Inspection/Maintenance Flexibility Amendments (Ozone Transport Region)

SUMMARY: Today's action revises the motor vehicle Inspection/

Maintenance (I/M) requirements by adding a special low enhanced

performance standard for qualified areas in Ozone Transport Regions

(OTR). This additional performance standard applies to certain

attainment, marginal and moderate areas in the OTR. The purpose of this

action is to allow OTR qualifying areas the flexibility to implement a

broader range of I/M programs than is currently permitted.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will take effect on September 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in the

Public Docket No. A-95-08. 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 5:30 p.m. on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying docket material. Electronic copies of the preamble and the

regulatory text of this rulemaking are available on the Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network

Bulletin Board System (TTN BBS) and the Office of Mobile Sources' World

Wide Web cite, http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leila Cook, Office of Mobile Sources,

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann

Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (313) 741-7820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Contents

II. Summary of Rule

III. Authority

IV. Public Participation

A. Increased Flexibility

B. Clarification of 200,000 Population Requirement

C. Duplicate Requirements

D. Emission Reduction Credits

E. Comparability of Basic Programs

F. Effectiveness of RSD

G. Retests for RSD Failures

H. OBD Tests

I. Other Comments

V. Economic Costs and Benefits

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

E. Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act

II. Summary of Rule

Under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act), 42 U.S.C.7

401 et seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published

in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (40 CFR part 51, subpart S)

rules related to plans for Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/

M) programs (hereafter referred to as the I/M rule; see 57 FR 52950).

Today, EPA is revising this rule to provide greater flexibility to

certain Ozone Transport Region (OTR) areas.

Section 182 of the Act is prescriptive regarding the various

elements that are required as part of an enhanced Inspection/

Maintenance (I/M) performance standard. It also provides states with

flexibility in meeting the numerical performance standards for enhanced

or basic I/M programs. States in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR)

requested additional flexibility in implementing I/M in areas which are

in attainment, which are areas designated and classified as marginal

ozone areas, or which are designated and classified as moderate ozone

areas under 200,000 in population. These three types of areas would be

exempt from all I/M requirements but for their location in the OTR.

These areas are included in the OTR enhanced I/M requirements to help

achieve overall attainment and maintenance goals for the region, which

includes serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas.

With today's action, EPA is establishing an additional enhanced I/M

performance standard for qualified areas in the Northeast OTR,

hereafter referred to as the OTR low enhanced performance standard. The

emission reduction targets for this program are less than both the low

enhanced performance standard and the basic performance standard. There

are two qualifications to be eligible for the OTR low enhanced

performance standard. First, the standard applies only in attainment

areas, marginal ozone nonattainment areas and certain moderate ozone

nonattainment areas under 200,000 in an OTR. Moderate areas of that

size that were not previously required to, or had not in fact,

implemented a basic I/M program under the pre-1990 Act can take

advantage of the OTR low enhanced performance standard. The savings

clause in section 182(a)(2)(B)(i) requires areas that had or were

required to have I/M programs before 1990 to retain programs of at

least that stringency. Because, as explained below, EPA believes the

Act requires an enhanced I/M program to be an enhancement over

otherwise applicable I/M requirements, areas subject to basic I/M or

the savings clause cannot adopt a less stringent program. Any moderate

area with urbanized areas having a total population of over 200,000

would also be required to implement basic I/M under section 182(b)(4)

and therefore is ineligible for the OTR low enhanced performance

standard. Second, the OTR low enhanced program must be supplemented by

other measures in order to achieve emission reductions equal to or

greater than that which would have occurred had a regular low enhanced

I/M program been implemented (as defined by 40 CFR 51.351(g), see 60 FR

48029). This is because the primary goal of the Act in establishing the

OTR provisions and requiring enhanced I/M in areas with a population of

100,000 or more in the OTR was to contribute to regional attainment.

EPA believes that an area should be able to qualify for the additional

flexibility provided under the OTR low enhanced standard only if it

achieves, in some other way, the additional reductions that the

otherwise applicable low enhanced I/M program would achieve. Thus, the

total emission reductions from the OTR low enhanced I/M program plus

the additional measures must equal the tonnage reduction that a regular

low enhanced program would have generated. However, since local

reductions are not the crucial factor, a state may bubble surplus

reductions from other areas not required to implement I/M in the state.

For example, a state could implement a statewide reformulated gasoline

(RFG) program plus an OTR low enhanced I/M program in subject areas or

statewide and potentially achieve comparable reductions to a regular

low enhanced program because of the additional reductions RFG would

achieve in areas not otherwise required to have RFG. Equality of

emission reductions must be demonstrated over a time period which

aligns with the attainment deadlines of all OTR areas: from 2000

through 2007. Note that an I/M program that meets the OTR low enhanced

performance standard must be implemented even if other measures could

achieve comparable emission reductions because the Act specifically

[[Page 39033]]

requires an enhanced I/M program in metropolitan areas with 100,000

population in the OTR. Also, measures to fill the gap between OTR low

and regular low enhanced I/M may not be otherwise required by the Clean

Air Act.

The OTR low enhanced performance standard model program is composed

of the following elements: Annual testing of 1968 and newer light duty

vehicles and light duty trucks, OBD checks for 1996 and newer vehicles,

remote sensing of 1968-1995 vehicles, catalyst checks on 1975 and newer

vehicles, and PCV valve checks on pre-1975 vehicles. These elements

collectively satisfy the Act's requirements for an enhanced I/M program

performance standard. As with other performance standards, EPA does not

necessarily recommend implementing this particular program but rather

encourages states to design a program that will achieve equal or

greater emission reductions than the performance standard while

providing for the specific needs of the area.

In the proposal, EPA noted that the emission reduction targets

generated by this model program could not yet be precisely modeled but

EPA estimated the targets to be less than those for the basic I/M

program standard (which are approximately 6.3% for HC, 10.8% for CO,

and 0.7% for NOX). EPA expects to issue draft guidance on remote

sensing credits in the Summer of 1996. As soon as a final guidance is

issued, an analysis of the emission reduction targets generated by this

model program will be placed in the docket. Even though the estimated

emission reduction targets for the OTR low enhanced standard are less

than those for basic I/M, EPA believes this standard meets the

requirement of the Act for ``enhanced'' I/M. There are two important

facts to consider in this regard: first, neither the Act nor the

legislative history specifies that the emission reduction targets for

enhanced I/M must be greater than basic in all cases. EPA believes the

Act provides the agency latitude in establishing multiple performance

standards to meet a wide range of state and local needs and conditions.

Second, the areas eligible to take advantage of this performance

standard were not required to nor did they implement I/M programs prior

to 1990. So, in all cases, this standard establishes a program target

that is indeed enhanced relative to what was present or required for

the area before enactment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments or is

otherwise required after the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. EPA did not

receive any public comments disagreeing with this legal interpretation.

As is the case with all performance standard model programs, EPA

does not necessarily recommend implementation of the model program,

since it is constrained in composition by law (e.g., EPA recommends not

testing cars until they reach 4 years of age and recommends biennial

testing as more cost-effective; by contrast, all of the enhanced I/M

performance standards are required by the Act to reflect a model

program that includes annual testing of all vehicles). In that the

emission reduction targets for the OTR low enhanced performance

standard are below the basic level, the standard provides the broadest

possible latitude in program design. For example, some states in the

OTR have existing decentralized, safety inspection programs.

Comprehensive visual checks of emission control devices, a gas cap

pressure test, the Act-mandated OBD check, and the Act-mandated on-road

testing could be added to these programs which should then meet the OTR

low enhanced standard, as long as a proper enforcement mechanism was in

place. Many other possibilities exist for program designs that could

also meet this performance standard.

While the OTR low enhanced performance standard is less demanding

than the existing performance standard applicable to the affected

areas, today's action still ensures that enhanced I/M programs in these

areas meet all statutory criteria for EPA approval. A state's OTR low

enhanced program is required, under section 182(c)(3)(C) of the Clean

Air Act, to include computerized analyzers and on-road testing devices;

computerized equipment and on-road testing devices are required by the

current rule and apply to the OTR low enhanced program. A state's OTR

low enhanced program shall also include a regulatory framework for

waivers, if waivers are to be issued, and an enforcement system through

registration denial, (except for any program in operation before

November 15, 1990 whose enforcement mechanism has been demonstrated to

be more effective than registration denial). Today's amendments leave

requirements in this regard the same as for other enhanced I/M areas.

As mandated by the Act, in an OTR low enhanced program, vehicle

emissions shall be tested annually unless biennial testing will equal

or exceed the reductions that can be obtained from annual inspections.

A program could combine biennial inspections on the vehicles equipped

with on-board diagnostic computers (OBD) with biennial evaporative

system checks to achieve the necessary additional reductions. The OTR

low enhanced performance standard is based on centralized inspections

of OBD-equipped vehicles and on-road remote sensing testing; EPA

believes that this meets the specific requirement that the performance

standard be based on centralized testing.

Today's action also establishes quality assurance requirements for

OTR low enhanced I/M programs that are commensurate with the emission

reductions which the programs are intended to achieve. In particular,

current rules require enhanced I/M programs to be evaluated by

conducting test-only IM240s on a random representative sample of the

fleet (a minimum of 0.1%) to verify that the emission reductions are

occurring. EPA believes that the emission reductions from an OTR low

enhanced program are small enough that this level of effort is not

justified. The routine quality assurance requirements of the original

I/M rule are also not necessarily appropriate in light of the low level

of benefits of the program.

This action also modifies the geographic exclusion rule for

counties within Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the Ozone

Transport Region. The modification allows states to exclude counties

that comprise less than 1% of the population of the MSA from program

coverage. Inclusion of such a small fraction of the population is not

worth the significant cost of expanding geographic coverage of the

program to include such a county.

This action requires that the implementation date for full testing

in areas opting for the OTR low performance standard be no later than

the latest date by which full testing can commence and still achieve

sufficient reductions for all OTR areas to meet the performance

standard by the Act's attainment and reasonable further progress

deadlines, including the end of 1999 attainment date for serious ozone

nonattainment areas. This will generally mean a start date no later

than January 1, 1999, for annual testing programs, although EPA will

accept field testing commencing as late as July 1, 1999 if the full I/M

reductions can be achieved by the serious area attainment deadline.

Note that the performance standard model program assumes a start date

of January 1, 1999 because EPA believes Congress intended that the

performance standard be based on at least one complete annual test

cycle. With the requirement to offset the emissions difference between

OTR low and regular low enhanced with other measures, this

[[Page 39034]]

date ensures that attainment in the region is not impaired.

Today's action also serves to provide other flexibilities to non-

OTR states in designing quality assurance programs. The intent is to

allow alternative quality assurance procedures that are as effective as

or better than those specified in the original I/M rule.

III. Authority

Authority for the action proposed in this notice is granted to EPA

by section 182 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et

seq.).

IV. Public Participation

A. Increased Flexibility

All the commenters agreed with EPA's effort to provide states with

greater flexibility and almost all felt that the new OTR low enhanced

performance standard was necessary to meet the unique needs of states

within the Ozone Transport Region.

B. Clarification of 200,000 Population Requirement

1. Summary of Proposal

The proposal allowed attainment areas, marginal ozone nonattainment

areas and moderate ozone nonattainment areas with a 1980 Census

population of less than 200,000 in the urbanized area to use the new

OTR low enhanced performance standard.

2. Summary of Comments

One commenter asked for clarification of how the 200,000 urbanized

area population criteria would be applied. Specifically, the commenter

asked whether the population criteria applied to urbanized areas within

each Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or urbanized areas within the

entire attainment or non-attainment area.

3. Response to Comments

Within the OTR, enhanced I/M programs are required in MSA's with

populations of 100,000 or more. However, the OTR, like the rest of the

country, is also subject to the basic I/M requirements that an

urbanized area with a population of 200,000 or more that is classified

as moderate ozone nonattainment must implement a basic I/M program.

Thus, moderate ozone areas in the OTR with an MSA population of greater

than 100,000 but an urbanized area population of less than 200,000 are

eligible for the OTR low enhanced performance standard. In contrast,

moderate ozone areas with MSA populations of greater than 100,000 and

urbanized area populations of greater than 200,000 must meet the basic

performance standard. If a state within the OTR falls into this later

category which has to implement a basic I/M program in the urbanized

area (with a population of 200,000 or more) it can still implement an

OTR low enhanced program in any portion of the MSA which falls into an

urbanized area with a population of less than 200,000.

C. Duplicate Requirements

1. Summary of Proposal

The proposal did not exempt states that implement an OTR low

enhanced performance program from most of the general requirements for

enhanced I/M programs in the original I/M rule.

2. Summary of Comments

Two commenters addressed this issue. The first felt that the

inclusion of on-road testing and OBD testing in the OTR low enhanced

performance standard is duplicative of the on-road and OBD testing

requirements in the original rule, 40 CFR 51.351 (b) and (c). The

second commenter felt that several sections of the I/M rule dealing

with data collection and data analysis and reporting, 40 CFR 51.365 and

51.366, should not be applicable to OTR low enhanced programs.

3. Response to Comments

The Clean Air Act requires OBD as part of any basic or enhanced

performance standard. Additionally, RSD is required as part of any

enhanced I/M performance standard. Section 51.351(b) requires that on-

road testing of either 0.5% of the subject vehicle population or 20,000

vehicles (whichever is less) be included in any enhanced I/M

performance standard. The OBD requirements were reserved by EPA in the

original I/M rule and are expected to be published in 1996. EPA

cautions commenters to remember that performance standards merely

establish the minimum target a certain program must meet. They do not

conclusively establish the elements of the program. Thus, the

Sec. 51.351(h)(6) establishment of RSD and OBD as the exhaust emission

test types under the OTR low enhanced performance standard is not a

duplication of Secs. 51.351 (b) and (c) because these are separate

standards which OTR low areas do not otherwise have to meet.

EPA agrees with the comment that certain portions of sections

51.365 and 51.366 regarding data collection, analysis and reporting are

inapplicable to OTR low enhanced performance states. Certain ``high''

enhanced program elements, such as evaporative system checks, will not

apply in an OTR low enhanced program. However, the Clean Air Act and

the I/M rule require each state to report emissions reductions

achieved, based on data collected during the inspection and repair of

vehicles. Furthermore, depending on the program design which these

areas elect to implement, varying types of data and reporting might or

might not apply. Obviously a state cannot collect, analyze and report

data which its program does not generate. Therefore, while the data

collection and reporting requirements of sections 51.365 and 51.366

must still apply to OTR low enhanced areas, states need only submit

program-applicable data and reports.

D. Emission Reduction Credits

1. Summary of Proposal

The preamble for the proposal acknowledged that EPA had not

finalized emission reduction credits for the OTR low enhanced

performance standard because EPA is still in the process of finalizing

the credits for RSD. However, the preamble did note that EPA expected

these benefits to be less than those achieved by the basic performance

standard.

2. Summary of Comments

Several commenters noted that it is difficult for a state to

finalize an OTR low enhanced program until EPA issues emission

reduction credits for the program.

3. Response to Comments

EPA is preparing to issue a draft guidance on RSD credits in the

Summer of 1996. After the draft guidance is issued, EPA will take

public comments before issuing final guidance. While EPA cannot give a

specific date by which final guidance will be issued, stakeholders can

be assured that EPA realizes the importance of issuing RSD credits and

is working to issue them as soon as possible.

E. Comparability of Basic Programs

1. In the proposal, EPA stated that the emission reductions from

the new OTR low enhanced performance standard will actually be less

than the emission reductions obtained from a basic I/M program. EPA

noted that the Act in no way prohibits the creation of multiple

enhanced performance standards to meet a wide variety of state and

local needs and conditions. In fact, the Clean Air Act does not require

emission reductions targets for enhanced I/M programs to be greater

than those for basic programs. Furthermore, all the areas eligible to

use the OTR low enhanced performance standard were

[[Page 39035]]

not required and did not implement I/M programs before 1990. Thus, the

OTR low enhanced performance standard is an enhancement for these areas

compared to what was required and present before the 1990 amendments to

the Act.

2. Summary of Comments

One commenter believes that any existing basic program in an

attainment or marginal non-attainment area should meet the OTR low

enhanced performance standard. This commenter did not believe that

existing programs should have to be supplemented to meet the new

performance standard.

3. Response to Comments

From an emission reduction point of view, any existing basic

program that meets the basic performance standard will also meet the

emission reduction targets established by the OTR low enhanced

performance standard. The only changes existing programs will have to

make is to include any element which is required for an enhanced

program which it currently does not include; for instance, OBD checks

and 0.5% on-road testing.

F. Effectiveness of RSD

1. Summary of Rule

The performance standard created by today's action requires RSD

testing of 1968 to 1995 vehicles beginning in 1999.

2. Summary of Comments

One commenter was very concerned that RSD testing will actually

increase consumer inconvenience if RSD has a high false failure rate.

If this is the case and the state requires retests for vehicles that

fail the RSD test, many consumers may be needlessly required to go to a

test station to get another emission test.

3. Response to Comments

The goal of this action is to increase flexibility to the states so

that they can design an I/M program which they feel is most effective

for their area and convenient for their citizens. This performance

standard merely establishes the target level of emission reductions

that an OTR low enhanced program must achieve and in no way mandates

the type of test a state must implement. Thus, states concerned about

false failures need not rely heavily on RSD testing. States may

implement any type of test they choose so long as it meets the emission

reduction target of the OTR low enhanced performance standard. The

requirement to perform on-road testing on at least 0.5% of the fleet

remains, although RSD is not required for this purpose.

G. Retests for RSD Failures

1. Summary of Proposal

The OTR low enhanced performance standard requires RSD testing of

1968-1995 vehicles with a carbon monoxide standard of 7.5%. A vehicle

must have two separate readings above 7.5% to establish a failure

thereby requiring a retest.

2. Summary of Comments

One commenter noted their opinion that RSD is useful at targeting

vehicles with excess emissions but that RSD cannot substitute for a

traditional tail-pipe exhaust test. Therefore, the commenter believed

that RSD must be used in conjunction with a traditional exhaust

emissions re-test.

3. Response to Comments

EPA agrees with this comment but again points out that this rule

only establishes a performance standard and is not guidance or a

mandate for RSD usage. EPA believes that it would be unwise for states

to require emission related repairs based solely on an RSD reading.

Indeed, EPA believes that states are aware of this and will perform

confirmatory emission re-tests using proven methods on vehicles that

fail RSD in order to avoid useless repairs.

H. OBD tests

1. Summary of Rule

Among other requirements, the OTR low enhanced performance standard

requires a start date of January 1, 1999 and OBD tests on all 1996 and

newer vehicles.

2. Summary of Comments

One state commented that it was reluctant to require repairs based

solely on OBD test failure in 1999 because of the relative newness of

OBD technology. The state commented that it preferred to wait and not

require repairs based on OBD test failure until there is more data

available on OBD's effectiveness at correctly identifying emission

component failures.

3. Response to Comments

EPA proposed an OBD rule in the Federal Register on August 18, 1995

(60 FR 43092). Currently, EPA is finalizing the OBD rule which is

expected to be published in the Summer of 1996. In the OBD rule, EPA

will address the concerns of this and several other comments about the

novelty of OBD and the need for a phase-in period prior to requiring

repairs.

I. Other Comments

EPA received several other comments which dealt with I/M issues

that were not specific to this rulemaking. EPA responded to these

unrelated comments in a response document which it placed in the

docket.

V. Economic Costs and Benefits

Today's revisions provide states additional flexibility that

lessens rather than increases the potential 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.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Administrative Designation

It has been determined that this amendment to the I/M rule is not a

significant regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866

and has been waived from 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 do today's amendments 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 information requirements in this supplemental final

rule which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this 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. A small government jurisdiction is

defined as ``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships,

villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of

less than 50,000.'' This certification is based on the fact that the I/

M areas

[[Page 39036]]

impacted by this rulemaking do not meet the definition of a small

government jurisdiction, that is, ``governments of cities, counties,

towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,

with a population of less than 50,000.'' Furthermore, the impact

created by this action does not increase the pre-existing burden which

this proposal seeks to amend.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

final rule where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more.

Under 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 the rules in this 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 rule is not estimated to impose costs in excess

of $100 million. Therefore, EPA has not prepared a statement with

respect to budgetary impacts. As noted above, this rule offers

opportunities to states that would enable them to lower economic

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

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act

(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness

Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register.

This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the

APA as amended.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Transportation.

Dated: July 16, 1960.

Fred Hansen,

Acting 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 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 740l-7671q.

2. Section 51.350 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) and by

adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:

Sec. 51.350 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) * * * (1) In an ozone transport region, the program shall cover

all counties within subject MSAs or subject portions of MSAs, as

defined by OMB in 1990, except largely rural counties having a

population density of less than 200 persons per square mile based on

the 1990 Census and counties with less than 1% of the population in the

MSA may be excluded provided that at least 50% of the MSA population is

included in the program. This provision does not preclude the voluntary

inclusion of portions of an excluded county. Non-urbanized islands not

connected to the mainland by roads, bridges, or tunnels may be excluded

without regard to population.

* * * * *

(5) Notwithstanding the limitation in paragraph (b)(3) of this

section, in an ozone transport region, states which opt for a program

which meets the performance standard described in Sec. 51.351(h) and

claim in their SIP less emission reduction credit than the basic

performance standard for one or more pollutants, may apply a geographic

bubble covering areas in the state not otherwise subject to an I/M

requirement to achieve emission reductions from other measures equal to

or greater than what would have been achieved if the low enhanced

performance standard were met in the subject I/M areas. Emissions

reductions from non-I/M measures shall not be counted towards the OTR

low enhanced performance standard.

* * * * *

3. Section 51.351 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as

follows:

Sec. 51.351 Enhanced I/M performance standards.

* * * * *

(h) Ozone Transport Region Low-Enhanced Performance Standard. An

attainment area, marginal ozone area, or moderate ozone area with a

1980 Census population of less than 200,000 in the urbanized area, in

an ozone transport region, that is required to implement enhanced I/M

under section 184(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act, but was not previously

required to or did not in fact implement basic I/M under the Clean Air

Act as enacted prior to 1990 and is not subject to the requirements for

basic I/M programs in this subpart, may select the performance standard

described below in lieu of the standard described in paragraph (f) or

(g) of this section as long as the difference in emission reductions

between the program described in paragraph (g) and this paragraph are

made up with other measures, as provided in Sec. 51.350(b)(5).

Offsetting measures shall not include those otherwise required by the

Clean Air Act in the areas from which credit is bubbled. The program

elements for this alternate OTR enhanced I/M performance standard are:

(1) Network type. Centralized testing.

(2) Start date. January 1, 1999.

(3) Test frequency. Annual testing.

(4) Model year coverage. Testing of 1968 and newer vehicles.

(5) Vehicle type coverage. Light duty vehicles, and light duty

trucks, rated up to 8,500 pounds GVWR.

(6) Exhaust emission test type. Remote sensing measurements on

1968-1995 vehicles; on-board diagnostic system checks on 1996 and newer

vehicles.

(7) Emission standards. For remote sensing measurements, a carbon

monoxide standard of 7.5% (with at least two separate readings above

this level to establish a failure).

(8) Emission control device inspections. Visual inspection of the

catalytic converter on 1975 and newer vehicles and visual inspection of

the positive crankcase ventilation valve on 1968-1974 vehicles.

(9) Waiver rate. A 3% waiver rate, as a percentage of failed

vehicles.

(10) Compliance rate. A 96% compliance rate.

(11) Evaluation dates. Enhanced I/M program areas subject to the

provisions of this paragraph shall be shown to obtain the same or lower

VOC and NOX emission levels as the model program described in this

paragraph by January 1, 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2007. Equality of

substituted emission reductions to the benefits of the low enhanced

performance standard must be demonstrated for the same evaluation

dates.

4. Section 51.353 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read as

follows:

[[Page 39037]]

Sec. 51.353 Network type and program evaluation.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(5) Areas that qualify for and choose to implement an OTR low

enhanced I/M program, as established in Sec. 51.351(h), and that

claim in their SIP less emission reduction credit than the basic

performance standard for one or more pollutants, are exempt from the

requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section. The

reports required under Sec. 51.366 of this part shall be sufficient in

these areas to satisfy the requirements of Clean Air Act for program

reporting.

* * * * *

5. Section 51.364 is amended by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to

read as follows:

Sec. 51.364 Enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors.

* * * * *

(e) Alternative quality assurance procedures or frequencies that

achieve equivalent or better results may be approved by the

Administrator. Statistical process control shall be used whenever

possible to demonstrate the efficacy of alternatives.

(f) Areas that qualify for and choose to implement an OTR low

enhanced I/M program, as established in Sec. 51.351(h), and that claim

in their SIP less emission reduction credit than the basic performance

standard for one or more pollutants, are not required to meet the

oversight specifications of this section.

6. Section 51.373 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as

follows:

Sec. 51.373 Implementation deadlines.

* * * * *

(f) Areas that choose to implement an enhanced I/M program only

meeting the requirements of Sec. 51.351(h) shall fully implement the

program no later than July 1, 1999. The availability and use of this

late start date does not relieve the area of the obligation to meet the

requirements of Sec. 51.351(h)(11) by the end of 1999.

[FR Doc. 96-18922 Filed 7-24-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P