Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans (SIP); Texas: Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX55-1-6879; FRL-5611-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation

Plans (SIP); Texas: Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing a conditional interim approval of an I/M

program proposed by the State, based upon the State's good faith

estimate of emission reductions indicating that the State's network

design credits are appropriate and the revision is otherwise in

compliance with the Clean Air Act (the Act). This action is being taken

under section 348 of the National Highway System Designation Act of

1995 (NHSDA) and section 110 of the Act. The EPA is proposing a

conditional approval because the State's SIP revision is lacking

legislative authority needed to implement certain elements of the

program.

If the State corrects these deficiencies within 1 year of the final

interim ruling, then this interim approval shall expire on the earlier

of 18-months from final interim approval, or on the date of EPA action

taking final full approval of this program. If the conditions are not

met within 1 year, EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the

SIP revision. The EPA will notify the State by letter that the

conditions have not been met and that the conditional approval has

converted to a disapproval. Furthermore, EPA proposes that the State's

program must start no later than November 15, 1997 in all I/M program

areas. The EPA also proposes that if the State fails to start its

program as defined in this document, the approval granted under the

provisions of the NHSDA will convert to a disapproval. The EPA will

notify the State by letter that the approval has converted to a

disapproval for failure to start the program according to the schedule.

The EPA is also proposing removal of the previously approved I/M

program from the SIP which was approved on August 22, 1994.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 4, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA Regional

Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to this action

are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the

following locations. Persons interested in examining these documents

should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24

hours before the visiting day.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-

L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78711-3087.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James F. Davis, Air Planning

Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-

2733, telephone (214) 665-7584.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Previous State Submittal Under the 1990 Act

On November 12, 1993, and in several later submittals, the State of

Texas made its submission of an I/M program which met the requirements

of the Act and Federal I/M rule promulgated on November 5, 1992. This

program was given final approval by EPA in a Federal Register notice

dated August 22, 1994 (59 FR 43046-43048). The program was designed to

be a test-only testing program with most vehicles receiving an I/M

loaded mode transient emission test known as the IM240. The program was

designed, developed and began operation in January 1995 before being

halted by the Texas Legislature and Governor.

While EPA fully supported this program and believes it would have

been very effective in reducing mobile source emissions if continued,

various states including Texas desired greater flexibility in

implementing their I/M programs. In response to this desire, on

September 18, 1995, EPA revised and finalized I/M rules which gave

states much greater flexibility in implementing their I/M programs. One

element of the I/M flexibility amendments included a provision for a

new low enhanced performance standard which would allow for less

stringent I/M programs if other required air quality goals were met.

Also, included in these rules was a provision that nonattainment areas

with populations under 200,000 such as Beaumont/Port Arthur would not

need to implement an I/M program if other required air quality goals

were met. In addition, on November 28, 1995, the NHSDA was signed which

allowed even greater flexibility in I/M programs for states especially

in the area of emission reduction estimates. The revised Texas I/M

program, while meeting the minimum of Federal requirements (with the

exceptions identified in this notice), represents a substantially less

effective I/M program than the previously approved program.

B. Impact of the National Highway System Designation Act on the Design

and Implementation of Inspection and Maintenance Programs under the

Clean Air Act

The NHSDA establishes two key changes to the enhanced I/M rule

requirements previously developed by EPA. Under the NHSDA, EPA cannot

require states to adopt or implement centralized, test-only IM240

enhanced vehicle I/M programs as a means of compliance with section

182, 184 or 187 of the Act. Also under the NHSDA, EPA cannot disapprove

a state SIP revision, nor apply an automatic discount to a state SIP

revision under section 182, 184 or 187 of the Act, because the I/M

program in such plan revision is decentralized, or a test-and-repair

program. Accordingly, the so-called ``50 percent credit discount'' that

was established by the EPA's I/M Program Requirements Final Rule,

(published November 5, 1992, at 57 FR 52950, and herein referred to as

the I/M Rule) has been effectively replaced with a presumptive

equivalency criteria, which places the emission reductions credits for

decentralized networks on par with credit assumptions for centralized

networks, based upon a state's good faith estimate of reductions as

provided by the NHSDA and explained below in this section.

EPA's I/M Rule established many other criteria unrelated to network

design or test type for states to use in designing enhanced I/M

programs. All other elements of the I/M Rule, and the statutory

requirements established in the Act continue to be required of those

states submitting I/M SIP revisions under the NHSDA, and the NHSDA

requires that these submittals must otherwise comply in all respects

with the I/M Rule and the Act.

The NHSDA also requires states to swiftly develop, submit, and

begin implementation of these enhanced I/M programs, since the

anticipated start-up dates developed under the Act and EPA's rules have

already been delayed. In requiring states to submit these plans within

120 days of the NHSDA passage,

[[Page 51652]]

and in allowing these states to submit proposed regulations for this

plan (which can be finalized and submitted to EPA during the interim

period), it is clear that Congress intended for states to begin testing

vehicles as soon as practicable, now that the decentralized credit

issue has been clarified and directly addressed by the NHSDA.

Submission criteria described under the NHSDA allows for a state to

submit proposed regulations for this interim program, provided that the

State has all of the statutory authority necessary to carry out the

program. Also, in proposing the interim credits for this program,

states are required to make good faith estimates regarding the

performance of their enhanced I/M program. Since these estimates are

expected to be difficult to quantify, the State need only provide that

the proposed credits claimed for the submission have a basis in fact. A

good faith estimate of a state's program may be an estimate that is

based on any of the following: the performance of any previous I/M

program; the results of remote sensing or other roadside testing

techniques; fleet and vehicle miles traveled profiles; demographic

studies; or other evidence which has relevance to the effectiveness or

emissions reducing capabilities of an I/M program.

This action is being taken under the authority of both the NHSDA

and section 110 of the Act. Section 348 of the NHSDA expressly directs

EPA to issue this interim approval for a period of 18 months, at which

time the interim program will be evaluated in concert with the

appropriate state agencies and EPA. The Conference Report on section

348 of the NHSDA states that it is expected that the proposed credits

claimed by the State in its submittal, and the emissions reductions

demonstrated through the program data may not match exactly at that

time. Therefore, the Conference Report suggests that EPA use the

program data to appropriately adjust these credits on a program basis

as demonstrated by the program data.

Furthermore, EPA believes that in also taking action under section

110 of the Act, it is appropriate to propose granting a conditional

approval to this submittal since there are some deficiencies with

respect to Act statutory and regulatory requirements (identified

herein) that EPA believes can be corrected by the State during the

interim period.

C. Interim Approvals Under the NHSDA

The NHSDA directs EPA to grant interim approval for a period of 18

months to approvable I/M submittals under this Act. This Act also

directs EPA and the states to review the interim program results at the

end of 18 months, and to make a determination as to the effectiveness

of the interim program. Following this demonstration, EPA will adjust

any credit claims made by the State in its good faith effort to reflect

the emission reductions actually measured by the state during the

program evaluation period. The NHSDA is clear that the interim approval

period shall last for only 18 months, and that the program evaluation

is due to EPA at the end of that period. Therefore, EPA believes

Congress intended for these programs to start-up as soon as possible,

which EPA believes should be at the latest by November 15, 1997. The

EPA believes that in setting such a strict timetable for program

evaluations under the NHSDA, that Congress recognized and attempted to

mitigate any further delay with the start-up of this program. For the

purposes of this program, ``start-up'' is defined as a fully

operational program which has begun regular, mandatory inspections and

repairs, using the final test strategy and covering each of a state's

required areas. The EPA proposes that if the State fails to start its

program on this schedule, the approval granted under the provisions of

the NHSDA will convert to a disapproval after a finding letter is sent

to the State.

The program evaluation to be used by the State during the 18-month

interim period must be acceptable to EPA. The EPA anticipates that such

a program evaluation process will be developed by the Environmental

Council of States group that has convened and that was organized for

this purpose. The EPA further anticipates that in addition to the

interim, short term evaluation, the State will conduct a long term,

ongoing evaluation of the I/M program as required by the I/M rule in

sections 51.353 and 51.366.

D. Process for Full Approvals of This Program Under the Act

In accordance with NHSDA requirements, this interim rulemaking will

expire 18 months of the final interim approval, or the date of final

full approval, whichever comes first. A full approval of the State's

final I/M SIP revision (which will include the State's program

evaluation) is still necessary under section 110 and under section 182,

184 or 187 of the Act. After EPA reviews the State's submitted program

evaluation, final rulemaking on the State's SIP revision will occur.

II. EPA's Analysis of Texas's Submittal

In response to this flexibility, in a letter dated March 12, 1996,

Texas submitted its revised I/M program to EPA Region 6 within the

submission deadlines contained in the NHSDA. The submission was

received in our office on March 14, 1996. It contained a SIP narrative,

proposed Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) I/M

rules, and several appendices addressing the requirements of the I/M

program. In addition, the

I/M SIP including finalized TNRCC regulations, revised SIP narrative

and responses to comments received during the State's public comment

period was received in the Region 6 office on June 27, 1996. The

submittals were intended to fulfill the requirements of the Act and the

NHSDA for the nonattainment areas of Texas which are required to

implement I/M programs. The SIP revision also contains enabling

legislation that will allow the State to implement most of the elements

of the I/M program (with the exceptions noted in this conditional

rulemaking), their modeling analysis, and a good faith estimate that

includes the State's basis for emission reductions claims of the

program. The State's credit assumptions were based upon the removal of

the 50 percent credit discount for all portions of the program that are

based on a test-and-repair network, and the application of the State's

own good faith estimate of the effectiveness of its decentralized test

and repair program.

The EPA has reviewed the State's submittal against the requirements

contained in the NHSDA, the Act, and Federal I/M rules (40 CFR part 51

subpart S). On April 10, 1996, the Region provided its comments to the

State resulting from this review. The Region highlighted the need for

the State to obtain all of the additional legislative and regulatory

authority required to implement the proposed program.

As outlined in the Governor's Executive Order, the additional

legislative authority that the Governor intends to support includes:

(1) The denial of reregistration of vehicles that have not complied

with I/M program requirements, (2) the establishment of a class C

misdemeanor penalty for operating a gross polluting vehicle in a

nonattainment area, and (3) the requirement for an inspection within 60

days of resale and prior to transfer of title to nonfamily member

consumers in Dallas, Tarrant, or Harris counties. In addition, the

Region commented that the Texas Department of Safety (DPS) rules for

the I/M program were needed before EPA could take a final full approval

action on this plan. The other comments and questions stated in our

letter reflected a comparison of the

[[Page 51653]]

revised Texas I/M SIP with the Federal I/M rules.

The EPA has reviewed the State responses to comments which were in

large part satisfactory to EPA. The major deficiencies of legislative

authority outlined in this notice can be corrected in the next Texas

legislative session. The State must correct these major deficiencies

within 12 months of final action by EPA, or this approval will

automatically convert to a disapproval under the Act section 110(k)(4).

The EPA has also identified certain minor deficiencies in the SIP,

which are itemized below. In the response to EPA comments at the

State's public hearing, the State has made commitments to correct two

minor deficiencies concerning the future submittal a State Attorney

General's opinion regarding State constitutional impediments to

immediate suspension authority of inspectors (and seek additional

immediate suspension authority if needed) and a penalty schedule. The

EPA has determined that delayed correction of these minor deficiencies

will have a de minimis impact on implementation of the I/M program.

Therefore, EPA will not impose conditions on interim approval with

respect to these deficiencies. However, the State must correct these

deficiencies during the 18-month term of the interim approval to

support full approval of its I/M SIP. So long as the State corrects

these minor deficiencies prior to final action on the State's full I/M

SIP, EPA concludes that failure to correct the deficiencies in the

short term is de minimis and will not adversely affect EPA's ability to

give interim approval to the proposed I/M program.

The following analysis addresses how the State intends to fulfill

the requirements of the Federal I/M rules. A more detailed analysis of

the State submittals and copy of EPA's comments on the plan are

included in the Technical Support Document for this action and may be

obtained from the EPA Region 6 office. A summary of the EPA's findings

follows.

Section 51.350 Applicability

The SIP needs to describe the applicable areas in detail and,

consistent with Sec. 51.372 of the Federal I/M rule, shall include the

legal authority or rules necessary to establish program boundaries.

The revised Texas I/M regulations specify that I/M programs will be

implemented in Dallas, Tarrant, Harris, and El Paso counties. A basic

I/M program will be implemented in Dallas and Tarrant counties, while

low enhanced I/M programs will be implemented in Harris and El Paso

counties. As the State's submittal indicates, vehicles traveling in

from counties surrounding the Dallas, Tarrant and Harris counties will

be subject to the I/M program through remote sensing to ensure that the

entire urbanized area coverage requirements are minimally met. Without

the additional remote sensing coverage the Dallas/Fort Worth area would

have fallen approximately 147,000 vehicles short of the requirements,

while the Houston area would have fallen about 65,000 vehicles short.

The State has committed to cover at least these amounts of commuting

vehicles in the remote sensing program. The Federal I/M flexibility

rule promulgated September 18, 1995, allowed for the removal of the

Beaumont/Port Arthur area from the I/M program. Currently, the State

does not have the legislative authority to enforce the remote sensing

program, but the Governor's Executive Order states the Governor intends

to support such legislation in the next State legislative session. If

the remote sensing program proves to be ineffective or not practicable

by the end of this interim approval action, the Texas I/M program area

will need to be expanded to make up the urbanized area shortfall. The

State submittal meets the applicability requirements of the Federal I/M

regulations for conditional interim approval.

Section 51.351-2 Enhanced and Basic I/M Performance Standard

The I/M programs provided for in the SIP are required to meet a

performance standard, either basic or enhanced as applicable. The

performance standard sets an emission reduction target that must be met

by a program in order for the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also

provide that the program will meet the performance standard in actual

operation, with provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard

is not met. Equivalency of the emission levels which need to be

achieved by the I/M program design in the SIP to those of the model

program described in this section must be demonstrated using the most

current version of EPA's mobile source emission model, or an

alternative approved by the Administrator.

The State has submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA

computer model MOBILE5a showing that the low enhanced performance

standard is met in the Houston and El Paso areas, and the basic I/M

performance standard is met in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The low

enhanced performance standard is established in 40 CFR 51.351(g). That

section provides that states may select the low enhanced performance

standard if they have an approved SIP for reasonable further progress

in 1996, commonly known as a 15 percent reduction SIP. In fact, EPA

approval of 15 percent plans has been delayed, and although EPA is

preparing to take action on 15 percent plans in the near future, it is

unlikely that EPA will have completed final action on most 15 percent

plans prior to the time EPA believes it would be appropriate to give

final interim approval to I/M programs under the NHSDA.

In enacting the NHSDA, Congress evidenced an intent to have states

promptly implement I/M programs under interim approval status to gather

the data necessary to support state claims of appropriate credit for

alternative network design systems. By providing that such programs

must be submitted within a four month period, that EPA could approve I/

M programs on an interim basis based only upon proposed regulations,

and that such approvals would last only for an 18-month period, it is

clear that Congress anticipated both that these programs would start

quickly and that EPA would act quickly to give them interim approval.

Many states have designed a program to meet the low enhanced

performance standard, and have included that program in their 15

percent plan submitted to EPA for approval. Such states anticipated

that EPA would propose approval both of the I/M programs and the 15

percent plans on a similar schedule, and thus that the I/M programs

would qualify for approval under the low performance standard. The EPA

does not believe it would be consistent with the intent of the NHSDA to

delay action on interim I/M approvals until the agency has completed

action on the corresponding 15 percent plans. Although EPA acknowledges

that under its regulations, full final approval of a low enhanced I/M

program after the 18-month evaluation period would have to await

approval of the corresponding 15 percent plan, EPA believes that in

light of the NHSDA it can take final interim approval of such I/M plans

provided that the agency has determined as an initial matter that

approval of the 15 percent plan is appropriate, and has issued a

proposed approval of that 15 percent plan.

The State has adopted and submitted a revised 15 percent plan which

includes the low enhanced I/M program. The EPA is currently reviewing

that plan and plans to propose action on it shortly. The EPA here

proposes to approve the I/M program as satisfying the low enhanced

[[Page 51654]]

performance standard provided that EPA does propose to approve the 15

percent plan containing that program. Should EPA propose approval of

the 15 percent plan, EPA will proceed to take final interim approval

action on the I/M plan. The EPA proposes in the alternative that if EPA

proposes instead to disapprove the 15 percent plan, EPA would then

disapprove the I/M plan as well because the State would no longer be

eligible to select the low enhanced performance standard under the

terms of 51.351(g).

The State's modeling originally assumed 40 percent of the vehicles

received loaded mode tests. However, the State is removing loaded mode

testing commitments from its SIP. While EPA fully supports the use of

loaded mode testing and believes loaded testing to be more effective,

revised modeling has been submitted to EPA which shows that removing

loaded mode testing from the SIP will still enable the State to meet

the low enhanced and basic performance zstandard for each respective

area. Neither the low enhanced or basic performance standard modeling

input parameters include a loaded mode component or requirement. Under

the provisions of the NHSDA, the State is claiming full credit for

vehicles that are tested at test-and-repair stations based on the

State's program design, and claiming full credit for self-testing of

fleets. At the end of the 18-month approval, the program demonstration

will have to verify the appropriateness of the State's credit

estimates.

In its submittals, the State has claimed more credit for its gas

cap evaporative system pressure test than can be justified by EPA's own

current data or any other source of data provided to the EPA. The EPA's

guidance for emission reduction credit for the gas cap check is

expressed in a December 1994 policy memorandum entitled, ``Credit for

Gas Cap Check plus Purge Test.'' However, the additional credit claimed

does not make a difference with regard to the general approvability of

the I/M program under the NHSDA, since the program appears to meet the

low enhanced I/M performance standard with or without the additional

credit claimed for the gas cap test. The EPA anticipates the State will

gather data during the operation of its program or may choose to seek

out alternative data sources to share with EPA which potentially could

justify a higher level of credit than EPA's current policy. As always,

EPA would evaluate any data submitted by a state as the basis for

credit claims made and convey the results of such evaluation to the

state. If such data indicates a higher level of credit is justified,

EPA will evaluate the appropriateness of its current policy based on

such new data at that time. The State submittal meets the enhanced and

basic performance standard requirements of the Federal

I/M regulations for interim approval.

Section 51.353 Network Type and Program Evaluation

The SIP must include a description of the network to be employed,

and the required legal authority. Also, for enhanced areas, the SIP

must include a description of the evaluation schedule and protocol, the

sampling methodology, the data collection and analysis system, the

resources and personnel for evaluation, related details of the

evaluation program, and the legal authority enabling the evaluation

program.

The State is implementing a decentralized testing network which

will allow for both test-only and test-and-repair stations. While the

State is planning to allow for some types of maintenance functions at

test-only facilities, EPA believes that such network design issues as

they relate to credit estimates are essentially moot due to the passage

of the NHSDA. The TNRCC commits in the SIP to develop an acceptable one

time evaluation of the I/M program to meet the NHSDA requirements. In

addition, the SIP commits to meet the ongoing program evaluation of

mass emission testing of at least 0.1 percent of subject vehicles and

reporting the results of such evaluation on a biennial basis beginning

on January 1, 1999. Resources and personnel adequate for the program

evaluation are described in the SIP. Legal authority which is contained

in the Texas Health and Safety Code Sections 382.017 and 382.037

(changed to 382.027) (Vernon 1992) authorizes TNRCC to implement the

program and conduct the program evaluation. The State submittal meets

the network type and program evaluation requirements of the Federal I/M

regulations for interim approval.

Section 51.354 Adequate Tools and Resources

The SIP is required to include a description of the resources that

will be used for program operation and discuss how the performance

standard will be met which includes: (1) A detailed budget plan which

describes the source of funds for personnel, program administration,

program enforcement, purchase of necessary equipment (such as vehicles

for undercover audits), and any other requirements discussed

throughout, for the period prior to the next biennial self-evaluation

required in the Federal I/M rule, and (2) a description of personnel

resources. The plan is required to include the number of personnel

dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data analysis, program

administration, enforcement, and other necessary functions and the

training attendant to each function.

Section 159 of the State's General Appropriations Act allows for

the transfer of funds and for fees collected from the I/M program for

the purpose of implementation of the program. The TNRCC anticipates

that at least $1.75 per paid vehicle inspection will be available to

the TNRCC and DPS for the continuance of the I/M program. The SIP

narrative also describes the budget, staffing support, and equipment

needed to implement the program. The State has committed to dedicate a

staffing level of 40 full-time-equivalent employees to support the

program. The State submittal meets the adequate tools and resources

requirements of the Federal I/M regulations for interim approval.

Section 51.355 Test Frequency and Convenience

The SIP must describe the test schedule in detail, including the

test year selection scheme if testing is other than annual. Also, the

SIP must include the legal authority necessary to implement and enforce

the test frequency requirement and explain how the test frequency will

be integrated with the enforcement process. In addition, in enhanced I/

M programs, test systems shall be designed in such a way as to provide

convenient service to motorists required to get their vehicles tested.

The SIP must include a demonstration that the network of stations

providing test services is sufficient to ensure short waiting times to

get a test and short driving distances.

The revised Texas I/M SIP commits to testing all gasoline powered

vehicles that are between two and twenty-four years old. Inspections

will be required annually unless the vehicle is tested at a loaded mode

facility in which case the test is biennial. The vehicle emission

testing will be integrated as part of the annual safety inspection.

Vehicles receiving a biennial emission test must still receive an

annual safety inspection. Also, within 60 days of resale, or prior to

registration, vehicles registered in Dallas, Tarrant or Harris counties

will be required to undergo an emission test.

Currently, the State does not have the legislative authority to

require test on resale, but the Governor's Executive Order states the

Governor intends to support such legislation in the next

[[Page 51655]]

State legislative session. In addition, at least 10 percent of the

vehicle population will be subject to remote sensing. The program is

decentralized and stations will be open at least eight hours per day,

five days per week, for a minimum of 40 hours per week for motorist

convenience. The TNRCC anticipates that over 2,000 facilities will

participate in the program. The State submittal meets the test

frequency and convenience requirements of the Federal I/M regulations

for conditional interim approval.

Section 51.356 Vehicle Coverage

The SIP must include 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. Also, the

SIP is required to include a description of any special exemptions

which will be granted by the program, and an estimate of the percentage

and number of subject vehicles which will be impacted. Such exemptions

need to be accounted for in the emission reduction analysis. In

addition, the SIP is required to include the legal authority or rule

necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage requirement.

The revised Texas I/M SIP includes coverage of gasoline powered

light-duty vehicles and light and heavy-duty trucks registered or

required to be registered in the I/M program area including fleets.

Subject vehicles will be identified through the Texas Department of

Transportation database. While the State statute does allow for the

exemption of ``circus'' or ``slow moving'' vehicles from the program,

TNRCC does not anticipate modeling results to be affected. Legal

authority for vehicle coverage is contained in the Texas I/M rule. The

State submittal meets the vehicle coverage requirements of the Federal

I/M regulations for interim approval.

Section 51.357 Test Procedures and Standards

The SIP must include a description of each test procedure used. The

SIP also is required to include the rule, ordinance or law describing

and establishing the test procedures.

Vehicles tested in the Texas program shall be subject to a two

speed idle test or vehicle owners may elect an ASM loaded mode test.

Idle test procedures shall meet requirements in Appendix B of the

Federal I/M rule. Idle test emission standards are contained in the SIP

modeling analysis and are consistent with the Federal I/M rule. The

Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) loaded mode test procedures and

standards were developed between EPA and the States. They were recently

issued in July 1996 in a document entitled, ``Acceleration Simulation

Mode Test Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements

and Equipment Specifications.'' The SIP states that loaded mode test

equipment procedures shall meet EPA requirements for two-mode ASM

equipment or an acceptable alternative. As was stated previously, the

State is removing loaded mode testing commitments from its SIP,

however, EPA anticipates that loaded mode testing will still be an

option in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston I/M program areas. In

addition, the SIP states that vehicles shall receive a gas cap

integrity test in accordance with EPA procedures. The Texas I/M rule

requires that vehicles comply with the inspection requirements of the

revised Texas I/M SIP. The State submittal meets the test procedure and

standards requirements of the Federal I/M regulations for interim

approval.

Section 51.358 Test Equipment

The SIP is required to include written technical specifications for

all test equipment used in the program and must address each of the

requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M rule. The

specifications need to describe the emission analysis process, the

necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance

testing criteria and procedures.

The revised Texas I/M SIP contains written technical specifications

for the two speed idle test equipment consistent with the Federal I/M

rule and EPA guidance. The ASM loaded mode test specifications were

developed between EPA and the States. They were recently issued in July

1996 in a document entitled, ``Acceleration Simulation Mode Test

Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements and

Equipment Specifications.'' The SIP states that loaded mode test

equipment specifications shall meet EPA requirements for two-mode ASM

equipment or an acceptable alternative. In addition, the SIP states

that vehicles shall receive a gas cap integrity test in accordance with

EPA test procedures and equipment specifications. The Texas I/M rule

requires that vehicles comply with the inspection requirements of the

revised Texas I/M SIP. The State submittal meets the test equipment

requirements of the Federal I/M regulations for interim approval.

Section 51.359 Quality Control

The SIP must include a description of quality control and record

keeping procedures. The SIP must include the procedure manual, rule,

ordinance or law describing and establishing the quality control

procedures and requirements.

The revised Texas I/M SIP contains descriptions and requirements

establishing the quality control procedures in accordance with the

Federal I/M rule. These requirements will help ensure that equipment

calibrations are properly performed and recorded as well as maintaining

document security. Analyzer manufacturers will prepare a manual of

quality control procedures, periodic maintenance schedules, and

calibration procedures to ensure proper operation of the test

equipment. The revised I/M SIP commits to meet calibration practices

contained in Appendix A of the Federal I/M rule. The State submittal

meets the quality control requirements of the Federal I/M regulations

for interim approval.

Section 51.360 Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection.

The SIP must include a maximum waiver rate expressed as a

percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver rate must be used

for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling analysis.

Also, the State must take corrective action if the waiver rate exceeds

that committed to in the SIP, or revise the SIP and the emission

reductions claimed accordingly. In addition, the SIP should describe

the waiver criteria and procedures, including cost limits, quality

assurance methods and measures, and administration. Lastly, the SIP

should include the necessary legal authority, ordinance, or rules to

issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out

any other functions necessary to administer the waiver system,

including enforcement of the waiver provisions.

Cost limits for the minimum expenditure waiver in the Texas SIP are

in accordance with the Act and Federal I/M rules. These limits are $450

adjusted annually in the enhanced areas of Houston and El Paso, and

$200 for 1981 and later model year vehicles and $75 for 1980 and

earlier model year vehicles in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The revised

Texas I/M program includes waiver rates as percentages of initially

failed vehicles of 3 percent in all three I/M areas. These waiver rates

are used in the modeling demonstration. The TNRCC commits in the SIP

that if the

[[Page 51656]]

waiver rates are higher than estimated the State will take corrective

action to address the deficiency. The SIP describes the three types of

waivers the State will allow, which include a minimum expenditure

waiver, individual vehicle waiver, parts availability time extension

and low income time extension. The DPS will have the responsibility of

ensuring that waivers are issued properly. In addition, the waiver

criteria including the minimum expenditure requirements are contained

in the Texas I/M rule. The State submittal meets the waiver and

compliance via diagnostic inspection requirements of the Federal I/M

regulations for interim approval.

Section 51.361 Motorist Compliance Enforcement

The SIP is required to provide information concerning the

enforcement process, including: (1) A description of the existing

compliance mechanism if it is to be used in the future and the

demonstration that it is as effective or more effective than

registration-denial enforcement; (2) an identification of the agencies

responsible for performing each of the applicable activities in this

section; (3) a description of and accounting for all classes of exempt

vehicles; and (4) a description of the plan for testing fleet vehicles,

rental car fleets, leased vehicles, and any other subject vehicles,

e.g. those operated in (but not necessarily registered in) the program

area. Also, the SIP must include a determination of the current

compliance rate based on a study of the system that includes an

estimate of compliance losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and

unregistered vehicles. Estimates of the effect of closing such

loopholes and otherwise improving the enforcement mechanism shall be

supported with detailed analyses. In addition, the SIP must include the

legal authority to implement and enforce the program. Lastly, the SIP

must include a commitment to an enforcement level to be used for

modeling purposes and to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.

The State has chosen to enforce the

I/M program with a combination of sticker-based enforcement and

comparing registration data with inspection data to address vehicles

not complying with the program. Contingent upon legislation being

passed, continual noncompliance would result in denial of re-

registration. The motorist compliance enforcement program will be

implemented by the DPS, the Texas Department of Transportation, and the

TNRCC. Vehicle coverage requirements are described in the previous

section. Gasoline powered vehicles greater than 24 years old,

motorcycles, dedicated alternative fueled vehicles and diesel vehicles

are not included in the program. Fleet vehicles will be allowed to

conduct self-testing provided that they meet the required equipment

standards, are licensed by DPS, and tests are performed in accordance

with established inspection procedures. Motorists operating vehicles in

the I/M areas with an expired or invalid state inspection certificate

will be subject to citations by local and state law enforcement

officials. The SIP includes a recent safety inspection compliance

survey from the Dallas/Fort Worth area that indicates a compliance rate

of 95 percent, but this information is only preliminary. The proposed

program with enhancements estimates compliance at 95 percent and TNRCC

commits to maintain this rate in practice. The legal authority to

implement and enforce the program is included in the Texas statutes and

regulations cited in the SIP. Currently, the State does not have the

legislative authority to enforce the denial of reregistration, but the

Governor's Executive Order states the Governor intends to support such

legislation in the next State legislative session.

In the State's response to comments given at the public hearing, it

stated that the State's I/M program is complying with the requirements

of this section through a sticker based enforcement program. The

Federal I/M rule does contain a provision for alternative enforcement

mechanisms other than registration denial, however a demonstration must

be made per Sec. 51.361(b) that an alternative such as sticker

enforcement is more effective than registration denial for enhanced

I/M areas and as effective for basic areas. The State submittal does

not include such a complete demonstration. Thus, EPA cannot provide

approval on the basis of sticker enforcement unless a complete

demonstration is made. However, the State does not have to comply with

the alternative enforcement mechanisms in Sec. 51.361 if registration

denial requirements are met. The EPA is proposing to conditionally

approve this provision conditioned upon the State obtaining authority

for a reregistration denial system as is stated in the Governor's

Executive Order and Texas I/M SIP. The State submittal meets the

motorist compliance enforcement requirements of the Federal I/M

regulations for conditional interim approval.

Section 51.362 Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight

The SIP must include a description of enforcement program oversight

and information management activities.

The Texas I/M SIP provides for regular auditing of its enforcement

efforts and for following effective management practices, including

adjustments to improve the program when necessary. These program

oversight and information management activities are described in the

SIP narrative and include: the establishment of written audit

procedures and/or checklists for I/M document handling and processing,

audit procedures, notification of motorists and inspection facilities

suspected of violating program rules, an on-line telecommunication

network to support the State's oversight and management requirements,

and an I/M database which will be compared to the registration database

to determine program effectiveness. The State submittal meets the

motorist compliance enforcement program oversight requirements of the

Federal

I/M regulations for interim approval.

Section 51.363 Quality Assurance

The SIP must include a description of the quality assurance

program, and written procedures manuals covering both overt and covert

performance audits, record audits, and equipment audits. This

requirement does not include materials or discussion of details of

enforcement strategies that would ultimately hamper the enforcement

process.

The revised Texas I/M SIP includes a description of its quality

assurance program. The program includes both covert and overt audits.

The SIP commits to a minimum of three performance audits, two overt for

each lane or test bay and one covert for each full time equivalent

inspector to be conducted each year. Audits will include the inspection

of records and equipment. Procedures for overt and covert audits will

be based upon written instructions and will be updated as necessary.

The State submittal meets the quality assurance requirements of the

Federal I/M regulations for interim approval.

Section 51.364 Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and

Inspectors

The SIP must include the penalty schedule and the legal authority

for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines, license

suspension, and revocations. In the case of state constitutional

impediments to immediate suspension authority, the

[[Page 51657]]

state Attorney General must furnish an official opinion for the SIP

explaining the constitutional impediment as well as relevant case law.

Also, the SIP is required to 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 other aspects of the

enforcement of the program requirements, the resources to be allocated

to this function, and the source of those funds. In states without

immediate suspension authority, the SIP must demonstrate that

sufficient resources, personnel, and systems are in place to meet the

three day case management requirement for violations that directly

affect emission reductions.

The revised Texas I/M SIP states that TNRCC may assess penalties of

up to $10,000 in its enforcement against stations and inspectors and

will develop a more specific penalty schedule at a later date. The SIP

describes the enforcement process. The DPS is planning to assign six

full time equivalent employees to covert and overt auditing as well as

seven additional full time equivalent employees for other enforcement

activities. The TNRCC is currently seeking an Attorney General opinion

seeking whether there are any constitutional impediments to immediate

suspension authority and is in the process of developing a penalty

schedule. Once the opinion is obtained by the State, EPA will be

working with the State to consider the necessary action that will be

needed to comply with the requirements of this section. The legal

authority for TNRCC to asses penalties is contained in the Texas Clean

Air Act, subchapter D. The authority for DPS to deny application for

license or revoke or suspend an outstanding certificate of any

inspection station or the certificate of any person to inspect vehicles

is found in the Texas Transportation Code, Section 548.407. The minor

deficiencies regarding the State Attorney General's opinion regarding

State constitutional impediments to immediate suspension authority of

inspectors (and seek additional immediate suspension authority if

needed) and a penalty schedule must be corrected by the end of the 18-

month interim period.

Section 51.365-6 Data Collection, Analysis and Reporting

The SIP must describe the types of data to be collected and

reported.

The revised Texas I/M SIP provides for the collecting of test data

to link specific test results to specific vehicles, I/M program

registrants, test sites, and inspectors. The SIP lists the specific

types of test data and quality control data which will be collected.

The data will be used to generate reports in the areas of test data,

quality assurance, quality control, and enforcement. It will also be

used to assess changes and weaknesses in the program. The State

submittal meets the data collection, analysis and reporting

requirements of the Federal I/M regulations for interim approval.

Section 51.367 Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification

The SIP must include a description of the training program, the

written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or certification process.

The revised Texas I/M SIP provides for the implementation of

training, certification, and refresher programs for emission

inspectors. The SIP describes this program and curriculum which

includes hands-on testing. Certified inspector appointments will expire

on August 31 of the even numbered year following the first date of

appointment and afterwards will be made for two year periods. All

inspectors will be required to be certified to inspect vehicles in the

Texas I/M program. The State submittal meets the inspector training and

licensing or certification requirements of the Federal I/M regulations

for interim approval.

Section 51.368 Public Information and Consumer Protection

The SIP must include a plan for informing the public on an ongoing

basis throughout the life of the I/M program of the air quality

problem, the requirements of Federal and state law, the role of motor

vehicles in the air quality problem, the need for and benefits of an

inspection program, how to maintain a vehicle in a low-emission

condition, how to find a qualified repair technician, and the

requirements of the I/M program. Also, the SIP shall include a detailed

consumer protection plan.

The revised Texas I/M SIP commits to the establishment of an

ongoing public awareness plan addressing the significance of the air

quality problem, the requirements of Federal and State law, the role of

motor vehicles in the air quality problem, the benefits of an

inspection program, steps to maintain a vehicle in a low-emission

condition, how to find a qualified repair technician, and the

requirements of the I/M program. The SIP commits that motorists will be

offered general repair information including a list or repair

facilities, information on the results of the repairs by repair

facilities in the area, diagnostic information and warranty

information. The SIP also includes consumer protection provisions which

include DPS challenge/referee facilities, DPS oversight of the program

though the use of audits, whistle blower protection, and complaint

handling procedures. The State submittal meets the public information

and consumer protection requirements of the Federal I/M regulations for

interim approval.

Section 51.369 Improving Repair Effectiveness

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 of the

Federal I/M rule, and a description of the repair technician training

resources available in the community.

The revised Texas I/M SIP includes a description of the technical

assistance plan, repair industry performance monitoring plan, repair

technician training assessment, and recognized repair technician

requirements. The State will regularly inform repair facilities through

the use of a newsletter regarding changes to the inspection program,

training course schedules, common problems and potential solutions for

particular engine families, diagnostic tips, repair, and other

technical assistance issues. The newsletter will also contain

information on technical assistance hotlines that meet the State's

criteria. Repair facility performance monitoring statistics will be

available to motorists whose vehicles fail the I/M test. The State will

monitor the need for additional training resources for repair

technicians. If motorist demand for repair technicians is not being

satisfied, the State will also ensure that adequate repair technician

training resources are available to the repair community. The State

submittal meets the improving repair effectiveness requirements of the

Federal I/M regulations for interim approval.

Section 51.370 Compliance With Recall Notices

The SIP must describe the procedures used to incorporate the

vehicle lists provided into the inspection or registration database,

the quality control methods used to ensure that recall repairs are

properly documented and tracked, and the method (inspection failure or

registration denial) used to enforce the recall requirements.

The revised Texas I/M SIP contains a plan describing the procedures

for

[[Page 51658]]

ensuring that vehicles that are included in either a voluntary emission

recall, or a remedial plan determination pursuant to the Act, have had

the appropriate repair made prior to the inspection. The TNRCC commits

in the SIP to complying with the policies of the National Recall

Committee and additional rulemaking when it becomes available.

Additional rulemaking by EPA is needed before the State will be able to

implement this provision. The State submittal meets the compliance with

recall notices requirements of the Federal I/M regulations for interim

approval.

Section 51.371 On-Road Testing

The SIP must include a detailed description of the on-road testing

program, including the types of testing, test limits and criteria, the

number of vehicles (the percentage of the fleet) to be tested, the

number of employees to be dedicated to the on-road testing effort, the

methods for collecting, analyzing, utilizing, and reporting the results

of on-road testing and, the portion of the program budget to be

dedicated to on-road testing. Also, the SIP must include the legal

authority necessary to implement the on-road testing program, including

the authority to enforce off-cycle inspection and repair requirements.

In addition, emission reduction credit for on-road testing programs

shall be granted for a program designed to obtain significant emission

reductions over and above those already predicted to be achieved by

other aspects of the I/M program. The SIP must include technical

support for the claimed additional emission reductions.

The revised Texas I/M SIP includes a detailed description of its

on-road testing program. The State is planning to use remote sensing to

help meet the requirement of covering the entire urbanized areas of

Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston. As was stated previously in the

applicability section of this notice, the State has committed to cover

at least the amount of commuting vehicles in the remote sensing program

to ensure adequate area coverage. In addition, the State will test at

least 20,000 of the vehicles subject to I/M tests in all of the I/M

areas. As has been stated previously, the State needs additional legal

authority to enforce this program. The State submittal meets the on-

road requirements of the Federal I/M regulations for conditional

interim approval.

Section 51.372 State Implementation Plan Submissions.

The NHSDA called for submissions of I/M SIPs that were going to be

eligible for its provisions to be submitted by March 27, 1996. The

NHSDA allowed EPA to grant interim approval of the plan based on State

proposed regulations if the State had its statutory authority and was

in otherwise compliance with the Act. In a letter dated March 12, 1996,

the revised Texas I/M SIP was submitted on March 14, 1996. In addition,

in a letter dated June 27, 1996, the I/M SIP with finalized regulations

and responses to comments received during the State's public comment

period was submitted to EPA Region 6. While some enforcement authority

is lacking, Texas does have authority to implement major portions of

the program. The Governor has signed an Executive Order stating his

intention to support the additional needed legal authority. The State

submittal meets the NHSDA requirements for interim approval.

Section 51.373 Implementation Deadlines

EPA is expecting that I/M programs submitted under the NHSDA be

implemented by November 15, 1997. The revised Texas I/M SIP includes a

schedule for program implementation. The emission testing start date

contained in the schedule is January 1, 1997, or earlier for all

program areas.

III. Discussion for Rulemaking Action

A. Concluding Statement of Conditional Interim Approval

EPA's review of this material indicates that it meets the minimum

requirements of the Act, NHSDA, and Federal I/M rules with the

exceptions of the deficiencies explained in this notice. Based upon the

discussion contained in the previous analysis sections and technical

support document, EPA concludes the State's submittal represents an

acceptable approach to the I/M requirements and meets the requirements

for conditional interim approval. Therefore, EPA is proposing a

conditional interim approval of the Texas I/M SIP revision which was

submitted on March 14, 1996, and June 27, 1996. The Regional office, in

conjunction with EPA's Office of Mobile Sources and other Regional

offices, has taken efforts to help ensure that overall this action is

consistent with other EPA actions on I/M programs. The 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.

B. Withdrawal of Previous I/M Program

As was stated in the Summary section of this notice, the EPA is

also proposing removal of the previously approved I/M program from the

SIP which was finally approved on August 22, 1994 (59 FR 43046-43048).

Also, the EPA will not be processing an I/M SIP revision submittal

relating to the previously approved I/M program which was submitted on

November 10, 1994 relating to the hardship waiver eligibility criteria

and repair effectiveness program. In addition, the EPA will not be

acting on portions of two previously submitted revisions which relate

to the pre-1990 Act Dallas/Fort Worth I/M program submitted on February

21, 1989, and September 20, 1990. The portions of these submittals

which are superseded by this proposed action are contained in 31 TAC

sections 114.3-4.

IV. Explanation of the Interim Approval

At the end of the 18-month interim period, the approval status for

this program will automatically lapse pursuant to the NHSDA. It is

expected that the State will, at that time, be able to make a

demonstration of the program's effectiveness using an appropriate

evaluation criteria. As EPA expects that these programs will have

started by November 15, 1997, the State will have at least 6 months of

program data that can be used for the demonstration. If the State fails

to provide a demonstration of the program's effectiveness to EPA within

18 months of the final interim rulemaking, the interim approval will

lapse, and EPA will be forced to disapprove the State's permanent I/M

SIP revision if the State does not demonstrate the interim program's

effectiveness. If the State's program evaluation demonstrates a lesser

amount of emission reductions actually realized than were claimed in

the State's previous submittal, EPA will adjust the State's credits

accordingly, and use this information to act on the State's permanent

I/M program.

V. Further Requirements for Permanent I/M SIP Approval

Final approval of the State's plan will be granted based upon the

following criteria:

[[Page 51659]]

1. The State has complied with all the major conditions listed in

this proposed notice.

2. The EPA's review of the State's program evaluation confirms that

the appropriate amount of program credit was claimed by the State and

achieved with the interim program.

3. Final DPS program regulations are submitted to EPA.

4. The State I/M program meets all of the requirements of EPA's I/M

rule, including those deficiencies found de minimis for the purposes of

interim approval.

5. The remote sensing program proves to be effective in identifying

and obtaining repairs on vehicles with high levels of emissions, or the

Texas I/M core program area is expanded to include the entire urbanized

area for both Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston.

VI. Proposed Action

The EPA is proposing to grant conditional interim approval of the

State's submission contingent upon the State obtaining all of the

additional authority needed to implement the program outlined in the

Governor's Executive Order. In addition, the EPA is issuing conditional

interim approval contingent upon the program starting by November 15,

1997. The EPA proposes that if the State fails to obtain the needed

additional legal authority as outlined in the Governor's Executive

Order, or fails to start the program by November 15, 1997, the approval

will convert to a disapproval after a letter is sent notifying the

State of the conversion to disapproval. The minor or de minimis

deficiencies regarding immediate suspension authority of inspectors and

a penalty schedule will need to be corrected before final full approval

will be granted.

As stated previously, interim approvals granted under the NHSDA are

valid for 18 months subject to an adequate program demonstration

justifying the program is achieving the claimed emission reductions.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the State implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

VII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator

for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted

this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. See 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 State 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 State action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds. See Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

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

If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it

will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small

entities. Federal disapproval of the State 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.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final

rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs

to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the

private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must

select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the conditional approval action

proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This

Federal action approves preexisting requirements under State or local

law, and imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the

private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 9, 1996.

Jane N. Saginaw,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-25397 Filed 10-2-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-01-P