Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Revision to the State Implementation Plan Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

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