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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA091-4029b; FRL-5613-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a conditional interim approval of a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. This revision establishes and requires the implementation

of an enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in Allegheny,

Beaver, Berks, Blair, Bucks, Cambria, Centre, Chester, Cumberland,

Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh,

Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia,

Washington, Westmoreland and York Counties. The intended effect of this

action is to propose conditional interim approval of an I/M program

proposed by the Commonwealth, based upon the Commonwealth's good faith

estimate, which asserts that the Commonwealth's network design credits

are appropriate and the revision is otherwise in compliance with the

Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is being taken under section 348 of

the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA) and section

110 of the CAA. EPA is proposing a conditional approval because the

Commonwealth's SIP revision is deficient with respect to the following

requirements of the CAA and/or EPA's I/M program regulatory

requirements: geographic coverage and program start dates, program

evaluation, enhanced performance standard, test types, test procedures

and emission standards, test equipment specifications and motorist

compliance enforcement. If the Commonwealth commits within 30 days of

this proposal to correct these deficiencies by a date certain within 1

year of the final interim ruling, and corrects the deficiencies by that

date, then this interim approval shall expire pursuant to the NHSDA and

section 110 of the CAA 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 such commitment is not made within 30 days, EPA

proposes in the alternative to disapprove the SIP revision. If the

Commonwealth does make a timely commitment but the conditions are not

met by the specified date within 1 year, EPA proposes that this

rulemaking will convert to a final disapproval. EPA will notify the

Commonwealth by letter that the conditions have not been met and that

the conditional approval has converted to a disapproval. Furthermore,

EPA proposes that the Commonwealth's program must start by no later

than November 15, 1997 in the five county Philadelphia and four county

Pittsburgh areas and must start by no later than November 15, 1999 in

the remaining 16 counties. EPA also proposes that if the Commonwealth

fails to start its program as defined in this notice on this schedule,

the approval granted under the provisions of the NHSDA will convert to

a disapproval after a finding letter is sent by EPA to the

Commonwealth. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA has published

an interim final determination to defer sanctions until either this

conditional interim approval is converted to a disapproval, the interim

approval lapses, the full SIP is approved or the full SIP is

disapproved.

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

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO

Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode 3AT21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available

for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air,

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

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

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air

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

17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn (215) 566-2176, at the EPA

Region III address above or via e-mail at [email protected].

While information may be requested via e-mail, comments must be

submitted in writing to the EPA Region III address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

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

and Implementation of Enhanced 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 inspection and maintenance programs as a means of

compliance with sections 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. Also under the

NHSDA, EPA cannot disapprove a State SIP revision, nor apply an

automatic discount to a State SIP revision under sections 182, 184 or

187 of the CAA, because the I/M program in such plan revision is

decentralized, or a test-and-repair program. Accordingly, the so-called

``50% credit discount'' that was established by the EPA's I/M Program

Requirements Final Rule, (published November 5, 1992, 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 CAA, continue to be required of those

States submitting I/M SIP revisions under the NHSDA. The NHSDA

specifically requires that these submittals must otherwise comply in

all respects with the I/M Rule and the CAA.

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 CAA and EPA's rules have

already been delayed. In requiring States to submit these plans

[[Page 51639]]

within 120 days of the NHSDA passage, in allowing these States to

submit proposed regulations for this plan (which can be finalized and

submitted to EPA during the interim period), by providing expiration of

interim approval after 18 months and requiring final approval to be

based on evaluation of data collected during operation of the program,

it is clear that Congress intended for States to begin testing vehicles

as soon as practicable.

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 establish

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 (VMT) 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 CAA. 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. At that time, 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. 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, in taking action under section 110 of the CAA, it is

appropriate to conditionally approve this submittal since there are

some deficiencies with respect to CAA statutory and regulatory

requirements (identified herein) that EPA believes must be and can be

corrected by the State during the interim period.

B. 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 the NHSDA. The NHSDA 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 emissions reductions actually measured by the State during the

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

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

to EPA by 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 by November 15, 1997 at the latest, so that at least

6 months of operational program data can be collected to evaluate the

interim program. 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. EPA proposes that if the State fails

to start its program on this schedule, the conditional interim 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. EPA anticipates that such a

program evaluation process will be developed by the Environmental

Council of States (ECOS) group that is convening now and that was

organized for this purpose. 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 in 40 CFR 51.353 and

51.366.

C. Process for Full Approvals of This Program Under the CAA

As per the NHSDA requirements, this interim rulemaking will expire

on the earlier of 18 months from the date of final interim approval, or

the date of final full approval. A full approval of the State's final

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

final adopted state regulations) is still necessary under section 110

and under section 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. After EPA reviews the

State's submitted program evaluation, final rulemaking on the State's

full SIP revision will occur.

II. EPA's Analysis of Pennsylvania's Submittal

On March 22, 1996, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection submitted a revision to its SIP for an enhanced I/M program

to qualify under the NHSDA. The revision was supplemented on June 27,

1996 and July 29, 1996. The revision consists of enabling legislation

that will allow the state to implement the I/M program, proposed

regulations, a description of the I/M program (including a modeling

analysis and description of program features), and a good faith

estimate that includes the Commonwealth's basis in fact for the

emission reduction claim of the program. The Commonwealth's credit

assumptions are based only on the application of the Commonwealth's own

good faith estimate of the effectiveness of its decentralized test and

repair program and do not consider the 50% credit discount for all

portions of the program that are based on a test-and-repair network.

A. Analysis of the NHSDA Submittal Criteria

Transmittal Letter

On March 22, 1996, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submitted an

enhanced I/M SIP revision to EPA, requesting action under the NHSDA and

the CAA of 1990. On June 27, 1996 and July 29, 1996 supplements to the

March 22, 1996 SIP revision were officially submitted to EPA. The

official submittal of the March 22, 1996 revision and the supplements

were made by the appropriate Commonwealth official, James M. Seif,

Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and

were addressed to the appropriate EPA official in the EPA Region III

office.

Enabling Legislation

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has legislation at 75 Pa.C.S.

Sec. 4706 enabling the implementation of an enhanced I/M program.

Proposed Regulations

On March 16, 1996, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proposed

regulations in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 establishing an enhanced

I/M program. The Commonwealth anticipates finalizing these regulations

in early 1997.

[[Page 51640]]

Program Description

The Commonwealth's proposed program includes annual testing of 1975

and newer gasoline powered light-duty vehicles (LDGV) and light-duty

trucks 1 & 2 (LDGT1 & LDGT2) up to 9,000 pounds gross vehicle weight

rating (GVWR) in a test and repair network, utilizing: (1) one-mode

Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) (ASM5015 or equivalent) emission

testing and evaporative pressure and purge testing in the five county

Philadelphia area and two speed idle emission testing in the remaining

twenty counties, (2) visual inspection of the catalytic converter, fuel

inlet restrictor, PCV and EGR on 1981 and newer vehicles in all twenty-

five I/M counties and (3) mandatory technician training and

certification (TTC) in all twenty-five counties. The Commonwealth

proposes to demonstrate that the pre-existing sticker enforcement

mechanism is more effective than registration denial. The Commonwealth

will contract out the quality control, quality assurance, data

collection, data analysis and reporting, inspector training and

certification, public outreach and on-road testing portions of the

program.

Emission Reduction Claim and Basis for the Claim

As stated in the March 22, 1996 SIP submittal and in the June 27,

1996 supplement, the Commonwealth has claimed 100% credit for their

test and repair network which is permitted under the interim approval

process of NHSDA. The Commonwealth has 18 months from the date of the

final interim approval to demonstrate and prove their claim.

The Commonwealth's good faith estimate claims the additional credit

through the following measures:

1. increased oversight through covert and overt audits;

2. additional on-road testing through remote sensing;

3. use of the State Police for more visible enforcement;

4. ability to collect and analyze data instantaneously so that swift

enforcement action can be taken; and

5. improvements to automate data input activities that removes

opportunity for inspector error or abuse.

B. Analysis of the EPA I/M Regulation and CAA Requirements

EPA summarizes the requirements of the I/M rule as found in 40 CFR

51.350-51.373 and its analysis of the Commonwealth's submittal below. A

more detailed analysis of the Commonwealth's submittal is contained in

a Technical Support Document (TSD) which is available from the Region

III office, listed in the ADDRESSES section. Parties desiring

additional details on the I/M rule are referred to 40 CFR 51.350-

51.373.

As previously stated, the NHSDA left those elements of the I/M Rule

that do not pertain to the network design or test type intact. Based

upon EPA's review of Pennsylvania's submittal, EPA believes the

Commonwealth has not complied with all aspects of the CAA and the I/M

Rule. For certain sections of the I/M Rule or of the CAA identified

below with which the Commonwealth has not yet fully complied, EPA

proposes to conditionally approve the SIP if it receives a commitment

from the Commonwealth to correct said deficiency. Before EPA can

continue with the interim rulemaking process, the Commonwealth must

make a commitment within 30 days of [insert publication date] to

correct these major SIP elements by a date certain within 1 year of EPA

interim approval. If the Commonwealth does not make this commitment,

EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the Pennsylvania

submittal. In addition, the Commonwealth must correct these major

deficiencies by the date specified in the commitment or this proposed

interim approval will convert to a disapproval under CAA section

110(k)(4).

EPA has also identified certain minor deficiencies in the SIP,

which are itemized below. EPA has determined that delayed correction of

these minor deficiencies will have a de minimis impact on the

Commonwealth's ability to meet clean air goals. Therefore, the

Commonwealth need not commit to correct these deficiencies in the short

term, and EPA will not impose conditions on interim approval with

respect to these deficiencies. The Commonwealth must correct these

deficiencies during the 18 month term of the interim approval, as part

of the fully adopted rules that the Commonwealth will submit to support

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

these minor deficiencies prior to final action on the Commonwealth'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.

Applicability--40 CFR 51.350

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

51.350(a) require all states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) which

contain Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) or parts thereof with a

population of 100,000 or more to implement an enhanced I/M program.

Pennsylvania is part of the OTR and contains the following MSAs or

parts thereof with a population of 100,000 or more: Allentown-

Bethlehem, Altoona, Beaver, Erie, Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle,

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

Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, Sharon, State College, Williamsport, and York.

The Philadelphia area is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment

area and also required to implement an enhanced I/M program as per

section 182(c)(3) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.350(2).

Under the requirements of the CAA, the following 33 counties in

Pennsylvania (in which the above listed MSAs are located) would be

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

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

Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Fayette, Lackawanna,

Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer, Monroe,

Montgomery, Northampton, Perry, Philadelphia, Somerset, Washington,

Westmoreland, Wyoming and York. However, under the federal I/M

regulations, specifically 40 CFR 51.350(b), some rural counties having

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

the 1990 census can be excluded from program coverage provided that at

least 50% of the MSA population is included in the program. The

following eight counties in the Commonwealth qualify for the exemption

discussed in 40 CFR 51.350(b) and are exempt from participation in the

program: Adams, Carbon, Columbia, Fayette, Monroe, Perry, Somerset and

Wyoming. Consequently, the I/M rule requires that the enhanced I/M

program be implemented in 25 counties in the Commonwealth. The 25

counties are as follows: Allegheny, Beaver, Berks, Blair, Bucks,

Cambria, Centre, Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie,

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

Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia, Washington, Westmoreland and

York.

The Pennsylvania I/M legislative authority (referred to as 75

Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 throughout the remainder of this notice) provides the

legal authority to establish the geographic boundaries for the program.

The program boundaries listed in an appendix to the SIP include the 25

counties listed above and meet the federal I/M requirements under 40

CFR 51.350. However, 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 states ``this program shall

be established

[[Page 51641]]

in all areas of this Commonwealth where the secretary certifies by

publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin that a system is required in

order to comply with Federal law. Any area, counties, county or portion

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

mandated to be in the program by Federal law.'' 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706

requires ``at least 60 days prior to the implementation of any enhanced

emission inspection program developed under this subsection, the

Secretary of Transportation shall certify by notice in the Pennsylvania

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

The Pennsylvania I/M proposed regulation, 67 Pa.Code Sec. 177.22,

states ``the enhanced I/M program, as described in this chapter, will

commence on a date designated by the Secretary by notice in the

Pennsylvania Bulletin. The notice will provide affected motorists with

at least 60 days notice''. EPA, therefore, proposes to conditionally

approve the Pennsylvania SIP based on receiving the Commonwealth's

commitment to publish a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by a date

certain no later than September 15, 1997 which certifies the need for

the I/M program and the geographic scope of the program. The geographic

coverage certified in the notice must include the 25 counties listed

above or EPA will consider the commitment not met and will promptly

issue a letter to the Commonwealth indicating that the conditional

approval has been converted to a disapproval.

The I/M rule requires that the state program shall not sunset until

it is no longer necessary. EPA interprets the federal I/M rule as

stating that a SIP which does not sunset prior to the attainment

deadline for each applicable area satisfies this requirement. The

Pennsylvania I/M regulation provides for the program to continue past

the attainment dates for all applicable nonattainment areas in the

Commonwealth and therefore meets the I/M rule for purposes of interim

approval.

Enhanced I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.351

In accordance with the CAA and the I/M rule, the enhanced I/M

program must be designed and implemented to meet or exceed a minimum

performance standard, which is expressed as emission levels in area-

wide average grams per mile (gpm) for certain pollutants. The

performance standard shall be established using local characteristics,

such as vehicle mix and local fuel controls, and the following model I/

M program parameters: network type, start date, test frequency, model

year coverage, vehicle type coverage, exhaust emission test type,

emission standards, emission control device, evaporative system

function checks, stringency, waiver rate, compliance rate and

evaluation date. The emission levels achieved by the state's program

design shall be calculated using the most current version, at the time

of submittal, of the EPA mobile source emission factor model. At the

time of the Pennsylvania submittal the most current version was

MOBILE5a. Areas shall meet the performance standard for the pollutants

which cause them to be subject to enhanced I/M requirements. In the

case of ozone nonattainment areas, the performance standard must be met

for both nitrogen oxides (NOX) and hydrocarbons (HC).

The five county Philadelphia area, which includes the counties of

Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia, must meet the

high enhanced I/M performance standard for HC and NOX. The five

county Philadelphia area does not qualify to use the low enhanced or

the OTR low enhanced I/M performance standards. The program design

parameters used in the modeling found in the SIP submittal demonstrate

that the five county Philadelphia area does meet the high enhanced I/M

performance standard. However, the proposed I/M regulations do not

contain all the same program design parameters found in the modeling in

the SIP submittal.

EPA established an alternate, low enhanced I/M performance standard

to provide flexibility for nonattainment areas that are required to

implement enhanced I/M but which can meet the 1990 Clean Air Act

emission reduction requirements for Reasonable Further Progress and

attainment from other sources without the stringency of the high

enhanced I/M performance standard (60 FR 48029). The Pittsburgh area,

which includes the counties of Allegheny, Beaver, Washington and

Westmoreland, qualifies for the low enhanced I/M performance standard

but does not qualify for the OTR low enhanced performance standard. The

program design parameters used in the modeling found in the SIP

submittal demonstrate that the four county Pittsburgh area does meet

the low enhanced I/M performance standard. However, the proposed I/M

regulations do not contain all of the same program design parameters

found in the modeling in the SIP submittal.

The Commonwealth's program demonstrates compliance with the low

enhanced performance standard 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% reduction SIP. In fact, EPA approval

of 15% plans has been delayed, and although EPA is preparing to take

action on 15% plans in the near future, it is unlikely that EPA will

have completed final action on most 15% 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 designs. 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% plan

submitted to EPA for approval. Such states anticipated that EPA would

propose approval both of the I/M programs and the 15% plans on a

similar schedule, and thus that the I/M programs would qualify for

approval under the low performance standard. 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% 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% 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 some type of approval of the

15% plan is appropriate, and has issued some type of proposed approval

of that 15% plan.

The Commonwealth has submitted a 15% plan for the Pittsburgh area

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

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

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

performance standard

[[Page 51642]]

provided that EPA does propose some type of approval of the 15% plan

containing that program. Should EPA propose approval of the 15% plan,

EPA will proceed to take final interim conditional approval action on

the I/M plan. EPA proposes in the alternative that if the agency

proposes instead to disapprove the 15% 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).

EPA established an alternate, OTR low enhanced I/M performance

standard, in order to provide OTR qualifying areas the flexibility to

implement a broader range of I/M programs (61 FR 39039). This standard

is designed for states in the OTR which are required to implement

enhanced I/M in areas that are designated and classified as attainment,

marginal ozone nonattainment or moderate ozone nonattainment with a

population of under 200,000. The remaining areas of the Pennsylvania I/

M program other than the five county Philadelphia and four county

Pittsburgh areas qualify for the OTR low enhanced performance standard.

The program design parameters used in the modeling found in the SIP

submittal demonstrate that the remaining areas meet the requirements of

the OTR low enhanced I/M performance standard. However, the proposed I/

M regulations do not contain the same program design parameters found

in the modeling in the SIP submittal.

The Pennsylvania submittal includes the following program design

parameters:

Network type--decentralized, test and repair, modeled claiming 100%

emission reduction credits.

Start date--1997 for the five county Philadelphia and the four

county Pittsburgh areas and 1999 for the remaining areas.

Test frequency--annual.

Model year/ vehicle type coverage--1975 and newer gasoline powered

LDGV, LDGT1 & LDGT2.

Exhaust emission test type--one-mode ASM (ASM5015 or equivalent) in

five county Philadelphia area and BAR90 two speed idle test in the

remaining twenty counties; the one-mode ASM testing was modeled

utilizing the credit assigned for ASM2 testing.

Emission standards--ASM: 0.8 gpm HC, 20.0 gpm CO, 2.0 gpm NOX;

2 speed idle: 220 ppm HC, 1.2% CO, 999 ppm NOX.

Emission control device--visual inspection of the catalytic

converter, fuel inlet restrictor, EGR and PCV on 1981 and newer

vehicles in all 25 counties.

Evaporative system function checks--pressure and purge testing on

1981 and newer vehicles in five county Philadelphia area.

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

Waiver rate--3% for all model years.

Compliance rate--96%.

Evaluation dates--July 1999, 2002 and 2005 for five county

Philadelphia area and July 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2007 for twenty

remaining counties.

Pennsylvania's modeling also included taking 100% credit for a

mandatory technician training and certification (TTC) program in all

twenty-five counties; however, Pennsylvania's proposed regulations does

not provide for the TTC program.

Because the Pennsylvania proposed I/M regulations are not the same

as the program design parameters in the modeling and the modeling takes

credit for features not in the proposed regulation, EPA is proposing to

find that the enhanced I/M performance standard requirements are

satisfied based on the condition that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

will submit to EPA within 12 months of the final interim ruling, the

final Pennsylvania I/M regulations which reflect the program design

parameters found in the modeling portion of the Pennsylvania I/M SIP.

EPA, therefore, proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP

based on receiving within 30 days the Commonwealth's commitment to

submit to EPA by a date certain within nine months of the final interim

ruling the final Pennsylvania I/M regulations which reflect the program

design parameters found in the modeling portion of the Pennsylvania I/M

SIP. If this condition is not met EPA will promptly issue a letter to

the Commonwealth indicating that the conditional approval has been

converted to a disapproval.

The modeling demonstration was performed correctly, used local

characteristics and demonstrated that the program design will meet the

minimum enhanced I/M performance standard, expressed in gpm, for HC and

NOX for each milestone and for the attainment deadline. The

emission levels achieved by Pennsylvania were modeled using MOBILE5a.

However, Pennsylvania utilized the two-mode ASM (ASM2) credit matrix in

that model because a one-mode ASM (ASM1) credit matrix had not been

released by EPA. Pennsylvania will be required to repeat the

demonstration if EPA provides the appropriate one-mode ASM credit

matrix as part of the MOBILE model.

In order to determine whether the Commonwealth's I/M program meets

the performance standard, the Commonwealth needed to submit modeling of

its program to reflect that it met the performance standard. Because of

delayed program start up and program reconfiguration, the existing

modeling used by the Commonwealth to demonstrate compliance with the

performance standard is no longer accurate, as it is based on start up

and phase-in of testing and cut-points that do not reflect the current

program configuration or start dates that the Commonwealth will

actually implement. EPA believes, based on the available modeling,

analysis of program elements in the SIP submittals and EPA's own

extrapolation of expected emission reductions from the program, that

the delayed program start up, as compared to that start up which was

modeled by the Commonwealth, will not jeopardize the Commonwealth's

ability to meet the performance standard. However, the Commonwealth

must conduct new modeling using the actual program configuration to

verify that the performance standard will in fact be met. For example,

phase-in cutpoints corresponding to the test-type and correct program

start up dates should be included in the new modeling.

The Commonwealth must conduct and submit the necessary new modeling

and demonstration that the program will meet the performance standard

within one year from final conditional interim approval. If the

Commonwealth fails to submit this new modeling within one year, EPA

proposes that the conditional interim approval will convert to a

disapproval upon a letter from EPA indicating that the Commonwealth has

failed to timely submit the modeling and demonstration of compliance

with the performance standard.

In addition, the existing I/M rules require that the modeling

demonstrate that the Commonwealth program has met the performance

standard by fixed evaluation dates. The first such date is January 1,

2000. However, few state programs will be able to demonstrate

compliance with the performance standard by that date as a result of

delays in program start up and phase-in of testing requirements. EPA

believes that based on the provisions of the NHSDA, the evaluation

dates in the current I/M rule have been superceded. Congress provided

in the NHSDA for state development of I/M programs that would start

significantly later than the start dates in the current I/M rule.

[[Page 51643]]

Consistent with congressional intent, such programs by definition will

not achieve full compliance with the performance standard by the

beginning of 2000.

As explained above, EPA has concluded that the NHSDA superceded the

start date requirements of the I/M rule, but that states should still

be required to start their programs as soon as possible, which EPA has

determined would be by November 15, 1997. Therefore, EPA believes that

pursuant to the NHSDA, the initial evaluation date should be January 1,

2002. This evaluation date will allow states to fully implement their

I/M programs and complete one cycle of testing at full cut points in

order to demonstrate compliance with the performance standard.

Network Type and Program Evaluation--40 CFR 51.353

The enhanced program must include an ongoing evaluation to quantify

the emission reduction benefits of the program, and to determine if the

program is meeting the requirements of the CAA and the I/M rule. The

SIP must include details on the program evaluation and shall include a

schedule for submittal of biennial evaluation reports, data from a

state monitored or administered mass emission transient test of at

least 0.1% of the vehicles subject to inspection each year, a

description of the sampling methodology, the data collection and

analysis system and the legal authority enabling the evaluation

program.

Both 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 and the Commonwealth's proposed I/M

regulation provide for a decentralized, test and repair network. The

Commonwealth has claimed 100% effectiveness for its test and repair

network.

In its SIP, the Commonwealth has committed to conducting one-mode

ASM (ASM5015 or equivalent) or BAR90 2 speed idle testing in order to

evaluate the program under the long term program demonstration. This

does not comply with the evaluation protocol set by EPA in 40 CFR

51.353(c). The Environmental Council of States (ECOS) has formed a

committee to develop an evaluation protocol to be used by states in

order to evaluate program effectiveness. ECOS has agreed that the

states must follow the long term program evaluation found in 40 CFR

51.353. 40 CFR 51.353 requires mass emission transient testing (METT)

be performed on 0.1% of the subject fleet each year. The submittal also

fails to commit to the other program evaluation elements as specified

in 40 CFR 51.353(b)(1) and (c).

EPA, therefore, proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania

SIP based on receiving the Commonwealth's commitment within 30 days to

submit to EPA by a date certain within nine months of the final interim

ruling, the final Pennsylvania I/M regulation which requires METT be

performed on 0.1% of the subject fleet each year as per 40 CFR 51.353

(c)(3) and meets the program evaluation elements as specified in 40 CFR

51.353(b)(1) and (c). If this condition is not met EPA will promptly

issue a letter to the Commonwealth indicating that the conditional

approval has been converted to a disapproval.

Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354

The I/M rule requires the Commonwealth to demonstrate that adequate

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

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

dedicated fund and used to finance the program. Alternative funding

approaches are acceptable if it is demonstrated that the funding can be

maintained. Reliance on funding from a state or local general fund is

not acceptable unless doing otherwise would be a violation of the

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

which describes the source of funds for personnel, program

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

shall also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality

assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement,

public education and assistance and other necessary functions.

According to Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania State Constitution

currently prohibits monies received from test fees or any other fees

received to be deposited in a proprietary account. The Pennsylvania

Department of Transportation (PADOT), which implements the I/M program,

has no means to fund the I/M program and must rely on future

uncommitted annual appropriations from the General Assembly. The I/M

rules allow for this funding method if, as in Pennsylvania, doing

otherwise would be a violation of the State Constitution. The submittal

demonstrates that sufficient funds have been currently appropriated to

meet program operation requirements.

The SIP fails to detail the number of personnel and equipment

dedicated to the quality assurance program, data collection, data

analysis, program administration, enforcement, public education and

assistance, on-road testing and other necessary functions, because a

majority of these functions will be performed by a contractor and the

Commonwealth has not released the request for proposals to address

these program areas. This is a minor deficiency and must be corrected

in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18 month

interim period.

Thus, the Commonwealth's submittal meets the adequate tools and

resources requirements of the I/M rule for purposes of interim

approval.

Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355

The enhanced I/M performance standard in the I/M rule assumes an

annual test frequency; however, other schedules may be approved if the

performance standard is achieved. The SIP must describe the test year

selection scheme, how the test frequency is integrated into the

enforcement process and must include the legal authority, regulations

or contract provisions to implement and enforce the test frequency. The

program must be designed to provide convenient service to the motorist

and regular testing hours.

Pennsylvania's proposed enhanced I/M regulation provides for an

annual test frequency. The Commonwealth has submitted modeling that

demonstrates that the performance standard is met using the annual test

frequency. 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 and the Commonwealth's proposed I/M

regulation provide the legal authority to implement and enforce the

annual test frequency. The Pennsylvania submittal meets the test

frequency and convenience requirements of the I/M rules for purposes of

interim approval.

Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356

The performance standard for enhanced I/M programs assumes coverage

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

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

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

emission reductions are achieved.

Vehicles registered or required to be registered within the I/M

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

program area boundaries and belonging to the covered model years and

vehicle classes comprise the subject vehicles. Fleets may be officially

inspected outside of the normal I/M program test facilities if such

alternatives are approved by the program administration, but shall be

[[Page 51644]]

subject to the same test requirements using the same quality control

standards as non-fleet vehicles and shall be inspected in the same type

of test network as other vehicles in the State, according to the

requirements of 40 CFR Sec. 51.353(a). Vehicles which are operated on

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

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

or local I/M area.

The I/M rule requires that the SIP shall include the legal

authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle

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

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

are to be identified including vehicles that are routinely operated in

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

any special exemptions including the percentage and number of vehicles

to be impacted by the exemption. Such exemptions shall be accounted for

in the emissions reduction analysis.

The Pennsylvania enhanced I/M program requires coverage of all 1975

and newer gasoline powered LDGV, LDGT1 and LDGT2 up to 9,000 pounds

GVWR which are registered or required to be registered in the I/M

program area. As of the date of the SIP submittal, 5.9 million vehicles

will be subject to enhanced I/M testing. The Commonwealth's regulation

does not currently include vehicles operating on all fuel types but

Pennsylvania commits to adding the required testing of these vehicles

once EPA promulgates regulations on alternative fueled vehicle I/M

testing. 75 Pa.

C.S. Sec. 4706 and the proposed Pennsylvania I/M regulation provide

the legal authority to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage. This

level of coverage is currently approvable because it provides the

necessary emission reductions to meet the performance standard.

Pennsylvania's program provides that fleets with 15 or more

vehicles can be inspected at a certified fleet inspection station. The

Commonwealth's plan for testing fleet vehicles requires the vehicles to

be subject to the same test requirements using the same quality control

standards as non-fleet vehicles, according to the requirements of 40

CFR Sec. 51.353(a). The fleet program is acceptable and meets the

requirements of the I/M rule. The Commonwealth's regulation requires

vehicles which are operated on Federal installations located within an

I/M program area to be tested, regardless of whether the vehicles are

registered in the state or local I/M area.

The Commonwealth's regulation provides for no special exemptions

for vehicle coverage.

The definition of light duty truck in the definitions section of

Pennsylvania's proposed I/M regulation does not provide for coverage up

to 9,000 pounds GVWR and conflicts with the modeling parameters found

in the SIP. This is a minor deficiency and must be corrected in the

final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18 month interim

period.

Thus, the Pennsylvania submittal meets the vehicle coverage

requirements of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR Sec. 51.357

Written test procedures and pass/fail standards shall be

established and followed for each model year and vehicle type included

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

Sec. 51.357 and in the EPA documents entitled ``High-Tech I/M Test

Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and

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

``Acceleration Simulation Mode Test Procedures, Emission Standards,

Quality Control Requirements, and Equipment Specifications'', EPA-AA-

RSPD-IM-96-2, dated July 1996. The I/M rule also requires vehicles that

have been altered from their original certified configuration (i.e.

engine or fuel switching) to be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR

51.357(d).

Pennsylvania has proposed an one-mode ASM (ASM5015 or equivalent)

exhaust testing with evaporative system pressure and purge testing in

the five county Philadelphia area. Pennsylvania is considering opting

for the two-mode ASM test instead of the one-mode ASM test.

Pennsylvania has been working with other states and the equipment

manufacturers, in coordination with EPA, to develop their own

procedures, specifications and standards for one and two-mode ASM

testing. It is anticipated that these test procedures, specifications

and standards will be released in late August 1996. Two speed idle

exhaust testing will be required in the remaining 20 counties. A visual

emission control inspection for the presence of the catalytic

converter, fuel inlet restrictor, PCV and EGR valve on 1981 and newer

model year vehicles will be required in all 25 counties.

The Commonwealth's proposed regulation does not include a

description of a test procedure which is acceptable to both the

Commonwealth and EPA for two speed idle and one-mode ASM testing, for

evaporative system pressure and purge testing and for a visual emission

control device inspection. The Commonwealth's proposed regulation does

not establish HC, CO, and CO2 pass/fail exhaust standards for the

two speed idle test procedure and one-mode ASM test procedure. The

Commonwealth regulation does not establish evaporative purge and

pressure test standards which conform to EPA established standards. The

final Pennsylvania I/M regulation must include the test procedures and

emission standards for these items. The July 29, 1996 supplement

submitted by Pennsylvania provides a commitment to include the test

procedures for the 2 speed idle test and the one-mode ASM (ASM5015 or

equivalent) in the final regulation; however, the Commonwealth fails to

commit to test procedures for evaporative system pressure and purge

tests and visual emission control device inspections.

Pennsylvania's proposed regulation does not provide phase-in

emission standards for one-mode ASM testing or two speed idle testing.

EPA anticipates that the Commonwealth will provide for phase-in

emission standards in the final state regulation. The final emission

standards must be implemented at the beginning of the second test cycle

so that the Commonwealth can obtain the full emission reduction program

credit prior to the first program evaluation date. This is a minor

deficiency and must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision

submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period.

The Commonwealth's regulation also requires vehicles that have been

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

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

vehicles.

EPA must receive the test procedures, specifications and standards

before EPA can go forward with a final interim ruling. In light of the

anticipated release of these test procedures, specifications and

standards in late August 1996, the Commonwealth must submit the

procedures, specifications and standards to EPA within 30 days of the

proposed interim ruling.

If, within 30 days of the proposed interim ruling, the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania submits to EPA test procedures and standards for one-

mode ASM (or two-mode ASM if the Commonwealth opts for two-mode ASM)

and two speed idle testing which are acceptable to EPA, then EPA

proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP based on

receiving within 30 days of this proposed rule the

[[Page 51645]]

Commonwealth's commitment to submit to EPA by a date certain within

twelve months of the final interim ruling, the final Pennsylvania I/M

regulation which includes test procedures and emission standards which

are acceptable to both the Commonwealth and EPA for the two speed idle

test, one-mode ASM test (or two-mode ASM test), evaporative system

purge and pressure tests and the visual emission control device

inspection (referred to collectively in the remainder of this section

of the notice as ``test procedures and standards''). If within 30 days

of the proposed interim ruling the submittal requirement is not met or

the state fails to commit within 30 days to submit final regulations

which incorporate the ``test procedures and emission standards'' which

are acceptable to both the Commonwealth and EPA by a date certain

within twelve months from the final interim ruling then this notice

proposes in the alternative to disapprove the Pennsylvania I/M SIP. If

the condition to submit the final regulations which incorporate the

``test procedures and emission standards'' which are acceptable to both

the Commonwealth and EPA is not met by a date certain within twelve

months from the final interim ruling EPA will promptly issue a letter

to the Commonwealth indicating that the conditional approval has been

converted to a disapproval.

Test Equipment--40 CFR Sec. 51.358

Computerized test systems are required for performing any

measurement on subject vehicles. The I/M rule requires that the state

SIP submittal include written technical specifications for all test

equipment used in the program. The specifications shall describe the

emission analysis process, the necessary test equipment, the required

features, and written acceptance testing criteria and procedures.

The Commonwealth's submittal contains the written technical

specifications for the two speed idle test equipment but does not

contain equipment specifications for the one-mode ASM (ASM5015 or

equivalent) and the pressure and purge test equipment. Pennsylvania has

been working with other States and the equipment manufacturers, in

coordination with EPA, to develop their own procedures, equipment

specifications and standards for one and two-mode ASM testing. It is

anticipated that these test procedures, equipment specifications and

standards will be released in late August 1996. Pennsylvania must

submit ASM equipment specifications once they have been established.

The proposed regulation does require the use of computerized test

systems.

EPA must receive the test procedures, equipment specifications and

standards before EPA can go forward with a final interim ruling. In

light of the anticipated release of these test procedures, equipment

specifications and standards in late August 1996, the Commonwealth must

submit the procedures, equipment specifications and standards to EPA

within 30 days of the proposed interim ruling.

If, within 30 days of the proposed interim ruling, the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania submits to EPA equipment specifications for one-mode

ASM (or two-mode ASM if the Commonwealth opts for two-mode ASM) testing

which are acceptable to EPA, then EPA proposes to conditionally approve

the Pennsylvania SIP based on receiving within 30 days of this proposed

rule the Commonwealth's commitment to submit to EPA by a date certain

within twelve months of the final interim ruling, the final

Pennsylvania I/M regulation which includes test equipment

specifications which are acceptable to both the Commonwealth and EPA

for the one-mode ASM test (or two-mode ASM test) and evaporative system

purge and pressure tests. If within 30 days of the proposed interim

ruling the submittal requirement is not met or the state fails to

commit within 30 days to submit final regulations which incorporate the

equipment specifications which are acceptable to both the Commonwealth

and EPA for the one-mode ASM test (or two-mode ASM test) and

evaporative system purge and pressure tests by a date certain within

twelve months from the final interim ruling then this notice proposes

in the alternative to disapprove the Pennsylvania I/M SIP. If the

condition to submit the final regulations which incorporate the

equipment specifications which are acceptable to both the Commonwealth

and EPA for the one-mode ASM test (or two-mode ASM test) and

evaporative system purge and pressure tests is not met by a date

certain within nine months from the final interim ruling, EPA will

promptly issue a letter to the Commonwealth indicating that the

conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval.

The proposed Pennsylvania regulation requires a data link system

between the Commonwealth and each emission station; however it is not a

real time data link. A real time data link is required as per 40 CFR

Sec. 51.358(b)(2). This is a minor deficiency and must be corrected in

the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18 month interim

period.

Quality Control--40 CFR Sec. 51.359

Quality control measures must insure that emission measurement

equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection,

calibration records, and control charts are accurately created,

recorded and maintained.

The Commonwealth's proposed regulation and the SIP submittal

contain information which describe and establish quality control

measures for all the emission measurement equipment except for one-mode

ASM (or two-mode ASM if the Commonwealth opts for it). Recordkeeping

requirements and measures to maintain the security of all documents

used to establish compliance with the inspection requirements are

included in the submittal. The Commonwealth intends to contract with a

private vendor who will develop and implement, consistent with the

proposed state regulations, the quality control requirements. The

failure to provide quality control requirements for one-mode ASM (or

two-mode ASM if the Commonwealth opts for it) is a minor deficiency and

must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of

the 18 month interim period.

The Commonwealth's submittal meets the quality control requirements

of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR Sec. 51.360

The I/M rule allows for the issuance of a waiver, which is a form

of compliance with the program requirements that allows a motorist to

comply without meeting the applicable test standards. For enhanced I/M

programs, an expenditure of at least $450 in repairs, adjusted annually

to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as compared to

the CPI for 1989, is required in order to qualify for a waiver. Waivers

can only be issued after a vehicle has failed a retest performed after

all qualifying repairs have been made. Any available warranty coverage

must be used to obtain repairs before expenditures can be counted

toward the cost limit. Tampering related repairs shall not be applied

toward the cost limit. Repairs must be appropriate to the cause of the

test failure. Repairs for 1980 and newer model year vehicles must be

performed by a recognized repair technician. The I/M rule allows for

compliance via a diagnostic inspection after failing a retest on

[[Page 51646]]

emissions and requires quality control of waiver issuance. The SIP must

set a maximum waiver rate and must describe corrective action that

would be taken if the waiver rate exceeds that committed to in the SIP.

75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 and the Pennsylvania proposed I/M regulation

provide the necessary authority to issue waivers, set and adjust cost

limits, administer and enforce the waiver system, and set a $450 cost

limit and allow for an annual adjustment of the cost limit to reflect

the change in the CPI as compared to the CPI in 1989. The Pennsylvania

proposed I/M regulation includes provisions which address waiver

criteria and procedures, including cost limits, tampering and warranty

related repairs, quality control and administration.

The Commonwealth has set a 3% maximum waiver rate, as a percentage

of failed vehicles, for both pre-1981 and 1981 and later vehicles. The

Commonwealth has committed to, as per 40 CFR Sec. 51.360, corrective

actions to be taken if the waiver rate exceeds 3%. This waiver rate has

been used in the performance standard modeling demonstration.

The Commonwealth's proposed regulation allows emission inspection

stations to issue waivers. The I/M rule, 40 CFR Sec. 51.360(c)(1), only

allows the State or a single contractor to issue waivers. This is a

minor deficiency and must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision

submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period.

The Pennsylvania submittal meets the waiver requirements of the I/M

rule for purposes of interim approval.

Motorist Compliance Enforcements--40 CFR Sec. 51.361

The I/M rule requires that compliance shall be ensured through the

denial of motor vehicle registration in enhanced I/M programs unless an

exception for use of an existing alternative is approved. An enhanced

I/M area may use either sticker-based enforcement programs or computer-

matching programs if either of these programs were used in the existing

program, which was operating prior to passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments, and it can be demonstrated that the alternative has been

more effective than registration denial. Currently the I/M rule does

not provide this alternative for newly implementing enhanced areas,

including newly subject areas in a state with an I/M program in another

part of the state. In a separate action expected to be taken shortly,

EPA intends to take direct final action to amend 40 CFR Sec. 51.361 to

allow in the alternative, the use of more effective pre-existing

motorist compliance enforcement mechanism anywhere within a State. EPA

proposes to approve Pennsylvania's use of sticker enforcement

throughout the state, based on the state's demonstration of

effectiveness described below, provided that EPA takes final action on

this amendment prior to final approval of the Pennsylvania program.

In addition, the SIP must provide information concerning the

enforcement process, legal authority to implement and enforce the

program, and a commitment to a compliance rate to be used for modeling

purposes and to be maintained in practice.

The Commonwealth proposes to use their pre-existing sticker

enforcement mechanism in all 25 counties. The Commonwealth proposes to

demonstrate that its existing sticker enforcement program is more

effective than registration denial. Pennsylvania's proposed I/M

regulation provides the legal authority to implement a sticker

enforcement system. The Pennsylvania SIP commits to a compliance rate

of 96% which was used in the performance standard modeling

demonstration. EPA proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania

SIP based on receiving within 30 days from this notice a commitment

from the Commonwealth to submit by a date certain no later than

November 15, 1997, a demonstration that meets the requirements of 40

CFR Sec. 51.361(b) (1) and (2) and demonstrates that the Pennsylvania's

existing sticker enforcement system is more effective than registration

denial enforcement. The demonstration must be received by EPA no later

than November 15, 1997 because November 15, 1997 is the date by which

the Pennsylvania enhanced I/M program must begin testing and EPA

believes that the demonstration must be complete and submitted to EPA

by the time testing is required to begin.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR Sec. 51.362

The I/M rule requires that the enforcement program shall be audited

regularly and shall follow effective program management practices,

including adjustments to improve operation when necessary. The SIP

shall include quality control and quality assurance procedures to be

used to insure the effective overall performance of the enforcement

system. An information management system shall be established which

will characterize, evaluate and enforce the program.

The Pennsylvania SIP contains a commitment to contract with a

private vendor which will develop a manual which addresses the quality

assurance, quality control and information management of the motorist

compliance enforcement oversight program. The submittal does not

include the request for proposals (RFP) that adequately addresses how

the private vendor will comply with the motorist compliance enforcement

program oversight requirements. This is a minor deficiency and must be

corrected in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18

month interim period.

Quality Assurance--40 CFR Sec. 51.363

An ongoing quality assurance program shall be implemented to

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

The program shall include covert and overt performance audits of the

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

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

auditors. A description of the quality assurance program which includes

written procedure manuals on the above discussed items must be

submitted as part of the SIP.

The Pennsylvania submittal contains a commitment to contract with a

private vendor who will be charged with developing a quality assurance

program that meets all requirements of 40 CFR 51.363.

Performance audits of inspectors will consist of both covert and

overt audits.

The submittal does not include a RFP that adequately addresses how

the private vendor will comply with 40 CFR 51.363, does not include a

procedures manual which adequately addresses the quality assurance

program and does not require annual auditing of the quality assurance

auditors as per 40 CFR 51.363(d)(2). These are minor deficiencies and

must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of

the 18 month interim period.

The Pennsylvania submittal meets the quality assurance requirements

of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR 51.364

Enforcement against licensed stations, contractors and inspectors

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

violation of program requirements. The I/M rule requires the

establishment of minimum penalties for violations of program rules and

procedures which can be imposed against stations, contractors and

inspectors. The legal authority for establishing and imposing

penalties, civil fines, license suspensions and revocations must be

included in the SIP.

[[Page 51647]]

State quality assurance officials shall have the authority to

temporarily suspend station and/or inspector licenses immediately upon

finding a violation that directly affects emission reduction benefits,

unless constitutionally prohibited. An official opinion explaining any

state constitutional impediments to immediate suspension authority must

be included in the submittal. The SIP must describe the administrative

and judicial procedures and responsibilities relevant to the

enforcement process, including which agencies, courts and jurisdictions

are involved, who will prosecute and adjudicate cases and the resources

and sources of those resources which will support this function.

The Pennsylvania submittal includes the legal authority to

establish and impose penalties against stations and inspectors. The

penalty schedules for inspectors and stations which are found in the

Commonwealth's proposed regulation meet the I/M rule requirements and

are approvable. The Commonwealth's July 27, 1996 supplement to the SIP

revision states that the Commonwealth auditor has the authority to

temporarily suspend station and inspector licenses or certificates

immediately upon finding a violation. The submittal includes

descriptions of administrative and judicial procedures relevant to the

enforcement process which meet the I/M rule and are approvable.

The SIP does not include provisions to maintain and submit to EPA

records of all warnings, civil fines, suspensions, revocations,

violations and penalties against inspectors and stations. This is a

minor deficiency and must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision

submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period.

The Pennsylvania submittal meets the enforcement against

contractors, stations and inspectors requirements of the I/M rule for

purposes of interim approval.

Data Collection--40 CFR 51.365

Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation

and enforcement of an I/M program. The I/M rule requires data to be

gathered on each individual test conducted and on the results of the

quality control checks of test equipment required under 40 CFR 51.359.

The submittal states that the Commonwealth's data collection will

be implemented by a private vendor and will be in accordance with 40

CFR Secs. 51.365 and 51.366. The submittal also commits to gather and

report the results of the quality control checks required under 40 CFR

Sec. 51.359. The submittal does not include a RFP that adequately

addresses how the private vendor will comply with 40 CFR Secs. 51.365

and 51.366. This is a minor deficiency which must be corrected by

submitting the portion of the RFP which adequately addresses data

collection as part of the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end

of the 18 month interim period.

The Pennsylvania submittal meets the data collection requirements

of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR Sec. 51.366

Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring

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

requires annual reports to be submitted which provide information and

statistics and summarize activities performed for each of the following

programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control and enforcement.

These reports are to be submitted by July of each year and shall

provide statistics for the period of January to December of the

previous year. In addition, a biennial report must be submitted to EPA

which adequately addresses changes in program design, regulations,

legal authority, program procedures and any weaknesses in the program

found during the two year period and how these problems will be or were

corrected.

The Pennsylvania I/M SIP states that data analysis and reporting

will be implemented by a private vendor and provides a commitment that

the reports submitted to EPA will provide summary data and other

information as required under 40 CFR Sec. 51.366. The Commonwealth

commits to submit annual reports on test data, quality assurance and

quality control to EPA by July of the subsequent year. A commitment to

submit a biennial report to EPA which adequately addresses reporting

requirements set forth in 40 CFR Sec. 51.366(e) is also included in the

SIP.

The submittal does not include an RFP that adequately addresses how

the private vendor will comply with 40 CFR Sec. 51.366. This is a minor

deficiency which must be corrected by submitting the portion of the RFP

which adequately addresses data analysis and reporting as part of the

final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18 month interim

period.

The Pennsylvania submittal meets the data analysis and reporting

requirements of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR Sec. 51.367

The I/M rule requires all inspectors to be formally trained and

licensed or certified to perform inspections.

The Pennsylvania I/M regulation requires all inspectors to receive

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

every two years. The Commonwealth will hire a private vendor to

implement the inspector training and certification program. The

Commonwealth's proposed I/M regulation includes a description of the

information covered in the training program, a requirement for both

written and hands-on testing and a description of the certification

process. However, the SIP fails to include requirements that the

inspectors are to complete a refresher training course or pass a

comprehensive skill examination prior to being recertified and does not

include a commitment that the Commonwealth will monitor and evaluate

the inspector training program delivery. These are minor deficiencies

and must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the

end of the 18 month interim period.

The Pennsylvania submittal meets the inspector training and

licensing or certification requirements of the I/M rule for purposes of

interim approval.

Public Information and Consumer Protection--40 CFR Sec. 51.368

The I/M rule requires the SIP to include public information and

consumer protection programs.

The Commonwealth will hire a private vendor to implement the public

information program which educates the public on I/M, state and federal

I/M rules, air quality and the role of motor vehicles in the air

pollution problem, and other items as described in the I/M rule. The

submittal does not include an RFP that adequately addresses how the

private vendor will comply with the public information requirements of

40 CFR Sec. 51.368. This is a minor deficiency which must be corrected

by submitting the portion of the RFP which adequately addresses the

public information program as part of the final I/M SIP revision

submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period.

The Pennsylvania submittal meets the public information and

consumer protection requirements of the I/M rule for purposes of

interim approval.

Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR Sec. 51.369

Effective repairs are the key to achieving program goals. The I/M

rule requires states to take steps to ensure

[[Page 51648]]

that the capability exists in the repair industry to repair vehicles.

The SIP must include a description of the technical assistance program

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

used in meeting the performance monitoring requirements required in the

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

available in the community.

The Pennsylvania SIP requires the implementation of a technical

assistance program. The Commonwealth will hire a private vendor to

implement a technician hotline service. The Commonwealth will

periodically inform the repair facilities of changes in the program,

training courses, and common repair problems. The Commonwealth's

proposed regulation provides for the establishment and implementation

of a repair technician training program which, at a minimum, covers the

four types of training described in 40 CFR 51.369(c).

The SIP does not include provisions that meet the requirements of

40 CFR 51.368(a) and 51.369(b) for a repair facility performance

monitoring program plan and for providing the motorist with diagnostic

information based on the particular portions of the test that failed.

These are minor deficiencies and must be corrected in the final I/M SIP

revision submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period.

The Pennsylvania submittal meets the improving repair effectiveness

requirements of I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

Compliance with Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370

The I/M rule requires the states to establish methods to ensure

that vehicles that are subject to enhanced I/M and are included in a

emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to

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

75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 and the Commonwealth's proposed I/M regulation

provide the legal authority to require owners to comply with emission

related recalls before completing the emission test. The SIP includes

procedures to be used to incorporate national database recall

information into either the data collection contractors database or

directly to the emission inspection station. The submittal includes a

commitment to submit an annual report to EPA which includes the recall

related information as required in 40 CFR 51.370(c).

The Pennsylvania submittal meets the recall compliance requirements

of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

On-road Testing--40 CFR 51.371

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

either remote sensing devices (RSD) or roadside pullovers including

tailpipe emission testing can be used to meet the I/M rule. The program

must include on-road testing of 0.5% of the subject fleet or 20,000

vehicles, whichever is less, in the nonattainment area or the I/M

program area. Motorists that have passed an emission test and are found

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

pass an out-of-cycle test.

Legal authority to implement the on-road testing program and

enforce off-cycle inspection and repair requirements is contained in 75

Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 and the Commonwealth's proposed I/M regulation. The

SIP submittal requires the use of RSD or systematic roadside checks to

test 20,000 vehicles per year in the I/M program area and will be

implemented by a private vendor. A description of the program which

includes test limits and criteria is found in the SIP.

The submittal does not contain sufficient information on resource

allocations, methods of analyzing and reporting the results of the

testing and information on staffing requirements for both the

Commonwealth and the private vendor. These are minor deficiencies and

must be corrected in the final I/M SIP revision submitted by the end of

the 18 month interim period.

The Pennsylvania submittal meets the on-road testing requirements

of the I/M rule for purposes of interim approval.

State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40 CFR

Secs. 51.372-373

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

regulations, legislative authority to implement the program, a modeling

demonstration showing that the program design meets the performance

standard, evidence of adequate funding and resources to implement the

program, and a discussion of each of the required program design

elements.

75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 provides the legal authority to implement the

program. However, 75 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 states ``this program shall be

established in all areas of this Commonwealth where the secretary

certifies by publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin that a system is

required in order to comply with Federal law. Any area, counties,

county or portion thereof certified to be in the program by the

secretary must be mandated to be in the program by Federal law.'' 75

Pa.C.S. Sec. 4706 requires ``at least 60 days prior to the

implementation of any enhanced emission inspection program developed

under this subsection, the Secretary of Transportation shall certify by

notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin that an enhanced emission

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

regulation, 67 Pa. Code Sec. 177.22, states ``the enhanced I/M program,

as described in this chapter, will commence on a date designated by the

Secretary by notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The notice will

provide affected motorists with at least 60 days notice''. EPA,

therefore, proposes to conditionally approve the Pennsylvania SIP based

on receiving from the Commonwealth within 30 days of this notice a

commitment to publish a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by a date

certain no later than September 15, 1997 certifying the start date for

the I/M program so that the program for the five county Philadelphia

and four county Pittsburgh areas can start no later than November 15,

1997 and so that the remaining 16 counties can start no later than

November 15, 1999. If the Commonwealth does not meet the commitment,

EPA will promptly issue a letter to the Commonwealth indicating that

the conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval.

III. Discussion of Rulemaking Action

Today's notice of proposed rulemaking begins a 30 day clock for the

Commonwealth to make a commitment to EPA to correct the major elements

of the SIP that EPA considers deficient, by a date certain, within 1

year of interim approval. These elements are: geographic coverage and

program start dates, program evaluation, enhanced performance standard,

test types, test procedures and emission standards, test equipment

specifications and motorist compliance enforcement. If the Commonwealth

does not make such commitments within 30 days, EPA today is proposing

in the alternative that this SIP revision be disapproved.

In an April 13, 1995 letter EPA notified Pennsylvania that the

conditional approval of the Pennsylvania enhanced I/M SIP revision had

been converted to a disapproval (60 FR 47084). The letter triggered the

18-month time clock for the mandatory application of sanctions under

section 179(a) of the CAA. This 18-month sanction clock will expire on

October 13, 1996 at which time 2:1 stationary sources offsets would be

automatically imposed. In the Final Rules section of

[[Page 51649]]

today's Federal Register, 61 FR 51598, EPA has published an interim

final determination to defer sanctions based on the determination that

Pennsylvania has cured the SIP deficiency triggering the clock for the

duration of EPA's rulemaking process on the I/M SIP revision. This

interim determination will not stop the sanctions clock but will defer

the implementation of sanctions until either the conditional interim

approval is converted to a disapproval, the interim approval lapses,

the full SIP is approved or the full SIP is disapproved.

If the Commonwealth makes the required commitments within 30 days,

EPA's conditional approval of the plan will last until the date by

which the Commonwealth has committed to cure all of the deficiencies.

EPA expects that within this period the Commonwealth will not only

correct the deficiencies as committed to by the Commonwealth, but that

the Commonwealth will also begin program start-up no later than

November 15, 1997 in the five county Philadelphia and four county

Pittsburgh areas. If the Commonwealth does not correct deficiencies and

implement the interim program in said areas by no later than November

15, 1997, EPA is proposing in this notice that the interim approval

will convert to a disapproval upon a finding letter being sent by EPA

to the Commonwealth.

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 Commonwealth will make a demonstration of the

program's effectiveness using an appropriate evaluation criteria. As

EPA expects that the Pennsylvania I/M program will have started by no

later than November 15, 1997, the Commonwealth will have approximately

6 months of program data that can be used for the demonstration. If the

Commonwealth 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 Commonwealth's permanent I/M SIP revision. If the Commonwealth's

program evaluation demonstrates a lesser amount of emission reductions

actually realized than were claimed in the Commonwealth's previous

submittal, EPA will adjust the Commonwealth's credits accordingly, and

use this information to act on the Commonwealth's permanent I/M

program.

V. Further Requirements for Permanent I/M SIP Approval

At the end of the 18 month period, final approval of the

Commonwealth's plan will be granted based upon the following criteria:

1. The Commonwealth has complied with all the conditions of its

commitment to EPA,

2. EPA's review of the Commonwealth's program evaluation confirms

that the appropriate amount of program credit was claimed by the

Commonwealth and achieved with the interim program,

3. Final program regulations are submitted to EPA, and

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

EPA's I/M rule, including those deficiencies identified herein as minor

for purposes of interim approval.

VI. EPA's Evaluation of the Interim Submittal

EPA's review of the Commonwealth's submittal indicates that with

satisfaction of the conditions described above, the Commonwealth will

have adopted an enhanced I/M program in accordance with the

requirements of the NHSDA. EPA is proposing conditional interim

approval of the Pennsylvania SIP revision for an enhanced I/M program

and the supplements to that revision submitted on June 27, 1996 and

July 29, 1996. 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 interim action. Interested

parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by

submitting written comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the

Addresses section of this notice.

Proposed Action

EPA is proposing conditional interim approval of this revision to

the Pennsylvania SIP for an enhanced I/M program if a commitment is

received from the Commonwealth within 30 days of the date of this

proposal, to correct the identified deficiencies by a date certain

within one year from the date of the final interim approval. The

conditions for approvability are as follows:

(1) By no later than September 15, 1997, a notice must be published

in the Pennsylvania Bulletin by the Secretary of the Department of

Transportation which certifies that the enhanced I/M program is

required in order to comply with federal law, certifies the geographic

areas which are subject to the enhanced I/M program (the geographic

coverage must be identical to that listed in Appendix A-1 of the March

22, 1996 SIP submittal), and certifies the commencement date of the

enhanced I/M program. The commencement date for the five county

Philadelphia and four county Pittsburgh areas must be no later than

November 15, 1997 and the commencement date for the remaining 16

counties must be no later than November 15, 1999;

(2) The Commonwealth must submit to EPA as a SIP amendment by a

date certain within twelve months of the final interim ruling, the

final Pennsylvania I/M regulation which requires METT be performed on

0.1% of the subject fleet each year as per 40 CFR Sec. 51.353(c)(3) and

meets the program evaluation elements as specified in 40 CFR

Sec. 51.353(b)(1) & (c);

(3) By a date certain no later than November 15, 1997, the

Commonwealth must submit a demonstration to EPA as an amendment to the

SIP that meets the requirements of 40 CFR Sec. 51.361(b)(1) & (2) and

demonstrates that Pennsylvania's existing sticker enforcement system is

more effective than registration denial enforcement;

(4) If, within 30 days of the proposed interim ruling, the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania submits to EPA test procedures,

specifications and standards for one-mode ASM (or two-mode ASM if the

Commonwealth opts for two-mode ASM) and two speed idle testing which

are acceptable to EPA, then EPA proposes to conditionally approve the

Pennsylvania SIP if the Commonwealth adopts and submits to EPA as a SIP

amendment by a date certain within twelve months of the final interim

ruling, the final Pennsylvania I/M regulation which requires and

specifies (and reflects the modeling assumptions found in the March 22,

1996 submittal and July 29, 1996 supplement) the following: exhaust &

evaporative test types and procedures which are acceptable to both the

Commonwealth and EPA, visual inspection for presence and tampering of

emission control devices, equipment specifications which are acceptable

to both the Commonwealth and EPA, emission standards for both exhaust

and evaporative testing which are acceptable to both the Commonwealth

and EPA, and a technician training and certification (TTC) program.

(5) The Commonwealth must perform and submit the necessary new

modeling and demonstration that the program will meet the performance

standard, within one year from final conditional interim approval. If

the Commonwealth fails to

[[Page 51650]]

submit this new modeling within one year, EPA proposes that the

conditional interim approval will convert to a disapproval upon a

letter from EPA indicating that the Commonwealth has failed to submit,

timely, the modeling and demonstration of compliance with the

performance standard.

The following minor deficiencies must be corrected in the final I/M

SIP revision submitted by the end of the 18 month interim period:

(1) Detail the number of personnel and equipment dedicated to the

quality assurance program, data collection, data analysis, program

administration, enforcement, public education and assistance, on-road

testing and other necessary functions as per 40 CFR Sec. 51.354;

(2) The definition of light duty truck in the definitions section

of the Pennsylvania I/M regulation must provide for coverage up to

9,000 pounds GVWR;

(3) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation must require implementation of

the final full stringency emission standards at the beginning of the

second test cycle so that the state can obtain the full emission

reduction program credit prior to the first program evaluation date;

(4) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation must require a real time data

link between the state or contractor and each emission inspection

station as per 40 CFR 51.358(b)(2);

(5) Provide quality control requirements for one-mode ASM (or two-

mode ASM if the Commonwealth opts for it);

(6) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation must only allow the

Commonwealth or a single contractor to issue waivers as per 40 CFR

51.360(c)(1);

(7) The final I/M SIP submittal must include the RFP that

adequately addresses how the private vendor will comply with the

motorist compliance enforcement program oversight requirements as per

40 CFR 51.362;

(8) The final I/M SIP submittal must include the RFP that

adequately addresses how the private vendor will comply with 40 CFR

51.363, a procedures manual which adequately addresses the quality

assurance program and a requirement that annual auditing of the quality

assurance auditors will occur as per 40 CFR 51.363(d)(2);

(9) The final I/M SIP submittal must include provisions to maintain

and submit to EPA records of all warnings, civil fines, suspensions,

revocations, violations and penalties against inspectors and stations

as per 40 CFR 51.364;

(10) The final I/M SIP submittal must include a RFP that adequately

addresses how the private vendor will comply with 40 CFR 51.365 and

51.366;

(11) The Pennsylvania regulation must require that the inspectors

complete a refresher training course or pass a comprehensive skill

examination prior to being recertified and the final SIP revisions must

include a commitment that the Commonwealth will monitor and evaluate

the inspector training program delivery as per 40 CFR 51.367;

(12) The final I/M SIP submittal must include a RFP that adequately

addresses how the private vendor will comply with the public

information requirements of 40 CFR 51.368;

(13) The Pennsylvania I/M regulation must include provisions that

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.368(a)and 51.369(b) for a repair

facility performance monitoring program plan and for providing the

motorist with diagnostic information based on the particular portions

of the test that were failed; and

(14) The final I/M SIP submittal must contain sufficient

information to adequately address the on-road test program resource

allocations, methods of analyzing and reporting the results of the on-

road testing and information on staffing requirements for both the

Commonwealth and the private vendor for the on-road testing program.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

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

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

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

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

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

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

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

SIP approvals under Section 110 and Subchapter I, Part D of the CAA

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, the Administrator

certifies 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 CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state

action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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 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.

EPA has determined that the approval action proposed/promulgated

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 pre-existing 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.

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 (OMB) has

exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the

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

meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the

Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Section 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.

[[Page 51651]]

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

Dated: September 12, 1996.

William T. Wisniewski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 96-25398 Filed 10-2-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P