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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-25397

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** October 3, 1996
- **Citation:** 61 FR 51651

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-25397. Public record. Not legal advice.