Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DC036-2007; FRL-5988-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

District of Columbia; Enhanced Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed conditional approval and withdrawal of proposed

disapproval action.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of

Columbia (the District) on November 27, 1997. This revision establishes

and requires the implementation of an enhanced motor vehicle inspection

and maintenance (I/M) program within the District. The intended effect

of this action is to propose conditional approval of the District's

enhanced

[[Page 15119]]

motor vehicle I/M program. EPA is proposing approval conditioned upon

the District meeting the April 30, 1999 start date committed to and

contained in its enhanced I/M SIP revision. EPA is also withdrawing its

October 10, 1996 (61 FR 53166) proposed disapproval action of the

enhanced I/M SIP revision submitted by the District of Columbia on July

13, 1995 (supplemented March 27, 1996).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 29, 1998.

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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine L. Magliocchetti @ 215-566-

2174, at the EPA Region III address above, or via e-mail at

magliocchetti.catherine @epamail.epa.gov. While information may be

requested via e-mail, comments must be submitted in writing to the

Region III office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Motor vehicles are significant contributors of volatile organic

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

(NOX) emissions. An important control measure to reduce

these emissions is the implementation of a motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program. Despite being subject to the most rigorous

vehicle pollution control program in the world, cars and trucks still

create about half of the ozone air pollution and nearly all of the

carbon monoxide air pollution in United States cities, as well as toxic

contaminants. Of all highway vehicles, passenger cars and light-duty

trucks emit most of the vehicle-related carbon monoxide and ozone-

forming hydrocarbons. They also emit substantial amounts of nitrogen

oxides and air toxics. Although the U.S. has made progress in reducing

emissions of these pollutants, total fleet emissions remain high. This

is because the number of vehicle miles traveled on U.S. roads has

doubled in the last 20 years to 2 trillion miles per year, offsetting

much of the technological progress in vehicle emission control over the

same two decades. Projections indicate that the steady growth in

vehicle travel will continue. Ongoing efforts to reduce emissions from

individual vehicles will be necessary to achieve our air quality goals.

Today's cars are absolutely dependent on properly functioning

emission controls to keep pollution levels low. Minor malfunctions in

the emission control system can increase emissions significantly, and

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

standard. Major malfunctions in the emission control system can cause

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

causing the majority of the vehicle-related pollution problem.

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

as the emissions themselves may not be noticeable and emission control

malfunctions do not necessarily affect vehicle driveability.

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

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

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

soon after the program is put in place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas with urbanized

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

million (ppm) design value 1 with urbanized populations of

200,000 or more; and all metropolitan statistical areas with a

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

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

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

guidance. Generally, the fourth highest monitored value with 3

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

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

second high monitored values with 2 complete years of data is

selected as the carbon monoxide design value.

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

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

objectives by identifying vehicles that have high emissions as a result

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

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

inspection methods that are better at finding high emitting vehicles,

and has additional features to better assure that all vehicles are

tested properly and effectively repaired.

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

programs or to implement new ones for certain nonattainment areas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

referred to as the I/M Rule. Flexibility amendments to this rule, which

provided for a low enhanced I/M performance standard for use in certain

qualifying areas were published on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48029) and

additional I/M flexibility amendments for qualified areas in the OTR

were published on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 39031).

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

40 CFR 51.350(a), any area having a 1980 Bureau of Census-defined

urbanized area population of 200,000 or more and that is either: (1)

designated as serious or worse ozone nonattainment or (2) moderate or

serious CO nonattainment areas with a design value greater than 12.7

ppm, shall implement enhanced I/M in the 1990 Census-defined urbanized

area. The Act also established the ozone transport region (OTR) in the

northeastern United States comprised of 11 states and the District.

Section 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act require the implementation of enhanced

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

the OTR that have a population of 100,000 or more people.

The November 1992 I/M Rule establishes minimum performance

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

for the following: network type and program evaluation; adequate tools

and resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test

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

compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement;

motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance;

enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors; data

collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and

licensing or certification;

[[Page 15120]]

public information and consumer protection; improving repair

effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road testing; SIP

revisions; and implementation deadlines. The performance standard for

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

known as IM240, for new technology vehicles (i.e, those with closed-

loop control and, especially, fuel injected engines), including a

transient loaded exhaust short test incorporating hydrocarbons (HC), CO

and NOX cutpoints, an evaporative system integrity

(pressure) test and an evaporative system performance (purge) test.

Under the November 1992 I/M Rule enhanced I/M programs were

required to initially begin phased-in implementation by January 1,

1995, with final full implementation slated for January 1, 1996. Due to

EPA rule changes, and the flexibility afforded by the National Highway

Systems Designation Act of 1995 (NHA) EPA believes states should be

afforded extra time to begin full implementation of their enhanced I/M

programs. Since the 1995 deadline has now passed, EPA believes that

state I/M programs must now start up as soon as practicable.

II. Background

The District of Columbia is part of the OTR and is part of the

Washington DC, MSA with a population of 100,000 or more. Section

184(b)(1)(A) of the Act require all states in the OTR region which

contain MSAs or parts thereof with populations of 100,000 or more, to

submit a SIP revision for an enhanced I/M program.

On July 13, 1995 the District of Columbia Department of Consumer

and Regulatory Affairs, now known as the Department of Health (DoH),

submitted to EPA a SIP revision for an enhanced I/M program. On March

27, 1996, DoH submitted a supplement to this SIP revision, in response

to changes to the federal program requirements resulting from new

federal legislation governing enhanced I/M programs, and EPA rule

changes to the program. EPA's evaluation of this SIP revision submittal

(including its supplement) concluded that it did not meet the

requirements of the Clean Air Act, and subsequently EPA proposed

disapproval of the SIP revision on October 10, 1996 (61 FR 53166). The

rationale for EPA's disapproval can be found in the notice of proposed

rulemaking, and will not be restated here. In response to EPA's

proposed disapproval of the District's plan, DoH completely redesigned

the District's enhanced I/M program. On November 25, 1997, DoH

submitted to EPA another enhanced I/M SIP revision which replaced,

completely, its earlier enhanced I/M submittal, and simultaneously

requested that EPA withdrawal the October 1996 proposed disapproval. In

preparing the latest SIP revision, DoH has attempted to address all of

the programmatic deficiencies identified in the October 1996 proposed

disapproval of the previously submitted SIP revision.

EPA's summary of the requirements of the federal I/M rule as found

in 40 CFR 51.350-51.373 and EPA's analysis of the District's November

25, 1997 submittal is outlined below. A more detailed analysis of the

District's submittal is contained in a Technical Support Document (TSD)

dated March 10, 1998. For interested parties, the TSD is available upon

request from the Region III office, listed in the ADDRESSES section

above. Parties desiring additional details on the I/M rule are referred

to the November 5, 1992 Federal Register notice (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR

51.350-51.373, as well as the I/M Flexibility Amendments in the

September 18, 1995 Federal Register notice (60 FR 48029) and the

additional I/M flexibility amendments for qualified areas in the OTR,

published on July 25, 1996 at (61 FR 39031).

III. EPA's Analysis of the District of Columbia's Enhanced I/M Program

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

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

regulations for enhanced I/M programs in certain areas. Based upon

EPA's review of the District's submittal, EPA believes the District has

complied with all aspects of the Act and the I/M rule. EPA is proposing

approval, conditioned upon the District meeting the April 30, 1999

start date committed to and contained in its enhanced I/M SIP revision.

EPA is imposing this condition because while it agrees that the

District's start date of April 30, 1999 is as expeditious as

practicable given current circumstances, EPA also believes that it is

imperative that this date be met with no further delay beyond the

originally mandated federal date for start-up of enhanced I/M programs.

Because the originally mandated start date has now passed, EPA proposes

to condition approval of the District's I/M program on start-up as soon

as practicable. In light of the current status of the District program,

EPA concludes that April 30, 1999 is as soon as practicable to start

the program in the District. EPA has reviewed the November 25, 1997 SIP

revision, and has determined that the enhanced I/M program detailed in

the SIP revision meets all of the other requirements of the CAA.

A. Applicability--40 CFR 51.350

Section 184(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.350(a) require all

states in the OTR which contain MSAs or parts thereof with populations

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

of Columbia is part of the OTR and is a part of the Washington, DC,

MSA, which has a population in excess of 100,000. DC's enhanced I/M

program will be implemented throughout the District.

The District's I/M legislative authority (Title 40, Chapter 2)

provides the legal authority to establish the geographic boundaries of

the program. The program boundaries listed in Section 1 of the SIP

revision are the inclusive zipcode listings for the entire District,

and thus meet the federal I/M requirements under Sec. 51.350.

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

it is no longer necessary. EPA interprets the

I/M rule as stating that a SIP which does not sunset prior to the

attainment deadline for each applicable area satisfies this

requirement. DoH has previously informed EPA, through its November 13,

1996 comment letter on the October 1996 proposed disapproval, that the

legislation governing the District's I/M program will not sunset unless

it is actively repealed or amended by the City Council. DoH therefore

believes that the program is authorized up to and beyond the attainment

date. EPA agrees with this assessment, since there is no sunset date

provision attached to the enabling legislation. Therefore, EPA has

determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of the

requirements of Sec. 51.350 of the I/M rule.

B. Enhanced I/M Performance Standard--40 CFR 51.351

In accordance with the Act and with 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

[[Page 15121]]

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. 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 such as the

District, the performance standard must be met for both NOX

and HC.

The District's submittal includes the following program design

parameters:

Network Type--Centralized, test-only.

Start Date--April 1999.

Test Frequency--Biennial.

Model Year/Vehicle Type Coverage--All 1974 and newer light duty

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

LDGT2); and heavy duty gasoline vehicles up to 26,000 lbs gross vehicle

weight.

Exhaust Emission Test Type--Transient test for 1984 and newer model

year vehicles idle test for1983 and older model year vehicles.

Emission Standards--Permanent transient test standards for 1984 and

newer model year light duty vehicles: 0.8 gpm HC, 15 gpm CO, 2.0 gpm

NOX. [Please refer to the District's I/M regulations (18

DCMR 752) for transient test standards for other applicable model

years]

Emission Control Device--Pressure and purge check on all 1984 and

newer model year vehicles.

Stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)--40%.

Waiver Rate--3% on pre- and post-1981 vehicles.

Compliance Rate--96%.

Evaluation Date--For HC and NOX: July 1, 2002.

EPA has reviewed the District's modeling of the program and has

determined that the design parameters are acceptable; and that the

model performance standard has been met. EPA notes that an appropriate

methodology was used by the District in accounting for a start-date

month of April, which cannot be directly entered into the MOBILE model.

For further information on the modeling approach, please consult the

TSD. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all

of the requirements of Sec. 51.351 of the I/M rule.

C. 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 Act and the I/M rule. The

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

schedule for submittal of biennial evaluation reports.

In response to the changing format of many enhanced I/M programs

(resulting from increased flexibility under the I/M Flexibility Rule

and the National Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995) EPA has

committed to re-examining the requirements of this section of the I/M

rule (see 63 FR 1362, January 9, 1998). EPA here notes that, as

indicated in that rulemaking, whatever the outcome of this examination

of alternative program evaluation methods, the original evaluation

method will also be available to programs such as the District's that

have opted for a centralized approach using IM240 equipment.

The original approach calls for the SIP to include the collection

of data from a state monitored or administered mass emission test of at

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

description of the sampling methodology, a description of the data

collection and analysis system and the legal authority enabling the

evaluation program.

In addition to these requirements, the state should also provide,

in the biennial report, the results of undercover surveys of inspector

effectiveness related to identifying vehicles in need of repair. Also,

the State should, in its biennial reports, provide local fleet emission

factors in assessing the actual effectiveness of the I/M program.

The District's submittal includes an ongoing program evaluation

that meets the original I/M rule requirements. The District has the

legal authority to conduct this testing under Title 40, Chapter 2.

Therefore, EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has

satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.353(d) of the I/M rule.

D. Adequate Tools and Resources--40 CFR 51.354

The federal regulation requires the state to demonstrate that

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

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

dedicated fund and used to finance the program. Alternative funding

approaches are acceptable if it can be demonstrated that the funding

can be maintained. Reliance on funding from the state or local General

Fund is not acceptable unless doing otherwise would be a violation of

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

which describes the source of funds for personnel, program

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

shall also detail the number of personnel dedicated to the quality

assurance program, data analysis, program administration, enforcement,

public education and assistance and other necessary functions.

The November 25, 1997 SIP revision documents that sufficient funds,

equipment and personnel for the I/M program are available. EPA has

determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of the

requirements of Sec. 51.354(d) of the I/M rule.

E. Test Frequency and Convenience--40 CFR 51.355

The enhanced I/M performance standard assumes an annual test

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

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

scheme, how the test frequency is integrated into the enforcement

process and shall include the legal authority, regulations or contract

provisions to implement and enforce the test frequency. The program

shall be designed to provide convenient service to the motorist by

ensuring short wait times, short driving distances and regular testing

hours.

The District's statutory authority provides for a biennial test

frequency, and meets the test frequency and convenience requirements of

the I/M rule. Therefore, EPA has determined that the District of

Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.355.

F. 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 subject to the same test requirements

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

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

the requirements

[[Page 15122]]

of 40 CFR 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.

The District's enhanced I/M program requires coverage of all 1974

and newer LDGV, LDGT1 and LDGT2, and HDGV up to 26,000 pounds GVWR

(gross vehicle weight rating), which are registered or required to be

registered in the I/M program area. District regulations allow for the

inspection of any vehicle that is operating in the public space of the

District.

As of the date of the SIP submittal, approximately 236,600 vehicles

(118,300 vehicles annually) will be subject to enhanced I/M testing.

Title 40, Chapter 2 and the District's I/M regulations provide the

legal authority to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage

requirement. The District's program provides for fleet self-testing,

using the same testing requirements and the same quality control

standards as the centralized component. The District's plan for testing

fleet vehicles is acceptable and meets the requirements of the I/M

rule. The District's regulation provides for special exemptions for

antique vehicles (i.e., vehicles more than 25 years old) and vehicles

that are 2 years old and newer. These are acceptable exemptions and

have been appropriately accounted for in the District's modeling

demonstration.

EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all

of the requirements of Sec. 51.356(b) of the I/M rule.

G. Test Procedures and Standards--40 CFR 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

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

Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control Requirements, and

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

I/M rule also requires vehicles that have been altered from their

original certified configuration (i.e. engine or fuel switching) to be

tested in the same manner as other subject vehicles.

The District's regulations provide test procedures for transient

emission and evaporative system purge and pressure testing in

accordance with the requirements of the I/M rule. EPA has determined

that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of

Sec. 51.357(e) of the I/M rule.

H. Test Equipment--40 CFR 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 District's submittal contains the written technical

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

specifications require the use of computerized test systems. The

specifications also include performance features and functional

characteristics of the computerized test systems which meet the I/M

rule and are approvable. Therefore, EPA has determined that the

District of Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of

Sec. 51.358(c) of the

I/M rule.

I. Quality Control--40 CFR 51.359

Quality control measures shall insure that emission measurement

equipment is calibrated and maintained properly, and that inspection,

calibration records, and control charts are accurately created,

recorded and maintained.

The District's submittal contains the appropriate regulations and

technical manuals that describe and establish quality control measures

for the emission measurement equipment, record keeping requirements and

measures to maintain the security of all documents used to establish

compliance with the inspection requirements. Therefore, EPA has

determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of the

requirements of Sec. 51.359(f) of the

I/M rule.

J. Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 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. The federal regulation allows for compliance via a

diagnostic inspection after failing a retest on emissions and requires

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

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

waiver rate exceeds that committed to in the SIP.

The District's regulations and statutory authority 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 SIP revision includes

provisions that address waiver criteria and procedures, including cost

limits, tampering and warranty related repairs, quality control and

administration. These provisions meet the I/M rule requirements and are

approvable. The District has set a maximum waiver rate of 3% for both

pre-1981 and 1981 and later vehicles. EPA has interpreted a section of

the District's SIP revision to say that the District will take

corrective action if the waiver rate exceeds 3%. The interpretation was

needed to address what appears to be a typographical error in the

District's submittal. The District used a 3% waiver rate in its

performance standard modeling. EPA has determined that the District of

Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.360(d) of the

I/M rule.

K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement--40 CFR 51.361

The federal regulation requires that compliance shall be ensured

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

programs unless an exception for use of an existing alternative is

approved. The SIP shall provide information concerning the enforcement

process, legal authority to implement and enforce the program, and a

commitment to a compliance rate

[[Page 15123]]

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

Title 40, Chapter 2 provides the legal authority to implement a

registration denial system. The District's program will use

registration denial to enforce the program, if the vehicle is not in

compliance with the inspection requirement. The District's regulations

call for ticketing of any vehicle found with an expired registration

sticker. In the District's submittal, DoH states that the fine for an

expired registration is $300. EPA believes this penalty schedule

constitutes a ``meaningful'' fine for noncompliance with the inspection

program. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied

all of the requirements of Sec. 51.361(c) of the I/M rule.

L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight--40 CFR 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 that will

characterize, evaluate and enforce the program.

The District's program includes a strategy for effective auditing

of the I/M program. The program's QA/QC procedures are outlined in the

SIP revision, as is the program's information management system. EPA

has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of the

requirements of Sec. 51.362(c) of the I/M rule.

M. Quality Assurance--40 CFR 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 that includes

written procedure manuals on the above discussed items must be

submitted as part of the SIP.

The District's submittal contains procedures for conducting overt

and covert audits. These audit results will be recorded and retained in

station and inspector files. Performance audits of inspectors will

consist of both covert and overt audits. The District will provide an

adequate number of covert vehicles for the purposes of conducting

audits, so as to avoid detection by the inspectors during audit

procedures. Formal training is required for all program auditors and

enforcement officials. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia

has satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.363(e) of the

I/M rule.

N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR

51.364

Enforcement against licensed stations, contractors and inspectors

shall 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. State quality assurance officials shall have the

authority to temporarily suspend station and/or inspector licenses

immediately upon finding a violation that directly affects emission

reduction benefits, unless constitutionally prohibited. An official

opinion explaining any state constitutional impediments to immediate

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

describe the administrative and judicial procedures and

responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which

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

adjudicate cases and the resources and sources of those resources which

will support this function.

The District has provided evidence of authority and sufficient

resources to impose penalties and a penalty schedule for enforcement

against the District's inspectors. Since the program will be ``state-

operated'', other penalty schedules (e.g. contractor penalty schedules)

are not required under this section. EPA notes that the penalty

schedule provided by the District does differ from the federal

requirements in terms of the types and severity of individual penalties

that will be levied against inspectors for fraud, incompetency, or

other misconduct. However, EPA has reviewed the District's penalty

schedule and has determined that overall, it will adequately serve the

intent of Sec. 51.364(d)(1) of the I/M rule and be equivalent to the

minimum penalties specified in the I/M Rule.

EPA has therefore determined that the District of Columbia has

satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.364(d) of the I/M rule.

O. 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 District's regulation and RFP require the collection of data on

each individual test conducted as well as quality control checks, and

describe the type of data to be collected. The type of test data

collected meets the I/M Rule requirements and is approvable.

EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all

of the requirements of Sec. 51.365 of the I/M rule.

P. Data Analysis and Reporting--40 CFR 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 that 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. A biennial report shall also be submitted to EPA which

addresses changes in program design, regulations, legal authority,

program procedures and any weaknesses in the program found during the

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

The District SIP revision provides for the analysis and reporting

of data for the testing program, quality assurance program, quality

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

collected and analyzed and reported on meets the I/M rule requirements

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

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

commitment to submit a biennial report to EPA which addresses reporting

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

EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has satisfied all of

the requirements of Sec. 51.366(f) of the I/M rule.

[[Page 15124]]

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

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

licensed or certified to perform inspections.

The District's regulations requires all inspectors to receive

formal training, and be certified by the DC Department of Public Works.

The District's regulations and the SIP revision include a description

of and the information covered in the training program, a description

of the required written and hands-on tests, and a description of the

certification process. Recertification of inspectors is required every

two years. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has

satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.367(c) of the I/M rule.

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

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

consumer protection programs. The DC program includes both of these

features. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia has

satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.368 of the I/M rule.

S. Improving Repair Effectiveness--40 CFR 51.369

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

rule requires states to take steps to ensure that the capability exists

in the repair industry to repair vehicles. The SIP must include a

description of the technical assistance program to be implemented, a

description of the procedures and criteria to be used in meeting the

performance monitoring requirements required in the I/M rule, and a

description of the repair technician training resources available in

the community.

The District's SIP revision requires the implementation of a

technical assistance program, which includes a hot line service to

assist repair technicians and a method of regularly informing the

repair facilities of changes in the program, training courses, and

common repair problems. A repair facility performance monitoring

program is also included in the District's SIP revision. This

monitoring will provide the motoring public a summary of local repair

facilities' performances, and provide regular feedback to each facility

on their repair performance and requires the submittal of a completed

repair form at the time of retest. The District's regulation provides

for the establishment and implementation of a repair technician

training program which, at a minimum, covers the four types of training

described in 40 CFR 51.369(c). EPA has determined that the District of

Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.369(d) of the

I/M rule.

T. Compliance with Recall Notices--40 CFR 51.370

The federal regulation requires the states to establish methods to

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

in a emission related recall receive the required repairs prior to

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

Under the District's regulation, owners are required to comply with

emission related recalls before completing the emission test and

renewing the vehicle registration. EPA notes that the District will

readdress this requirement once EPA finalizes its policy and guidance

on Recall Compliance. EPA has determined that the District of Columbia

has satisfied all of the requirements of Sec. 51.370(d) of the I/M

rule.

U. 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 federal regulations.

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

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

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

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

required to pass an out-of-cycle test.

Legal authority to implement the on-road testing program and

enforce off-cycle inspection and repair requirements is contained in

Title 40, Chapter 2. The SIP submittal requires the use of RSD to test

0.5% of the fleet per year and will be implemented by a contractor. A

description of the program, which includes resource allocations, and

methods of collecting, analyzing and reporting the results of the

testing are detailed in the submittal. EPA has determined that the

District of Columbia has satisfied all of the requirements of

Sec. 51.371(b) of the I/M rule.

V. State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines--40

CFR 51.372-52.373

The District's submittal included the final I/M regulations,

legislative authority to implement the program, and a detailed

discussion on each of the required program design elements. The start

date for implementation of full-stringency cutpoints will be April 30,

1999.

The District has adequately completed a modeling demonstration

showing that the program design meets the performance standard, and the

District has provided evidence of adequate funding and resources to

implement the program. EPA has determined that the District has

satisfied the requirements of Secs. 51.372(e) and 51.373.

EPA's review of the material indicates that the District has

adopted an enhanced I/M program in accordance with the requirements of

the Act. EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the District's SIP

revision that was submitted on November 25, 1997. The only condition of

this proposed rulemaking is that the District begin full implementation

of the enhanced I/M program on or before April 30, 1999. EPA is

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

other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking

final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal

rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional

office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

IV. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the revision to the

District of Columbia SIP submitted on November 27, 1997 for an enhanced

I/M program. EPA's proposed approval is conditioned upon the District

meeting the April 30, 1999 start date committed to and contained in its

November 27, 1997 SIP revision submittal. EPA is also withdrawing its

previously proposed disapproval action of an enhanced I/M SIP revision

submitted by the District of Columbia on July 13, 1995 (supplemented

March 27, 1996) because that action is no longer germane, given that

the District's submittal of November 27, 1997 completely replaced those

earlier submittals.

After full consideration of any comments received on this proposed

conditional approval, EPA shall take final rulemaking action. In the

event that final conditional approval is granted, the conversion from

conditional approval to full approval or to disapproval will be

dependent upon whether or not the District meets the start date of

April 30, 1999 committed to in the SIP revision. If the District starts

the enhanced testing program on or before April 30, 1999, then any

final conditional approval shall convert to a full approval of the SIP

revision. If the District fails to fully implement

[[Page 15125]]

enhanced I/M testing in the District by April 30, 1999, EPA would

notify the District by letter that the condition has not been met and

that any final conditional approval has converted to a disapproval, and

the clock for imposition of sanctions under section 179(a) of the Act

would start as of the date of the letter. Subsequently, a notice would

be published in the Federal Register announcing that the SIP revision

has been disapproved.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

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

the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

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

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

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

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

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and a

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, EPA 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 Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

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

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

If the proposed conditional approval is promulgated and

subsequently is converted to a disapproval under section 110(k), based

on the District's failure to meet the condition committed to in its

submittal, it will not affect any existing state requirements

applicable to small entities. Federal disapproval of the state

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

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

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

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because it

does not remove existing requirements nor does it substitute a new

federal requirement.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or

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

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

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

conditional approval action being proposed does not include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to

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

private sector. This Federal action only proposes to approve pre-

existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the

District's enhanced I/M SIP revision will be based on whether it meets

the requirements of the federal enhanced I/M regulations, section

110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA

regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

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

Dated: March 19, 1998.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 98-8064 Filed 3-27-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P