[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 182 (Friday, September 19, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49184-49188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24947]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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, 
Sec. 52.2026(a)(2), 40 CFR part 52, subpart V, Sec. 52.2450(b)(2), and 
40 CFR part 52, subpart I, Sec. 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

[[Page 49186]]

sound evaluation methodologies, it is also appropriate to propose 
withdrawing these METT-based program evaluation conditions on the 
interim approval notices for Virginia and Pennsylvania. In place of 
these original conditions, EPA proposes to impose new conditions that 
will require the commonwealths instead to submit program evaluation 
regulations that meet the more flexible requirements of the amended 40 
CFR 51.353(c). In the case of Delaware, while the program evaluation 
condition did not explicitly require METT-based program evaluation, the 
deadline for meeting that condition falls sooner than it would based 
upon today's proposed amendments. To take advantage of this deadline 
extension, it is necessary for EPA to also amend the Federal Register 
notice conditionally approving the Delaware I/M SIP. All three--
Delaware, Virginia, and Pennsylvania--must submit a commitment by 
October 15, 1997, to adopt and submit the required evaluation 
methodology requirements by November 30, 1998 in order to support EPA's 
imposition of the new proposed conditions under section 110(k)(4) of 
the Act.
    Of the three above SIP approval notices, only Virginia's requires 
the Commonwealth to meet its METT-based program evaluation condition 
before EPA will be able to finalize today's proposed action. The 
current deadline for Virginia's meeting this condition is September 15, 
1997, which is based upon a commitment made by the Commonwealth prior 
to EPA's decision to revise the program evaluation requirement. The 
September 15, 1997 date does not reflect the full twelve month period 
available under the statute for meeting conditions which, in the case 
of Virginia, would be May 15, 1998. Virginia has recently committed to 
submit program evaluation provisions meeting the existing I/M rule by 
May 15, 1998 should EPA fail to take final action on today's proposal. 
For these reasons, EPA is taking an interim final action elsewhere in 
this Federal Register to extend the deadline for Virginia's existing 
program evaluation condition to May 15, 1998. EPA believes it is 
appropriate to take such action without prior public notice and comment 
because it would be contrary to the public interest to require Virginia 
to comply with a condition based on a requirement that EPA has proposed 
to amend, and because Virginia's recent commitment is consistent with 
the statute.
    Lastly, it may be necessary for some states to amend their 
currently approved I/M SIPs to take advantage of today's proposed 
flexibilities. EPA therefore requests that such states review their 
enhanced I/M SIPs for any language that may conflict with today's 
proposed changes. Such language will need to be amended and the 
amendment submitted as a SIP revision once today's proposed action 
becomes final.

III. Authority

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

IV. Background of the Proposed Amendments

    Section 182(c)(3)(C) of the 1990 Clean Air Act required that 
enhanced I/M programs ``biennially prepare a report to the 
Administrator which assesses the emission reductions achieved by the 
program * * * based on data collected during inspection and repair of 
vehicles. The methods used to assess the emission reductions shall be 
those established by the Administrator.'' EPA established the criteria 
for this program evaluation under section 51.353(c) of the original I/M 
rule (November 5, 1992).
    As originally promulgated, the program evaluation was to include 
state administered or monitored program evaluation tests on a random, 
representative sample of at least 0.1 percent of the annual subject 
vehicle population. The program evaluation tests included measuring the 
gram-per-mile tailpipe emissions of this sample using the IM240. 
Alternative, equivalent METTs were allowed in place of the IM240, but 
these had to be approved by EPA. The results of the program evaluation 
testing were to be reported every two years, beginning with the second 
anniversary of program start up.
    The IM240 was originally selected as the basis for program 
evaluation because of its high degree of correlation to the Federal 
Test Procedure (FTP), the one test method that all vehicles have in 
common due to its use in the vehicle certification process. Both the 
FTP and the IM240 are METTs, which means that they measure the actual 
mass of emissions produced by a vehicle (in terms of grams per mile) as 
opposed to simply measuring the concentrations of those emissions. 
METTs like the IM240 and FTP also simulate real world driving 
conditions by testing the vehicle over the course of a driving cycle 
covering a wide range of speeds and operating conditions. This is 
especially important in determining a vehicle's precise emissions 
output, since most on-road vehicles emit different amounts depending 
upon their operating conditions.
    Of these two METTs, the IM240 was deemed to be the most cost 
effective for use as a program evaluation method. Furthermore, at the 
time the I/M rule was promulgated in 1992, it was anticipated that most 
programs subject to the enhanced I/M requirement would opt to use IM240 
as part of their routine testing program. Therefore, requiring 
additional, state administered or monitored IM240s to confirm the 
overall program's effectiveness did not require states to invest in 
additional, program evaluation testing equipment and did not call for 
the development of an alternative program evaluation testing 
methodology.
    On November 28, 1995, President Clinton signed the National Highway 
System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA). Section 348 of this legislation 
addressed I/M program requirements, and specifically prohibited EPA 
from mandating the ``adoption or implementation by a State of a test-
only IM240 enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program as a 
means of compliance with'' the Clean Air Act. Nevertheless, EPA has 
determined that additional flexibility is desirable in the program 
evaluation area as well, to better accommodate the wider range of 
enhanced I/M program designs states are in the process of adopting and 
implementing under both the NHSDA and EPA's previous I/M flexibility 
amendments, and which were not anticipated at the time the original 
program evaluation criteria were promulgated. Furthermore, EPA now 
believes that alternative, sound methods for meeting the Clean Air 
Act's program evaluation requirement may exist, and the Agency intends 
to work with states and other interested parties during the proposed 
period of delay in evaluation requirements to identify and approve 
these alternatives.
    EPA is therefore proposing to provide greater flexibility in two 
specific areas with regard to these criteria. The first is to broaden 
the universe of potentially acceptable program evaluation tests by 
changing the requirement from the IM240 or an approved, equivalent METT 
to the less prescriptive, and more innovation-friendly requirement for 
a ``sound evaluation methodology.'' Second, to give EPA and the states 
time to evaluate potential alternative methodologies, EPA is proposing 
to delay the start up of the mandatory evaluation program to no later 
than

[[Page 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

[[Page 49188]]

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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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:


Sec. 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 Sec. 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:


Sec. 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