21404 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

the facts demonstrate that the agreement

amount would not have increased even

if the available data had been submitted

before the date of agreement on cost; or

(4) In the event of an overpayment,

the carrier shall be liable to and shall

pay the United States at that time such

overpayment as was made, with simple

interest on the amount of such

overpayment to be computed from the

date(s) of overpayment to the carrier to

the date the Government is repaid by

the carrier at the applicable

underpayment rate effective for each

quarter prescribed by the Secretary of

the Treasury under 26 U.S.C. 6621(a)(2).

§ 100.20 Accounting for unallowable

costs.

To ensure that the Government does

not reimburse carriers for unallowable

costs, the following provisions are

included:

(a) Costs that are expressly

unallowable or mutually agreed to be

unallowable, including mutually agreed

to be unallowable directly associated

costs, shall be identified and excluded

from any billing, claim, or proposal

applicable to reimbursement under

CALEA. When an unallowable cost is

incurred, its directly associated costs are

also unallowable.

(b) The detail and depth of records

required as backup support for cost

estimates, billings, or claims shall be

those which are adequate to establish

and maintain visibility of identified

unallowable costs, including their

directly associated costs. Unallowable

costs involved in determining rates used

for standard costs, or for allocable cost

proposals or billing, need be identified

only at the time rates are proposed,

established, revised, or adjusted. These

requirements may be satisfied by any

form of cost identification which is

adequate for purposes of cost

determination and verification.

§ 100.21 Confidentiality of trade secrets/

proprietary information.

With respect to any information

provided to the FBI under this part that

is identified as company proprietary

information, it shall be treated as

privileged and confidential. It shall not

be disclosed outside the government for

any reason inclusive of Freedom of

Information requests, without the prior

written approval of the company.

Information provided will be used

exclusively for the implementation of

CALEA. This restriction does not limit

the government’s right to use the

information provided if obtained from

any other source without limitation.

[FR Doc. 96–11724 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–02–M

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 233

Addition of Commercial Espionage to

Mail Cover Regulations

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule will

amend the United States Postal

Service’s mail cover regulations to add

commercial espionage by foreign

sources as a criminal activity for which

national security mail covers may be

authorized. This change is effected by

expanding the definition of ‘‘protection

of the national security’’ found at 39

CFR 233.3(c)(9) to include commercial

espionage.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed or delivered to Counsel,

Postal Inspection Service, 475 L’Enfant

Plaza SW, Room 3411, Washington, DC

20260–2181.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Henry J. Bauman, Counsel, Postal

Inspection Service, (202) 268–4415.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Postal

Service regulations on mail covers are

published in Title 39 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 233.

Paragraph (c)(9) of § 233.3 currently

defines ‘‘protection of the national

security’’ as ‘‘actual or potential threats

to the security of the United States of

America by a foreign power or its

agents.’’ This definition will be

expanded to include commercial

espionage.

Commercial espionage by foreign

sources has become an increasing threat

to the economic well-being and ability

of the United States to compete in the

international market. For the purposes

of this proposed revision, ‘‘commercial

espionage’’ is defined as either

‘‘economic espionage’’ or ‘‘industrial

espionage.’’ According to the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) white

paper, FBI Strategy to Address the

Problem of Economic Espionage and

Industrial Espionage (Washington, DC:

FBI Headquarters, undated), ‘‘economic

espionage’’ is ‘‘government-directed,

sponsored, or coordinated intelligence

activity, which may or may not

constitute violation of the law,

conducted for the purpose of enhancing

that country’s or another country’s

economic competitiveness by the use of

the information by the foreign

government or by providing it to a

foreign business entity thereby giving

that entity a competitive advantage in

the marketplace.’’ ‘‘Industrial

espionage’’ is defined by the FBI as

‘‘individual or private business entity

sponsorship or coordination of

intelligence activity conducted for the

purpose of enhancing a private business

and its competitive advantage in the

marketplace, which is a violation of

law.’’

Revising the Postal Service’s national

security mail cover regulations to

include commercial espionage will

enhance the ability of law enforcement

to protect national security.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 233

Administrative practice and

procedures, Banks and banking, Credit,

Crime, Law Enforcement, Postal Service,

Privacy, Seizure and forfeiture.

Accordingly, 39 CFR 233 is proposed

to be amended as set forth below.

PART 233—INSPECTION SERVICE/

INSPECTOR GENERAL AUTHORITY

1. The authority citation for part 233

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 402, 403,

404, 406, 410, 411, 3005(e)(1); 12 U.S.C.

3401–3422; 18 U.S.C. 981, 1956, 1957, 2254,

3061; 21 U.S.C. 881; Inspector General Act of

1978, as amended (Pub. L. No. 95–452, as

amended), 5 U.S.C. App.3.

2. Paragraph (c)(9) of § 233.3 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 233.3 Mail covers.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(9) Protection of the national security

means to protect the United States from

any of the following actual or potential

threats to its security by a foreign power

or its agents:

(i) An attack or other grave, hostile

act;

(ii) Sabotage, or international

terrorism; or

(iii) Clandestine intelligence

activities, including commercial

espionage.

* * * * *

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 96–11768 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21405

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL102–1–6693; FRL–5503–9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois:

Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

portions and to conditionally approve

other portions of a vehicle inspection

and maintenance (I/M) State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Illinois on

June 29, 1995, based on the State’s April

22, 1996, letter of commitment to

submit certain items within one year of

the final conditional approval. This

revision provides for the adoption and

implementation of an enhanced I/M

program in both the Chicago severe

ozone nonattainment area and the East

St. Louis moderate ozone nonattainment

area. Both areas are required to attain

the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) as specified under

the Clean Air Act (Act) by 2007 and

1996 respectively. Illinois indicates that

the implementation of this important

program in the two areas stated above,

will reduce vehicle emissions which

contribute to the formation of urban

smog in Illinois by more than 38 tons

per day. In support of the proposed

conditional approval of the SIP revision,

the State has submitted the State’s

Request-For-Proposals as supplemental

information to the SIP. In addition, the

State has committed in an April 22,

1996, letter to submit to EPA as

supplemental information in support of

the SIP, the State’s final I/M contract

and any rules necessary to address the

requirements identified in the analysis

section of this document.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Illinois’ I/M SIP

submittal, EPA’s proposals and

rulemakings, and other documents

pertinent to this proposed notice are

available at the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,

Air Programs Branch, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Comments on this proposed rule

should be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer,

Chief, Regulation Development Section,

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental

Engineer, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 886–6061.

Anyone wishing to come to Region 5

offices should first contact Francisco J.

Acevedo.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

Motor vehicles are significant

contributors of volatile organic

compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide

(CO), and nitrogen oxide (NOX)

emissions. The motor vehicle inspection

and maintenance program is an effective

means of reducing these emissions.

Despite improvements in emission

control technology in past years, mobile

sources in urban areas continue to

remain responsible for roughly half of

the emissions of VOC causing ozone,

and most of the emissions of CO. They

also emit substantial amounts of

nitrogen oxides and air toxics. This is

because the number of vehicle miles

traveled has doubled in the last 20 years

to 2 trillion miles per year, offsetting

much of the technological progress in

vehicle emission control over the same

period. Projections indicate that the

steady growth in vehicle miles will

continue.

Under the Act, the EPA is pursuing a

three-point strategy to achieve emission

reductions from motor vehicles. The

development and commercialization of

cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels

represent the first two elements of the

strategy. These developments will take

many years before cleaner vehicles and

fuels dominate the fleet and favorably

impact the environment. This document

deals with the third element of the

strategy, inspection and maintenance,

which is aimed at the reduction of

emissions from the existing fleet by

ensuring that vehicles are maintained to

meet the emission standards established

by EPA. Properly functioning emission

controls are necessary to keep pollution

levels low. The driving public is often

unable to detect a malfunction of the

emission control system. While some

minor malfunctions can increase

emissions significantly, they do not

affect drivability and may go unnoticed

for a long period of time. Effective I/M

programs can identify excessive

emissions and assure repairs. The EPA

projects that sophisticated I/M programs

such as the one being proposed in this

rulemaking in Illinois will identify

emission related problems and prompt

the vehicle owner to obtain timely

repairs thus reducing emissions.

The Act requires that polluted cities

adopt either a ‘‘basic’’ or ‘‘enhanced’’ I/

M program, depending on the severity

of the pollution and the population of

the area. Moderate ozone nonattainment

areas, plus marginal ozone areas with

existing or previously required I/M

programs in Census-defined urbanized

areas, fall under the ‘‘basic’’ I/M

requirements. Basic and enhanced I/M

programs both achieve their objective by

identifying vehicles that have high

emissions as a result of one or more

malfunctions, and requiring them to be

repaired. An ‘‘enhanced’’ I/M program

covers more vehicles in operation in the

fleet, employs inspection methods

which are better at finding high emitting

vehicles, and has additional features to

better assure that all vehicles are tested

properly and effectively repaired. The

Act directed EPA to establish a

minimum performance standard for

enhanced I/M programs. The standard is

based on the performance achievable by

annual inspections in a centralized test

program. States have flexibility to

design their own programs if they can

show that their program is as effective

as the model program used in the

performance standard. Naturally, the

more effective the program the more

credit a State will get towards the

emission reduction requirement. An

effective program will help to offset

emissions associated with growth in

vehicle use and allow for industrial

and/or commercial growth.

The EPA and the States have learned

a great deal about what makes an I/M

program effective since the Clean Air

Act of 1977 first required I/M programs

for polluted areas. There are three major

keys to an effective program:

(1) Given the advanced state of

current vehicle design and anticipated

technology changes, the ability to

accurately fail problem vehicles and

pass clean ones requires improved test

equipment and test procedures;

(2) Comprehensive quality control

and aggressive enforcement are essential

to assuring the testing is done properly;

(3) Skillful diagnostics and capable

mechanics are important to assure that

failed cars are fixed properly.

These three factors are missing in

most older I/M programs. Specifically,

the idle and 2500 RPM/idle short tests

and anti-tamper inspections used in

current I/M programs are not as effective

in identifying and reducing in-use

emissions from the types of vehicles in

the current and future fleet. Also, covert

audits by EPA and State agencies
21406 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

typically discover improper inspection

and testing 50 percent of the time in

test-and-repair stations indicating poor

quality control. Experience has shown

that quality control at high-volume test

only stations is usually much better.

And, finally, diagnostics and mechanics

training are often poor or nonexistent.

On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950),

EPA established a high-tech emission

test for high-tech cars. This I/M test,

known as the IM240 test, is so effective

that biennial test programs yield almost

the same emission reduction benefits as

annual programs. The test can also

accurately measure NOX emissions

where NOX is important to address an

ozone problem. The addition of the

pressure and purge test increases the

benefit even more and results in lower

testing costs and consumer time

demands. The pressure test is designed

to find leaks in the fuel system, and the

purge test evaluates the functionality of

the vapor control system. In addition,

EPA published changes to the I/M rule

in the Federal Register on October 18,

1995, (60 FR 48029) in order to provide

greater flexibility to States required to

implement I/M programs.

II. Background

The State of Illinois currently

contains two ozone nonattainment areas

which are required to implement I/M

programs in accordance with the Act.

The Chicago severe-17 ozone

nonattainment area contains the

Chicago, Aurora, Crystal Lake, Elgin,

Joliet, and Round Lake Beach-McHenry

urbanized areas. The Federal I/M rule

requires the Chicago urbanized area to

implement an enhanced I/M program.

Since the I/M rule does not require

enhanced I/M programs in severe

urbanized areas with a Census

population of less than 200,000, the

remaining five cities in the Chicago

nonattainment area will be required to

implement only a basic I/M program

based on their 1990 Census-defined

urbanized area populations. The East St.

Louis moderate ozone nonattainment

area contains the Illinois portion of the

St. Louis and Alton urbanized areas.

Both areas are required to implement a

Basic I/M program in the nonattainment

area. On June 29, 1995, IEPA submitted

to EPA a SIP revision for the

implementation of an enhanced I/M

program to cover both the Chicago and

the East St. Louis nonattainment areas.

This submittal includes the Vehicle

Emissions Inspection Law of 1995 (625

ILCS 5/13B), P.A. 88–533, which

became effective January 18, 1994. That

statute provides authority for IEPA to

implement an enhanced I/M program

and meet EPA’s requirements for such a

program. P.A. 88–533 mandates

enhanced I/M testing for the Metro-East

area and certain portions of the Chicago

nonattainment area. In addition, the

Illinois submittal includes I/M

regulations (R94–19 and R94–20)

adopted on December 1, 1994, by the

Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board),

which include emissions standards

based upon EPA’s preferred IM240

loaded mode exhaust emissions

standard. On December 23, 1994, the

amended rule for R94–20 was published

in the Illinois State Register and its

effective date was December 12, 1994.

On December 30, 1994, the amended

rule R94–19 was published in the

Illinois Register and had an effective

date of December 14, 1994. On April 22,

1996, IEPA submitted the State’s I/M

Request-For-Proposal as part of the

Illinois SIP submittal.

Under the Environmental Protection

Act [415 ILCS 5 (1992)], the Board has

the authority to adopt air pollution

regulations for the State of Illinois. The

adopted regulations and the legislation

submitted by Illinois changes the

existing program from a basic I/M

program to a fully enhanced I/M

program in both of Illinois’ ozone

nonattainment areas. EPA summarizes

the requirements of the Federal I/M

regulations, as found in 40 CFR 51.350–

51.373, and its analysis of the state

submittal below. Parties desiring

additional details on the Federal I/M

regulation are referred to the November

5, 1992, Federal Register notice (57 FR

52950), or 40 CFR 51.350–51.373.

III. EPA’s Analysis of the Illinois,

Enhanced I/M Program

As discussed above, section 182 of the

Act requires that States adopt and

implement updated regulations for I/M

programs in moderate and above ozone

nonattainment areas. The following

sections of this notice summarize the

requirements of the Federal I/M

regulations and address whether the

elements of the State’s submittal comply

with the Federal rule.

Applicability 40 CFR 51.350

Section 182(c)(3) of the Act and 40

CFR 51.350(a) require States which

contain areas classified as serious or

worse ozone nonattainment and

containing metropolitan statistical areas

(MSAs) with a population of 200,000 or

more to implement an enhanced I/M

program. As noted above, the State of

Illinois contains the Aurora, Chicago,

Crystal Lake, Elgin, Joliet, and Round

Lake beach-McHenry urbanized areas in

its Chicago Severe-17 ozone

nonattainment area, but the Chicago

urbanized area is the only area which

contains a population of more than

200,000, based on 1990 Census data.

The remaining urbanized areas in the

Chicago nonattainment area with

populations less than 200,000 are

required to implement a basic I/M

program. In addition, section 182(b)(4)

of the Act and 40 CFR part 51.530(a)

require States with moderate ozone

nonattainment areas containing 1990

census-defined urbanized areas to

implement a basic I/M program. The

State of Illinois contains the East St.

Louis moderate nonattainment area

where this requirement applies.

The Illinois submittal contains the

legal authority and regulations

necessary for IEPA to establish the

program boundaries and operate an

enhanced I/M program in ozone

nonattainment areas stated above. P.A.

88–533 specifies the geographic

boundaries of the program in both ozone

nonattainment areas. The program

boundaries described in the Illinois

submittal meet the Federal I/M

requirements under Sec. 51.350 and are

approvable. The Federal I/M regulation

requires that the State I/M program must

operate until it is no longer necessary.

EPA has determined that a SIP which

does not terminate prior to the

attainment deadline for each applicable

area (i.e. 2007 for the Chicago severe-17

ozone nonattainment area, and 1996 for

the Metro-East moderate ozone

nonattainment area) satisfies this

requirement. The State I/M submittal

does not contain a termination

provision and is therefore approvable.

EPA proposes to approve this section of

the Illinois submittal.

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, expressed in area-wide

average grams per mile (gpm), for

emission levels of certain pollutants.

The performance standard shall be

established using local characteristics,

such as vehicle mix and local fuel

controls, and the following model I/M

program parameters: network type, start

date, test frequency, model year

coverage, vehicle type coverage, exhaust

emission test type, emission standards,

emission control device, evaporative

system function checks, stringency,

waiver rate, compliance rate and

evaluation date. The emission 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 Illinois

submittal, the most current version was
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21407

MOBILE5a. Areas shall meet or exceed

the performance standard for the

pollutants which cause them to be

subject to I/M requirements. In the case

of ozone nonattainment areas, the

performance standard must be met for

both nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile

organic compounds (VOCs). Urban

Airshed Modeling (UAM) has been

conducted in both the Chicago and St.

Louis regions. In the Chicago area, the

UAM has demonstrated that control of

NOX within the nonattainment area is

counterproductive in controlling

ambient ozone. IEPA has petitioned for,

and has received from EPA, a waiver

from Clean Air Act NOX control

requirements, including the requirement

to meet the NOX enhanced I/M

performance standard. EPA is currently

in the process of evaluating the UAM

data and an IEPA NOX waiver request

for the St. Louis region. NOX testing will

be restricted to tests conducted for

program evaluation purposes in

accordance with 40 CFR Part 51.353(c).

The June 30, 1995, Illinois submittal

includes three alternative enhanced

program options based on the use of

either ASM5015, ASM2, or IM240

networks. All three options use the

following program design parameters:

Centralized test only network; 1986 start

date; biennial frequency; 1968 and

newer model year coverage; Vehicle

type include LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2 and

HDGV; IM240 for 1981 and newer

vehicles, and idle for 1968–1980

LDGV’s and LDGT’s and 1968 and later

HDGV’s; purge test on 1981 and newer

LDGV’s and LDGT’s undergoing either

ASM or IM240; pressure test of gas cap;

stringency rate of 20 percent for 1980

and older vehicles; waiver rate of 3

percent and a 96 percent compliance

rate.

The Illinois program design

parameters meet the Federal I/M

regulations and are approvable. The

emission levels achieved by the State,

for each area, were modeled using

MOBILE5a. The modeling

demonstration was performed correctly,

using local characteristics where

available, and it demonstrated that the

program design will meet the enhanced

I/M performance standard, expressed in

grams per mile, for VOCs and NOX for

each milestone and for the attainment

deadline. The modeling demonstration

submitted by the State is approvable.

EPA proposes to approve this section of

the submittal.

Network Type and Program Evaluation

40 CFR 51.353

Enhanced I/M programs shall be

operated in a centralized test only

format, unless the State can demonstrate

that a decentralized program is equally

effective in achieving the enhanced I/M

performance standard. 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 regulations. The SIP shall include

details on the program evaluation and a

schedule for submittal of biennial

evaluation reports, data from a State

monitored or administered mass

emission test of at least 0.1 percent 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.

The State legislative authority and the

State I/M regulations provide for a

centralized, test-only network. Illinois’

centralized, test only network type is

approvable. The submittal does not,

however, include provisions for ongoing program evaluation to satisfy all

of the requirements of 40 CFR part

51.353. Specifically, the State must

submit schedules for program

evaluations and methodologies by

which this biennial program evaluation

will be carried out, as required by 40

CFR part 51.353. EPA proposes to

conditionally approve this section of the

Illinois enhanced I/M SIP based on the

April 22, 1996, letter and phone

conversation record committing to

submit to EPA as supplemental

information in support of the SIP the

necessary documentation within one

year of the final conditional approval. In

addition, the State has committed to

submit to EPA biennial program

evaluation reports meeting the

requirements of 40 CFR part 51.353

starting at the end of the program’s first

biennial cycle.

Adequate Tools and Resources 40 CFR

51.354

The Federal I/M regulation requires

States to demonstrate that adequate

funding of the program is available. A

portion of the test fee or a separately

assessed per year 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 a 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. A.P. 88–533 prevents the

IEPA from charging motor vehicle

owners for inspections required under

this law. Instead, A.P. 88–533 states that

the Vehicle Inspection Fund, which was

a fund created in the State treasury for

the purpose of receiving money from the

Motor Fuel Tax and other sources, shall

be used for the payment of the cost of

the program, including reimbursement

of those agencies of the State that incur

expenses in the administration and

enforcement of the program. EPA

proposes to approve this section of the

Illinois 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

and shall include the legal authority,

regulations or contract provisions

necessary to implement and enforce the

test frequency requirement. The

program shall be designed to provide

convenient service to motorists by

ensuring short waiting times, short

driving distances and regular testing

hours. The Illinois enhanced I/M law of

1995 provides the legal authority to

implement and enforce biennial test

frequency for all subject vehicles. New

vehicles are exempt from testing for two

years, requiring the vehicle to be

initially tested in the second calendar

year after the vehicle model year. Based

on the performance standard modeling

provided by the State, the enhanced I/

M program meets the performance

standard accounting for biennial test

frequency. P.A. 88–533 also requires

that the program be designed so that

covered vehicle owners reside within 12

miles of an official inspection station. In

addition, the law requires the program

to be designed in such a way that

sufficient inspection capacity at the

station is so that the usual wait before

the start of an inspection does not

exceed twenty minutes. The test

frequency and convenience section is

approvable and EPA is proposing to

approve.

Vehicle Coverage 40 CFR 51.356

The performance standard for

enhanced I/M programs assumes

coverage of all 1968 and newer model

year light duty vehicles and light duty

trucks up to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle
21408 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

weight rating (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 belonging

to the covered model years and vehicle

classes comprise the subject vehicles.

Fleets may be officially inspected

outside 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 nonfleet vehicles and shall be inspected in

independent, test-only facilities,

according to the requirements of 40 CFR

part 51.353(a).

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

exemption.

The Illinois Vehicle Inspection Law of

1995 requires coverage of all 1968 and

newer vehicles registered or required to

be registered in the I/M program area,

except those vehicles which run on

diesel or exclusively by electricity. The

modeling demonstration submitted with

the SIP narrows the vehicle coverage to

LDGV, LDGT1, and LDGT2. The Illinois

legislation provides the legal authority

to implement and enforce the vehicle

coverage. This level of coverage is

approvable because it provides the

necessary emission reductions. The

modeling demonstration does contain

estimates of the number of registered

vehicles in the area. However, the

State’s June 29, 1995, SIP submittal does

not adequately address fleet testing

requirements. Existing legislation allows

for the self testing of fleets, but the

submittal fails to address the specific

requirements involved in fleet testing.

The State also did not provide a

description of the impact vehicle

exemptions will have on the subject

fleet. The modeling demonstration

submitted by the State does not account

for these exemptions in the emission

reduction analysis. The State must

describe the extent of the exemption’s

impact, in accordance with 40 CFR part

51.356, in order for EPA to fully

approve this section of the State

submittal. EPA proposes to

conditionally approve this section based

on the April 22, 1996, letter to EPA

committing to address the requirements

of 40 CFR 51.356 with regard to fleets,

within one year of the final conditional

approval.

Test Procedures and Standards 40 CFR

51.357

Written test procedures and pass/fail

standards are required to be established

and followed for each model year and

vehicle type included in the program.

Federal test procedures and standards

are found in 40 CFR 51.357 and in the

EPA document entitled ‘‘High-Tech I/M

Test Procedures, Equipment Standards,

Quality Control Requirements, and

Equipment Specifications’’, EPA–AA–

EPSD–IM–93–1, finalized in April,

1994. A.P. 88–533 provides the State the

authority to establish test procedures

according to the needs of the program.

The Illinois submittal also includes I/M

regulations (R94–19 and R94–20)

adopted on December 1, 1994, by the

Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board)

which include emissions standards

based upon EPA’s preferred IM240

loaded mode exhaust emissions

standard. IEPA has asked I/M contract

bidders to address in detail the

requirements of this section in its

Request-For-Proposal (RFP). EPA

proposes to conditionally approve this

section of the SIP based on the State’s

commitment to submit to EPA as

supplemental information in support of

the SIP its final signed I/M contract

addressing the requirements of 40 CFR

part 51.357 within one year of EPA’s

final conditional approval.

Test Equipment 40 CFR 51.358

The Federal regulation requires

computerized test systems for

performing any measurement on subject

vehicles. The Federal I/M regulations

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.

A.P. 88–533 provides the general

authority for the State to establish the

designation of official test equipment

and testing procedures. The Illinois

submittal also includes I/M regulations

(R94–19 and R94–20) which include

emissions standards based upon EPA’s

preferred IM240 loaded mode exhaust

emissions standard. IEPA has addressed

the requirements of this section in its

RFP released February 29, 1996. EPA

proposes to conditionally approve this

section of the SIP based on the State’s

April 22, 1996, commitment to submit

to EPA as supplemental information in

support of the SIP its final signed

contract addressing the requirements of

40 CFR part 51.358 within one year of

EPA’s final conditional approval.

Quality Control 40 CFR 51.359

Quality control measures shall ensure

that emission measurement equipment

are calibrated and maintained properly,

and that inspection, calibration records

and control charts are accurately

created, recorded and maintained. The

Illinois submittal contains general legal

authority in A.P. 88–533 which requires

IEPA to establish an enhanced program

containing procedures to assure the

correct operation, maintenance and

calibration of test equipment, and also

procedures for certifying test results and

for reporting and maintaining relevant

data and records. Illinois’ RFP requires

bidders as part of their Technical

proposal to submit a Quality Assurance

Plan which addresses the requirements

of this section. EPA proposes to

conditionally approve this section of the

SIP based on the State’s April 22, 1996

commitment to submit to EPA as

supplemental information in support of

the SIP its final signed contract and the

contractor’s Quality Assurance Plan

addressing the quality control

requirements of 40 CFR part 51.359

within one year of EPA’s final

conditional approval.

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, as long as prescribed

criteria are met. 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 of 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 failure. Repairs for 1980

and newer model year vehicles must be

performed by a recognized repair

technician. The Federal regulation
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21409

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 must be

taken if the waiver rate exceeds that

committed to in the SIP.

The Illinois SIP submittal contains the

necessary authority in A.P. 88–533 to

issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits,

and administer and enforce the waiver

system. The Illinois law requires that

IEPA certify whether a vehicle that has

failed a vehicle emission retest qualifies

for a waiver of the emission inspection

standards if the following criteria are

met: The vehicle has received all repairs

and adjustments for which it is eligible

under any emission performance

warranty provided under section 207 of

the Act; IEPA determines by normal

inspection procedures that the vehicle’s

emission control devices are present

and appear to be properly connected

and operating; consistent with 40 CFR

51.360 for vehicles required to be tested

under the Illinois law, a minimum

expenditure of $450 in emission-related

repairs exclusive of tampering-related

repairs have been made; repairs for

vehicles of model year 1981 and later

are conducted by a recognized repair

technician; evidence of repair is

presented consisting of either signed

and dated receipts identifying the

vehicle and describing the work

performed and amount charged for

eligible emission-related repairs, or an

affidavit executed by the person

performing the eligible emission related

repairs; and that the repairs have

resulted in an improvement in vehicle

emissions as determined by comparison

of initial and final retest results.

The State of Illinois has chosen not to

allow compliance via a complete

documented physical and functional

diagnosis and inspection which shows

that no additional emission-related

repairs are needed. The State has set a

maximum waiver rate of 3 percent for

both pre-1981 and for 1981 and later

vehicles. Illinois used MOBILE5a and

assumed a maximum waiver rate of 3

percent for 1980 and older model year

vehicles and 3 percent for 1981 and

newer vehicles. In the event the actual

waiver rate exceeds the planned

maximum used for estimating the

emission reduction benefit, the State

will need to remodel to assess the

emission reduction benefits based on

the actual waiver rate. This section is

approvable and EPA is proposing to

approve.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement 40

CFR 51.361

The Federal regulations require the

use of registration denial to ensure

compliance with the requirements of the

I/M program unless an exception for use

of an alternative is approved.

Registration denial enforcement consists

of rejecting an application for initial

registration or registration for a used

vehicle unless the vehicle has complied

with the I/M requirements prior to the

granting of the application. The SIP

shall provide information concerning

the enforcement process, legal authority

to implement and enforce the program,

a commitment to a compliance rate to be

used for modeling purposes and to be

maintained in practice. The Illinois SIP

contains an alternative compliance

system to that of registration denial. The

Illinois compliance approach uses

computer matching of vehicle

registration records and inspection

records to identify violations. The

Illinois Secretary of State (SOS) is

required under A.P. 88–533 to suspend

either the driving privileges or the

vehicle registration, or both, of any

vehicle owner who has not complied

with the requirements of A.P. 88–533. A

suspension under this requirement

would not be terminated until proof of

compliance has been submitted to the

SOS. In the I/M SIP, Illinois commits to

the level of motorist enforcement

necessary to ensure a compliance rate of

no less than 96 percent among subject

vehicles in the program area. If it is

determined as part of the required

program evaluation that the I/M

program is not meeting the compliance

rate, Illinois will need to investigate the

problem and institute changes to

improve the compliance rates. EPA

proposes to approve this section of the

Illinois SIP.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement

Program Oversight 40 CFR 51.362

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 legal authority for the

implementation of an I/M program is

found in A.P. 88–53. This statute

provides the authority necessary to

develop and implement the enforcement

program oversight element of the I/M

program. EPA proposes to conditionally

approve this portion of the State’s

submittal based on the April 22, 1996,

letter to EPA committing to addressing

the requirements of 40 CFR part 51.362

within one year of the conditional

approval.

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. The Illinois submittal

contains only a general provision under

P.A. 88–533 which requires that the

State I/M program provide for

procedures to assure the correct

operation, maintenance, and calibration

of test equipment. Illinois’ RFP requires

bidders as part of their Technical

proposal to submit a Quality Assurance

Plan which addresses the requirements

of this section. EPA proposes to

conditionally approve this section of the

SIP based on the State’s April 22, 1996

commitment to submit to EPA as

supplemental information in support of

the SIP its final signed contract and the

contractor’s Quality Assurance Plan

addressing the quality assurance

requirements of 40 CFR part 51.363

within one year of EPA’s final

conditional approval.

Enforcement Against Contractors,

Stations and Inspectors 40 CFR 51.364

Enforcement against licensed stations

or contractors and inspectors shall

include swift, sure, 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, licence 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. The SIP shall

describe the administrative and judicial

procedures and responsibilities relevant

to the enforcement process. The Illinois
21410 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

submittal includes the legal authority to

establish and impose penalties against

station, contractors, and inspectors. In

addition, the RFP contains detailed

provisions addressing the requirements

of this section, including specific

monetary penalties established for

violation of program rules and

procedures. The provisions found in the

RFP will be enforceable once a final I/

M contract is developed and signed.

EPA proposes to conditionally approve

this section of the SIP based on the

State’s April 22, 1996 commitment to

submit to EPA as supplemental

information in support of the SIP its

final signed contract and any necessary

administrative rules addressing the

requirements of 40 CFR part 51.364

within one year of EPA’s final

conditional approval.

Data Collection 40 CFR 51.365

In order to manage, evaluate and

enforce the program requirements an

effective I/M program requires accurate

data collection. 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 part 51.359. The Illinois

submittal contains a general provision

under P.A. 88–533 which requires that

the State I/M program provide for

procedures for certifying test results and

for reporting and maintaining relevant

data and records. In addition, the RFP

requires that the contractor submit to

IEPA, on a monthly basis, a file

containing detailed data for each vehicle

test transaction conducted. The data

collection requirements specified in the

RFP meet those specified in 40 CFR part

51.365. Once the final I/M contract is

submitted to EPA as supplemental

information in support of the SIP this

section of the I/M SIP can be fully

approved. At this time, EPA proposes to

conditionally approve this section of the

SIP based on the State’s April 22, 1996

commitment to submit to EPA as

supplemental information in support of

the SIP its final signed contract

addressing the data collection

requirements of 40 CFR part 51.365

within one year of EPA’s final

conditional approval.

Data Analysis and Reporting 40 CFR

51.366

Data analysis and reporting are

required in order to monitor and

evaluate the program by the State and

EPA. The Federal I/M rule requires

annual reports to be submitted to EPA

that provide information and statistics

and summarize activities performed for

each of the following programs: Testing,

quality assurance, quality control and

enforcement. These reports are to be

submitted by July of each year and shall

provide statistics for the period of

January to December of the previous

year. A biennial report shall be

submitted to EPA that addresses

changes in the program design,

regulations, legal authority, program

procedures, any weaknesses in the

program found during the previous two

year period and how these problems

will be or were corrected. The Illinois

RFP contains the necessary provisions

addressing the requirements of this

section. However, in order to receive

full approval, the State must submit its

final, signed contract as supplemental

information in support of the SIP

addressing the requirements of 40 CFR

part 51.366 to EPA within one year of

EPA’s final conditional approval. EPA

proposes to conditionally approve this

section of the SIP based on the State’s

April 22, 1996 commitment to submit to

EPA as supplemental information in

support of the SIP its final signed

contract addressing the data analysis

and reporting requirements of 40 CFR

part 51.366 within the time frame

specified above.

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 conduct

inspections. The Illinois P.A. 88–533

requires all inspectors to be certified by

IEPA after successfully completing a

course of training and successfully

passing a written test. The RFP requires

Bidders to include in their Technical

Proposal a detailed Management Plan

for the implementation and operation of

the contracted elements of the Illinois

enhanced I/M program. The

Management Plan must include as part

of its elements, a description of the

Personnel Training and Certification

Program as described in the RFP. The

RFP requires the Contractor to establish

and operate an on-going program to

train and certify contractor and IEPA

personnel. EPA proposes to

conditionally approve this section of the

SIP based on the State’s April 22, 1996

commitment to submit to EPA as

supplemental information in support of

the SIP its final signed contract and the

contractor’s Management Plan

addressing the requirements of 40 CFR

part 51.367 within one year of EPA’s

final conditional approval.

Public Information and Consumer

Protection 40 CFR 51.368

The Federal I/M regulation requires

the SIP to include a public information

and consumer protection programs. The

submittal needs to include a public

information program, which educates

the public on I/M, State, and Federal

regulations, air quality, the contribution

of motor vehicles to the air pollution

problem, and other items as describe in

the Federal rule. A consumer protection

program, which includes provisions for

a challenge mechanism, protection of

whistle blowers and assistance to

motorists in obtaining warranty covered

repair, will also need to be addressed.

The Illinois submittal contains the legal

authority establishing grievance

procedures for consumers to use, but it

does not address the rest of the

requirements stated above for this

section. In order to receive full

approval, the State has committed in

IEPA’s April 22, 1996, letter to submit

the remaining provisions of the public

information program within one year

from EPA’s final conditional approval.

EPA proposes to conditionally approve

this portion of the SIP based on the

State’s commitment to address the

requirements of this section within the

time frame stated above.

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. The Illinois

submittal does not contain any

provisions addressing the requirements

of this section, however the State has

submitted a commitment to address the

requirements of this section, including

the submittal of a description of

available technician training resources,

within one year of EPA’s final

conditional approval. EPA is proposing

to conditionally approve this portion of

the State submittal based on the State’s

commitment to submit the necessary

documentation to EPA in the time frame

stated above.

Compliance With Recall Notices 40 CFR

51.370

States are required to establish a

method to ensure that vehicles subject

to enhanced I/M and that are included

in either a voluntary emissions recall as

defined at 40 CFR 85.1902(d), or in a

remedial plan determination made
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21411

pursuant to section 207(c ) of the Act,

receive the required repairs prior to

completing the emission test or

renewing the vehicle registration. The

Illinois P.A. 88–533 provides the legal

authority to require owners to comply

with emission related recalls before

completing the emission test. The

Illinois RFP requires that the contractor

provide and maintain as part of the data

handling system a means to identify

vehicles with unresolved emissions

recalls based upon the data provided by

EPA. At a minimum, the Contractor and

IEPA will have the capability to store,

retrieve, and update recall data that

consists of the VIN, the numbers of the

recall campaign, and the date that the

repairs were performed. The system is

to be capable of interactively updating

vehicle and/or recall database records

based upon information supplied by

vehicle owners indicating that required

repairs have been made. The system

will also be capable of updating

appropriate records based upon updated

data provided by EPA. EPA proposes to

approve this section of the SIP based on

the State’s April 22, 1996 commitment

to submit to EPA as supplemental

information in support of the SIP its

final signed contract addressing the

annual reporting requirements of 40

CFR part 51.370 within one year of

EPA’s final conditional approval.

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 percent 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 a on-road test shall be required to

pass an out-of-cycle test. The Illinois

P.A. 88–533 requires on-road testing

through the use of remote sensing

devices. The SIP submittal requires the

use of RSD to test at least 0.5 percent of

the subject fleet per year in the I/M

program area. The RFP requires that the

Contractor develop and maintain

written on-road inspection procedures

to be approved by IEPA. In addition, the

Contractor is to provide and maintain as

part of the system on-road testing

information containing vehicle and test

results obtained from the on-road testing

program. The Contractor will be

responsible for evaluating all on-road

emission data, including linking

emissions data with vehicle database

records. EPA proposes to conditionally

approve this section of the SIP based on

the State’s April 22, 1996 commitment

to submit to EPA as supplemental

information in support of the SIP its

final signed contract addressing the onroad testing specifications of 40 CFR

part 51.371 within one year of EPA’s

final conditional approval.

Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve portions

and conditionally approve other

portions of this revision to the Illinois

SIP for an enhanced I/M program, as

cited above. If Illinois fails to timely

submit the materials discussed above

within one year of EPA’s final

conditional approval, the final

conditional approval will automatically

convert to a disapproval.

I. Basis for Conditional Approval

The EPA believes conditional

approval is appropriate in this case

because the State has the necessary legal

authority for an enhanced I/M program

and needs only to award the I/M

contract and amend current

administrative rules to address a

number of enhanced I/M program

requirements. As a condition of EPA’s

proposed conditional approval, the

State must submit a final signed I/M

contract as supplemental information in

support of the SIP and any additional

material necessary to address the

deficiencies identified in this document

to EPA no later than one year after

EPA’s final conditional approval. On

April 22, 1996, the IEPA submitted a

letter committing to this. In the letter

IEPA commits to provide EPA the

signed enhanced I/M contract, in

addition to provide appropriate

analyses, calculations, and rules as

discussed in a conference call on April

9, 1996 between IEPA and EPA. The

telephone conversation record of this

call will be included as part of the

Illinois SIP.

II. Statement of Approvability

Under the authority of the Governor

of Illinois, the IEPA submitted a SIP

revision to satisfy the requirements of

the I/M regulation to the EPA on June

29, 1995. EPA found the Illinois SIP

complete in a letter dated June 30, 1995.

The EPA has reviewed this submittal

and is proposing to approve portions

and proposing to conditionally approve

other portions of it pursuant to Section

110(k) of the Act, on the condition that

the portions of the I/M program noted

above are adopted and/or submitted on

the schedules noted in this proposed

rulemaking. If EPA takes final

conditional approval on the

commitment, the State must meet its

commitment to submit the final I/M

contract and all other supporting

documentation within one year of the

conditional approval. Once the EPA has

conditionally approved this committal,

if the State fails to submit any necessary

rules and/or documentation to EPA,

final conditional approval will

automatically convert to a disapproval.

EPA will notify the State by letter to this

effect. Once the SIP has been

disapproved, these commitments will

no longer be a part of the approved

nonattainment area SIPs. The EPA

subsequently will publish a notice to

this effect in the notice section of the

Federal Register indicating that the

commitment or commitments have been

disapproved and removed from the SIP.

If the State adopts and submits the final

rule amendments and the final I/M

contract, as supplemental information

in support of the SIP, to EPA within the

applicable time frame, the conditionally

approved commitments will remain part

of the SIP until the EPA takes final

action approving or disapproving the

new submittal. If the EPA approves the

subsequent submittal, those newly

approved rules and/or documentation

will become part of the SIP.

If after considering the comments on

the proposal, the EPA issues a final

disapproval or if the conditional

approval portions are converted to a

disapproval, the sanctions clock under

section 179(a) will begin. If the State

does not submit and EPA does not

approve the rule on which any

disapproval is based within 18 months

of the disapproval, the EPA must

impose one of the sanctions under

section 179(b)-highway funding

restrictions or the offset sanction. In

addition, any final disapproval would

start the 24 month clock for the

imposition of a section 110(c) Federal

Implementation Plan. Finally, under

section 110(m) the EPA has

discretionary authority to impose

sanctions at any time after a final

disapproval.

Regulatory Flexibility

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 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not
21412 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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, I

certify 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 regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’) (signed

into law on March 22, 1995) requires

that the EPA prepare a budgetary impact

statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditure by State,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Section 203 requires the EPA to

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing, educating, and advising

any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely affected by the

rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, the EPA must identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. The EPA must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless the EPA explains why

this alternative is not selected or the

selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because this proposed rule is

estimated to result in the expenditure by

State, local, and tribal governments or

the private sector of less then $100

million in any one year, the EPA has not

prepared a budgetary impact statement

or specifically addressed the selection of

the least costly, most cost-effective, or

least burdensome alternative. Because

small governments will not be

significantly or uniquely affected by this

rule, the EPA is not required to develop

a plan with regard to small

governments. It imposes no additional

requirements. The Office of

Management and Budget has exempted

this action rule from Executive Order

12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Nitrogen Oxide, Ozone, Volatile Organic

Compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 29, 1996.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11758 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[WI67–01–7276; FRL–5501–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes approval

of a revision to the Wisconsin State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the

requirements of the EPA transportation

conformity rule set forth at 40 CFR part

51 subpart T—Conformity to State or

Federal Implementation Plans of

Transportation Plans, Programs, and

Projects Developed, Funded or

Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the

Federal Transit Act. The transportation

conformity SIP revision will enable the

State of Wisconsin to implement and

enforce the Federal transportation

conformity requirements at the State or

local level in accordance with 40 CFR

51.396(b). This notice of approval is

limited only to 40 CFR part 51, subpart

T (transportation conformity). SIP

revisions submitted under 40 CFR part

51, subpart W, relating to conformity of

general Federal actions, will be

addressed in a separate EPA notice. This

notice provides the rationale for the

proposed approval and other

information.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received by June 10,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), USEPA,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604–3590. Copies of

the SIP revision, public comments and

EPA’s responses are available for

inspection at the following address:

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is

recommended that you telephone

Michael Leslie at (312) 353–6680 before

visiting the Region 5 Office.)

A copy of this SIP revision is

available for inspection at the following

location: Office of Air and Radiation

(OAR) Docket and Information Center

(Air Docket 6102), room M1500, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20460, (202) 260–7548.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael G. Leslie, Regulation

Development Section (AR–18J), Air

Programs Branch, Air and Radiation

Division, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, Telephone Number (312) 353–

6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7506(c), provides

that no Federal department, agency, or

instrumentality shall engage in, support

in any way or provide financial

assistance for, license or permit, or

approve any activity which does not

conform to a SIP which has been

approved or promulgated pursuant to

the CAA. Conformity is defined as

conformity to the SIP’s purpose of

eliminating or reducing the severity and

number of violations of the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards and

achieving expeditious attainment of

such standards, and that such activities

will not: (1) Cause or contribute to any

new violation of any standard in any

area, (2) increase the frequency or

severity of any existing violation of any

standard in any area, or (3) delay timely

attainment of any standard or any

required interim emission reductions or

other milestones in any area.

Section 176(c)(4)(A) of the CAA

requires EPA to promulgate criteria and

procedures for determining conformity

of all Federal actions (transportation

and general) to applicable SIPs. The

EPA published the final transportation

conformity rules in the November 24,

1993, Federal Register and codified

them at 40 CFR part 51 subpart T—

Conformity to State or Federal

Implementation Plans of Transportation

Plans, Programs, and Projects

Developed, Funded or Approved Under

Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit

Act. The conformity rules require States

and local agencies to adopt and submit

to the EPA a transportation conformity

SIP revision not later than November 24,

1994. This notice does not address the

conformity requirements applicable to

general Federal actions which are set

forth at 40 CFR part 51 subpart W. The

EPA will take action on SIP revisions