[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