• -'-.- '> ' IJMI I MU SlAI'.b •- ••• *•' '•"•'-J| "'•u.i-. ^ — i "'**-' 'i
' - " . \VA5HINGTON. l\C. 2CKCO
FEB2 i 1979
AIR. NCilSri. AMD RACIATION
SUBJECT: Inspection/Maintenance Policy i
-\.-H/
FROM: David G, Havkins, Assistant Administrator j^^
for Air, Noise and Radiation (ANR-443)
TO: Regional Administrators, I~X . .
Attached is a letter froa John McCuire that was discussed at
our nieetir.g on February 7, 1979. John's letter discusses and expands
upon the criteria for granting extensions beyond the July 1, 1979,
deadline- for obtaining state enabling legislation for inspection and
-ij.i.ricn.s-.'sce programs.
Thi Cler.r.. Air Act is very specific as to c-.any of the actions
rer.t'irec for the SI? process. EPA's policy guidance has attempted
to carve'out as much flexibility as possible to allow latitude for
t'r:c stato.s in meeting the rr.ar.y Act requirements. In the case of I/M,
th.v Act is clt-ar that ncn-atcai ;.-::ient plans inust, by July 1, 1979,
ino'ude "vrittcn evidence that .-he state — has .idopted by statute,
regulation, ordinance, or other legally enforceable document.- .the
schedules and timetables for compliance..." (l72(b)(10)) and has co'.r
"the-financial and manpower resources to carry out the plan..."(l72(b)(7)).
. • . ' . • •' " ' :>
. In developing the I/M policy (as described in the Admnistrator'r.
February 2A, 1978, me^.o and my July 17, 1978, ncrno to the Sugional
Administrators),. it was recognized that so^e flexibility in meeting r5ie
Act's rcqtiireM-ints was desirable. Since cany legislatures did not iceet
unL-i.l after the January 1, 1979, deadline for SI? sub^.i-::;-.ls, we agreed
to ..icx-^pt a governor's comrr.itnent to the I/M schedule ii\ lieu of legisl.stioi
by that dar.e. Proof of legislative authority would beco;r,i an element of
the. schedule, (which would reflect obtaining such authority by July
1, 1979), allowing EPA to take earlier action with respect to the
process of approving the SI?.
, •
In a similar vein, the possibility existed that in certain limitedj.
exceptional situations, it night be vmreasonable to require a state to
pass I/.': legislation by July 1, 1979. The two situations which were
included in the 1/M policy nc-inos were: a) insufficient opportunity to
conduct necessary technical analyses; and b) the legislature has had no
opportunity to consider nr.y necessary enabling legislation. In the
letter ca:r •, '• t was felt appropriate to allow an extension if the
lof.islatiu .• d:d not meet before the July 1, 1979, deadline. In the
f:>r.-ti»r c.ir.o, t.l>c legislatures could not be expected to pass I/M legislation
b'.-iorc information on I/M benefits ar.d ir.plv^f.ntr-tion h.'id been gather-'J;
hi-v-vt-r, as far as I au aware, the needed information is now available.
-------
v »
.lolin McCuire's letter very cushat' :-il ly pr>int2 out that legislative
•;xt ens ions will not he fronted at this ^XMC under'a ay c ircumr. t.inces.
,7h'~ f-::r'.MI': it'll, if iii.-cd'.Ml", should only ':•: cons if'i rrd aftr'r Juiir. nivJ
should be requested by the legislature. In addition to the two criteria
rficussed ."•Sove, the determination on granting a legislative extension
will also tf.ko into account "whether th2 legislation has been given
serious consideration by the legislature." I agree vith John that this
is an important consideration and should be included in the policy
guidance. Tne availability of extensions must continue to be regarded
as an exceptional remedy.. I will oppose the granting of extensions
where it appears that the state has made only pro forma attempts to
have I/M legislation consideration.
The use of the legislative extension should still be reserved
for special situations. As John's letter points out, the interpretation
that the Act provides this flexibility is not. universally held. For
that reason alone our efforts should I?s focused on obtaining legislation
by this July, and discussions with the states dealing with the legis-
lation deadline should point' out that we are both likely to be in
jeopardy if legistaion is not obtained by that date. John's letter
also points out several othti'r benefits of obtaining legislation this
session.
Current policy requires implementation of mandatory inspection
and repair no later than 18 rr.onths after legislationn for decentralised
programs, and no later than 30 months for centralized programs. This
results in an earlier implementation date.for those states .that obtain
legislation the earliest; a disincentive for taking action now. After
consultation with the Adrainisrrator, I ft;n modifying this requirement
by establishing 3 single deadline (dependent on- progr.im type). I
hops this action will act as an incentive; earlier legislation
will provide more time for implementation. Therefore, regardless of
vhen the legislation is obtained, the latest date for implementat ion
of mandatory inspection and repair will be: •
\
Decentralized programs - 1981
Centralized programs - 19S2.
Ou." success in obtaining inspection and maintenance programs will
be measured by the legislative progress in the upcoming r:onths. I have
directed my sTaff to intensify thei-r efforts towards supporting the
region.il and state efforts in obtaining adequate I/M programs. I
strongly urge you personally as w.-ll as your staffs to also intensify
your efforts during this time. T: •• data being generated by our Portland
Study (a copy of the lat'est statu.. report was recently sent to you)
reinforces c-ic previous conclusion/: that I/M programs .ir • both necessary
and effective. With this nc'J ir.Co-.-.-stion and a strong Ci.-.-r.ai ti:;ent by
both our staffs, I am confident t\\-.~ our objectives can bi: met.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN AR3OR. MICHIGAN 48105
JUL 17 1973
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WATER PROGRAMS
SUBJECT: Inspection/Maintenance Policy
'••:' '->,
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator' {.
for Air and Waste Management '•'' '
MEMO TO: Regional •Administrators, Regions I - X
As you know, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 set forth
specific requirements for the implementation of motor vehicle
inspection/maintenance (I/M) programs. Attached is a policy paper
indicating what EPA will consider a minimally acceptable program
wherever I/M is required by the Act. It should aid your efforts to
provide for adequate I/M submissions for the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions of January 1, 1979. Please continue to contact
me if problems in I/M implementation develop.
cc: Air and Hazardous Materials Division
•'Directors, Regions I, III - X
Environmental Programs Division Director,
Region II .
Air Programs. Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
-------
These plan elements should be prepared in accordance with the guidance
on' pages 186-188 of the Compilation, of Presentations prepared by EPA's
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAOPS) for the "Workshops
on Requirements for Nonattainment Area Plans" February -March 1978
(pages 218-220 in the April 1978 edition).
B. The I/M Implementation Schedule
The specific items listed below must be included as a part of the
States' I/M implementation schedules with specified dates for implementation
of each item. The stringency planned for the program and other factors
affecting the potential for emission reductions should also be indicated.
Additional items if necessary because of local factors may be required by
USEPA Regional Offices. - ' . ..
1. Initiation (or continuation) of public information
program .including publicizing the I/M program in the
media, meeting and speaking with affected interest
groups, etc.
2. Preparation of a draft legislative package and .
subaittal of legislation package to legislature
if additional legislative authority is needed.
3. Certification of adequate legal authority by approp-
riate state official. ,
; '••••>
4. Initial notification of garages explaining program
and schedule of implementation.*
5. Development and issuance of RFPs.*
6. Award to contractor(s).*
7. Initiation of construction of facilities.*
. ' 8. Completion of construction of facilities.*
9. Adoption of procedures and guidelines for testing
and quality control including emission analyzer
requirements (and licensing requirements for private
garages, if applicable*). .
10. Notification of and explanation to garages of actions
in step 9.*
-------
Policy for the Development and Implementation of
Inspection/Maintenance Programs
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 provide new direction for the
development and implementation of motor vehicle inspection/maintenance
(I/M) programs. If states are not able to demonstrate attainment of the
standards for oxidant (Ox) or carbon monoxide (CO) by December 31, 1982,
a specific schedule for the implementation of I/M must be included in
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions of January 1, 1979 for the
plan to meet the requirements, of Section 172. . The general requirements
for the I/M programs are set out in a February 24, 1978 memorandum frea
the EPA Administrator to tha Regional Administrators (reprinted in the
Federal Register on May 19, 1978, 43 F.R. 21673). The requirements, for
these programs, are explained in more detail below. "
A. I/M SIP Revision Development and the January 1, 1979, Submittal
In producing an I/M SIP revision, the states should provide for:
1. an analysis of the benefits and costs of the program;
2. a public inforaation effort;
3. a legislative proposal;, and •
4. a schedule for I/M implementation.1
i r.-.v
A copy of suggested steps for development of the SI? revision is attache
(Attachment 1). Before the January 1, 1979 subtnittal, the SIP revision
must be adopted by the state air pollution control board or agency head
appropriate. As a. part of the SIP revision subiaittal itself, there must
be a commitment by the Governor to implement the I/M program according t
the schedule submitted.*
^Sections 172(b)(7) and (10) provide that the plan revisions required
for nonattairrment areas shall -—
(7) identify and commit the financial and manpower resources
necessary to carry out the plan provisions required by this subsection;
[Empha.sis added]
and shall —
(10) include written evidence that the state, the general purpose
local government or governments, or a regional agency designated by gene
purpose local governments for such purpose, have adopted by statute, reg
lation, ordinance, or other legally enforceable document, _the necessary
requirements and schedule and timetablss for compliance, and are committ
to implement and enforce the appropriate elements of the plan; [Emphasis
added]
-------
11. Completion of equipment purchase and delivery of . . .....'•
equipment. . .
12. Development and adoption of cutpoints.
13. Initiation of hiring and training of inspectors or
licensing of garages.*
14. Initiation of introductory program (voluntary main-
tenance with either voluntary or mandatory inspection)
if not previously initiated.
15. Initiation of mechanics training and/or information
program.
16. Initiation of mandatory inspection.
17. Initiation of mandatory repair for failed vehicles.
If certification of adequate legal authority occurs after January 1979, "
the States may modify previous commitments to implement and enforce the element
of the schedule to conform to the legal authority.** These modifications will
approved by tha EPA Regional Offices and must be consistent with the AdministrJ
tor's February 24, 1978, policy memorandum. The documents should be submitted
to the EPA Regional Offices for inclusion in the SIP revisions already submitte
by January 1, 1979. Any necessary adjustments to the schedule may be made at
this tine but must be approved by the EPA Regional Offices.
C.. Authority to .Implement I/M .
Normally, adequate legal authority to implement a SIP revision must exist
for a revision to be approved. Where a legislature has had adequate
opportunity to adopt enabling legislation before January 1, 1979, the
Regional Administrator should require certification that adequate legal
authority exists for I/M implementation by January 1, 1979- However,
for many states there will be insufficient opportunity to obtain adequate
legal authority before their legislatures meet in early 1979. Therefore,
a certification of legal authority for the implementation of I/M in
these states must be made no later than June 30, 1979. An extension to
July 1, 1980, is possible, but only when the state can demonstrate that .
(a) there was insufficient opportunity to conduct necessary technical
analyses and/or (b) the legislature has had no opportunity to consider"
any necessary enabling legislation for inspection/ maintenance between
enactment of the 1977 Amendments. to the Act and June 30, 1979. Certifi-
cation of adequate legal authority, or other evidence that legal authority
has been adopted,-must be submitted to the EPA Regional Offices to be
included in the SIP revision already submitted. Failure to submit evidence
of legal authority by the appropriate deadline will constitute a failure
to submit an essential element of the SIP, under Sections 110(a)(2)(I)
and 176 (a) of the Act.
*Dependent on type of system chosen (state-run centralized, contractor
centralized, or decentralized).
footnote on page 1.
-------
Prior to the respective deadlines for initiating mandatory inspection
and mandatory repair of failed vehicles, the state, local government, or . .
regional agency should adopt whatever legally enforceable requirements
are necessary to ensure that vehicles are not used unless they comply
with the inspection/maintenance requirements. Written evidence of
adoption of these requirements should be submitted to the EPA Regional •
Offices,, to be included in the SIP revision already submitted by January
1, 1979,* .
D. I/H Implementation Deadlines
Implementation of I/M "as expeditiously as practicable" shall be • .
defined as implementation of mandatory repair for failed vehicles no
later than two and a half years after passage of needed legislation or
certification of adequate legal authority for new centralized systems
and one and a half years after legislation or certification for decen-
tralized systems or for centralized systems which are adding emission
inspections to safety inspections. For the normal legislation deadline
of June 30, 1979, new centralized programs must start by December 31,
. 1981, and all others must start by December 31, 1980. For the case of
the latest possible legislation date, July 1, 1980, this means that a
new centralized program must start by December 31, 1982, while all other
programs must start by December 31, 1981. Where I/M can be implemented
more expeditiously, it must be. Each state implementation schedule must
be looked at individually to determine if it is as expeditious as practi-
cable.. • Implementation dates ordered by courts, if earlier than these
dates, take precedence.
E. Geographic Coverage
I/M should focus on metropolitan areas and should include the entire
urbanized area and adjacent fringe areas of development. Boundaries of the
area affected may be adjusted if an equivalent emission reduction is achieved.
For urbanized areas of 200,000 population or greater which need I/M to obtain
an extension of the 1982 attainment date, full mandatory I/M must be implement
by the.deadlines indicated above. Statewide programs are encouraged, especia]
for those states which are small and highly urbanized. . . .
It should be emphasized that all nonattainment areas must have SIPs •
which are adequate to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) by 1982 or by no later than 1987 should an
acceptable nonattainment demonstration be made. For areas under 200,000,
EPA will not at this time automatically require I/M. schedules in 1979 as a
condition for SIP approval or an extension. However, areas under 200,000
still have to attain and maintain NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
and I/M is encouraged as a means of helping to provide for an adequate
SIP. EPA will review the need for I/M in areas under 200,000 after the
1979 SIP revisions are submitted, and will consider additional require-
ments at that time.
*See footnote on page 1.
-------
-5-
F.. Emission Reductions Required for I/M
I/M programs must produce at least a 25 percent reduction in light
duty vehicle (LDV) exhaust emissions of hydrocarbons and a 25 percent
reduction in LDV emissions of carbon, monoxide by December 31, 1987,
compared to what emissions would be without I/M on the basis of the most
recent motor Vehicle emission factors. However, the choices of stringency
factor to be used and other actions affecting the potential for emission
reduction should be made by the. states. States should of course be
encouraged to develop programs which produce more emission reduction
when possible. The final revision to Appendix N (40 C.F.R., Part 51)
when promulgated (along with its mini-muni program requirements) should be
used to determine if the program described in the implementation schedule
will meet the minimum 25 percent CO/25 percent HC criterion. Should a
program not need to.be'this stringent to attain and maintain the NAAQS
by 1982, the I/M program need be only as stringent as needed to assure
conformity with NAAQS. Should a state want to emphasize control of one
particular pollutant at the expense of the other, the plan for such an •
I/M program, must be submitted to the appropriate EPA Regional Office for
approval. • •
G. Minimum Program Requirements
In addition to the emission reduction requirement above, all I/M
programs must:
1. provide for regular periodic inspections of all vehicles
for which emission reductions are claimed;* . • .
2. provide for maintenance and retesting of failed vehicles
to provide for compliance with applicable emission
standards;
3. prohibit registration or provide some equally effective •
mechanism to prevent vehicles which do not comply x^ith
the applicable exhaust emission requirements from operating
on public roads; ..''•'
4. provide for quality control regulations and procedures
for the inspection system ^including: ...
"Randon roadside checks, while a useful addition to an I/M program,
are not an acceptable substitute for regular periodic inspections.
-------
a. minimum specifications for emission analyzers
b. required calibrations of all types on analyzers and
c. minimum record keeping;
5. provide for either a mechanics training program or a program
- to inform the public of service establishments with approved
emission analyzers;.and
t • •
6. inform the public of the reason for the I/M program plus
the locations and hours of inspection stations.
Decentralized systems must also comply with the following require-
ments. ' . . . '
1. All official inspection facilities must be licensed.
'Provisions for the licensing of inspection facilities
must insure that the.facility has obtained, prior to
licensing, analytical instrumentation"which has been
approved for use by the appropriate state,: local, or •
regional government agency. ' A representative of the
facility must have received instructions in the proper
use of the' instruments and in vehicle testing methods
and must have demonstrated proficiency in these methods.
The facility must agree to maintain records and to submit
to inspection of the facility. The appropriate government
agency must have provisions for penalties for facilities
which fail to follow prescribed procedures and for mis-
conduct.
2. Records required to be maintained should include the
description (make, year, license number, etc.) of each
vehicle inspected, and its emissions test results.
Records must also be maintained on the calibration of
testing equipment. ' .
3. Summaries of these inspection records should be submitted
. on a periodic basis to the governing agency for auditing.
i •
4. The governing.agency should inspect each facility
periodically to check the facilities' records, check
the calibration of the testing equipment and observe
that proper test procedures arc followed.
5. The governing agency should have an effective program
of unannounced/unscheduled inspections both as a routine
measure and as a complaint investigation measure. It is
also recommended that such inspections be used to check
the correlation of instrument readings among inspection
facilities.
-------
-7- ; • . -•••.;.' •::;,--.
6. The governing agency should operate a "referee" station -
where vehicle owners may obtain a valid test to compare
to a test from a licensed station. At least one 'referee"
station must be present in each I/M metropolitan area.
-------
Attachment 1
Suggested I/M Milestones
1. Complete plan for preparing and implementing I/M SIP revision
. including: . .
a. technical analysis
b. public information program
c. development of necessary legislation Y
d. development of I/M implementation schedule.
2. Complete technical analysis including:
a. emission reduction benefits
• .
b. fuel economy benefits
c. costs. . \ .
3. Complete elements of a continuing public information program
including:
a.. further publicity concerning oxidant (and/or carbon
monoxide) episodes
b. meeting with ar.d speaking to affected interest groups
(including the public and public officials)
• * • "i .
c. news releases.
4. Complete development-of legislative proposals.
5. Complete development of I/M implementation schedule. .
6. Receive approval of I/M, including implementation schedule, from
air pollution control board or agency head as applicable and
introduce into state legislature. . '.
7. Submit SIP" revision for I/M, including implementation schedule, to
EPA (due no lat.er than January 1, 1979).
8. Obtain legal authority needed to implement I/M (required by July 1,
1979, with some exceptions allowed until July 1, 1980).
------- |