'Pursuant to the applicable statute and administrative rules is the Bureau of Automotive Regulation authorized to exempt monies derived from the sale of tires to customers who have the tires installed by a repair facility from that facility's gross revenue for the purpose of computing the facility's registration fee?'

'AN ACT to regulate the practice of servicing and repairing motor vehicles; to proscribe unfair and deceptive practices; to provide for training and certification of mechanics; to provide for the registration of motor vehicle repair facilities; to provide for enforcement; and to prescribe penalties.'

'(1) The registration fee for the registration of a motor vehicle repair facility shall be set by rule and shall be determined by a sliding fee scale based upon such factors as the size of the facility, number of mechanics employed, and volume of repair work performed as determined by the administrator. The fees shall not be less than $25.00 or more than $300.00.'

'The fee for the registration of a motor vehicle repair facility shall accompany the facility's application for registration filed with the administrator. The fee shall be determined by a sliding fee scale based upon all of the following:

'(a) The size of the facility in terms of square feet devoted to the performance of motor vehicle repairs.

'(b) The number of mechanics employed in the performance of motor vehicle repairs.

'(c) The range of gross revenue obtained from the performance of motor vehicle repairs, including parts and goods sold in conjunction with repairs, for the last federal income tax year. In the case of a business which has not completed a full federal income tax year, the range of gross revenue shall be based on the reasonably anticipated gross revenue for the first full federal income tax year of operation.'

'In support of their argument that a fee scale based solely upon gross revenue, including parts and goods sold in conjunction with repairs, is arbitrary and capricious, plaintiffs point to the business of Russ Zuker Tire Service, Inc., one of the named plaintiffs. Russ Zuker, we are told, is a goods-intensive business; it derives 90% of its gross revenue from the sale of tires and only 10% from the provision of services in conjunction with those sales, i.e., mounting, balancing and installing tires. The purpose of the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Act, plaintiffs suggest, is to regulate the provision of repair services, not the sale of goods. Yet, under the BAR's one-factor, gross revenue rules, Russ Zuker's registration fee would be based primarily on revenue obtained from the sale of tires, not on that derived from the provision of repair services. Thus, it is asserted, the fee does not bear a reasonable relationship to the purposes of the Act and Russ Zuker Tire Service, therefore, has been denied due process of law.

'Further, plaintiffs contend, the fee imposed on Russ Zuker is disproportionate to the cost of regulating his business. Section 3 of the Act provides that the installation of tires is a 'minor repair' and that, while repair facilities providing minor repair services are subject to the Act, employees performing only minor repairs need not be tested and certified for competence under the Act. Russ Zuker Tire Service, plaintiffs argue, requires only minimal regulation, but under a one-factor, gross revenue fee scale is required to pay the maximum fee of $300. Such a fee scale is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious, it is claimed.

'We are persuaded by plaintiffs' reasoning.' (Emphasis added.) Thomas Bros, Inc v Secretary of State, supra, 90 Mich App 179, 188-189; 282 NW2d 273, 277-278.

'The regulation of the practice of servicing and repairing motor vehicles and the proscription of unfair and deceptive practices encompass the regulation of the sale of parts and goods in conjunction with repairs. The BAR, as directed by the Act, has promulgated rules defining 'unfair and deceptive' practices. For example, it is an unfair and deceptive practice to represent that repairs, e.g., new tires, are necessary when in fact they are not; to advertise reduced prices for products and not sell them at the advertised prices; to charge for parts supplied in excess of the estimated price without the knowing consent of the customer; or to misrepresent that because of some defect in the customer's motor vehicle, the customer's safety is in jeopardy when in fact the defect does not exist. All of these proscribed practices relate to the sale of parts in conjunction with repairs. In this light, it is apparent that the Act has a much broader sweep than plaintiffs have suggested and it seems clear to us that a fee based upon gross revenue obtained from the performance of motor vehicle repairs, including parts and goods sold in conjunction with repairs, bears a very substantial relationship to the purposes of the Act, even in the case of a goods-intensive business such as Russ Zuker Tire Service.' (Emphasis added.) Thomas Bros, Inc v Secretary of State, supra, 90 Mich App 179, 189-190; 282 NW2d 273, 278.

'Further, the BAR has extensive investigative and enforcement responsibilities with respect to violations of the Act and of the rules promulgated thereunder. A repair facility with high gross revenue from the sale of parts in conjunction with repairs typically will deal with a high number of customers and will generate a high number of complaints, legitimate or frivolous, requiring investigation by the BAR. The cost of regulating such a repair facility will be correspondingly high. We see little relevance to the fact that those of Russ Zuker's employees who perform only minor repairs such as the installation of tires need not be tested for competence and certified under the Act. A repair facility employing primarily workers who perform only minor repairs is no less likely to engage in unfair and deceptive practices than one employing only specialty and master mechanics who must be certified. We would also point out that the cost of testing and certifying mechanics is not covered by the repair facility registration fee, but rather by a separate certification fee.' (Emphasis added.)