[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