[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-17299]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 15, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[M129-01-6416; FRL-5013-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; Revision to the State Implementation Plan Vehicle Inspection
and Maintenance Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve portions and
to conditionally approve other portions of a revision to the Michigan
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for ozone. On November 12, 1993, Michigan
submitted a SIP revision request to the EPA to satisfy the requirements
of sections 182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1990 (CAA or Act), and the Federal motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) rule at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S. This revision
establishes and requires the implementation of an I/M program in the
Grand Rapids and Muskegon ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA's final
action to approve or conditionally approve portions of the State's SIP
revision is dependent upon the materials submitted to EPA 2 weeks prior
to the close of the public comment period. Alternatively, should the
State fail to timely submit the items described below, EPA is proposing
to disapprove the SIP submission.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Carlton Nash, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
Air Toxics and Radiation Branch, Regulation Development Section, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available at
the above address for public inspection during normal business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad J. Beeson, (312) 353-4779.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Introduction
The CAA requires States to make changes to improve existing I/M
programs or implement new ones. Section 182 requires any ozone
nonattainment area which has been classified as ``marginal'' (pursuant
to section 181(a) of the CAA) or worse with an existing I/M program
that was part of a SIP, or any area that was required by the 1977
Amendments to the CAA to have an I/M program, to immediately submit a
SIP revision to bring the program up to the level required in past EPA
guidance or to what had been committed to previously in the SIP,
whichever was more stringent. All carbon monoxide nonattainment areas
were also subject to this requirement to improve existing or previously
required programs to this level. In addition, all ozone nonattainment
areas classified as moderate or worse must implement a ``basic'' or an
``enhanced'' I/M program depending upon its classification, regardless
of previous requirements.
In addition, Congress directed the EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to
publish updated guidance for State I/M programs, taking into
consideration findings of the Administrator's audits and investigations
of these programs. The States were to incorporate this guidance into
the SIP for all areas required by the CAA to have an I/M program.
II. Background
The State of Michigan currently contains 3 ozone nonattainment
areas which are required to implement I/M programs in accordance with
the Act. The Detroit-Ann Arbor ozone nonattainment area is classified
as moderate and contains the following 7 counties: Wayne, Oakland,
Macomb, Washtenaw, St. Clair, Livingston, and Monroe. The Grand Rapids
ozone nonattainment area is classified as moderate and contains 2
counties: Kent and Ottawa. The Muskegon ozone nonattainment area is
classified as moderate and is comprised of Muskegon county. These
designations for ozone were published in the Federal Register (FR) on
November 6, 1991 and November 30, 1992 and have been codified in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991)
and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992), codified at 40 CFR 81.300-81.437.
III. I/M Regulation General SIP Submittal Requirements
On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), the EPA published a final
regulation establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to sections 182
and 187 of the CAA. The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart S, and requires States to submit an I/M SIP revision which
includes all necessary legal authority and the items specified in 40
CFR 51 by November 15, 1993.
Pursuant to these requirements, the State of Michigan was required
to submit a SIP revision that requires the establishment and
implementation of a ``basic'' I/M program in the Detroit-Ann Arbor,
Grand Rapids, and Muskegon nonattainment areas by November 15, 1993.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This rulemaking is limited to the Grand Rapids and Muskegon
nonattainment areas. The I/M program in the Detroit-Ann Arbor
nonattainment will be addressed in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. State Submittal
On November 12, 1993, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) submitted to the EPA a revision that provided for an I/M program
in Western Michigan (i.e., the Grand Rapids and Muskegon nonattainment
areas). Under the requirements of the EPA completeness review
procedures (40 CFR 51 Appendix V) and the requirements of section
110(k) of the CAA, the submittal was deemed complete by EPA on April
18, 1994.
In Western Michigan, the State will be implementing a biennial,
``test-only''
I/M program which meets the requirements of the EPA's ``enhanced''
performance standard and other requirements contained in the Federal
I/M rule in the applicable nonattainment counties. The Michigan
Department of Transportation (MDOT) has sole responsibility for
implementing the program, while the MDNR is responsible for enforcement
of the program. In addition, the State will enter into a contractual
agreement with a centralized contractor to provide the network of
services required to operate a program. Other aspects of the Western
Michigan I/M program include: testing of 1975 and later light duty
vehicles and trucks and heavy duty trucks, evaporative emission testing
for 1975 and later model year vehicles, a test fee to ensure the State
has adequate resources to implement the program, enforcement by
registration denial, a repair effectiveness program, contractual
requirements for testing convenience, quality assurance, data
collection, minimum expenditure waivers, reporting, test equipment and
test procedure specifications, public information and consumer
protection, and inspector training and certification, and contractual
requirements for a Total Quality Management Plan between the State and
the centralized contractor.
V. The EPA's Analysis of the Western Michigan I/M Program
The EPA has reviewed the State's submittal for consistency with the
statutory requirements of EPA regulations. A summary of the EPA's
analysis is provided below. More detailed support for approval of the
State's submittal is contained in a Technical Support Document (TSD),
dated May 31, 1994, which is available from the Region 5 Office, listed
above.
A. Applicability
The SIP needs to describe the applicable areas in detail and,
consistent with 57 FR 51.350, needs to include the legal authority or
rules necessary to establish program boundaries.
The Western Michigan I/M legislation specifies that an I/M program
be implemented in Kent, Ottawa, and Muskegon counties, as required.
B. I/M Performance Standard
The SIP revision provides for an I/M program in Western Michigan
that meets the ``enhanced'' I/M performance standard. The State elected
to design a program meeting the ``enhanced'' performance standard as a
means of meeting other requirements associated with the CAA (e.g.,
section 182(b)(1), Reasonable Further Progress). The performance
standard sets an emission reduction target that must be met by a
program in order for the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also
provide that the program will meet the performance standard in actual
operation, with provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard
is not met.
The State has submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA
computer model MOBILE5a showing that the ``enhanced'' performance
standard is met.
C. Network Type and Program Evaluation
The SIP needs to include a description of the network to be
employed, the required legal authority, and in the case of areas making
claims for case-by-case equivalency, the required demonstration. Also,
for areas implementing ``enhanced'' I/M programs, the SIP needs to
include a description of the evaluation schedule and protocol, the
sampling methodology, the data collection and analysis system, the
resources and personnel for evaluation, and related details of the
evaluation program, and the legal authority enabling the evaluation
program.
The State has chosen to implement a ``centralized'' I/M network
program design which will utilize a centralized contractor to implement
the inspection portion of the program. The State has chosen not to make
a demonstration for case-by-case equivalency for a different network
design.
The MDNR describes and commits, in its SIP narrative, to institute
a continuous ongoing evaluation program consistent with the Federal I/M
rule. The results of the evaluation program will be reported to the EPA
on a biennial basis. Legal authority, which is contained in the H.B.
4165, authorizes the MDNR to implement this contractor operated
centralized program and conduct the program evaluation.
D. Adequate Tools and Resources
The SIP needs to include a description of the resources that will
be used for program operation, and discuss how the performance standard
will be met, which includes: (1) a detailed budget plan which describes
the source of funds for personnel, program administration, program
enforcement, purchase of necessary equipment (such as vehicles for
undercover audits), and any other requirements discussed throughout,
for the period prior to the next biennial self-evaluation required in
the Federal I/M rule, (2) a description of personnel resources, the
number of personnel dedicated to overt and covert auditing, data
analysis, program administration, enforcement, and other necessary
functions and the training attendant to each function.
The adopted legislation for the Western Michigan program, H.B.
4165, provides for a $24 per vehicle inspection fee which is adjusted
annually for inflation. Of this $24 fee, no less than $3 will be
devoted to oversight and management of the program. The SIP narrative
also describes the budget, staffing support, and equipment needed to
implement the program. The State expects to dedicate a staffing level
of 12 full-time equivalent employees to support the program.
E. Test Frequency and Convenience
The SIP needs to include the test schedule in detail including the
test year selection scheme if testing is other than annual. Also, the
SIP needs to include the legal authority necessary to implement and
enforce the test frequency requirement and explain how the test
frequency will be integrated with the enforcement process. In addition,
for ``enhanced'' I/M programs, the SIP needs to demonstrate that the
network of stations providing test services is sufficient to insure
short waiting times to get a test and short driving distances.
The SIP revision for Western Michigan requires biennial inspections
for all subject motor vehicles. For new vehicles, the first test is
required for re-registration, 2 years after initial titling. For
vehicles already titled at the time of program start-up, inspections
are required within 30 days prior to the anniversary of initial
titling. Newly registered used vehicles are required to be inspected
within thirty days of being registered initially in the State. The
inspections will be conducted on odd or even years corresponding to the
model year of the vehicle and timed with the registration process which
is explained in the SIP submittal. The authority for the enforcement of
the testing frequency is contained in the Western Michigan I/M
legislation.
Short waiting times and short driving distances relating to network
design are addressed in the contract between the State and its managing
contractor. The State is contractually requiring that the monthly
average waiting time shall not exceed 15 minutes more than 4 times in a
month. In addition, the location of stations shall be such that 70
percent of the vehicle population must be within 5 miles of an
inspection station, and that 90 percent of the vehicle population must
be within 12 miles of an inspection station.
F. Vehicle Coverage
The SIP needs to include 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.
Also, the SIP needs to include a description of any special exemptions
which will be granted by the program, and an estimate of the percentage
and number of subject vehicles which will be impacted. Such exemptions
need to be accounted for in the emission reduction analysis. In
addition, the SIP needs to include the legal authority or rule
necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage requirement.
The Western Michigan program includes coverage of all 1975 and
newer model year gasoline powered light-duty vehicles and light-duty
and heavy-duty trucks, registered or required to be registered within
the nonattainment areas and fleets primarily operated within an I/M
program area. Vehicles will be identified through the MDOT vehicle
registration database. Only the following vehicles are exempt from the
I/M requirement: historic vehicles, diesel vehicles, dedicated
alternative fuel vehicles, electric vehicles, motorcycles, and vehicles
used for covert monitoring of inspection station facilities. The State
has estimated exempted vehicles to account for 0.3 percent of the total
vehicle population. The legal authority for the vehicle coverage is
contained in the H.B. 4165.
G. Test Procedures and Standards
The SIP needs to include a description of each test procedure used.
The SIP also needs to include the rule, ordinance, or law describing
and establishing the test procedures.
The Western Michigan I/M SIP obligates the State to do IM240
testing in accordance with the EPA's guidance document entitled ``High-
Tech I/M Test Procedures, Emission Standards, Quality Control
Requirements, and Equipment Specifications'' (Technical Guidance). The
State will be requiring IM240 tests on 1981 and later model year
vehicles. This model year coverage complies with the EPA's I/M
regulation. All 1975 and later model year vehicles not receiving an
IM240 test will receive a loaded 2 speed test in accordance with the
EPA's test procedures contained in the appendices of the Federal I/M
rule. The test procedures are specifically and legally established in
the Request For Proposal (RFP), which the Western Michigan I/M
contractor is required to abide by.
H. Test Equipment
The SIP needs to include written technical specifications for all
test equipment used in the program and shall address each of the
requirements in 57 FR 51.358 of the Federal I/M rule. The
specifications need to describe the emission analysis process, the
necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance
testing criteria and procedures.
The Western Michigan I/M SIP revision obligates the State to use
the written equipment specifications contained in the EPA's IM240
Technical Guidance and appendices of the Federal I/M rule. Michigan's
RFP sufficiently addresses the requirements in 40 FR 51.358 and
includes descriptions of performance features and functional
characteristics of the computerized test systems. The necessary test
equipment, required features, and acceptance testing criteria are also
mandated in the RFP.
I. Quality Control
The SIP needs to include a description of quality control and
record keeping procedures. The SIP needs to include the procedures
manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and establishing the
procedures of quality control and requirements.
The Western Michigan SIP narrative and RFP contain descriptions and
requirements establishing the quality control procedures in accordance
with the Federal I/M rule. These requirements will help ensure that
equipment calibrations are properly performed and recorded as well as
maintaining compliance document security. The quality control
procedures manual is contained in the RFP. The Western Michigan SIP
revision obligates the State to comply with all specifications for all
quality control in accordance with the Federal I/M rule.
J. Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection
The SIP needs to include a maximum waiver rate expressed as a
percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver rate needs to be
used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling
analysis. Also, the State needs to take corrective action if the waiver
rate exceeds that estimated in the SIP or revise the SIP and the
emission reductions claimed accordingly. In addition, the SIP needs to
describe the waiver criteria and procedures, including cost limits,
quality assurance methods and measures, and administration. Lastly, the
SIP shall include the necessary legal authority, ordinance, or rules to
issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out
any other functions necessary to administer the waiver system,
including enforcement of the waiver provisions.
The Western Michigan I/M program includes a waiver rate as a
percentage of initially failed vehicles of 6 percent. This waiver rate
is used in the modeling demonstration. In the SIP narrative, the State
of Michigan commits to take corrective action if the actual waiver rate
rises above 6 percent. The SIP provides for only 1 type of waiver, that
being based on a minimum repair expenditure. This waiver is consistent
with the Federal I/M rule. The proper criteria, procedures, quality
assurance and administration regarding the issuance of waivers will be
ensured by MDOT and the managing contractor and are contained in the
SIP narrative and RFP. The waiver criteria are contained in both the
State's legislation and the RFP. The State has established a minimum
$300 expenditure for the issuance of a waiver. This minimum limit is in
accordance with the CAA and Federal I/M rule.
K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement
The SIP needs to provide information concerning the enforcement
process including: (1) a description of the existing compliance
mechanism, if it is to be used in the future, and the demonstration
that it is as effective or more effective than registration-denial
enforcement; (2) an identification of the agencies responsible for
performing each of the applicable activities in this section; (3) a
description of and accounting for all classes of exempt vehicles; and
(4) a description of the plan for testing fleet vehicles, rental car
fleets, leased vehicles, and any other special classes of subject
vehicles, e.g., those operated in (but not necessarily registered in)
the program area. Also, the SIP needs to include a determination of the
current compliance rate based on a study of the system that includes an
estimate of compliance losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and
unregistered vehicles. Estimates of the effect of closing such
loopholes and otherwise improving the enforcement mechanism need to be
supported with detailed analyses. In addition, the SIP needs to include
the legal authority to implement and enforce the program. Lastly, the
SIP needs to include a commitment to an enforcement level, at a
minimum, in practice.
The State has chosen to use registration-denial as its primary
enforcement mechanism. Motorists will be denied vehicle registration
unless the vehicle has complied with the I/M program requirements. The
motorist compliance enforcement program will be implemented in part, by
the MDOT in conjunction with the Michigan Department of State. The
Michigan State Police and local police departments will take the lead
in citing motorists who fail to comply with the registration
requirement. In addition, parking meter attendants also have the
authority to ticket parked vehicles with expired or otherwise invalid
license plates.
Only the following vehicles types are exempt from the I/M
requirement: historic vehicles, diesel vehicles, dedicated alternative
fuel vehicles, electric vehicles, motorcycles, and vehicles used for
covert monitoring of inspection station facilities. The State has
estimated exempted vehicles to account for 0.3 percent of the total
vehicle population.
Fleet vehicles, rental car fleets, and leased vehicles that do not
receive an annual registration will be required to meet the same
program requirements as all other vehicles that receive annual
registration. The project compliance rate is estimated to be 97
percent. The State commits to revise the I/M SIP if the State fails to
meet the 97 percent compliance rate.
The legal authority to implement and enforce the program is
included in H.B. 4165.
L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight
The SIP needs to include a description of enforcement program
oversight and information management activities.
The Western Michigan SIP revision provides for regular auditing of
its enforcement program and the following of effective management
practices, including adjustments to improve the program when necessary.
These program oversight and information management activities are
described in the SIP narrative and RFP which include: the establishment
of written procedures for personnel engaged in I/M document handling
and processing and the use of a bar-coded data entry system for
tracking program documents.
However, the submittal does not include, for example, the
procedures through which the activities of enforcement personnel are
quality-controlled, as described in 40 CFR part 51.362. Therefore, EPA
proposes to approve this portion of the State's submittal if Michigan
submits the necessary materials in time to allow EPA to place it in the
docket 2 weeks prior to the close of the public comment period. If
Michigan cannot submit the necessary materials, but does submit a
commitment to complete the necessary materials within 1 year of EPA's
final rulemaking, EPA proposes to conditionally approve this portion of
the State's submittal. Alternatively, if the State does not submit any
materials 2 weeks prior to the close of the public comment period, EPA
proposes to disapprove the SIP as failing to comply with section 110
and Part D. In order to receive final full approval, the State must
submit its final, signed contract addressing the requirements of 40 CFR
part 51.362 to EPA prior to final rulemaking.
M. Quality Assurance
The SIP needs to include a description of the quality assurance
program, and written procedures manuals covering both overt and covert
performance audits, record audits, and equipment audits.
The Western Michigan I/M SIP revision includes a description of its
quality assurance program. The program includes operation and progress
reports and overt and covert audits of all emission inspectors and
emission inspection and referee facilities. The program will be
conducted by a contractor with oversight provisions reserved to the
State. Procedures and techniques for overt and covert performance,
record, and equipment audits will be given to auditors and updated as
needed. In addition, all program auditors will themselves be audited at
least once per year.
N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors
The SIP needs to include the penalty schedule and the legal
authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines, license
suspension, and revocations. In the case of State constitutional
impediments to immediate suspension authority, the State Attorney
General shall furnish an official opinion for the SIP explaining the
constitutional impediment as well as relevant case law. Also, the SIP
needs to describe the administrative and judicial procedures and
responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which
agencies, courts, and jurisdictions are involved; who will prosecute
and adjudicate cases; and other aspects of the enforcement of the
program requirements, the resources to be allocated to this function,
and the source of those funds. In States without immediate suspension
authority, the SIP needs to demonstrate that sufficient resources,
personnel, and systems are in place to meet the 3 day case management
requirement for violations that directly affect emission reductions.
The Western Michigan SIP revision incorporates an innovative method
for ensuring that the I/M program will be run effectively. The State
will require the contractor to become part of the MDOT's Total Quality
Management (TQM) program.
However, while the State's submittal includes the legislative
authority for enforcement against contractors, the submittal does not
include, for example, a penalty schedule for those persons found in
violation of the rules of the
I/M program, as described in 40 CFR part 51.364. Therefore, EPA
proposes to approve this portion of the State's submittal if Michigan
submits the necessary materials in time to allow EPA to place it in the
docket 2 weeks prior to the close of the public comment period. If
Michigan cannot submit the necessary materials, but does submit a
commitment to complete the necessary materials within 1 year of EPA's
final rulemaking, EPA proposes to conditionally approve this portion of
the State's submittal. Alternatively, if the State does not submit any
materials 2 weeks prior to the close of the public comment period, EPA
proposes to disapprove the SIP as failing to comply with section 110
and Part D. In order to receive final full approval, the State must
submit its final, signed contract addressing the requirements of 40 CFR
part 51.364 to EPA prior to final rulemaking.
O. Data Collection
Accurate data collection is essential to the management, evaluation
and enforcement of an I/M program. The Federal I/M regulation requires
data to be gathered on each individual test conducted and on the
results of the quality control checks of test equipment required under
40 CFR Part 51.359. The SIP needs to describe the types of data to be
collected.
The Western Michigan I/M SIP revision provides for the collecting
and storage of test data consistent with the Federal I/M rule. The
information contained within each test report is such that it will be
possible to unambiguously tie specific test results to a specific
vehicle, test site, and inspector. The State also commits to gather,
summarize, and report the results of quality control checks performed
on testing equipment, sorted according to station number, system
number, date, the concentration values of the calibration gases used
and the start time of the quality control check.
P. Data Analysis and Reporting
Data analysis and reporting are required to allow for monitoring an
evaluation of the program by the State and the EPA. The Federal I/M
regulation requires annual reports to be submitted which provide
information and statistics and summarize activities performed for each
of the following programs: testing, quality assurance, quality control,
and enforcement. These reports are to be submitted by July and shall
provide statistics for the period of January to December of the
previous year. A biennial report shall be submitted to the EPA which
addresses changes in program design, regulations, legal authority,
program procedures and any weaknesses in the program found during the
previous 2 year period and how these problems will be or were
corrected.
Under the Western Michigan SIP revision, the State will address all
the data elements and reporting requirements listed in 57 FR 51.366.
Q. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification
The SIP needs to include a description of the training program, the
written and ``hands-on'' tests, and the licensing or certification
process.
The Western Michigan I/M SIP revision provides for the
implementation of training, certification, and refresher programs for
emission inspectors. The SIP describes the program and curriculum which
include written and ``hands-on'' testing at least every 2 years. All
inspectors will be required to be certified to inspect vehicles in the
Western Michigan I/M program.
R. Public Information and Consumer Protection
The SIP must include public information and consumer protection
programs.
The Western Michigan SIP revision includes a provision in the RFP
for the contractor to develop a public information program which
educates the public on I/M, State and Federal regulations, air quality
and the role of motor vehicles in the air pollution problem, and other
items as described in the Federal rule. The consumer protection program
includes a number of provisions for a challenge mechanism, protection
of whistle blowers, and assistance to motorists in obtaining warranty
covered repairs will also be further developed in the final contract.
However, the State's submittal does not include a provision to
provide motorists that fail the emissions test to automatically receive
test repair facility performance data and diagnostic information, as
described in 40 CFR part 51.368. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve
this portion of the State's submittal if Michigan submits the necessary
materials in time to allow EPA to place it in the docket 2 weeks prior
to the close of the public comment period. If Michigan cannot submit
the necessary materials, but does submit a commitment to complete the
necessary materials within 1 year of EPA's final rulemaking, EPA
proposes to conditionally approve this portion of the State's
submittal. Alternatively, if the State does not submit any materials 2
weeks prior to the close of the public comment period, EPA proposes to
disapprove the SIP as failing to comply with section 110 and Part D. In
order to receive final full approval, the State must submit its final,
signed contract addressing the requirements of 40 CFR part 51.368 to
EPA prior to final rulemaking.
S. Improving Repair Effectiveness
The SIP needs to 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 of this
section for ``enhanced'' I/M programs, and a description of the repair
technician training resources available in the community.
The Western Michigan I/M SIP revision includes a description of the
technical assistance and repair technician training programs to be
implemented. The State has committed to meeting the applicable
technical assistance requirements of 40 CFR part 51.369, and to that
end require the contract to be entered into will sufficiently address
the Federal I/M rule requirements. The MDOT will also ensure that a
repair technician hotline will be available for repair technicians. The
State will also ensure that adequate repair technician training exists
prior to the beginning of testing in January 1995.
However the submittal does not provide for a system of repair
facility performance monitoring, as described in 40 CFR part 51.369.
Therefore, EPA proposes to approve this portion of the State's
submittal if Michigan submits the necessary materials in time to allow
EPA to place it in the docket 2 weeks prior to the close of the public
comment period. If Michigan cannot submit the necessary materials, but
does submit a commitment to complete the necessary materials within 1
year of EPA's final rulemaking, EPA proposes to conditionally approve
this portion of the State's submittal. Alternatively, if the State does
not submit any materials 2 weeks prior to the close of the public
comment period, EPA proposes to disapprove the SIP as failing to comply
with section 110 and Part D. In order to receive final full approval,
the State must submit its final, signed contract addressing the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51.369 to EPA prior to final rulemaking.
T. Compliance with Recall Notices
For areas implementing ``enhanced'' I/M programs, the SIP needs to
describe the procedures used to incorporate the vehicle recall lists
provided into the inspection or registration database, the quality
control methods used to insure that recall repairs are properly
documented and tracked, and the method (inspection failure or
registration denial) used to enforce the recall requirements.
The State's submittal does not sufficiently address all the aspects
of this requirement as described in 40 CFR part 51.370. Therefore, EPA
proposes to approve this portion of the State's submittal if Michigan
submits the necessary materials in time to allow EPA to place it in the
docket 2 weeks prior to the close of the public comment period. If
Michigan cannot submit the necessary materials, but does submit a
commitment to complete the necessary materials within 1 year of EPA's
final rulemaking, EPA proposes to conditionally approve this portion of
the State's submittal. Alternatively, if the State does not submit any
materials 2 weeks prior to the close of the public comment period, EPA
proposes to disapprove the SIP as failing to comply with section 110
and Part D. In order to receive final full approval, the State must
submit its final, signed contract addressing the requirements of 40 CFR
part 51.370 to EPA prior to final rulemaking.
U. On-road Testing
For areas that are classified as serious or above for ozone
nonattainment, the SIP needs to include a detailed description of the
on-road testing program.
Because the nonattainment areas in Western Michigan are classified
as moderate, this particular I/M requirement is not applicable to the
Western Michigan I/M program. However, the State does have the
authority to implement on-road testing on a discretionary basis.
V. State Implementation Plan Submissions/Implementation Deadlines
The Federal I/M rule requires areas starting new test-only programs
to be fully implemented by January 1, 1995.
The Western Michigan I/M SIP revision provides that the program
will begin operation by January 1, 1995.
T. Concluding Statement
A more detailed analysis of the State's submittal and how it meets
the Federal requirements is contained in the EPA's TSD dated May 31,
1994, which is available from the Region 5 office listed above. The
criteria used to review the submitted SIP revision are based on the
requirements stated in section 182 of the CAA and the Federal I/M
regulations. Based on these requirements, the EPA developed a detailed
I/M approvability checklist to be used nationally to determine if I/M
programs meet the requirements of the CAA and the Federal I/M rule.
This checklist, based on the CAA and Federal I/M regulations, formed
the primary basis for the EPA's technical review.
The EPA has reviewed the Western Michigan I/M SIP revision
submitted to the EPA, using the criteria stated above. The H.B. 4165,
RFP, and accompanying materials contained in the SIP represent an
acceptable approach to the I/M requirements and meet all the criteria
required for approvability with the exceptions noted above.
Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve portions the Western Michigan I/M
SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the CAA and the Federal I/M
rule and for the deficient portions of the State's submittal noted
above, approve those portions which the State submits 2 weeks before
the close of the official comment period and conditionally approve
those portions which the State submits a commitment to complete within
1 year of EPA's final rulemaking, or alternatively if the State takes
neither of the above actions to remedy the submittal's deficiencies,
EPA proposes to disapprove the SIP as failing to comply with section
110 and Part D. The EPA requests comments on this proposal including
the EPA's proposal to approve the I/M SIP for Western Michigan as
meeting the requirements of the CAA and Federal I/M rule. As indicated
at the outset of this action, the EPA will consider any comments
received by [insert date 30 days from date of publication] and make the
TSD available upon request.
I. Basis for Conditional Approval
The EPA believes conditional approval is appropriate in this case
because the State has developed final, fully adopted legislative
authority for the ``enhanced'' I/M program and needs only to supplement
its submittal to address a number of the I/M program requirements. As a
condition of EPA's proposed conditional approval, the State must submit
a final, fully adopted contract or rules to EPA no later than 1 year
after EPA's final conditional approval.
II. Statement of Approvability
Under the authority of the Governor, the MDNR submitted a SIP
revision to satisfy the requirements of the I/M regulation to the EPA
on November 15, 1993. The Agency has reviewed this submittal and is
proposing to approve portions and proposing to conditionally approve
other portions of it pursuant to Sections 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 the State fails to timely submit the required regulations and
other material or commit to do so within 1 year of EPA's final
conditional approval, EPA proposes in the alternative to disapprove the
SIP as failing to comply with section 110 and Part D.
If the EPA takes final conditional approval on the commitment, the
State must meet its commitment to adopt and submit the final rule or
contract amendments within 1 year of the conditional approval. Once the
EPA has conditionally approved this committal, if the State fails to
adopt or submit the required rules or contract to EPA, final approval
will become 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 or contract amendments to the 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 or contract will become a part of
the SIP.
If after considering 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.
This clock will begin on the effective date of the final disapproval or
at the time the EPA notifies the State by letter that a conditional
approval has been converted to a disapproval. If the State does not
submit and the EPA does not approve the rule on which the disapproval
was based within 18 months of the disapproval, the EPA must impose 1 of
the sanctions under section 179(b)--highway funding restrictions or the
offset sanction. In addition, the final disapproval starts 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.
Procedural Background
The OMB has exempted this rule from the requirements of section 6
of Executive Order 12866.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the 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, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have an
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the Act
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not impose any new requirements, 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 Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Act forbids the 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. Sec. 7410(a)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: July 6, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-17299 Filed 7-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
