[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 150 (Friday, August 5, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19183]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 5, 1994]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 
[MN32-1-6373; FRL-5028-4] 
 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Minnesota 
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 10, 1992, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 
(MPCA) submitted a SIP revision which included two elements: (1) a 
commitment from the Governor or his designee to the timely adoption and 
implementation of an I/M program meeting all requirements of the I/M 
regulation; and (2) a schedule of implementation. On December 15, 1993, 
the MPCA fulfilled its commitment by submitting proposed revisions to 
its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for carbon monoxide (CO) to USEPA 
for approval. The submittal requests approval of its basic inspection 
and maintenance (I/M) program which applies to the Twin Cities seven 
county metropolitan area. The Twin Cities seven county metropolitan 
area, which includes Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and 
Washington Counties, has been classified as moderate nonattainment for 
carbon monoxide. Therefore, Section 187 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
requires the State to submit a basic I/M SIP. In this action, the USEPA 
is proposing conditional approval of the State's basic I/M program 
submittal.

DATES: Comments on this requested revision and on the proposed USEPA 
action must be received by September 6, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision request and USEPA's analysis are 
available for inspection at the following address: (It is recommended 
that you telephone Gina Smith at (312) 886-7018, before visiting the 
Region 5 office.) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air 
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 
60604.
    Written comments should be sent to: William L. MacDowell, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Smith, Regulation Development 
Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7018.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 187(a)(4) of the CAA, as amended in 1990, requires States 
with areas designated moderate nonattainment for CO to make changes to 
improve existing I/M programs or implement new ones. Section 
182(a)(2)(B) requires USEPA to review, revise, update, and republish in 
the Federal Register guidance for State motor vehicle I/M programs. On 
November 5, 1992, (57 FR 52950), USEPA published a final rule 
establishing performance standards and other requirements for basic and 
enhanced I/M programs.
    The November 5, 1992, I/M Regulation required each State that must 
implement an I/M program to submit by November 15, 1992, a SIP revision 
including two elements: (1) A commitment from the Governor or his 
designee to the timely adoption and implementation of an I/M program 
meeting all requirements of the I/M regulation; and (2) a schedule of 
implementation. A memorandum dated December 11, 1992, from Phil Lorang, 
Director, Emission Planning and Strategies Division outlines the 
elements that a State's schedule of implementation must include for 
acceptability. These elements include:
    1. Passage of enabling statutory or other legal authority;
    2. Proposal of draft regulations and promulgation of final 
regulations;
    3. Issuance of final specifications and procedures;
    4. Issuance of final request for Proposals (if applicable);
    5. Licensing or certification of stations and inspectors;
    6. The date mandatory testing will begin for each model year to be 
covered by the program;
    7. The date full-stringency cut-points will take effect; and
    8. All other relevant dates.
    Following publication of the I/M program final rule (57 FR 52950), 
the USEPA also made available to States a document entitled, Checklist 
for Completing the Inspection/Maintenance SIP (Checklist). The 
Checklist was developed to assist States in the development of I/M SIPs 
and outlines in detail the criteria the I/M SIP submittals must satisfy 
in order to be approved for incorporation into a State's federally 
approved SIP.

II. Summary of State Submittal

    In 1988 the MPCA was authorized and directed by the State 
legislature to adopt rules establishing an I/M program in the Twin 
Cities seven county metropolitan area. As required by Minnesota Statute 
Section 116.62, the MPCA adopted Minnesota Rules parts 7023.1010 to 
7023.1105, which established standards and criteria governing the 
testing and inspection of motor vehicles for CO and hydrocarbon 
emissions in the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area. Vehicle 
testing began on July 1, 1991.
    Upon publication of the USEPA's final rule for I/M Programs (57 FR 
52950), the MPCA recognized the need to amend the rules for operation 
of the State's I/M program. The State submitted a committal SIP on 
November 10, 1992. Additional information was provided on December 14, 
1992, on January 6, 1993, and on February 22, 1993. A public hearing on 
the committal SIP was held by the State on February 22, 1993. The 
submittal includes a commitment for the adoption and implementation of 
an I/M program meeting all requirements of the I/M regulation and the 
CAA, a schedule of implementation which contained the elements 
described in Phil Lorang's December 11, 1992 memorandum, and a 
submittal date to USEPA of November 15, 1993.
    On November 15, 1993, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) 
submitted the first of two parts of its State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
revision request for the Twin Cities seven country metropolitan area I/
M program. The second part of the revision request, consisting of the 
public hearing notice, was received by USEPA on December 15, 1993. The 
submittal requests approval of the Minnesota I/M program which has been 
operating in the Twin Cities metropolitan area since July 1, 1991. The 
seven county metropolitan area includes Anoka, Carver, Dakota, 
Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties, which have been 
designated moderate nonattainment for carbon monoxide (CO).

III. Review of State Submittal

    The basic I/M program SIP submittal has been reviewed against the 
requirements of the November 5, 1992, final rule and approvability 
criteria of the USEPA Checklist. An analysis of whether the Minnesota 
basic I/M program satisfies the requirements of the final rule and 
Checklist is provided below.

Applicability

    Section 51.350 of the final rule requires I/M SIP submittals to 
describe the applicable areas in detail and to include the legal 
authority or rules necessary to establish program boundaries. The Twin 
Cities seven county metropolitan area has been classified as moderate 
nonattainment for CO and has a design value less than 12.7 ppm. 
Therefore, the area is required to implement a Basic I/M program as 
part of the State's CO SIP.
    On April 8, 1988 Minnesota Statute Secs. 116.60-116.65 was enacted 
by the Minnesota legislature, establishing a basic I/M program in the 
Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area and directing MPCA to 
develop and adopt administrative rules to govern the I/M program. 
Minnesota Rules parts 7023.1010--7023.1105 were adopted by the MPCA 
Citizen's Board on July 25, 1989. Minnesota's centralized I/M program 
has been in operation since July 1991. The geographic coverage of the 
program complies with the requirements of the Federal I/M rule and is 
approvable.

Basic I/M Performance Standard

    Section 51.352 outlines the method States are to follow to arrive 
at a minimum performance standard. The performance standard sets an 
emission reduction target that the program must meet in order for the 
SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also demonstrate that the program 
will meet the performance standard in actual operation, with provisions 
for appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met.
    The performance standard for which the MPCA must be able to 
demonstrate compliance was established using the Mobile 5a model inputs 
and local characteristics outlined at Sec. 51.352(a)(1)-(12). CO 
nonattainment areas are required to demonstrate compliance with the 
performance standard by 1996. The State has submitted a modeling 
demonstration using the EPA computer model Mobile 5a demonstrating 
compliance with the basic performance standard.

Network Type and Evaluation

    Section 51.353 of the final rule requires SIPs to include a 
description of the network to be employed, the required legal 
authority, and a description of the evaluation schedule and protocol, 
sampling methodology, the data collection and analysis system, the 
resources and personnel for evaluation, and related details of the 
evaluation program. Areas that are required to implement basic I/M 
programs can at their own discretion choose between a centralized, 
decentralized, or hybrid testing network as long as the program 
demonstrates compliance with the performance standard of Section 
51.352.
    Through a contractual agreement, Minnesota operates a centralized 
program, consisting of eleven inspection stations with 46 testing 
lanes. The MPCA compiles data on failure rate, compliance rate, the 
number of certificates issued, and other similar matters and publishes 
an annual report on the I/M program.

Adequate Tools & Resources

    Section 51.354 requires States to demonstrate that the appropriate 
administrative, budgetary, personnel, and equipment resources have been 
allocated for the I/M program and discuss how the performance standard 
will be met. Appendix 10 of the submittal contains the fiscal year 1994 
budget for the I/M program. The submittal also provides a description 
of the program staffing levels and equipment resources.

Test Frequency & Convenience

    Section 51.355 requires the SIP to describe in detail the test 
schedule of the program. If testing is not performed on an annual 
basis, the description is to include the test year selection scheme. In 
addition, the SIP should 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.
    Minnesota's program is based upon annual testing. Vehicle owners 
subject to the program are required to submit their vehicles to testing 
prior to annual vehicle registration renewal. The State's vehicle 
registration program is administered by the Minnesota Department of 
Public Safety. The Department of Public Safety's vehicle registration 
computer system tracks those vehicle owners who are required to provide 
proof of compliance with the I/M program, in order to renew vehicle 
registration.

Vehicle Coverage

    SIPs are 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. The SIP should also include a 
description of any special exemptions granted by the program, an 
estimate of the percentage and number of subject vehicles which will be 
exempted. Exempted vehicles should be accounted for in the emission 
reduction analysis. The SIP should also include the legal authority or 
rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle coverage 
requirement.
    Vehicles subject to the Minnesota basic I/M performance standard 
include: vehicles registered or required to be registered within the 
Twin Cities metropolitan area boundaries; fleet vehicles primarily 
operated within the I/M program area boundaries; and Federal vehicles 
located within the I/M program area boundaries. The Minnesota program 
subjects all 1976 and newer model year vehicles registered or 
customarily domiciled in the Twin Cities seven county area to the I/M 
program. Vehicles with exchanged engines that were manufactured before 
1976 are not subject to I/M testing. Although Section 51.356 states 
that the performance standard for basic I/M assumes coverage of all 
1968 and later light duty vehicles, States can adopt other levels of 
model year coverage provided if the necessary emission reductions are 
achieved.
    The Checklist requests that States provide a description of the 
number and types of vehicles subject to the I/M program and a plan for 
how subject vehicles will be identified. Appendix 12 of the Submittal 
provides a detailed inventory of vehicles tested by model year between 
July 1, 1992, and June 30, 1992. Vehicles required to undergo testing 
are identified by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety as part of 
the annual vehicle registration and license plates renewal process.
    The Minnesota I/M program exempts the following vehicles from the 
I/M program:
    1. Motor vehicles manufactured before the 1976 model year or with 
an engine manufactured before the 1976 model year.
    2. Motor vehicles registered as classic, pioneer, collector, or 
street rod.
    3. Motor vehicles that are exempted in accordance with rules of the 
MPCA because the vehicle, although registered to an owner residing in 
the metropolitan area, is customarily domiciled outside the 
metropolitan area.
    4. Any class of vehicles that is exempted by rule of the MPCA 
because the vehicles present prohibitive inspection problems, or are 
inappropriate for inspection. These include vehicles powered solely by 
diesel fuel, natural gas, propane, pure alcohol, or hydrogen; fire 
apparatus, ambulances, and rescue vehicles. Vehicles that have been 
identified as ``dual fuel'' are required to be tested using their 
gasoline cycle only.
    The Minnesota SIP submittal provides an estimate of the number of 
vehicles exempted due to vehicle age, fuel type, and engines type. 
These exempted vehicles are accounted for in the compliance rate which 
was used in the Mobile 5a modeling process to demonstrate compliance 
with the performance standard.

Test Procedures and Standards

    Section 51.357 requires SIPs to include a description of each test 
procedure used, the legal authority or rule describing and establishing 
the test procedures, and the test standards.
    The Minnesota I/M program includes a tampering inspection and an 
exhaust emission test (Minnesota Rules parts 7023.1025 and 7023.1030). 
The USEPA Checklist lists the criteria that State I/M programs must 
satisfy in order to be approvable. The Minnesota program satisfies the 
criteria of the Checklist.
    Minnesota Rules pt. 7023.1010, subp. 35 exempts vehicles from 
testing that are powered solely by diesel fuel, electricity, natural 
gas, propane, pure alcohol, or hydrogen (alternate fuel vehicles). The 
State believes and USEPA agrees that there are so few alternate fuel 
vehicles that there is no significant impact upon ambient air quality. 
Vehicles that are ``dual fuel'' are tested using the gasoline cycle and 
must meet the same test requirements as all other vehicles subject to 
the program requirements.
    The Minnesota program tests vehicles with exchanged engines that 
were manufactured before 1976 according to the emission standards 
applicable to the year of the exchanged engine and tests vehicles where 
the year of the exchanged engine is unknown according to the standard 
applicable to 1976 engines. Section 51.357(d)(2) requires vehicles with 
exchanged engines to be subject to the emission standards based on the 
chassis type and model year, not the engine year as the Minnesota rule 
allows. Engine year standards can only be used if the engine is newer 
than the chassis and subject to stricter emission control requirements.
    In a letter from Charles Williams, Commissioner MPCA, dated July 5, 
1994 to Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator, the MPCA committed to 
requesting statutory and rule amendments that are consistent with USEPA 
final regulations. USEPA proposes to conditionally approve the SIP 
based on this commitment. MPCA must submit these amendments as a SIP 
revision within one year of final conditional approval.

Test Equipment

    Section 51.358 of the final rule requires SIPs to include written 
technical specifications for all test equipment used in the program. 
The specifications should describe the emission analysis process, the 
necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance 
testing criteria and procedures.
    Appendix 11 of the Minnesota submittal and Minnesota Rules 
7023.1090 contains the specifications for the test equipment used in 
the I/M program. The gas analyzers used in the program each meet or 
exceed the California Bureau of Automotive Repair bench specifications 
and meet or exceed the specifications contained in Appendices A, B, and 
D of the I/M final rule.

Quality Control

    Section 51.359 of the I/M final regulations requires SIPs to 
include a description of quality control and recordkeeping procedures. 
The submittal should include the procedures manual, rule, ordinance, or 
law establishing the procedures of quality control and recordkeeping.
    Minnesota Rules pts. 7023.1010-7023.1105 and Appendix 11 of the 
submittal describe the quality control standards and criteria for the 
I/M program. Specifications for the test equipment used in the I/M 
program are also located in Appendix 11 of the submittal.

Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection

    Section 51.360 outlines the standards that State SIP submittals 
must satisfy before owners of vehicles can be issued waivers or 
temporary extensions. A waiver or temporary extension allows motorists 
to renew vehicle registration. These requirements include: a maximum 
waiver rate used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the 
modeling analysis; a commitment by the State to take corrective action 
if the waiver rate exceeds that which was committed to in the SIP or a 
commitment to revise the SIP and emission reductions claimed; a 
description of waiver criteria and procedures, including cost limits, 
quality assurance methods and administration; and the necessary legal 
authority to issue waivers, set and adjust costs limits and carry out 
any other functions necessary to administer the waiver system.
    Section 51.360(a)(5) states that in order for an owner to receive a 
waiver, repairs on vehicles newer than 1980 models must be performed by 
recognized repair technicians. Repairs by non-technicians can be 
applied toward the waiver limit only if the vehicle was manufactured 
prior to 1980. Under the Minnesota I/M program, repairs by non-
technicians can be applied towards the waiver limit for any vehicle 
subject to the I/M program (i.e. 1976 model year and newer). The USEPA 
has advised MPCA that the Statute and Rules must be amended to only 
allow repairs by non-technicians for vehicles manufactured between 1976 
and 1979 to be applied towards the waiver limit. In the July 5, 1994 
letter from Charles Williams, Commissioner, MPCA commits to taking the 
necessary actions to amend the Statute and Rules so that they are 
consistent with the I/M final rule. USEPA proposes to conditionally 
approve the SIP based on this commitment. MPCA must submit these 
amendments as a SIP revision within one year of final conditional 
approval.
    Section 51.360(a)(6) establishes the minimum repair expenditure 
that vehicle owners must incur in order to qualify for a waiver under 
basic I/M programs. In basic I/M programs, owners must expend a minimum 
of $75 for pre-1981 vehicles and $200 for 1981 and later vehicles. 
Minnesota statute 116.62 Subdivision 5(c) establishes expenditure 
limits of $75 for pre-1981 vehicles and $200 for 1981 and later 
vehicles, but imposes no requirement for a minimum repair expense to 
qualify for a waiver. The USEPA has advised the State that the 
statutory minimum expenditure limits must be amended so that they are 
consistent with the final Federal regulations and vehicle owners are 
required to present proof of repair expenditures before a waiver can be 
granted. In a letter to Regional Administrator Adamkus, the MPCA 
commits to take the necessary action to amend the State's statutes and 
rules for waivers so that they are consistent with the I/M final rule. 
USEPA proposes to conditionally approve the SIP based on this 
commitment. MPCA must submit these amendments as a SIP revision within 
one year of final conditional approval.
    Section 51.360(a)(9) allows time extensions up to the length of the 
inspection cycle to be granted to vehicle owners when repairs are 
needed on a vehicle in the case of economic hardship, but the extension 
can only be granted one time for a vehicle and the extension must be 
tracked and reported by the program.
    Minnesota grants temporary extensions, which are valid for only 30 
days, under three circumstances: (1) when a vehicle will not be 
available for inspection during the 90-day period before registration 
expiration; (2) a vehicle has failed the initial inspection and 
additional time is needed for repair and reinspection; and (3) the 
vehicle registration has been expired for at least 12 months or more.
    Although the Federal rule only allows for extensions in cases of 
economic hardship, the State has successfully tracked the number of 
vehicles issued temporary extensions and those vehicles which have 
violated the terms of the extension. Minnesota estimates that between 
July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993, approximately 50,000 vehicle owners 
were issued temporary extensions. MPCA estimates that to date, 
approximately 10,000 vehicles or less are non-compliant. These 10,000 
non-compliant vehicles represent approximately 1 percent of the total 
number of vehicles subject to the I/M program requirements. The non-
compliant vehicles are accounted for in the Mobile 5a modeling results 
submitted by the State which demonstrates compliance with the basic I/M 
performance standard. USEPA therefore believes that the Minnesota I/M 
temporary extension provisions are approvable.

Motorist Compliance Enforcement

    Under Section 51.361, States that are required to implement basic 
I/M Programs are required to ensure compliance with program 
requirements through the denial of motor vehicle registration or an 
alternative enforcement mechanism if the State can demonstrate that the 
alternative is as effective as registration denial. SIP submittals must 
include: a description of the enforcement process; a determination of 
the current compliance rate that includes an estimate of compliance 
loss due to loopholes; legal authority for enforcement; and a 
commitment to an enforcement level to be used for modeling purposes and 
to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.
    The Minnesota Basic I/M program uses registration denial to ensure 
compliance with the vehicle inspection requirements. Section 
51.361(c)(2) requires States to include in their submittals a 
determination of the current compliance rate that includes an estimate 
of compliance losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and unregistered 
vehicles. The SIP submittal estimates a compliance rate of 97%, which 
is computed by dividing the total number of vehicles that were actually 
tested by the number of vehicles that should have been tested. The 
State does not provide an estimate of the effect of closing the 
loopholes that allow vehicles to escape inspection. MPCA believes it's 
current compliance rate is sufficient since the State is not required 
to achieve 100% compliance. In the SIP submittal, the State commits to 
a compliance rate of 97% and a stringency rate of 23%.
    Section 51.361(a)(5) requires States to structure a penalty system 
to deter non-compliance with the registration requirement through the 
use of mandatory, minimum fines (meaning civil and monetary penalties) 
and through a requirement that vehicle owners demonstrate compliance 
before a case can be closed.
    Minnesota's basic I/M program allows the owner of a vehicle that 
has failed inspection to make the repairs necessary for the vehicle to 
pass reinspection. Vehicle owners are allowed two reinspections. If a 
vehicle does not pass the reinspections, then the owner can apply for 
compliance waiver. If a vehicle does not pass reinspection and does not 
qualify for a waiver, the owner is issued a report indicating 
noncompliance. Minnesota's penalty for noncompliance is the denial of 
vehicle registration. If a vehicle's registration is denied, then the 
owner is subject to receiving a citation from local, county or State 
law enforcement officials which averages $35.00. For as long as a 
vehicle owner continues to operate a vehicle that has not been properly 
registered, the owner will receive multiple fines.

Motorists Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight

    Under Section 51.362, I/M SIP submittals are to include a 
description of enforcement program oversight and information management 
activities. The enforcement program must be audited regularly and 
follow effective program management practices. Minnesota's Basic I/M 
program includes several oversight activities which include: 
verification of exempt vehicle status; fines against testing stations 
for missing or unaccounted for documents; and methods for evaluating 
program effectiveness.

Quality Assurance

    Section 51.363 requires States to operate on-going quality 
assurance programs aimed at discovering, correcting, and preventing 
fraud, waste and abuse. The quality assurance officer should also 
assess whether correct operating procedures are being followed and that 
testing equipment provides accurate measurements. SIP submittals must 
include a description of the quality assurance program, written 
procedures manuals covering covert and overt audits, records audits, 
and equipment audits.
    Section 51.363(a)(2) requires States to audit more frequently 
stations that employ inspectors suspected of violating regulations as a 
result of audits, data analysis, or consumer complaints. Section 
51.363(a)(4) sets forth the criteria that covert audits must satisfy. 
Between July 1, 1992 and June 30, 1993, MPCA conducted a total of 24 
covert audits.
    The USEPA has advised MPCA that, although the State does conduct 
covert audits as part of its quality assurance activities, the I/M 
program has not established an ongoing consistent audit program that 
meets the criteria of Section 51.363(a)(4). In the July 5, 1994, letter 
to USEPA, from Charles Williams, Commissioner, the MPCA has committed 
to implementing a covert audit schedule and an audit program that meets 
the requirements of Section 51.363 and includes the following actions:
    (1) Continued annual remote visual observations by the auditor of 
inspector performance at each of the eleven inspection stations and, 
recording of these observations.
    (2) Implementation of a covert audit schedule where a minimum of 
two covert audits will be conducted annually at each of the eleven 
inspection stations. The MPCA anticipates conducting an average of two 
covert audits a month.
    (3) Audits will be conducted using covert vehicles that are set to 
fail.
    (4) Vehicles used in covert audits will cover a full range of 
vehicle technology groups and malfunctions.
    (5) Auditors will record the covert audit and provide sufficient 
written documentation for building a legal case and conducting on going 
performance evaluations.
    The contractor will continue to run ``altered'' vehicles through 
the network of inspection stations to audit test procedures. A schedule 
for these audits will be developed and implemented and, written reports 
of the audits will be submitted to MPCA as required. USEPA proposes to 
conditionally approve the SIP based on this commitment. MPCA must 
submit these amendments as a SIP revision within one year of final 
conditional approval.

Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations & Inspectors

    Section 51.364 requires I/M programs to include enforcement 
mechanisms that allow for the imposition of penalties against licensed 
stations, contractors or inspectors that violate program requirements. 
SIP submittals must describe the legal authority for imposing 
penalties, civil fines, license suspension, and revocations.
    Section 51.364(a)(1) requires States to develop a penalty schedule 
that establishes minimum penalties for violations of program rules and 
procedures. The penalty schedule should categorize and list violations 
and the minimum penalties to be imposed for violations. States that 
have contracted systems, may use compensation retainage in lieu of 
penalties.
    Section 51.364(a)(3) states that findings of serious violations of 
rules or procedural requirements shall result in mandatory fines or 
retainage. In the case of gross neglect, a first offense shall result 
in a fine or retainage of no less than $100 or 5 times the inspection 
fee, whichever is greater, for the contractor or the licensed station 
and inspector, if involved.
    The Minnesota I/M program uses compensation retainage for assessing 
penalties against the contractor when the MPCA determines that the 
contractor has not complied with the requirements of the MPCA contract 
agreement. The amount of compensation retained is determined at the 
discretion of MPCA. Where retainage does not adequately address the 
severity of noncompliance, the MPCA may also avail itself of other 
remedies.
    Each month, the contractor submits to the MPCA an invoice for 
payment based on the number of vehicles tested. MPCA staff reviews the 
invoice for accuracy, retains 10% and pays the contractor the remaining 
90%. The 10% retainage is accumulated monthly and released to the 
contractor at the end of each quarter provided the MPCA is satisfied 
with the contractors performance. When judging performance, the MPCA 
pays particular attention to the requirements of public convenience, 
proper calibration of instruments, excessive wait times, facility and 
lane down time, and submittal of complete reports in the time 
specified. MPCA retains an average of $100,000 per month. Therefore, 
the State believes that it is meeting the retainage requirement of $100 
or 5 times the inspection fee as specified in Section 51.364.
    Section 51.364(b) states that quality assurance officers shall have 
the authority to temporarily suspend station and inspector licenses or 
certificates (after approval of a superior) immediately upon finding a 
violation or equipment failure that directly affects emission reduction 
benefits, pending a hearing when requested.
    As explained in the SIP submittal, MPCA quality assurance officers 
do not have direct authority to impose disciplinary action against 
inspectors employed by the contractor since inspectors are not directly 
employed by MPCA. Any disciplinary action to be taken is carried out 
through the contractor's internal disciplinary procedures. However, 
MPCA quality assurance officers may recommend disciplinary action or 
discharge of an employee of the contractor. In the event that improper 
performance is observed or reported, the quality assurance officer may 
recommend disciplinary action to MPCA's Program Manager. Disciplinary 
action against inspectors include verbal warnings, written reprimands 
or revocation of the Certification of Training, which can result in re-
training and, if necessary, immediate discharge.
    Situations requiring disciplinary action have been isolated 
incidents and, since initial notification to the MPCA of such 
incidents, no subsequent similar incidents have been recorded.
    MPCA has committed to implementing a formal process to certify lane 
inspectors are qualified and authorized to test vehicles. Lane 
inspectors will be required to complete the existing Training Program 
outlined in Appendix 14 of the submittal and demonstrate competence in 
vehicle testing by receiving at least an 80% passing grade on the 
written and practical examinations. Upon successful completion of the 
Training Program, lane inspectors will be issued by the MPCA and the 
contractor, a certificate of training which certifies that the lane 
inspector is qualified and authorized to test vehicles. A Certificate 
of Training will be valid for two years, at which time the inspector is 
required to repeat the Training Program. No lane inspector will be 
authorized to test vehicles without a valid Certificate of Training. A 
lane inspector must retain a valid Certificate as a condition of 
employment as a lane inspector by the contractor. MPCA has committed to 
entering into a Contract Compliance Order with the contractor to 
reflect these certification requirements for lane inspectors. USEPA 
proposes to conditionally approve the SIP based on this commitment. 
MPCA must submit these amendments as a SIP revision within one year of 
final conditional approval.

Data Collection

    Section 51.365 outlines the test data and quality control data that 
must be collected for the management, evaluation, and enforcement of an 
I/M program. I/M programs must gather test data on individual vehicles, 
as well as quality control data on test equipment. The Minnesota I/M 
program contains data gathering provisions that meet all of the 
criteria of the Checklist.

Data Analysis and Reporting

    SIP submittals are to include information on how States will 
incorporate data analysis and reporting into their I/M programs. 
Reports should provide information regarding the types of program 
activities performed and their final outcomes, including summary 
statistics and effectiveness evaluations of the enforcement mechanism,, 
the quality assurance system, the quality control program, and the 
testing element. The Minnesota I/M SIP submittal describes data 
analysis and reporting activities that completely satisfy the criteria 
of the Checklist.

Inspector Training & Licensing or Certification

    All inspectors partaking in I/M programs must receive formal 
training and be licensed or certified to perform inspections. SIP 
submittals must include a description of the training program, the 
written and practical examinations and the licensing or certification 
process.
    Lane inspectors are employed and trained by the contractor. 
Appendix 14 describes the contractor's training program. MPCA has 
committed to issuing a Contract Compliance Order to the contractor 
requiring inspectors to complete the contractor training and 
demonstrate competence by receiving an 80% or better grade on an 
examination. The certificates will expire after two years at which time 
inspectors must repeat the training program. USEPA proposes to 
conditionally approve the SIP based on this commitment. MPCA must 
submit these amendments as a SIP revision within one year of final 
conditional approval.

Public Information and Consumer Protection

    SIP submittals must include a plan for informing the public on an 
ongoing basis, throughout the life of the I/M program, of the air 
quality program, the requirements of Federal and State law, the role of 
motor vehicles, in the air quality problem, the need for benefits of an 
inspection program. In addition, the submittal must describe procedures 
and mechanisms to protect the public from fraud and abuse by 
inspectors, mechanics, and others involved in the I/M program.
    The Minnesota I/M program has included public information and 
consumer protection provisions since its inception in 1991. Appendix 25 
contains MPCA's most current Public Information Plan and Appendix 26 
includes all of the fact sheets, brochures, an annual report, quarterly 
newsletter, a media relations kit and other I/M program publications.

Improving Repair Effectiveness

    Basic I/M SIP submittals must include a description of the State's 
technical assistance program and a description of the repair technician 
training resources available to the community. The technical assistance 
program must provide the repair industry with information and 
assistance related to vehicle inspection, diagnosis, and repair.
    The Minnesota I/M program offers assistance to repair technicians 
through the Consumer Advocate program and the MPCA currently publishes 
a quarterly newsletter that serves as the main communication link 
between the repair industry and the MPCA. Appendix 21 contains the 
repair technician curriculum used by vocational/technical colleges, 
community colleges or post-secondary programs to train automotive 
repair technicians.
    Section 51.372 lists each of the elements that must be included in 
SIP submittals. The Minnesota submittal addresses each of the elements 
listed in the Section.

Implementation Deadlines

    States implementing decentralized basic programs must have such 
programs fully operable by January 1, 1994. The Minnesota I/M program 
has been fully implemented since 1991.

IV. USEPA Comments

    The USEPA has identified additional deficiencies in the I/M 
submittal that the MPCA must adequately address before the USEPA can 
proceed with final approval. The deficiencies are presented in the 
following comments. If MPCA adequately addresses the deficiencies 
during the 30-day comment period, USEPA will proceed with final 
conditional approval of the I/M SIP submittal. In the event that the 
State does not adequately address the deficiencies outlined below, the 
USEPA will take final action to disapprove the basic I/M SIP submittal.
    (1) Minnesota Rules 7023.1020 has been amended such that visual 
inspection of fuel inlet restrictors is no longer required. Therefore, 
the emission reductions obtained in the proposed program must be less 
than or equal to those obtained by the existing program. Since visual 
inspection for fuel inlet restrictors was previously required, there 
must be comparable improvement to the program if this element is to be 
removed. There is no evidence that the program has been strengthened. 
The State should either reinstate the fuel inlet restrictor requirement 
or make other improvements to the testing program so that the 
reductions are as good or better than under the existing program.
    (2) USEPA has identified two issues regarding the compliance rate 
claimed by the State in the submittal. First, the submittal provides 
conflicting estimates of the number of unregistered vehicles in the 
Twin Cities metropolitan area. The contractor estimates that 22,000 
vehicles in the area are registered without undergoing testing, while 
MPCA estimates that only 12,000 vehicles are registered without 
undergoing testing. The conflicting estimates undermine the reliability 
of the 97% compliance rate arrived at by the State. Secondly, the State 
uses a 96% compliance rate in the Mobile 5a modeling inputs, yet claims 
a 97% compliance rate in the submittal. USEPA can accept the 96% 
compliance rate without any further information or action on the 
State's part. If the State chooses to continue to claim the 97% 
compliance rate, it must supply USEPA with an estimate of the number of 
unregistered vehicles and a description of mechanisms the state will 
employ to identify and encourage registration of unregistered vehicles.
    (3) The USEPA is concerned that the $35.00 citation imposed on 
vehicle owners who fail to undergo testing and properly register their 
vehicles is not sufficiently high to deter non-compliance. The USEPA 
requests that MPCA provide further information on the maximum fine 
imposed on vehicle owners that fail to undergo testing.
    (4) The USEPA believes that Minnesota's lack of a defined penalty 
schedule for cases of serious violations of the State's contractual 
agreement significantly lessens the stringency of the State's 
enforcement efforts. In addition, the State has not provided any 
description of its mechanisms for permanent fee retainage from the 
contractor. The MPCA must provide USEPA with a schedule of typical 
retainage for serious violations of the contractual agreement.
    (5) The submittal indicates that quality assurance officers do not 
have direct authority to impose disciplinary action against inspectors 
employed by the contractor. MPCA quality assurance officers may only 
recommend disciplinary action or discharge of an employee. MPCA must 
commit to requiring the contractor to act upon the State's 
recommendation for disciplinary action.

V. Proposed Action

    The USEPA is proposing conditional approval of the Minnesota basic 
I/M SIP revision request for CO. Section 110(k)(4) of the Clean Air Act 
allows USEPA to conditionally approve a plan based on a commitment from 
the State to adopt and submit specific enforceable measures within one 
year from the date of approval. USEPA's conditional approval of 
Minnesota's basic I/M program is based upon MPCA's commitment to adopt 
specific enforceable measures as outlined in the July 5, 1994, letter 
from Charles Williams, Commissioner MPCA, to Valdas Adamkus, Regional 
Administrator, USEPA. If Minnesota fails to implement the necessary 
changes within the one year period following the date of approval, the 
approval will automatically convert to a disapproval of the SIP. 
Automatic disapproval of the SIP will trigger the 18-month sanctions 
period of Section 179 of the CAA. In addition, USEPA can elect to 
exercise its discretionary authority to impose sanctions prior to the 
end of the 18-month period. Finally, disapproval will trigger a 24 
month Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clock under Section 110(c) of 
the CAA. MPCA must also adequately address the deficiencies outlined in 
the section entitled ``USEPA Comments'' during the 30-day comment 
period. If MPCA adequately addresses the comments, USEPA will proceed 
with final conditional approval of the I/M SIP submittal. In the event 
that the State does not adequately address the deficiencies, the USEPA 
proposes in the alternative to take final action to disapprove the 
basic I/M SIP submittal.
    Public comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on 
USEPA's proposal to conditionally approve. Public comments received by 
September 6, 1994 will be considered in the development of USEPA's 
final rulemaking action.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors, and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). A revision to the SIP processing 
review tables was approved by the Acting Administrator for the Office 
of Air and Radiation on October 4, 1993 (Michael Shapiro's memorandum 
to Regional Administrators.) A future notice will inform the general 
public of these tables. Under the revised tables, this action remains 
classified as Table 2.
    On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 2222) from the requirements 
of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period of 2 years. The 
USEPA has submitted a request for permanent waiver for Table 2 and 3 
SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue the temporary waiver 
until such time as it rules on USEPA's request. This request remains in 
effect under Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order 
12291 on September 30, 1993.

Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)] the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as 
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; of
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order. The OMB has exempted this regulatory action from 
E.O. 12866 review.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 600 et seq., 
USEPA 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, USEPA 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.
    Potential conversion of the conditional approval to disapproval 
under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA does not affect 
any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-
existing Federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. 
Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affects its state-
enforceability. Moreover, USEPA's disapproval of the submittal does not 
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, USEPA certifies that 
this action or the conversion of this action into a disapproval action 
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because it would not remove existing requirements nor impose 
any new Federal requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air Pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671(q).

    Dated: July 15, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-19183 Filed 8-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P