Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 4505

Filing of a written statement at the

time of the hearing is requested as it

will greatly assist the transcriber.

Submission of written statements in

advance of the hearing will allow OSM

officials to prepare adequate responses

and appropriate questions.

The public hearing will continue on

the specified date until all persons

scheduled to speak have been heard.

Persons in the audience who have not

been scheduled to speak, and wish to do

so, will be heard following those who

have been scheduled. The hearing will

end after all persons scheduled to speak

and persons present in the audience

who wish to speak have been heard.

Public Meeting

If only one person requests an

opportunity to speak at a hearing, a

public meeting, rather than a public

hearing, may be held. Persons wishing

to meet with OSM representatives to

discuss the proposed amendment may

request a meeting by contacting the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings

will be open to the public and, if

possible, notices of meetings will be

posted at the locations listed under

ADDRESSES. A written summary of each

meeting will be made a part of the

Administrative Record.

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, this rule meets the applicable

standards of subsections (a) and (b) of

that section. However, these standards

are not applicable to the actual language

of State regulatory programs and

program amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated by

a specific State, not by OSM. Under

sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon corresponding Federal regulations

for which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

corresponding Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

This rule will not impose a cost of

$100 million or more in any given year

on any governmental entity or the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 938

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: January 15, 1997.

Ronald C. Recker,

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–2330 Filed 1–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MA014–7195b; FRL–5682–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts: Enhanced Motor

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a

conditional interim approval and in the

alternative, disapproval of a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts on March 27, 1996. This

submittal is a supplement to the original

enhanced inspection and maintenance

submittal by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts on December 23, 1994.

This revision establishes and requires

the implementation of a statewide

enhanced inspection and maintenance

(I/M) program. EPA is proposing a

conditional approval because the

Commonwealth’s SIP revision is

deficient with respect to several

requirements of the CAA and/or EPA’s

I/M program regulatory requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 3, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Susan E. Studlien, Deputy Director,

Office of Ecosystem Protection (CAA),

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, JFK Federal Building, Boston,

MA 02203. Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection by appointment

during normal business hours at the

U.S. EPA, One Congress Street, Boston

MA 02203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter X. Hagerty, (617) 565–3571.

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 National Highway System

Designation Act of 1995 (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, testonly IM240 enhanced vehicle

inspection and maintenance programs

as a means of compliance with section

182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. Also under
4506 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

the NHSDA, EPA cannot disapprove a

state SIP revision, nor apply an

automatic discount to a state SIP

revision under section 182, 184 or 187

of the 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

presumptive equivalency criteria which

place the emission reductions credits for

decentralized networks on a 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, and 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

within 120 days of the NHSDA passage,

and in allowing these states to submit

proposed regulations for this plan

(which can be finalized and submitted

to EPA during the interim period) it is

clear that Congress intended for states to

begin testing vehicles as soon as

practicable, now that the decentralized

credit issue has been clarified and

directly addressed by the NHSDA.

Submission criteria described under

the NHSDA allow for a state to submit

proposed regulations for this interim

program, provided that the state has all

of the statutory authority necessary to

carry out the program. Also, in

proposing the interim credits for this

program, states are required to make

good faith estimates regarding the

performance of their enhanced I/M

program. Since these estimates are

expected to be difficult to quantify, the

state need only provide that the

proposed credits claimed for the

submission have a basis in fact. A good

faith estimate of a state’s program may

be an estimate that is based on any of

the following: the performance of any

previous I/M program; the results of

remote sensing or other roadside testing

techniques; fleet and vehicle miles

traveled (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, EPA believes that in

taking action under section 110 of the

CAA, it is appropriate to grant a

conditional approval to this submittal

since there are some deficiencies with

respect to CAA statutory and regulatory

requirements (identified herein) that

EPA believes 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 this Act. This Act also directs

EPA and the states to review the interim

program results at the end of 18 months,

and to make a determination as to the

effectiveness of the interim program.

Following this demonstration, EPA will

adjust any credit claims made by the

state in its good faith effort to reflect the

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 at the end of

that period. Therefore, EPA believes

Congress intended for these programs to

start-up as soon as possible, which EPA

believes should be on or before

November 15, 1997, so that sufficient

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 startup 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 schedule, the

approval granted under the provisions

of the NHSDA will convert to a

disapproval after a finding letter is sent

to the state.

The program evaluation to be used by

the state during the 18 month interim

period must be acceptable to EPA. 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 by the I/M Rule in §§ 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 within

18 months of the 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 Massachusetts’s

Submittal

On March 27, 1996, Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP) submitted a revision to its State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for an

enhanced I/M program to qualify under

the NHSDA. The revision consists of

enabling legislation that will allow the

Commonwealth to implement the I/M

program, proposed regulations, a

description of the I/M program

(including a modeling analysis and

detailed description of program

features), and a good faith estimate that

includes the Commonwealth’s basis in

fact for emission reductions claims of

the program. The Commonwealth’s

credit assumptions were based upon the

removal of the 50% credit discount for

all portions of the program that are

based on a test-and-repair network, and

the application of the Commonwealth’s

own estimate of the effectiveness of its

hybrid test-and-repair program. The

State has submitted three supplemental

letters to EPA on September 17, 1996,
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 4507

November 21, 1996 and November 27,

1996.

A. Analysis of the NHSDA Submittal

Criteria

Transmittal Letter

On March 27, 1996, Massachusetts

submitted an enhanced I/M SIP revision

to EPA, requesting action under the

NHSDA of 1995 and the CAA of 1990.

The official submittal was made by the

appropriate Commonwealth official, Mr.

David Struhs, Commissioner of the

Department of Environmental

Protection, and was addressed to John

DeVillars, Regional Administrator, the

appropriate EPA official in the Region.

Enabling Legislation

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

has legislation, at M.G.L.c.21A and

M.G.L.c.111. paragraph 142A–D, 142J,

and 142M, enabling the implementation

of an enhanced IM program.

Proposed Regulations

On March 27, 1996, the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

proposed regulations in accordance

with 40 CFR Part 51, establishing an

enhanced I/M program. The regulations

call for implementation of a hybrid

enhanced I/M program starting in 1997,

with the installation of new emission

analyzers connected to a central

computer and installation of

dynamometers in 1999, with final cut

points being implemented in 2001. The

Commonwealth did not specify when

the regulations will be adopted. Since in

a letter dated September 17, 1996,

Massachusetts has committed to start a

full enhanced I/M program with

dynamometer testing by November 15,

1997 or by January 1998 at the latest,

then EPA can propose interim,

conditional approval of the proposed

Commonwealth regulations. These

regulations must be adopted by the

Commonwealth and submitted to EPA

before final full approval of the I/M

program.

Program Description

The program calls for biennial

transient testing in either test-only or

test-and-repair facilities. The test

equipment will be either IG240 or

RG240 connected to a contractor

operated central computer. The program

evaluation year is 2002. Massachusetts

will have a systems contractor operating

the central computer network. This

contractor will have the ability to

disconnect facilities which are

conducting improper testing. The

Commonwealth believes that having

numerous dynamometers in the field in

test-and-repair facilities available for

diagnostic work and repair confirmation

will significantly improve the quality of

repairs and emission reductions from

the program.

Emission Reduction Claim and Basis for

the Claim

Massachusetts will rely heavily on a

systems contractor to run the central

computer system, monitor all emission

testing facilities, and take action to

correct problems. Massachusetts will

start transient emission testing by

November 15, 1997, or by January 1998,

at the latest, with a two year inspection

cycle. Massachusetts is claiming full

IM240 credit for an IG240 or RG240

program, which is not consistent with

EPA policy as stated in an August 18,

1994, memo on this subject.

Massachusetts has not submitted any

other basis in fact such as data from

another program for the credit claim.

EPA allows the use of a 96%

compliance rate for a well run

enforcement program, while

Massachusetts claims a 98% compliance

rate without any additional measures to

justify this higher rate. The

Commonwealth has recently revised the

estimated compliance rate to 96%.

Massachusetts will not issue any

waivers but will allow ‘‘grace periods’’

of unspecified length. The length of

these ‘‘grace periods’’ must be defined

and the emission reduction losses

included in the emission reduction

calculations. This has been clarified in

a letter dated November 27, 1996, from

the Commonwealth which stated ‘‘We

will incorporate these modeling changes

into the revised 15% plan’’. We expect

future submittals from the

Commonwealth will incorporate these

assumptions. EPA guidance provides for

100% credit for mechanic training if the

state makes provisions to ensure that

only trained mechanics repair failed

vehicles. Massachusetts has assumed

100% mechanic training credit.

However, under the proposed program,

although the Commonwealth will be

providing a mechanic training program,

no requirement exists to ensure vehicle

owners obtain vehicle repairs by trained

technicians.

B. Analysis of the EPA I/M Regulation

and CAA Requirements

As previously stated, the NHSDA left

those elements of the I/M Rule that do

not pertain to network design or test

type intact. Based upon EPA’s review of

Massachusetts’ submittal, EPA believes

the Commonwealth has not complied

with all aspects of the NHSDA, the CAA

and the I/M Rule. For those 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 the Commonwealth commits

within 30 days of publication of this

document to correct said deficiencies by

a date (or dates) certain within 1 year of

EPA interim approval.

The Commonwealth must correct

these major deficiencies by the date

specified in the commitment or this

conditional approval will convert to a

final 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 state need not

commit to correct those 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. As long as

the Commonwealth corrects the 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 Act 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.

Massachusetts is part of the OTR and

contains the following MSAs or parts

thereof with a population of 100,000 or

more: Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH

CMSA, Providence-Pawtucket-Fall

River, RI–MA CMSA, New Bedford,

MSA, Springfield, MSA and Worcester,

MSA.

Massachusetts is classified as a

serious ozone nonattainment area

statewide and is required to implement

an enhanced I/M program per section

182(c)(3) of the CAA and 40 CFR

51.350(a)(2). In addition, the Boston

area CO maintenance plan includes

basic I/M as a control strategy.

Under the requirements of the Clean

Air Act, all counties in Massachusetts

would be subject to I/M program

requirements. The proposed

Massachusetts I/M regulation requires

that the enhanced I/M program be
4508 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

implemented statewide. As stated in the

State submittal, the Massachusetts I/M

legislative authority in M.G.L.c.21A,

and M.G.L.c.111, paragraphs 142A–D,

142J and 142M provide the legal

authority to establish a statewide

enhanced program. EPA finds that the

geographic applicability requirements

are satisfied. The federal I/M rule

requires that the state program not

terminate until it is no longer necessary.

EPA interprets the federal rule as stating

that a SIP which does not sunset prior

to the attainment deadline for each

applicable area satisfies this

requirement. The Massachusetts

submittal does not address the length of

time the program will be in effect. The

program must continue past the

attainment dates for all applicable

nonattainment areas in Massachusetts.

In the absence of a sunset date, EPA

interprets the SIP submittal as requiring

the I/M program to continue

indefinitely, and proposes to approve

the program on this basis. Once

approved this unlimited term of the

program will be federally enforceable as

a requirement of the SIP.

Enhanced I/M Performance Standard—

40 CFR 51.351

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 age mix

and local fuel controls, and the

following model I/M program

parameters: network type, start date, test

frequency, model year, 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 Massachusetts

submittal the most current version was

MOBILE5h. 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 NOX and HC. In the case of carbon

monoxide areas, the performance

standard must be met for CO. This

Massachusetts submittal must meet the

enhanced I/M performance standard for

HC and NOX statewide and meet the

basic standard for CO in the Boston CO

maintenance area.

The Massachusetts submittal includes

the following program design

parameters:

Network type—Hybrid (test only credit

claim)

Start date—1999

Test frequency—biennial

Model year/ vehicle type coverage—

1981+, light and heavy duty, gasoline

Exhaust emission test type—transient

Emission standards—0.8 HC, 15.0 CO,

2.0 NOX

Emission control device check—yes

Evaporative system function checks—

81+

Stringency (pre-1981 failure rate)—N/A

Waiver rate—0

Compliance rate—98%

Evaluation date(s)—2002

Massachusetts has submitted

modeling demonstrations using the EPA

computer model MOBILE5h showing

that the enhanced performance standard

reductions will be met in 2002. This

demonstration assumed a 98%

compliance rate, 0% waiver rate, and IM

240 credits for an IG240 program. EPA

questions the use of the 98%

compliance rate given the lack of an

adequate description of the motorist

compliance enforcement system. EPA

believes that a 96% compliance rate is

achievable for a well operated program,

but rates in excess of these require

additional measures which go beyond

normal enforcement and quality control

measures. The Commonwealth has

assumed a 0% waiver rate but did not

estimate the impact of the proposed

‘‘grace periods’’ which will impact

emissions. The modeling assumed

IM240 credits when IG240 or RG240

will be used. This is inconsistent with

the EPA policy specified in a memo

dated August 18, 1994, as well as the

ECOS recommendations dated October

4, 1996 which specify that ASM2 credits

should be used for IG240 or RG240

programs.

EPA and the Commonwealth have

been working to resolve these

differences since submittal of the SIP

package. In a letter dated September 17,

1996, Massachusetts committed to

adjust the start date of dynamometer

testing to be consistent with other

NHSDA state programs. Since it was not

clear from this letter on what date the

program would start, EPA wrote back on

October 7, 1996 to confirm the states

intent that the program would start

sometime in late 1997, but no later than

January 1998. In another letter dated

November 27, 1996, Massachusetts

agreed to use a 96% compliance rate

and 1% waiver rate for modeling

purposes. The 1% waiver rate was

supported by a description of a program

which would not allow any waivers, but

would allow ‘‘time extensions’’ only for

marginal emitters and only after repairs

which result in a 50% reduction in

emissions, costing up to $300 have been

done. These revised estimates are

acceptable to EPA.

The Commonwealth has not revised

the estimate for mechanic training and

believes that there will be a large

number of dynamometers in the

Massachusetts repair network because

of the hybrid system and these

dynamometers can be utilized for

diagnosis of emission failures and repair

confirmation.

They also believe that there will be an

extensive training network provided for

mechanics. The Commonwealth insists

that this will provide as much emission

reduction as EPA’s estimated reduction

for mechanic training. Since EPA has no

conflicting data to refute the

Commonwealth’s claim at this time, it

will be considered a minor issue which

must be resolved before final approval

of the program. EPA is studying the

technician training credit available, and

expects to have further guidance

available prior to final full approval of

the program.

EPA and Massachusetts have not been

able to agree on the appropriate

emission reduction credit for the IG240

or RG240 test which the Commonwealth

will use. This is a major deficiency. The

Commonwealth claims 100% of the

credit for an IM240 test without

submitting any supporting data (basis in

fact). In addition, Massachusetts intends

to phase in the pass/fail standards so

that those used during the initial cycles

will not be as stringent as those the

program will eventually use.

Preliminary calculations done by the

Commonwealth for a revised 15% plan

indicate that the Commonwealth could

achieve the needed 15% reduction but

not the high enhanced standard

utilizing the ASM2 credits

recommended by EPA for IG240 and

RG240 programs. The Commonwealth

will be able to show that the program at

least meets the ‘‘low enhanced I/M

performance standard.’’ If the

Commonwealth’s final program analysis

indicates that use of these standards

will not generate the emission

reductions needed to allow the State to

meet the goals of its 15% plan,

Massachusetts will be required to

redesign the I/M program to provide

additional reductions, or implement

other control strategies to reach 15%.

The state is not eligible to use the low

enhanced performance standard unless
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 4509

it can meet 15% without the high

enhanced standard.

EPA is proposing conditional interim

approval of the Massachusetts program

at this time consistent with the intent of

the NHSDA that state I/M programs be

promptly approved and implemented

for an 18-month period. EPA proposes

that this approval be conditioned upon

the requirement that the Commonwealth

perform and submit the necessary

modeling and demonstration that the

program will meet at a minimum the

‘‘low enhanced’’ performance standard

and 15% plan requirements using

MOBILE modeling input consistent with

EPA guidance. This demonstration must

show as a worst case analysis that the

Commonwealth will achieve a 15%

reduction if the program only achieves

reductions equivalent to ASM2 credit or

otherwise reduce the credit claimed by

the State for I/M. EPA proposes that the

I/M modeling and complete 15% plan

revised SIP, be submitted by April 1,

1997. If the State fails to submit a

complete 15% plan by April 1, 1997,

EPA proposes that the conditional

interim approval convert to a

disapproval upon a finding letter from

EPA indicating that the Commonwealth

has failed to submit the modeling and

demonstration of compliance with the

performance standard by the required

date.

If the Commonwealth cannot meet the

high enhanced I/M performance

standard, the Commonwealth may

demonstrate 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 percent

reduction SIP or 15 percent plan. In fact,

EPA approval of 15 percent plans has

been delayed, and although EPA is

preparing to take action on 15 percent

plans in the near future, it is unlikely

that EPA will have completed final

action on most 15 percent plans prior to

the time EPA believes it would be

appropriate to give final or conditional

interim approval to I/M programs under

the NHSDA. Massachusetts is currently

reassessing its 15 percent plan to

include the above described I/M

program changes. This reassessment is

to be based on the current program

design and its emission reduction

benefit as of November 1999. If the

results indicate that the Commonwealth

will not achieve a 15 percent reduction

in emissions, Massachusetts may choose

to either make I/M program

improvements that would allow the

program to meet the enhanced I/M

performance standard or add other

provisions to its overall 15% control

plan.

In enacting the NHSDA, Congress

evidenced an intent to have states

promptly implement I/M programs

under interim approval status to gather

the data necessary to support state

claims of appropriate credit for

alternative network design systems. By

providing that such programs must be

submitted within a four month period,

that EPA could approve I/M programs

on an interim basis based only upon

proposed regulations, and that such

approvals would last only for an 18

month period, it is clear that Congress

anticipated both that these programs

would start quickly and that EPA would

act quickly to give them interim

approval.

Many states have designed a program

to meet the low enhanced performance

standard, and have included that

program in their 15 percent plan

submitted to EPA for approval. Such

states anticipated that EPA would

propose approval both of the I/M

programs and the 15 percent plans on a

similar schedule, and thus that the I/M

programs would qualify for approval

under the low performance standard. In

light of delays in EPA action on 15

percent plans, EPA does not believe it

would be consistent with the intent of

the NHSDA to delay action on interim

I/M approvals until the Agency has

completed action on the corresponding

15 percent plans. Although EPA

acknowledges that under its regulations

final full approval of a low enhanced I/

M program after the 18-month

evaluation period would have to await

final approval of the corresponding 15

percent plan, EPA believes that in light

of the NHSDA it can grant either final

or conditional interim approval of such

I/M plans provided that the Agency has

determined as an initial matter that

approval of the 15 percent plan is

appropriate, and has issued a proposed

approval of that 15 percent plan.

The Commonwealth plans to submit a

revised 15 percent plan. It is possible

that Massachusetts’ proposed I/M

program may fall short of the enhanced

I/M high performance standard but

exceed the low enhanced performance

standard. If this is the case and the

emission reductions provided by the I/

M program allow the Commonwealth to

fulfill the requirements of its 15 percent

plan, then EPA will review the 15

percent plan and propose action on it

shortly thereafter. Should EPA propose

approval of the 15 percent plan, EPA

will proceed to take conditional interim

approval action on the I/M plan. EPA

proposes in the alternative that if the

Agency proposes instead to disapprove

the 15 percent plan, EPA would then

disapprove the I/M plan as well because

the Commonwealth would no longer be

eligible to select the low enhanced

performance standard under the terms

of 40 CFR 51.351(g).

Network Type and Program

Evaluation—40 CFR 51.353

The enhanced program shall 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 federal I/M regulation.

The SIP shall include details on the

program evaluation and shall include a

schedule for submittal of biennial

evaluation reports, data from a state

monitored or administered and EPA

approved mass emission transient test of

at least 0.1% of the vehicles subject to

inspection each year, description of the

sampling methodology, the data

collection and analysis system and the

legal authority enabling the evaluation

program. In order to determine whether

the state’s I/M program meets the

applicable standard, the state needed to

submit modeling of its program to

reflect that it met the applicable

performance standard. Because of

delayed program start up and program

reconfiguration, the existing modeling

used by the state 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 state 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 state, will not

jeopardize the state’s ability to meet the

low enhanced performance standard.

However, the state must conduct new

modeling using the actual program

configuration to verify that the

performance standard will in fact be

met. For example, phase-in cut points

corresponding to the test-type and

correct program start up dates should be

included in the new modeling.

EPA is proposing interim approval of

the state program at this time consistent

with the intent of the Highway Act that

state I/M programs be promptly

approved and implemented for an 18

month period. However, EPA proposes

that this approval be conditioned upon

the requirement that the state conduct

and submit the necessary new modeling
4510 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

and demonstration that the program will

meet the performance standard by a date

certain within one year from final

interim approval. If the state fails to

submit this new modeling by a date

certain within one year, EPA proposes

that the interim approval will convert to

a disapproval upon a letter from EPA

indicating that the state 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 state

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 Highway Act, the

evaluation dates in the current I/M rule

have been superceeded. Congress

provided in the Highway Act for state

development of I/M programs that

would start significantly later than the

start dates in the current I/M rule.

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 Highway Act

superceeded 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 Highway Act, the initial

evaluation date should be 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.

The Commonwealth has designed a

hybrid network. Based on the provisions

of the NHSDA, there will be no

automatic discount applied to the testand-repair portion for this type of

network. The Commonwealth has

committed to meet the program

evaluation requirements of 40 CFR

51.353 but failed to provide a detailed

description of this part of the program

in the SIP submission. The

Commonwealth must describe in detail

how these requirements will be met,

including how the program evaluation

vehicles will be selected and tested.

This minor deficiency must be corrected

before final full approval of the

Massachusetts I/M SIP.

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 is 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 Commonwealth has provided for

a dedicated fund for the program, but

there is no analysis of the staff or other

resources needed to implement the

program. The Commonwealth must

submit a detailed evaluation of resource

needs and establish a test fee which is

adequate to meet these needs. The

submittal does not meet the

requirements of this section set forth in

the federal I/M rule and this is a major

deficiency. In the letter dated November

27, 1996 from the Commonwealth, it

was stated that the March 27, 1996 and

December 1994 submittals addressed

these requirements, but neither

submittal contains the detailed

description required by this section. In

addition, the December 1994 submittal

was for a test-only program which

required significantly different resource

allocations from the hybrid now

program anticipated by the

Commonwealth. The Commonwealth,

within 30 days of publication of this

document, must commit to correct this

deficiency by a date certain within one

year of interim conditional approval of

this submittal.

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 Massachusetts program will

provide biennial testing in a hybrid

network. Many of the details of this

section must still be developed by the

Commonwealth before EPA can

determine if the requirements are

satisfied. Although the Commonwealth

expects sufficient testing facilities to

participate to provide adequate

convenience, there are no provisions to

provide additional testing if

participation is lower than expected.

This is a minor deficiency which must

be corrected prior to final full approval

of the SIP.

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 the same type of test

network as other vehicles in the state,

according to the requirements 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 federal I/M regulation 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 4511

exemption. Such exemptions shall be

accounted for in the emissions

reduction analysis.

The Commonwealth program

proposes to test 1981 and newer light

and heavy duty gasoline vehicles. The

Massachusetts submittal does not

provide a detailed description of the

number and types of vehicles included

in the program. This is a minor

deficiency which must be corrected

prior to final full approval of the

Massachusetts I/M SIP.

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 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

federal I/M regulation 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 § 51.357(d).

Massachusetts will use a transient test

but the test procedures have not been

developed and submitted by the

Commonwealth. This portion of the

submittal does not meet the

requirements of this section set forth in

the federal I/M rule and is a major

deficiency. The Commonwealth, within

30 days of publication of this document

must commit to correct this major

deficiency by a date certain within one

year of interim conditional approval of

this submittal.

Test Equipment—40 CFR 51.358

Computerized test systems are

required for performing any

measurement on subject vehicles. The

federal I/M regulation 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.

Although the Massachusetts submittal

does not contain the written technical

specifications for test equipment to be

used in the program it does describe a

system which will utilize the latest

computerized equipment.

This is a minor deficiency which

must be corrected prior to final full

approval of the Massachusetts SIP.

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 Massachusetts submittal does not

include provisions which describe and

establish quality control measures for

the emission measurement equipment,

and record keeping requirements. This

portion of the submittal does not meet

the requirements of this section set forth

in the federal I/M rule and is a major

deficiency. The Commonwealth, within

30 days of publication of this document,

must commit to correct this deficiency

by a date certain within one year of final

interim conditional approval of this

submittal.

Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic

Inspection—40 CFR 51.360

The federal I/M regulation 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 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.

Massachusetts has chosen not to

allow cost waivers or compliance via

diagnostic inspection, but will allow a

‘‘grace period’’ for repairs. The length of

these grace periods needs to be defined

in order to evaluate the impact of this

proposal. This part of the submittal does

not meet the requirements of this

section set forth in the federal I/M rule

and this is a major deficiency. In a letter

dated November 27, the Commonwealth

explained that it was now developing a

procedure which would not allow

waivers, but would allow a ‘‘time

extension’’ for some marginal failures

for one test cycle if $300 is spent on

repairs and other conditions are met.

This procedure must be further

developed and submitted to EPA for

approval. The Commonwealth estimates

that this program will allow no more

than the equivalent of a 1% waiver rate.

The Commonwealth, within 30 days of

publication of this document, must

commit to correct this major deficiency

or clarify the procedure by a date certain

within one year of interim conditional

of this submittal.

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. An enhanced I/

M area may use either sticker-based

enforcement programs or computermatching 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. The SIP shall 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 is planning on

utilizing a sticker system for visible

evidence of compliance, but registration

will be suspended or not renewed for

noncompliance. The initial

Massachusetts SIP submittal uses a 98%

compliance rate in the performance

standard modeling demonstration,

however, the Commonwealth has not

committed to or described what

measures will be used to achieve this

higher compliance rate. In a letter dated

November 27, 1996, the Commonwealth

revised the compliance rate of 96% for

modeling purposes. This revised part of

the submittal meets the requirements of

this section as set forth in the federal I/

M rule and is part of the basis for

conditional interim approval of the

Massachusetts I/M SIP.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement

Program Oversight—40 CFR 51.362
4512 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

The federal I/M regulation 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 details of this program have not

been developed and submitted in order

for EPA to evaluate it. This is a minor

deficiency which Massachusetts must

correct prior to EPA’s final action on the

full I/M SIP.

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 which includes

written procedure manuals on the above

discussed items must be submitted as

part of the SIP.

Although Massachusetts has made a

commitment to meet these

requirements, a detailed quality

assurance program which meets the

requirements of the federal I/M rule

must be developed and submitted. This

portion of the submittal does not meet

the requirements of this section set forth

in the federal I/M rule and is a major

deficiency. The Commonwealth, within

30 days of publication of this document

must commit to correct this major

deficiency by a date certain within one

year of interim conditional approval of

this submittal.

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 federal I/M

regulation 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.

A detailed description of this part of

the program was not submitted. This a

minor deficiency which must be

corrected prior to final full approval of

the Massachusetts I/M SIP.

Data Collection—40 CFR 51.365

Accurate data collection is essential to

the management, evaluation and

enforcement of an I/M program. The

federal I/M regulation 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 Massachusetts SIP provides a

commitment to meet all of the data

collection requirements and has listed

all the required data which will be

collected. This part of the submittal

meets the requirements of this section

set forth in the federal I/M rule and is

part of the basis for conditional interim

approval of the Massachusetts I/M SIP.

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 federal I/M regulation

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 and

shall provide statistics for the period of

January to December of the previous

year. A biennial report shall 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 Massachusetts data analysis and

reporting procedures have not been

developed. This is a minor deficiency

which must be corrected prior to final

full approval of the Massachusetts I/M

SIP.

Inspector Training and Licensing or

Certification—40 CFR 51.367

The federal I/M regulation requires all

inspectors to be formally trained and

licensed or certified to perform

inspections.

The Massachusetts proposed

regulation at 310 CMR 60.02(14)

requires training and certification of

inspectors. This portion of the submittal

meets the requirements of this portion

of the federal I/M rule and is part of the

basis for conditional interim approval of

the Massachusetts I/M SIP.

Public Information and Consumer

Protection—40 CFR 51.368

The federal I/M regulation requires

the SIP to include public information

and consumer protection programs. The

Massachusetts SIP submittal contains a

public awareness plan, however it does

not provide for protection of whistle

blowers. The plan also needs to be

expanded to include information on

state and federal laws and how

motorists can maintain their vehicles to

keep emissions low. This is a minor

deficiency which must be corrected

prior to final full approval of the

Massachusetts I/M SIP.

Improving Repair Effectiveness—40 CFR

51.369

Effective repairs are the key to

achieving program goals. The federal

regulation 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 federal

regulation, and a description of the

repair technician training resources

available in the community.

This part of the submittal meets the

requirements of this section set forth in

the federal I/M rule and is part of the

basis for conditional interim approval of

the Massachusetts I/M SIP.

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.

Most of the requirements of this

section are met by the Massachusetts
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 4513

submittal except motorists are not

notified of required recalls prior to

inspection periods so that they can meet

the requirements in the current rather

than subsequent inspection cycle. This

is a minor deficiency which must be

corrected prior to final full approval of

the Massachusetts SIP.

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.

The Massachusetts SIP submittal

describes an on-road testing program

which meets the requirements of the

federal I/M rules and is part of the basis

for conditional interim approval of the

Massachusetts I/M SIP.

State Implementation Plan

Submissions/Implementation

Deadlines—40 CFR 51.372 through

51.373

The Massachusetts submittal proposes

to start two speed idle testing in 1997

and dynamometer testing in 1999. This

is not consistent with EPA’s

interpretation of the required start date

under the NHSDA. In a letter dated

September 17, 1996, the Commonwealth

agreed to move up the dynamometer

start date to be consistent with other

NHSDA states. Since this letter did not

specify a precise date, EPA wrote back

on October 7, 1996 to confirm the state’s

intent that the start date would be

sometime in late 1997 but no later than

January, 1998. EPA proposes that

Massachusetts must start the

dynamometer testing by November 15,

1997, or this conditional approval will

convert to a disapproval after a findings

letter is sent by EPA.

III. Discussion for Rulemaking Action

In order for EPA to conditionally

approve the Massachusetts I/M SIP, the

state must commit within 30 days of

publication of this document to correct

the following major elements of the SIP

that EPA considers deficient by a date

certain within one year of final interim

approval of this submittal. These

elements are:

(1) Credit claims: In several areas,

Massachusetts has claimed credit for

emission reductions which overstate the

emission reductions which will occur,

with no clear basis for those claims.

These are beyond the issue of test-only

versus test-and-repair network types.

Revision of these factors as discussed

above will necessitate recalculation of

emission reductions from the program.

The Commonwealth, within 30 days of

publication of this document must

commit, to revise and submit to EPA, by

April 1, 1997, a complete revised 15%

plan utilizing appropriate waiver,

compliance rates, test type and the

phase-in emission standards which will

be used in November 1997 (i.e. ASM2

emission credits with phase in

cutpoints.)

(2) The Commonwealth has now

proposed a ‘‘time extension’’ program

which restricts noncompliance with the

program severely. This program must be

further defined and submitted to EPA as

a SIP revision by a date certain within

one year of publication of final interim

approval of this submittal. Other major

deficiencies as outlined above must also

be corrected in §§ 51.351 (Enhanced IM

Performance Standard), 51.354

(Adequate Tools and Resources), 51.357

(Test Procedures and Standards), 51.359

(Quality Control), 51.360 (Waivers and

Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection),

51.360 (Motorist Compliance

Enforcement), and 51.363 (Quality

Assurance). The Commonwealth, within

30 days of publication of this notice,

must commit to correct these

deficiencies by a date certain within one

year of conditional interim approval by

EPA.

If the Commonwealth does not make

such a commitment within 30 days,

EPA proposes in the alternative to

disapprove this SIP. If these conditions

are not met within the time specified,

EPA today is proposing that this SIP

revision convert to a disapproval.

If the Commonwealth makes the

commitment within 30 days, EPA’s

conditional approval of the plan will

continue for 18 months under the

Highway Act if the Commonwealth has

committed to cure all of the conditions

specified in this document. 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 by November 15, 1997. If the

Commonwealth does not correct

deficiencies by the date(s) certain and

implement the interim program by

November 15, 1997, EPA is proposing in

this document that the interim approval

will convert to a disapproval after a

finding letter is sent 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 at that time

be able to make a demonstration of the

program’s effectiveness using an

appropriate evaluation criteria. As EPA

expects that these programs will have

started on or before November 15, 1997,

the Commonwealth will have at least 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 does not

demonstrate the interim program’s

effectiveness. 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 full approval of the

Commonwealth’s plan may 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 state’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 Massachusetts I/M program

meets all of the requirements of EPA’s

I/M rule, including those minor

deficiencies found to be de minimis for

purposes of interim approval.

VI. EPA’s Evaluation of the Interim

Submittal

EPA’s review of this material

indicates that the Massachusetts I/M SIP

meets the requirements for conditional

interim approval under the National

Highway Systems Designation Act and

the Clean Air Act. EPA is proposing a

conditional interim approval of the

Massachusetts SIP revision for motor

vehicle inspection and maintenance,
4514 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 20 / Thursday, January 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

which was submitted on March 27,

1996. EPA is soliciting public comments

on the issues discussed in this

document 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.

Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to conditionally

approve this revision to the

Massachusetts SIP for an interim

enhanced I/M program. The conditions

for approvability are as follows:

Within 30 days of this document,

Massachusetts commits to submit by

April 1, 1997 a complete approvable

revised 15% plan which shows

sufficient reductions from an enhanced

I/M program utilizing emission credit

estimates agreeable to EPA as discussed

earlier in this document. This includes

MOBILE modeling with a worst case

analysis showing that the

Commonwealth will meet the needed

15% reductions if the program only

achieves reductions equivalent to ASM2

credit at ‘‘phase-in’’ cut points or the

Commonwealth must reduce the credit

claimed for the I/M program. Also,

within 30 days of this document

Massachusetts commits to submit by a

date certain within one year of final

interim approval, revised program

evaluation modeling showing

achievement of at least the low

enhanced I/M standard by 2002.

In addition, within 30 days

Massachusetts commits to submit by a

date certain within one year of final

interim approval, revisions to meet the

requirements for Enhanced I/M

Performance Standard—40 CFR 51.351,

Adequate Tools and Resources—40 CFR

51.354, Test Procedures and

Standards—40 CFR 51.357, Quality

control—40 CFR 51.359, Waivers and

Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection—

40 CFR 51.360 , Quality Assurance—40

CFR 51.363 and a revised modeling

analysis showing achievement of the

performance standard by 2002.

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.

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 Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, 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

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).

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 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 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 Part 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.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: January 15, 1997.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

[FR Doc. 97–2194 Filed 1–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[CO–001–0009b; FRL–5674–8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Colorado; Revisions to Regulation

No.’s 3 and 7 for Pioneer Metal

Finishing Inc. and a Revision to

Regulation No. 7 for Lexmark

International Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of

the revisions to the Colorado State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to Regulation

No. 3, ‘‘Air Contaminant Emissions

Notices,’’ and Regulation No. 7,

‘‘Regulation To Control Emissions of

Volatile Organic Compounds.’’ The

revisions to Regulations Nos. 3 and 7 for

Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc. (PMF)

consist of a source specific SIP revision

to allow PMF to purchase banked

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

emission reduction credits (ERC) from

Coors Brewing Company (Coors), to

enable PMF to come into compliance

with the VOC Reasonable Available

Control Technology (RACT)

requirements of Regulation No. 7 (Reg.

7). The revision to Reg. 7 for Lexmark

International Inc. (Lexmark) consists of

a source-specific SIP revision to allow

Lexmark to utilize the provisions of Reg.