

business interest in a vehicle repair facility in the Commonwealth but

does not prohibit such interest in the entire continental United

States. EPA interprets section 51.353 of the federal regulation as

prohibiting this business interest without geographic limitation. EPA

is aware that as a matter of fact the present contractor for

Pennsylvania's enhanced I/M program does not have any vehicle repair

facility business interests in any other state, and is in fact

prohibited from such interests as per contracts with several other

state enhanced I/M programs. Based on this knowledge, EPA is proposing

to find that this requirement is met with the contingency that the

present contractor or any future contractors for the Pennsylvania I/M

program will not at any time in the future have any business interest

in a vehicle repair facility anywhere in the continental United States.

EPA proposes to approve the Pennsylvania SIP on this basis. EPA's

proposed approval is contingent on implementation of the program

consistent with this finding. Should the contractor for the

Pennsylvania I/M program at any time acquire any prohibited repair

business interest EPA will rescind its approval and disapprove the SIP.

Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR Part 51.354

The federal regulation requires the state to demonstrate that

adequate funding of the program is available. A portion of the test fee

or separately assessed per vehicle fee shall be collected, placed in a

dedicated fund and used to finance the program. Alternative funding

approaches are acceptable if demonstrated that the funding can be

maintained. Reliance on funding from the state or local General Fund is

not acceptable unless doing otherwise would be a violation of the

state's constitution. The SIP shall include a detailed budget plan

which describes the source of funds for personnel, program

administration, program enforcement, and purchase of equipment. The SIP

shall also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality

assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement,

public education and assistance and other necessary functions.

The Pennsylvania State Constitution prohibits monies received from

test fees or any other fees received to be deposited in a proprietary

account. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PADOT), which

implements the I/M program, has no means to fund the I/M program and

must rely on future uncommitted annual appropriations from the General

Assembly. The federal I/M regulations allow for this funding method if,

as in Pennsylvania, doing otherwise would be a violation of the State

Constitution. The submittal demonstrates that sufficient funds,

equipment and personnel have been appropriated to meet program

operation requirements.

The SIP indicates that the average per vehicle cost for oversight

of the program will be 59 cents per vehicle. Other states are planning

to spend roughly $4 per vehicle for oversight of an enhanced I/M

program. EPA is concerned that Pennsylvania's level of oversight

committed may be too low. However, the federal regulation does not set

a prescribed amount to be spent for oversight. Therefore, EPA is

proposing to approve the current level of funding for program

oversight. But, EPA will monitor program implementation closely to

ensure that the current level of funding devoted to oversight is

sufficient.

The Commonwealth's submittal meets the adequate tools and resources

requirements set forth in the federal I/M regulations and is

approvable.

Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR Part 51.355

The enhanced I/M performance standard assumes an annual test

frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the performance

standard is achieved. The SIP shall describe the test year selection

scheme, how the test frequency is integrated into the enforcement

process and shall include the legal authority, regulations or contract

provisions to implement and enforce the test frequency. The program

shall be designed to provide convenient service to the motorist by

ensuring short wait times, short driving distances and regular testing

hours.

The Pennsylvania enhanced I/M regulation provides for a biennial

test frequency. The Commonwealth has submitted modeling that

demonstrates that the performance standard is met using the biennial

test frequency. Act 166 and the Commonwealth's I/M regulation provide

the legal authority to implement and enforce the biennial test

frequency. The Pennsylvania I/M Request for Proposals (RFP), and the

Pennsylvania I/M contractors' proposal (hereafter the contractors'

proposal) provide sufficient evidence that convenient services will be

provided to the motorist. The Pennsylvania submittal meets the test

frequency and convenience requirements of the federal I/M regulations

and is approvable.

Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR Part 51.356

The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs assumes coverage

of all 1968 and later model year light duty vehicles and light duty

trucks up to 8,500 pounds GVWR, and includes vehicles operating on all

fuel types. Other levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary

emission reductions are achieved. Vehicles registered or required to be

registered within the I/M program area boundaries and fleets primarily

operated within the I/M program area boundaries and belonging to the

covered model years and vehicle classes comprise the subject vehicles.

Fleets may be officially inspected outside of the normal I/M program

test facilities, if such alternatives are approved by the program

administration, but shall be subject to the same test requirements

using the same quality control standards as non-fleet vehicles and

shall be inspected in independent, test-only facilities, according to

the requirements of 40 CFR part 51.353(a). Vehicles which are operated

on Federal installations located within an I/M program area shall be

tested, regardless of whether the vehicles are registered in the state

or local I/M area.

The federal I/M regulation requires that the SIP shall include the

legal authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle

coverage requirement, a detailed description of the number and types of

vehicles to be covered by the program and a plan for how those vehicles

are to be identified including vehicles that are routinely operated in

the area but may not be registered in the area, and a description of

any special exemptions including the percentage and number of vehicles

to be impacted by the exemption.

The Pennsylvania enhanced I/M program requires coverage of all 1968

and newer LDGV, LDGT1 and LDGT2 up to 9,000 pounds GVWR which are

registered or required to be registered in the I/M program area. As of

the date of the SIP submittal, 5,815,580 vehicles will be subject to

enhanced I/M testing. The Commonwealth's regulation does not currently

include vehicles operating on all fuel types but Pennsylvania commits

to adding the required testing of these vehicles once EPA promulgates

regulations on alternative fueled vehicle I/M testing. Act 166 and the

Pennsylvania I/M regulation provide the legal authority to implement

and enforce the vehicle coverage. This level of coverage is currently

approvable because it provides the necessary emission reductions to

meet the performance standard.

Pennsylvania's program provides that large fleets will make special

testing arrangements with the Pennsylvania I/M contractor. This will

include appointments scheduled during non-peak hours using a dedicated

lane, testing scheduled after hours and the establishment of a test

lane at a large fleet location if such a fleet determines that this

would be a more cost effective approach for their particular needs.

Small fleets will be tested on a first-come, first-served basis at the

regular test stations in the same manner as a privately-owned vehicle.

The Commonwealth's plan for testing fleet vehicles is acceptable and

meets the requirements of the federal I/M regulation. The

Commonwealth's regulation requires vehicles which are operated on

Federal installations located within an I/M program area to be tested,

regardless of whether the vehicles are registered in the state or local

I/M area, and is approvable.

The Commonwealth's regulation provides for no special exemptions.

Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR Part 51.357

Written test procedures and pass/fail standards shall be

established and followed for each model year and vehicle type included

in the program. Test procedures and standards are detailed in 40 CFR

part 51.357 and in the EPA document entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test

Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and

Equipment Specifications'', EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-93-1, dated April 1994. The

federal I/M regulation also requires vehicles that have been altered

from their original certified configuration (i.e. engine or fuel

switching) to be tested in the same manner as other subject vehicles.

The Commonwealth's regulation includes a description of the test

procedure for idle emission and evaporative system pressure testing and

for a visual emission control device inspection which conform to EPA

approved test procedures and are approvable.

The Commonwealth regulations provide a general description of the

test procedure for transient emission and evaporative system purge

testing. However, the Commonwealth regulations do not provide specific

transient and purge test procedures as described in the EPA document

entitled ``High Tech I/M Test Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality

Control Requirements, and Equipment Specifications'', EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-

93-1, April 1994. The Pennsylvania SIP states that the regulation will

be amended by January 1995 to include the test procedures found in the

July 1993 version of the EPA document referenced above. EPA interprets

this language as a commitment on the part of the Commonwealth to amend

the Commonwealth regulations by December 31, 1994 to incorporate the

test procedures from the EPA document. Since the release of the July

1993 version of the EPA document, a final version, dated April 1994,

has been released which contains minor changes from the July 1993

version. EPA believes that the Commonwealth can incorporate the minor

changes from the final version into their regulation amendments.

Section 178.205(2) of the Commonwealth's regulation allows the

Commonwealth to approve alternate purge procedures if they are shown to

be equivalent or better than Commonwealths' existing purge test

procedure. EPA's concern is that this provision does not require EPA

approval before implementation of the alternate test procedure in the

Commonwealth's program. EPA is proposing to find that the test

procedure requirements of the federal regulation are satisfied based on

the condition that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will submit to EPA

by December 31, 1994 the amended Commonwealth's regulation

incorporating the transient and evaporative purge test procedures from

the final version of the EPA I/M document referenced above and

requiring EPA approval prior to the use of any alternate purge test

procedure. EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP

based on the Commonwealth's commitment to amend its regulations

consistent with this finding. The effective date of these regulation

amendments must coincide with the start date of the enhanced I/M

program. If the Commonwealth fails to fulfill this condition by

December 31, 1994, EPA will consider the commitment not met and will

promptly issue a letter to the Commonwealth indicating that the

conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval.

The Commonwealth regulation establishes HC, CO, and CO2 pass/

fail exhaust standards for the idle test procedure for each applicable

model year and vehicle type. The idle exhaust standards adopted by the

Commonwealth conform to EPA established standards and are approvable.

The Pennsylvania regulation applies one set of start-up transient

emission standards and two sets of permanent transient emission

standards for all vehicle types, i.e. LDGT, LDGT1, LDGT2 and Tier 1

vehicles. The Commonwealth regulation fails to provide Phase 2

standards for all vehicle types and model years. The net result of this

is that the Commonwealth emission standards that apply to LDGT1 and

LDGT2 vehicles are more stringent than federal requirement, which is

approvable; however, the Commonwealth emission standards applied to

Tier 1 vehicles in the Commonwealth's regulation do not meet the

minimum federal requirements. The SIP states that the Commonwealth will

be amending their regulation to replace the existing standards with the

standards found in the July 1993 version of the EPA I/M document

referenced above and further states that the changes can be

accomplished by the end of calendar year 1994. EPA interprets this

language as a commitment on the part of the Commonwealth to amend the

Commonwealth's regulation by December 31, 1994 to incorporate the

emission standards from the EPA document. Since the release of the July

version of the EPA document, a final version, dated April 1994, has

been released which contains minor changes from the July 1993 version.

EPA believes that the Commonwealth can incorporate the minor changes

from the final version into their regulation amendments. EPA is

proposing to find that the test standard requirements of the federal

regulation are satisfied based on the condition that the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania will submit to EPA by December 31, 1994 the amended

Commonwealth's regulation incorporating the Tier 1 and Phase 2 emission

standards from the final version of EPA I/M document referenced above.

EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP based on

the Commonwealth's commitment to revise its regulations consistent with

this finding. The effective date of these regulation amendments must

coincide with the start date of the enhanced I/M program. If the

Commonwealth fails to fulfill this condition by December 31, 1994, EPA

will consider the commitment not met and will promptly issue a letter

to the Commonwealth indicating that the conditional approval has been

converted to a disapproval.

EPA intends to promulgate the test procedures and related

requirements found in the final version of the EPA I/M document

referenced above as official I/M tests in part 85 of the CFR. Any

changes made during the rulemaking process, which EPA believes would be

minimal, should also be made in the Pennsylvania regulation.

The Commonwealth regulation establishes evaporative purge and

pressure test standards which conform to EPA established standards and

are approvable.

The Pennsylvania regulation provides start-up emission standards

for the transient test that apply during calendar year 1995 and 1996.

The schedule for implementation of these start-up emission standards is

approvable. The Pennsylvania regulation provides for two sets of

permanent emission standards for the transient test, one set which

applies from 1997 through 2001 and the second set which applies in

calendar year 2002 and on. The schedule for implementation of the

permanent standards is approvable and was used in the performance

standard modeling demonstration.

The Commonwealth's regulation also requires vehicles that have been

altered from their original certified configuration (i.e. engine or

fuel switching) to be tested in the same manner as other subject

vehicles.

Test Equipment--40 CFR Part 51.358

Computerized test systems are required for performing any

measurement on subject vehicles. The federal I/M regulation requires

that the state SIP submittal include written technical specifications

for all test equipment used in the program. The specifications shall

describe the emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment,

the required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and

procedures.

The Commonwealth submittal contains the written technical

specifications for all test equipment to be used in the program. The

specifications require the use of computerized test systems. The

specifications also include performance features and functional

characteristics of the computerized test systems which meet the federal

I/M regulations and are approvable.

Quality Control--40 CFR Part 51.359

Quality control measures shall insure that emission measurement

equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection,

calibration records, and control charts are accurately created,

recorded and maintained.

The Commonwealth's submittal contains the RFP and the contractors'

proposal which describe and establish quality control measures for the

emission measurement equipment, record keeping requirements and

measures to maintain the security of all documents used to establish

compliance with the inspection requirements. This portion of the

Commonwealth's submittal complies with the quality control requirements

set forth in 40 CFR part 51.359 and is approvable.

Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR Part 51.360

The federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver,

which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows

a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. For

enhanced I/M programs, an expenditure of at least $450 in repairs,

adjusted annually to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index

(CPI) as compared to the CPI for 1989, is required in order to qualify

for a waiver. Waivers can only be issued after a vehicle has failed a

retest performed after all qualifying repairs have been made. Any

available warranty coverage must be used to obtain repairs before

expenditures can be counted toward the cost limit. Tampering related

repairs shall not be applied toward the cost limit. Repairs must be

appropriate to the cause of the test failure. Repairs for 1980 and

newer model year vehicles must be performed by a recognized repair

technician. The federal regulation allows for compliance via a

diagnostic inspection after failing a retest on emissions and requires

quality control of waiver issuance. The SIP must set a maximum waiver

rate and must describe corrective action that would be taken if the

waiver rate exceeds that committed to in the SIP.

Act 166 and the Pennsylvania I/M regulation provide the necessary

authority to issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits, administer and

enforce the waiver system, and set a $450 cost limit and allow for an

annual adjustment of the cost limit to reflect the change in the CPI as

compared to the CPI in 1989. The Pennsylvania regulation, RFP, and the

contractors' proposal include provisions which address waiver criteria

and procedures, including cost limits, tampering and warranty related

repairs, quality control and administration. These provisions meet the

federal I/M regulations requirements and are approvable. The

Pennsylvania I/M regulation requires repairs for 1980 and later model

year vehicles to be performed by a recognized repair technician. The

Commonwealth's regulation allows for compliance via diagnostic

inspection and the policies and procedures outlined in the submittal

meet federal I/M regulations and are approvable. The Commonwealth's

regulation does not allow for time extensions. The Commonwealth has set

a maximum waiver rate of 3% for both pre-1981 and 1981 and later

vehicles and has described corrective actions to be taken if the waiver

rate exceeds 3%. This waiver rate has been used in the performance

standard modeling demonstration and is approvable. The waiver

provisions of the SIP meet federal requirements and are approvable.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR Part 51.361

The federal regulation requires that compliance shall be ensured

through the denial of motor vehicle registration in enhanced I/M

programs unless an exception for use of an existing alternative is

approved. An enhanced I/M area may use either sticker-based enforcement

programs or computer-matching programs if either of these programs were

used in the existing program and it can be demonstrated that the

alternative has been more effective than registration denial. For newly

implementing enhanced areas, including newly subject areas in a state

with an I/M program in another part of the state, there is no provision

for enforcement alternatives in the Act. The SIP shall provide

information concerning the enforcement process, legal authority to

implement and enforce the program, and a commitment to a compliance

rate to be used for modeling purposes and to be maintained in practice.

Both Act 166 and the Pennsylvania I/M regulation provide the legal

authority to implement a registration denial system. The Pennsylvania

SIP commits to a compliance rate of 96% which was used in the

performance standard modeling demonstration and is approvable. The

submittal includes detailed information concerning the registration

denial enforcement process which meets the federal I/M regulation

requirements and is approvable.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR Part 51.362

The federal I/M regulation requires that the enforcement program

shall be audited regularly and shall follow effective program

management practices, including adjustments to improve operation when

necessary. The SIP shall include quality control and quality assurance

procedures to be used to insure the effective overall performance of

the enforcement system. An information management system shall be

established which will characterize, evaluate and enforce the program.

The Pennsylvania SIP describes in general how the enforcement

program oversight is quality controlled and quality assured and

includes the establishment of an information management system.

The SIP includes a commitment to develop the procedures document

which will detail the specifics of the implementation of the oversight

program by the fall of 1994. The SIP includes a commitment to submit

this procedures document as an amendment to the SIP. EPA proposes

conditional approval of the Pennsylvania SIP with the condition that

the Commonwealth meet its commitment that the motorist compliance

enforcement program oversight procedures manual be submitted as a SIP

amendment within one year from the date of publication of the Federal

Register notice which conditionally approves the SIP.

Quality Assurance--40 CFR Part 51.363

An ongoing quality assurance program shall be implemented to

discover, correct and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the program.

The program shall include covert and overt performance audits of the

inspectors, audits of station and inspector records, equipment audits,

and formal training of all state I/M enforcement officials and

auditors. A description of the quality assurance program which includes

written procedure manuals on the above discussed items must be

submitted as part of the SIP.

The Pennsylvania submittal describes the quality assurance program

and includes regulations and supporting documents which describe

procedures for implementing inspector, records and equipment audits as

well as providing formal training to all Commonwealth enforcement

officials. Performance audits of inspectors will consist of both covert

and overt audits. The SIP states that a quality assurance procedure

manual is under development which will be consistent with federal

regulation and will include written procedures for performing covert

and overt audits. EPA interprets this as a commitment to develop the

procedures manual and submit it to EPA as a SIP revision. EPA proposes

to conditionally approve the SIP based on its finding that the SIP

meets the quality assurance requirements of the federal regulation with

the condition that the Commonwealth meet its commitment that the

quality assurance program procedures manual will be submitted as a SIP

amendment within one year from the date of publication of the Federal

Register notice which conditionally approves the SIP.

Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR Part

51.364

Enforcement against licensed stations, contractors and inspectors

shall include swift, sure, effective, and consistent penalties for

violation of program requirements. The federal I/M regulation requires

the establishment of minimum penalties for violations of program rules

and procedures which can be imposed against stations, contractors and

inspectors. The legal authority for establishing and imposing

penalties, civil fines, license suspensions and revocations must be

included in the SIP. State quality assurance officials shall have the

authority to temporarily suspend station and/or inspector licenses

immediately upon finding a violation that directly affects emission

reduction benefits, unless constitutionally prohibited. An official

opinion explaining any state constitutional impediments to immediate

suspension authority must be included in the submittal. The SIP shall

describe the administrative and judicial procedures and

responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which

agencies, courts and jurisdictions are involved, who will prosecute and

adjudicate cases and the resources and sources of those resources which

will support this function.

The Pennsylvania submittal includes the legal authority to

establish and impose penalties against stations, contractors and

inspectors. The penalty schedules for inspectors and stations which are

found in the Commonwealth's regulation meet the federal I/M regulation

requirements and are approvable. The penalty schedule for contractors

is approvable with one contingency. 67 PA Code Sec. 178.602(b),

entitled Schedule of Penalties for Emission Inspection Contractors,

states that ``the contractor shall be subject to the terms and

conditions of the Contractor Responsibility Program and may be subject

to penalties and sanctions thereunder in addition to or in lieu of

those imposed under this section or the contract''. The Contractor

Responsibility Program (CRP) is not a statute but rather a Governors'

Office Management Directive and is found in the SIP in Addendum I of

the RFP. The Management Directive does not list specific monetary

penalties to be assessed to the contractor but rather provides for

suspension or debarment of the contractor. EPA is concerned that the

penalties imposed under the CRP could be less stringent than those in

the Commonwealth's I/M regulation. The Commonwealth has indicated that

it intends to use this authority only to impose penalties that are more

stringent than those in the Commonwealth's regulation. Therefore, EPA

is proposing to approve the penalty schedule against contractors which

is found in section 178.602(b) of the Commonwealth's regulation with

the contingency that penalties assessed against the contractor under

the CRP in lieu of the penalties in the Commonwealth's I/M regulation

must be equal to or more stringent than those in the Commonwealth's I/M

regulation. However, should Pennsylvania at any time assess penalties

less stringent than those in the regulation EPA will rescind its

approval and disapprove the SIP.

The Commonwealth's I/M regulation gives the state auditor the

authority to temporarily suspend station and inspector licenses or

certificates immediately upon finding a violation. The submittal

include descriptions of administrative and judicial procedures relevant

to the enforcement process which meet federal I/M regulations and are

approvable.

Data Collection--40 CFR Part 51.365

Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation

and enforcement of an I/M program. The federal I/M regulation requires

data to be gathered on each individual test conducted and on the

results of the quality control checks of test equipment required under

40 CFR part 51.359.

The Commonwealth's regulation and RFP require the collection of

data on each individual test conducted and describe the type of data to

be collected. The type of test data collected meets the federal I/M

regulation requirements and is approvable. The submittal also commits

to gather and report the results of the quality control checks required

under 40 CFR part 51.359 and is approvable.

Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR Part 51.366

Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring

and evaluation of the program by the state and EPA. The federal I/M

regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide

information and statistics and summarize activities performed for each

of the following programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control

and enforcement. These reports are to be submitted by July and shall

provide statistics for the period of January to December of the

previous year. A biennial report shall be submitted to EPA which

addresses changes in program design, regulations, legal authority,

program procedures and any weaknesses in the program found during the

two year period and how these problems will be or were corrected.

The Pennsylvania I/M SIP provides for the analysis and reporting of

data for the testing program, quality assurance program, quality

control program and the enforcement program. The type of data to be

analyzed and reported on meets the federal I/M regulation requirements

and is approvable. The Commonwealth commits to submit annual reports on

these programs to EPA by July of the subsequent year. A commitment to

submit a biennial report to EPA which addresses reporting requirements

set forth in 40 CFR part 51.366(e) is also included in the SIP.

Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR Part 51.376

The federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally

trained and licensed or certified to perform inspections.

The Pennsylvania I/M regulation requires all inspectors to receive

formal training, be certified by the PADOT and renew the certification

every two years. The Commonwealth's I/M regulation, the RFP and the

contractors' proposal include a description of and the information

covered in the training program, a description of the required written

and hands-on tests and a description of the certification process. The

SIP meets the federal I/M regulation requirements for inspector

training and certification and is approvable.

Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR Part 51.368

The federal I/M regulation requires the SIP to include public

information and consumer protection programs. The RFP and the

contractors' proposal include a public information program which

educates the public on I/M, state and federal regulations, air quality

and the role of motor vehicles in the air pollution problem, and other

items as described in the federal rule. The consumer protection program

includes provisions for a challenge mechanism, protection of whistle

blowers and providing assistance to motorists in obtaining warranty

covered repairs. The public information and consumer protection

programs contained in the SIP submittal meet the federal regulations

and are approvable.

Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR Part 51.369

Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The

federal regulation requires states to take steps to ensure that the

capability exists in the repair industry to repair vehicles. The SIP

must include a description of the technical assistance program to be

implemented, a description of the procedures and criteria to be used in

meeting the performance monitoring requirements required in the federal

regulation and a description of the repair technician training

resources available in the community.

The Pennsylvania I/M regulation, the RFP, and the contractors'

proposal require the implementation of a technical assistance program

which includes a hot line service to assist repair technicians and a

method of regularly informing the repair facilities of changes in the

program, training courses, and common repair problems. A repair

facility performance monitoring program is also included in the

Commonwealth's I/M regulation, the RFP, and the I/M contractors'

proposal which includes providing the motorist whose vehicle fails the

test a summary of local repair facilities performances, provides

regular feedback to each facility on their repair performance and

requires the submittal of a completed repair form at the time of

retest. The performance monitoring program design meets the criteria

described in the federal regulation and is approvable. The

Commonwealth's regulation provides for the establishment and

implementation of a repair technician training program which, at a

minimum, covers the four types of training described in 40 CFR part

51.369(c) of the federal regulation. The repair effectiveness program

described in the SIP meets the federal regulation and is approvable.

Compliance With Recall Notices--40 CFR Part 51.370

The federal regulation requires the states to establish methods to

ensure that vehicles that are subject to enhanced I/M and are included

in an emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to

completing the emission test and/or renewing the vehicle registration.

Act 166 and the Commonwealth's I/M regulation provide the legal

authority to require owners to comply with emission related recalls

before completing the emission test and renewing the vehicle

registration. The SIP includes procedures to be used to incorporate

national database recall information into the Commonwealth's inspection

database and quality control methods to insure recall repairs are

properly documented and tracked. The submittal includes a commitment to

submit an annual report to EPA which includes the recall related

information as required in 40 CFR part 51.370(c). The recall compliance

program contained in the SIP submittal meets the federal requirements

and is approvable.

On-Road Testing--40 CFR Part 51.371

On-road testing is required in enhanced I/M areas. The use of

either remote sensing devices (RSD) or roadside pullovers including

tailpipe emission testing can be used to meet the federal regulations.

The program must include on-road testing of 0.5% of the subject fleet

or 20,000 vehicles, whichever is less, in the nonattainment area or the

I/M program area. Motorists that have passed an emission test and are

found to be high emitters as a result of an on-road test shall be

required to pass an out-of-cycle test.

Legal authority to implement the on-road testing program and

enforce off-cycle inspection and repair requirements is contained in

Act 166 and the Commonwealth's I/M regulation. The SIP submittal

requires the use of RSD to test 20,000 vehicles per year in the I/M

program area and will be implemented by the contractor. A description

of the program which includes test limits and criteria, resource

allocations, and methods of collecting, analyzing and reporting the

results of the testing are detailed in the submittal. The on-road

testing program described in the SIP meets federal requirements and is

approvable.

State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR

Part 51.372-373

The Pennsylvania submittal included the Commonwealth's final I/M

regulations, legislative authority to implement the program, a final

RFP, portions of the contractor's proposal, the signed contract between

the Commonwealth and the contractor, a modeling demonstration showing

that the program design meets the performance standard, evidence of

adequate funding and resources to implement the program, and a detailed

discussion on each of the required program design elements. The

submittal states that all inspectors and stations will be certified by

December 22, 1994 and the start date for implementation of full-

stringency cutpoints will be January 1, 1997. The submittal also

includes a commitment to include onboard diagnostic checks in the I/M

program within 2 years after promulgation of onboard diagnostic check

regulations for I/M programs.

Act 166 provides the legal authority to implement the program.

However, part of this provision states ``this program shall be

established in all areas of this Commonwealth where the secretary

certifies by publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin that a system is

required in order to comply with Federal law.'' Act 166 requires ``at

least 60 days prior to the implementation of any enhanced emission

inspection program developed under this subsection, the Secretary of

Transportation shall certify by notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin

that an enhanced emission inspection program will commence''. The

Pennsylvania I/M regulation states that the program begins 60 days

after publication of the notice. It is stated in the Pennsylvania I/M

SIP that ``it is not possible at this time to furnish a copy of that

notice since it will be published in calendar year 1994.'' The SIP goes

on to state that ``when that notice has appeared in the Bulletin, the

Department shall furnish a copy to the EPA as an amendment to this

SIP''. EPA interprets this language as a commitment on the part of the

Commonwealth to publish the bulletin notice announcing the start date

of the program and submit it as an amendment to the SIP by December 31,

1994. EPA also interprets this language to mean that the program will

commence no later than March 1, 1995. Although the federal I/M

regulation requires programs to commence on January 1, 1995, EPA

believes that Pennsylvania can test the appropriate number of vehicles

in calendar year 1995 and that therefore a two-month delay in the start

date is de minimis. EPA is therefore proposing to find that the SIP

submission and implementation deadline requirements set forth in the

federal I/M regulation are substantially satisfied based on the

condition that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will submit to EPA by

December 31, 1994 the Pennsylvania Bulletin notice certifying the need

for the program and that the program begins sixty days after the date

of the Pennsylvania Bulletin notice. EPA is proposing to conditionally

approve the Pennsylvania SIP based on the Commonwealth's commitment to

meet this condition. If the Pennsylvania Bulletin notice is not

received by December 31, 1994, EPA will consider the commitment not met

and will promptly issue a letter to the Commonwealth indicating that

the conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval.

EPA's review of the material indicates that with the conditions and

contingencies described above the Commonwealth has adopted an enhanced

I/M program in accordance with the requirements of the Act. EPA is

proposing to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision and

the addendum to the revision for an enhanced I/M program, which were

submitted on November 5, 1993 and March 30, 1994, respectively, subject

to the conditions and contingencies described above. EPA is soliciting

public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other

relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final

action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking

procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional office

listed in the Addresses section of this notice.

Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this revision to the

Pennsylvania SIP for an enhanced I/M program based on certain

contingencies. The conditions for approvability are as follows: (1) by

December 31, 1994 a notice must be published in the Pennsylvania

Bulletin by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation which

certifies that the enhanced I/M program is required in order to comply

with federal law, certifies the geographic areas which are subject to

the enhanced I/M program (the geographic coverage must be identical to

that listed in Appendix A-1 of the November 5, 1993 SIP submittal), and

certifies the commencement date of the enhanced I/M program. This

notice must be submitted to EPA as an amendment to the SIP by December

31, 1994; (2) by December 31, 1994 the Commonwealth must revise and

submit to EPA as a SIP amendment, the amendments to the Pennsylvania I/

M regulation, 67 PA Code Chapter 178.202-205, which require EPA

approval prior to implementation of any alternate purge test procedure

and incorporate the transient emission standards for Tier 1 vehicles,

the Phase 2 standards for all vehicle types and model years, and the

transient and evaporative purge test procedures found in the final

version of the EPA document entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test Procedures,

Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and Equipment

Specifications'', EPA-AA-EPSD-IM-93-1, April 1994, (3) within one year

from the date that EPA conditionally approves the Pennsylvania I/M SIP,

the Commonwealth must submit the PADOT procedures manual for motorist

compliance enforcement program oversight as an amendment to the SIP and

(4) within one year from the date that EPA conditionally approves the

Pennsylvania I/M SIP, the Commonwealth must submit the PADOT procedures

manual for quality assurance as an amendment to the SIP. The

contingencies for approvability are as follows: (1) if penalties are

assessed against the contractor under the Contractor Responsibility

Program in lieu of the penalties in 67 PA Code Sec. 178.602(b) of the

Pennsylvania I/M regulation, the penalties must be equal to or more

stringent than those in the Commonwealth's I/M regulation and (2) the

present contractor or any future contractors for the Pennsylvania I/M

program may not have any business interest in a vehicle repair facility

anywhere in the continental United States.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the Commonwealth is already imposing.

Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new

requirements, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the Act, preparation of a flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of Commonwealth action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to

base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.

U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

If the Commonwealth fails to meet any of the conditions of this

approval action, the EPA Regional Administrator would directly make a

finding, by letter, that the conditional approval had converted to a

disapproval and the clock for imposition of sanctions under section

179(a) of the Act would start as of the date of the letter.

Subsequently, a notice would be published in the Federal Register

announcing that the SIP revision has been disapproved.

If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the Commonwealth's failure to meet the

commitment, it will not affect any existing Commonwealth requirements

applicable to small entities. Federal disapproval of the Commonwealth's

submittal does not affect its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's

disapproval of the submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it

does not remove existing requirements nor does it substitute a new

federal requirement.

Under Executive Order 12866, this action is not significant. It has

not been submitted to OMB for review.

The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the

Pennsylvania I/M SIP revision will be based on whether it meets the

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) of the Clean Air Act, as

amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: June 23, 1994.

Stanley L. Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 94-15982 Filed 6-29-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P