49184 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Public Hearing

Persons wishing to speak at the public

hearing should contact the person listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by 4:00 p.m., e.s.t. on October

6, 1997. The location and time of the

hearing will be arranged with those

persons requesting the hearing. If no one

requests an opportunity to speak at the

public hearing, the hearing will not be

held.

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 who 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.

Any disabled individual who has

need for a special accommodation to

attend a public hearing should contact

the individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 2 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 OMS. 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 counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certificate 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 counterpart 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 920

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: September 10, 1997.

John A. Holbrook, II,

Acting Regional Director, Appalachian

Regional Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–24986 Filed 9–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

[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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49185

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

October 20, 1997. No public hearing

will be held unless a request is received

in writing by October 6, 1997.

ADDRESSESS: 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 SW.,

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 Amendment

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
49186 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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-permile 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 onroad 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 49187

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

is 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
49188 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

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 condition in

paragraph (b)(3) of this section which

addresses I/M program evaluation

requirements. Condition in pargraph

(b)(3) of this section must be met by

November 30, 1998, in keeping with the

amended requirements of 40 CFR

51.353.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–24947 Filed 9–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–21–1–7345b; FRL–5894–5]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan: Employee

Commute Options (Employer Trip

Reduction) Program for Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.