[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25074]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 11, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[MI29-02-6658; FRL-5079-1]

 

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, the EPA is approving a revision to the 
Michigan State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attainment of the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. On November 12, 1993 and on 
July 19, 1994 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 (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. On 
July 15, 1994, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
for the State of Michigan. The NPRM proposed approval of the Michigan 
I/M SIP provided that the State submitted materials sufficient to 
address the deficiencies found in the original submittal. No public 
comments were received on the NPRM and the State submitted materials 
sufficient to remedy all the deficiencies in the original submittal, 
therefore, the EPA is publishing this final action.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective on November 10, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittals and the EPA's technical 
support document (TSD) are available for public review at U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
Air Toxics and Radiation Branch, Regulation Development Section, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604. Interested persons 
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment at least 
24 hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad J. Beeson, at the EPA, Region 5, 
(312) 353-4779.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Introduction

    The Act 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 Act) 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 Act to have an I/M program, to immediately submit a 
SIP revision to bring the program up to the level required in the past 
the 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 Act 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 through 
81.437.
    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 Part 51, appendix V) and the requirements of section 
110(k) of the Act, the submittal, as it applies to Western Michigan, 
was deemed complete by the EPA on April 18, 1994.
    In its original review, the EPA found several areas in the State's 
submittal that did not meet the requirements of the I/M rule. The 
sections of the State's submittal found to be insufficient included: 
Motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; enforcement against 
contractors, stations, and inspectors; public information and consumer 
protection; improving repair effectiveness; and compliance with recall 
notices.
    While the EPA found the State's submittal deficient in several 
respects, the EPA published on July 15, 1994 at 59 FR a document 36123 
proposing to approve the majority of the State's submittal, and to 
conditionally approve or disapprove the insufficient sections of the 
original submittal unless necessary, appropriate, and approvable 
materials were submitted by the State 2 weeks prior to the close of the 
public comment period.

III. State's Supplemental Submittal

    On July 19, 1994 the Michigan Department of Natural Resources 
(MDNR) submitted supplementary materials to the EPA related to the I/M 
program in Western Michigan. The supplementary submittal was made to 
remedy the deficiencies in the State's original submittal.

IV. The EPA's Analysis of the State's Supplemental Submittal

    The EPA has reviewed the State's supplemental submittal for 
consistency with the statutory requirements of the EPA regulations. A 
summary of the EPA's analysis is provided below. The following summary 
is limited to the sections of the State's original submittal that were 
deficient. For a discussion of the rest of the State's submittal, see 
the July 15, 1994 (59 FR 36123) NPRM.

A. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight

    While the original submittal addressed some of the required 
elements of this section (40 CFR 51.362), it did not fully satisfy all 
the elements, in particular procedures through which the activities of 
enforcement personnel are quality-controlled.
    However, the State's original and supplemental submittals taken 
together provide an approvable basis for this section. The original and 
supplemental submittals provide for regular auditing of the State's 
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 State's submittals and include: the establishment of 
written procedures for personnel engaged in I/M document handling and 
processing and an I/M database which will be compared to the 
registration database to determine program effectiveness.

B. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors

    While the initial SIP submittal established an innovative Total 
Quality Management (TQM) program for ensuring that the I/M program will 
be run effectively, the submittal did not satisfy all the elements of 
the I/M rule, 40 CFR 51.364.
    The State's supplemental submittal together with the original 
submittal, however, includes sufficient materials to approve this 
section. The original and supplemental submittals, in addition to the 
TQM program, include specific penalties for offenses committed by 
contractors, stations, and inspectors in accordance with the Federal I/
M rule. The SIP also includes the State's enforcement procedures. The 
MDOT has the authority to immediately suspend a station inspector for 
violations that directly affect emission reduction benefits. The 
enforcement procedures also include the authority to immediately 
dismiss inspectors that intentionally cause a vehicle to improperly 
pass or fail.

C. Public Information and Consumer Protection

    The State's original submission addressed all the elements of this 
section (40 CFR 51.368), except for a provision to automatically supply 
test repair facility performance data and diagnostic information to 
motorists that fail the emissions test.
    However, the supplemental submittal details the information that 
will be provided to motorists that fail the emissions test, including 
test repair facility performance data and diagnostic information. 
Therefore, taken together, the original and supplemental submittals 
sufficiently address all the elements of this section.

D. Improving Repair Effectiveness

    The original submittal sufficiently addressed all the elements of 
the section (40 CFR 51.369), except for the issue of repair facility 
performance monitoring.
    The State's supplemental submittal, however, provides the necessary 
materials to establish an acceptable system of repair facility 
performance monitoring. The supplemental submittal establishes a 
program to provide motorists whose vehicles fail the I/M test with 
performance monitoring statistics of certified repair facilities. 
Therefore, the supplemental submittal together with the original 
submittal sufficiently addresses all the elements of this section.

E. Compliance with Recall Notices

    The State's original submittal did not sufficiently address the 
elements required by this section, 40 CFR 51.370.
    However the State's supplemental submission along with the original 
submittal provides a sufficient basis for approval of this section. The 
original and supplemental submittals ensure that vehicles included in 
either a voluntary emission recall or a remedial plan determination 
pursuant to the CAA, have had the appropriate repair made prior to the 
inspection. The managing contractor will identify vehicles which have 
not been identified as having completed recall repairs. Motorists with 
unresolved recall notices will be required to show proof of compliance 
or will be denied the opportunity for inspection. The SIP also commits 
to comply with the policies of the National Recall Committee and 
additional the EPA rulemaking when available.

F. Concluding Statement

    The EPA has reviewed the Western Michigan I/M SIP revision 
submitted to the EPA, using the criteria stated above. The State's 
original submittal along with the supplemental submittal represent an 
acceptable approach to the I/M requirements and meet all the criteria 
required for approvability.
    A more detailed analysis of the State's supplemental submittal and 
how it meets Federal requirements is contained in the EPA's Technical 
Support Document (TSD), dated August 30, 1994 which is available from 
the Region 5 Office, listed above.

V. Response to Comments

    On July 15, 1994 (59 FR 36123), the EPA published an NPRM for the 
State of Michigan. The NPRM proposed approval in part, and conditional 
approval or disapproval depending upon the materials submitted by the 
State 2 weeks prior to close of the comment period. No public comments 
were received on the NPRM.

Final Action

    By this action, the EPA is fully approving this submittal. The EPA 
has reviewed the State submittal against the statutory requirements and 
for consistency with the EPA regulations and finds it to be acceptable. 
The rationale for the EPA's action is explained in the NPRM and will 
not be restated here.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to a SIP shall be 
considered in light of specific technical, economical, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    As noted elsewhere in this action, the EPA received no adverse 
public comment on the proposed action. As a direct result, the Regional 
Administrator has reclassified this action from Table 1 to Table 3 
under the processing procedures published in the FR on January 19, 1989 
(54 FR 2214), and revisions to these procedures issued on October 4, 
1993 in an the EPA memorandum entitled ``Changes to State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Tables.''

Regulatory Process

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the FR on January 19, 
1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993 memorandum 
from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action 
from Executive Order 12866 review.
    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 a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under 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 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection, 
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxide, Ozone, Volatile organic 
compounds.

    Dated: September 15, 1994.
Robert Springer,
Acting Regional Administrator.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The Authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart X--Michigan

    2. Section 52.1170 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(97) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (97) On November 12, 1993, the State of Michigan submitted a 
revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the implementation 
of a motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in the 
Grand Rapids and Muskegon ozone nonattainment areas. This revision 
included House Bill No. 4165 which establishes an I/M program in 
Western Michigan, SIP narrative, and the State's Request for Proposal 
(RFP) for implementation of the program. House Bill No. 4165 was signed 
and effective on November 13, 1993.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) House Bill No. 4165; signed and effective November 13, 1993.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) SIP narrative plan titled ``Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection 
and Maintenance Program for Southeast Michigan, Grand Rapids MSA, and 
Muskegon MSA Moderate Nonattainment Areas,'' submitted to the EPA on 
November 12, 1993.
    (B) RFP, submitted along with the SIP narrative on November 12, 
1993.
    (C) Supplemental materials, submitted on July 19, 1994, in a letter 
to EPA.

[FR Doc. 94-25074 Filed 10-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P