ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
     
40 CFR Part 51 
     
[FRL-5889-1] 
     
Minor Amendments to Inspection Maintenance Program Evaluation
Requirements 
     
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency
     
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
     
SUMMARY: This document proposes revisions to the Motor Vehicle
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) requirements by replacing the I/M rule
requirement that the tailpipe portion of the mandatory program
evaluation be performed using only an IM240 or equivalent
mass-emission transient test with a requirement that states use a
sound evaluation methodology capable of providing accurate information
about the overall effectiveness of an I/M program.  The goal of this
proposed rule change is to allow states additional flexibility to use
not only IM240 but other approved alternative methodologies for their
program evaluation.  This proposal also clarifies that such program
evaluation testing shall begin no later than November 30, 1998, and is
not required to be coincident with program start up (though the first
report is still due two years after program start up).  This proposal
also clarifies that "initial test" simply means that the test is
conducted before repairs for each test cycle, and does not therefore
preclude states from using alternative sampling methodologies such as
roadside pullover to sample the fleet. This proposal also amends the
conditions relating to the program evaluation testing requirements
that were part of the conditional interim approval actions taken on
the I/M State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the Commonwealths of
Pennsylvania and Virginia and the State of Delaware. Lastly, through
this document, EPA requests that other states that would like to take
advantage of the flexibility proposed today review their
implementation plans for any language that conflicts with these
proposed changes.  Such language will need to be amended and the
amendment submitted as a SIP revision once today's proposed action
becomes final. 
     
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received no later
than [insert date 30 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].
No public hearing will be held unless a request is received in writing
by [insert date 15 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. 
     
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit written comments (in
duplicate if possible) to Public Docket No.A-97-46.  It is requested
that a duplicate copy be submitted to Tracey Bradish at the address in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.  The docket is
located at the Air Docket, Room M-1500 (6102), Waterside Mall S.W.,
Washington, DC 20460.  The docket may be inspected between 8:30 a.m.
and 12 noon and between 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on weekdays. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket material. 
     
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracey Bradish, Office of Mobile
Sources, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth
Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. Telephone (313) 668-4239. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
I.  Table of Contents 
II.  Summary of Proposal
III.  Authority
IV.  Background of the Proposed Amendments 
V.  Discussion of Major Issues
     A.  Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments 
     B.  Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs
VI.  Economic Costs and Benefits
VII.  Public Participation
VIII.  Administrative Requirements
     A.  Administrative Designation
     B.  Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement 
     C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act
     D.  Unfunded Mandates Act
     
II. Summary of Proposal 

     Under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (the Act), 42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published
in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992, (40 CFR part 51, subpart
S) a rule related to state air quality implementation plans for Motor
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs (hereafter referred
to as the I/M rule; see 57 FR 52950).  EPA is proposing today to
further revise this rule to provide greater flexibility to states in
conducting program evaluation.  This proposed rulemaking proposes to:
1) amend the I/M program evaluation requirements at 40 CFR 51.353(c)
to remove the current requirement that the tailpipe portion of the
program evaluation can be performed only by conducting mass emission
transient testing (METT), 2) create a new evaluation requirement at 40
CFR 51.353(c) that will instead require states to conduct program
evaluation testing using a sound evaluation methodology capable of
providing accurate information about I/M program effectiveness, such
evaluation to begin no later than November 30, 1998, 3) amend the
requirement that the program evaluation tests be conducted "at the
time initial test is due" to clarify that states are not barred from
using alternative sample gathering methods like roadside pullovers by
defining "the time of initial test" as any time prior to repairs
during the inspection cycle under consideration, 4) delete the current
conditions on Pennsylvania's and Virginia's conditional interim I/M
approvals and Delaware's conditional approval (40 CFR part 52, subpart
NN, 52.2026(a)(2), 40 CFR part 52, subpart V, 52.2450(b)(2), and 40
CFR part 52, subpart I, 52.424(b), respectively) that require
submission of program evaluation regulations under the existing I/M
rule, and 5) impose a new condition on Pennsylvania's, Virginia's, and
Delaware's I/M approvals that will require them to submit I/M
regulations which include a requirement to perform a program
evaluation using a sound evaluation methodology meeting the amended
requirements of 40 CFR 51.353(c) by November 30, 1998, if commitments
are submitted by October 15, 1997 to submit such regulations within
such time frame.

     The I/M rule currently requires states to test at least 0.1
percent of the vehicles subject to inspection in a given year using a
state administered or monitored IM240 or an EPA approved equivalent
METT evaluation methodology.  This proposed action revises the current
rule to allow states the option of using an approved, alternative,
sound methodology for their program evaluation.  This proposed action
also clarifies that states are to start vehicle testing for their
program evaluation no later than November 30, 1998, and are not
required to do so coincident with program start up.  

     Today's proposed action is in response to the many changes that
have occurred in the field of I/M since the original rule was
promulgated in November 1992.  Program designs and test types not
originally envisioned in 1992 are now becoming the options of choice
among many states required to implement enhanced I/M programs.  For
example, non-METTs like the Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) test
have been adopted by several enhanced I/M states that were originally
expected to choose the METT-based IM240.  These states have
subsequently voiced the concern that requiring a METT like the IM240
for the purpose of evaluating a program using a non-METT as its
day-to-day test poses certain practical implementation difficulties
not experienced in programs that have opted to use a METT as the
day-to-day test.  While these problems are not insurmountable, EPA
acknowledges the practical benefits of developing a sound evaluation
methodology that does not rely on METT.  Today's proposal, therefore,
introduces the flexibility needed to allow states who choose to do so
to make the case for alternative evaluation methodologies, including
those centered on non-METT-based testing.  Today's proposed amendments
will also better accommodate new advances in analytical methodologies,
given the speed at which new technology in this field has been shown
to evolve and mature.  

     To ensure that all states have an equal opportunity to take
advantage of the flexibilities created by today's proposed amendments,
it is necessary that EPA also amend certain I/M SIP approval actions
previously published in the Federal Register in response to the
National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA), as well as
those published in response to EPA's own I/M flexibility amendments of
September 18, 1995 and July 25, 1996.  The NHSDA and I/M amendments
introduced additional flexibility with regard to I/M program design,
and states that opted to take advantage of this flexibility were
required to submit new SIPs.  In review of these revised I/M SIPs, EPA
found that many failed to fully address one aspect or another of the
I/M rule, leading the Agency to propose either conditional interim
approvals (in the case of NHSDA-triggered revisions) or conditional
approvals in the remaining cases.  For example, the Commonwealths of
Pennsylvania and Virginia failed to fully address the I/M rule's
program evaluation requirements for conducting the IM240 or an
equivalent, approved METT on 0.1 percent of their in-use fleet.  In
response to this omission, EPA originally placed conditions on the
Virginia and Pennsylvania interim approval actions, based on
commitments made by the Commonwealths, requiring them to adopt the
regulations needed to meet the METT-based program evaluation
requirement.  Since today's proposed amendments broaden the program
evaluation requirement to include other sound evaluation
methodologies, it is also appropriate to propose withdrawing these
METT-based program evaluation conditions on the interim approval
notices for Virginia and Pennsylvania.  In place of these original
conditions, EPA proposes to impose new conditions that will require
the commonwealths instead to submit program evaluation regulations
that meet the more flexible requirements of the amended 40 CFR
51.353(c). In the case of Delaware, while the program evaluation
condition did not explicitly require METT-based program evaluation,
the deadline for meeting that condition falls sooner than it would
based upon today's proposed amendments.  To take advantage of this
deadline extension, it is necessary for EPA to also amend the Federal
Register notice conditionally approving the Delaware I/M SIP.  All
three -- Delaware, Virginia, and Pennsylvania -- must submit a
commitment by October 15, 1997, to adopt and submit the required
evaluation methodology requirements by November 30, 1998 in order to
support EPA's imposition of the new proposed conditions under section
110(k)(4) of the Act.

     Of the three above SIP approval notices, only Virginia's requires
the Commonwealth to meet its METT-based program evaluation condition
before EPA will be able to finalize today's proposed action.  The
current deadline for Virginia's meeting this condition is September
15, 1997, which is based upon a commitment made by the Commonwealth
prior to EPA's decision to revise the program evaluation requirement.
The September 15, 1997 date does not reflect the full twelve month
period available under the statute for meeting conditions which, in
the case of Virginia, would be May 15, 1998.  Virginia has recently
committed to submit program evaluation provisions meeting the existing
I/M rule by May 15, 1998 should EPA fail to take final action on
today's proposal.  For these reasons, EPA is taking an interim final
action elsewhere in this Federal Register to extend the deadline for
Virginia's existing program evaluation condition to May 15, 1998.  EPA
believes it is appropriate to take such action without prior public
notice and comment because it would be contrary to the public interest
to require Virginia to comply with a condition based on a requirement
that EPA has proposed to amend, and because Virginia's recent
commitment is consistent with the statute.  

     Lastly, it may be necessary for some states to amend their
currently approved I/M SIPs to take advantage of today's proposed
flexibilities.  EPA therefore requests that such states review their
enhanced I/M SIPs for any language that may conflict with today's
proposed changes.  Such language will need to be amended and the
amendment submitted as a SIP revision once today's proposed action
becomes final.

III. Authority 

     Authority for the rule change proposed in this notice is granted
to EPA by section 182 of the Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401,
et seq.).  Authority to conditionally approve a SIP based on a state's
commitment to revise the SIP by a date certain within one year is
provided by section 110(k)(4) of the Act.

IV. Background of the Proposed Amendments 

     Section 182(c)(3)(C) of the 1990 Clean Air Act required that
enhanced I/M programs "biennially prepare a report to the
Administrator which assesses the emission reductions achieved by the
program...based on data collected during inspection and repair of
vehicles.  The methods used to assess the emission reductions shall be
those established by the Administrator." EPA established the criteria
for this program evaluation under section 51.353(c) of the original
I/M rule (November 5, 1992).  

     As originally promulgated, the program evaluation was to include
state administered or monitored program evaluation tests on a random,
representative sample of at least 0.1 percent of the annual subject
vehicle population. The program evaluation tests included measuring
the gram-per-mile tailpipe emissions of this sample using the IM240.
Alternative, equivalent METTs were allowed in place of the IM240, but
these had to be approved by EPA.  The results of the program
evaluation testing were to be reported every two years, beginning with
the second anniversary of program start up.

     The IM240 was originally selected as the basis for program
evaluation because of its high degree of correlation to the Federal
Test Procedure (FTP), the one test method that all vehicles have in
common due to its use in the vehicle certification process.  Both the
FTP and the IM240 are METTs, which means that they measure the actual
mass of emissions produced by a vehicle (in terms of grams per mile)
as opposed to simply measuring the concentrations of those emissions.
METTs like the IM240 and FTP also simulate real world driving
conditions by testing the vehicle over the course of a driving cycle
covering a wide range of speeds and operating conditions.  This is
especially important in determining a vehicle's precise emissions
output, since most on-road vehicles emit different amounts depending
upon their operating conditions.  

     Of these two METTs, the IM240 was deemed to be the most cost
effective for use as a program evaluation method. Furthermore, at the
time the I/M rule was promulgated in 1992, it was anticipated that
most programs subject to the enhanced I/M requirement would opt to use
IM240 as part of their routine testing program.  Therefore, requiring
additional, state administered or monitored IM240s to confirm the
overall program's effectiveness did not require states to invest in
additional, program evaluation testing equipment and did not call for
the development of an alternative program evaluation testing
methodology.

     On November 28, 1995, President Clinton signed the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA). Section 348 of this
legislation addressed I/M program requirements, and specifically
prohibited EPA from mandating the "adoption or implementation by a
State of a test-only IM240 enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance
program as a means of compliance with" the Clean Air Act.
Nevertheless, EPA has determined that additional flexibility is
desirable in the program evaluation area as well, to better
accommodate the wider range of enhanced I/M program designs states are
in the process of adopting and implementing under both the NHSDA and
EPA's previous I/M flexibility amendments, and which were not
anticipated at the time the original program evaluation criteria were
promulgated. Furthermore, EPA now believes that alternative, sound
methods for meeting the Clean Air Act's program evaluation requirement
may exist, and the Agency intends to work with states and other
interested parties during the proposed period of delay in evaluation
requirements to identify and approve these alternatives.

     EPA is therefore proposing to provide greater flexibility in two
specific areas with regard to these criteria.  The first is to broaden
the universe of potentially acceptable program evaluation tests by
changing the requirement from the IM240 or an approved, equivalent
METT to the less prescriptive, and more innovation-friendly
requirement for a "sound evaluation methodology." Second, to give EPA
and the states time to evaluate potential alternative methodologies,
EPA is proposing to delay the start up of the mandatory evaluation
program to no later than November 30, 1998.  EPA believes that
postponing this requirement is a logical extension of the deadline
deferment otherwise provided for or implicit in the flexibilities
provided by the NHSDA and EPA's own I/M flexibility amendments. 

V. Discussion of Major Issues 

A. Emission Impact of the Proposed Amendments

     The program effectiveness evaluation does not itself produce
emission reductions.  Rather, the program evaluation is intended to
confirm that emission reductions projected by modeling and claimed in
the states' implementation plans have been achieved in actual
practice.  This evaluation assesses the effectiveness of the entire
program, not just the test type being used.  Should a shortfall be
discovered between the credit claimed and the reductions actually
achieved, the program evaluation is also used to define the extent of
that shortfall.  Therefore, the program evaluation measurement
methodology has an impact on a state's ability to determine whether or
not additional reductions are needed to achieve its clean air goals
within the prescribed time frame.  The evaluation may also demonstrate
that a program is exceeding its reduction goals and therefore deserves
additional credit.

     It is important to note that the Clean Air Act does not mandate
the method to be used in evaluating program effectiveness.  Instead,
the responsibility for determining and approving the program
evaluation methodology is delegated to the Administrator.  Some states
have already adopted or have indicated an intention to adopt the IM240
or some other, as-yet unapproved, equivalent mass-emission transient
test for the purpose of performing the required program evaluation.
Today's proposed action does not retract the Administrator's previous
approval of the IM240, and it does not compel states that have chosen
to use an approved METT as their program evaluation method to change
to another, as-yet-undefined method.  EPA believes that the IM240 and
potentially other equivalent METTs provide a sound methodology for
program evaluation.

     Furthermore, today's proposed action is not intended to eliminate
the need for states to perform the program evaluation required by the
Act; it does not change the fact that such evaluation must be based
upon actual data as opposed to modeled projections.  It also does not
change the fact that EPA must approve the program evaluation
methodology selected for any state program, as a SIP revision.
Instead, today's proposed action is intended to broaden the range of
potentially acceptable evaluation methods and delay the time for their
implementation; it will also serve as an incentive for innovation in
the development of such methods.

     Lastly, while today's proposed action will have the effect of
delaying when the program effectiveness evaluation begins, it does not
change when the first program evaluation report is due, which remains
two years after the initial start date of mandatory testing.  Thus,
the first report will be based on only one year of data.  Given this
and the above, EPA concludes that today's proposed action will have no
net impact on emission reductions. 

B. Impact on Existing and Future I/M Programs 

     Only states that choose to utilize the additional flexibilities
discussed in this notice will be affected by today's proposal to
change the I/M rule.  Modifications to a state's I/M program as a
result of this rule change may require a SIP revision.  Each case is
likely to be different, depending upon the magnitude of the change.
It is important to note that today's proposal in no way increases the
existing burden on states.  States that currently comply, or are in
the process of complying, with the existing I/M rule will only be
affected by today's rule revisions if they so choose.  Today's
proposed amendments represent options for those states that choose to
take advantage of the flexibilities proposed in today's notice.

     The specific changes of the program evaluation based conditions
on Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Delaware also do not present an
additional burden on those states.  None is compelled to pursue the
opportunities for flexibility that will be created by finalization of
the proposed changes to their conditional approvals.  Should any of
the three states choose not to submit a new commitment consistent with
the amended rule, EPA will retain in place the current condition for
such state based on the existing state commitment, even while
proceeding to change the I/M rule. 

VI. Economic Costs and Benefits 

     Today's proposed revisions provide states additional flexibility
that lessens rather than increases the potential economic burden on
states choosing to take advantage of this regulation.  Furthermore,
states are under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to modify existing
plans meeting the previously applicable requirements as a result of
today's proposal. 

VII. Public Participation 

     EPA desires full public participation in arriving at final
decisions in this Rulemaking action.  EPA solicits comments on all
aspects of this proposal from all parties. Wherever applicable, full
supporting data and detailed analysis should also be submitted to
allow EPA to make maximum use of the comments.  All comments should be
directed to the Air Docket, Docket No. A-97-46. 

VIII. Administrative Requirements 

A. Administrative Designation 

     It has been determined that this proposed amendment to the I/M
rule is not a significant regulatory action under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 and are therefore not subject to OMB review.
Any impacts associated with these revisions do not constitute
additional burdens when compared to the existing I/M requirements
published in the Federal Register on November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950) as
amended.  Nor does the proposed amendment create an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more or otherwise adversely affect the
economy or the environment.  It is not inconsistent with nor does it
interfere with actions by other agencies.  It does not alter budgetary
impacts of entitlements or other programs, and it does not raise any
new or unusual legal or policy issues. 

B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement 

     There are no information requirements in this supplemental
proposed rule which require the approval of the Office of Management
and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

     Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator certifies that this proposal will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities and, therefore, is not subject to the requirement of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis.  A small entity may include a small
government entity or jurisdiction.  This certification is based on the
fact that the I/M areas impacted by the proposed rulemaking do not
meet the definition of a small government jurisdiction, that is,
"governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
50,000." The enhanced I/M requirements only apply to urbanized areas
with population in excess of either 100,000 or 200,000 depending on
location.  Furthermore, the impact created by the proposed action does
not increase the preexisting burden of the existing rules which this
proposal seeks to amend. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Act 

     Under 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded
Mandates Act"), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a
budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule
where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or
to the private sector, will be $100 million or more.  Under 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objective of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements.  Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly impacted by the rule.  To the extent that the rules
being proposed by this action would impose any mandate at all as
defined in section 101 of the Unfunded Mandates Act upon the state,
local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, as explained
above, this proposed rule is not estimated to impose costs in excess
of $100 million.  Therefore, EPA has not prepared a statement with
respect to budgetary impacts. As noted above, this rule offers
opportunities to states that would enable them to lower economic
burdens from those resulting from the currently existing I/M rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51 

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Transportation. 


Dated: September 2, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator. 


For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I
of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
to read as follows: 

PART 51--[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Section 51.353 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3)
and (c)(4) to read as follows:

51.353 Network type and program evaluation. 

* * * * *

     (c)* * * 
     (3) The evaluation program shall consist, at a minimum, of those
items described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and program
evaluation data using a sound evaluation methodology, as approved by
EPA, and evaporative system checks, specified in 51.357(a)(9) and
(10) of this Subpart, for model years subject to those evaporative
system test procedures.  The test data shall be obtained from a
representative, random sample, taken at the time of initial inspection
(before repair) on a minimum of 0.1 percent of the vehicles subject to
inspection in a given year.  Such vehicles shall receive a state
administered or monitored test, as specified in this paragraph (c)(3),
prior to the performance of I/M-triggered repairs during the
inspection cycle under consideration.

     (4) The program evaluation test data shall be submitted to EPA
and shall be capable of providing accurate information about the
overall effectiveness of an I/M program, such evaluation to begin no
later than November 30, 1998.

* * * * * 

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 52.2026 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:

52.2026 Conditional approval. 

* * * * *

  (a) *  *  *
  (2) The Commonwealth must submit to EPA as a SIP amendment, by
November 30, 1998, the final Pennsylvania I/M program evaluation
regulation requiring an approved alternative sound evaluation
methodology to be performed on a minimum of 0.1 percent of the subject
fleet each year as per 40 CFR 51.353(c)(3) and which meets the
program evaluation elements as specified in 40 CFR 51.353(c).

* * * * *

3. Section 52.2450 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:

52.2450 Conditional approval.

* * * * *

  (b) *  *  *
  (2) The Commonwealth must submit to EPA as a SIP amendment, by
November 30, 1998, the final Virginia I/M program evaluation
regulation requiring an approved alternative sound evaluation
methodology to be performed on a minimum of 0.1 percent of the subject
fleet each year as per 40 CFR 51.353(c)(3) and which meets the
program evaluation elements as specified in 40 CFR 51.353(c).  

4. Section 52.424 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text, to read as follows:

52.424 Conditional approval.

* * * * *

  (b) The State of Delaware's February 17, 1995 submittal for an
enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and
the November 30, 1995 submittal of the performance standard evaluation
of the low enhanced program, is conditionally approved based on
certain contingencies.

  The following conditions must be addressed in a revised SIP
submission.  Along with the conditions listed is a separate detailed
I/M checklist explaining what is required to fully remedy the
deficiencies found in the proposed notice of conditional approval.
This checklist is found in the Technical Support Document (TSD),
located in the docket of this rulemaking, that was prepared in support
of the proposed conditional I/M rulemaking for Delaware.  This
checklist and Technical Support Document are available at the Air,
Radiation, and Toxics Division, 841 Chestnut Bldg., Philadelphia, PA
19107, telephone (215) 566-2183.  By no later than one year from June
18, 1997, Delaware must submit a revised SIP that meets the following
conditions for approvability, with the exception of the condition in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section which addresses I/M program
evaluation requirements.  The condition in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section must be met by November 30, 1998, in keeping with the amended
requirements of 40 CFR 51.353. 

* * * * *