13436 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction because it 

establishes a safety zone. An 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.837 to read as follows: 

§ 165.836 Safety Zone; Invista Inc Facility 

Docks, Victoria Barge Canal, Victoria, 

Texas. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters contained within 

a 500-foot (152.5m) extension east and 

west of the Invista Inc facility docks 

while performing offloading operations. 

(b) Enforcement Period. This rule will 

be enforced for periods of 24–30 hours 

twice a month, from the time the 

oversized barge docks at the Invista Inc 

facility until the vessel departs the 

facility upon conclusion of its 

offloading operations. The Captain of 

the Port Corpus Christi will issue a 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners before 

beginning enforcement and upon 

ceasing enforcement of the safety zone. 

(c) Definitions. The following 

definition applies to this section: 

designated representative means any 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers of the Coast Guard on board 

Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, 

and local, state, and Federal law 

enforcement vessels who have been 

authorized to act on the behalf of the 

Captain of the Port Corpus Christi. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Persons desiring 

to transit the area of the safety zone may 

contact the Captain of the Port at 

telephone number 1–361–939–6393, or 

the barge on VHF Channel 16 

(156.800MHz) to seek permission to 

transit the area. If permission is granted, 

all persons and vessels must comply 

with the instructions of the Captain of 

the Port or his or her designated 

representative. 

(2) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the 

designated representative. 

(3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means the 

operator of a vessel must proceed as 

directed. 

(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other Federal, State, or local 

agencies. 

(5) In accordance with the general 

regulations in 33 CFR part 165.23, no 

person or vessel may enter or remain in 

the zone described in paragraph (a) of 

this section except for support vessels/ 

aircraft and support personnel, or other 

vessels authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Corpus Christi or his designated 

representative. 

(e) Penalties. Vessels or persons 

violating this rule are subject to the 

penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 

50 U.S.C. 192. 

Dated: November 19, 2009. 

R.J. Paulison, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Corpus Christi. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received in the Office of the Federal Register 

on March 16, 2010. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6161 Filed 3–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2008–0690; FRL–9091–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans: Alaska 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action 

to approve numerous revisions to 

Alaska’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) relating to the motor vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

program for the control of carbon 

monoxide (CO) in Anchorage and 

Fairbanks maintenance areas for CO. 

The State of Alaska submitted three 

revisions to the Alaska SIP: a March 29, 

2002 submittal containing minor 

revisions to the statewide I/M program; 

a December 11, 2006 submittal 

containing more substantial revisions to 

the statewide I/M program; and a June 

5, 2008 submittal containing major 

revisions to the statewide I/M program 

discontinuing the I/M program in 

Fairbanks as an active control measure 

in the SIP and shifting it to a 

contingency measure. EPA is approving 

these submittals because they satisfy the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 13437 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(hereinafter the Act or CAA). 

Also in this final action, EPA is 

correcting a transcription error in the 

boundary description for the Fairbanks 

CO maintenance area under section 

110(k)(6) of the Act. 

DATES: This action is effective on April 

21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2008–0690. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The 

EPA requests that you contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina 

Bonifacino, (206) 553–2970, or by e-mail 

at bonifacino.gina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Comments Received During the EPA 

Public Comment Period 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The EPA is approving revisions to 

Alaska’s SIP related to the I/M program. 

The I/M program is a control measure 

for CO in the maintenance plans for the 

Anchorage and Fairbanks areas that 

were approved by EPA on June 23, 2004 

(69 FR 34935) and July 27, 2004 (69 FR 

44601). The State submitted proposed 

revisions to the federally-approved SIP 

to EPA in three separate submittals 

dated March 29, 2002; December 11, 

2006; and June 5, 2008. The March 29, 

2002 submittal revises the statewide I/ 

M regulations to provide for electronic 

vehicle inspection renewal and to 

remove the requirement for a paper 

certificate to be maintained in the 

vehicle; the 2006 submittal revises the 

statewide I/M regulations to lengthen 

the time period before which new 

vehicles are required to obtain their first 

certificate of inspection from two years 

to four years. The June 5 submittal 

discontinues implementation of the I/M 

program for CO in the Fairbanks area. 

Each of the submittals also contains 

minor revisions that are administrative 

in nature. In each submittal, Alaska (the 

State) included a technical analysis 

using EPA approved models and 

methods to demonstrate that the 

Fairbanks and Anchorage areas will 

continue to maintain the CO standard, 

and the revision will not interfere with 

attainment of the remaining National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) including the 24-hour fine 

particle (PM2.5) standard. Both the 

Anchorage and Fairbanks areas have 

been attaining the CO standards since 

2001. On September 15, 2009, EPA 

proposed to approve the State’s 

submittals. 74 FR 47154. EPA proposed 

to approve these submittals because 

they meet the requirements of the Act. 

For a more detailed discussion of the 

background of this rulemaking, please 

see EPA’s notice of proposed approval. 

In this final action EPA is approving all 

of the SIP modifications proposed in 

Alaska’s above-mentioned 2002, 2006, 

and 2008 submittals as originally 

proposed. 

II. Comments Received During the EPA 

Public Comment Period 

The following summarizes the issues 

raised in comments on the EPA’s 

proposed approval published on 

September 15, 2009 (74 FR 47154), and 

provides EPA’s responses to those 

comments. All eight of the comments 

received relate to EPA’s proposed action 

approving the State’s 2008 submittal 

discontinuing the I/M program for CO in 

Fairbanks. EPA received a number of 

comments that were generally critical of 

the discontinuation of the I/M program 

for CO in Fairbanks. These commenters 

questioned the wisdom of discontinuing 

a program that has a beneficial impact 

on the community. As discussed in 

greater detail below, many of these 

issues fall outside of the scope of this 

action. No comments were received on 

the 2002 or the 2006 submittals 

modifying the statewide I/M program 

and those proposed modifications are 

being finalized in this action as 

originally proposed. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

any increase in CO levels will be a 

detriment to Fairbanks air quality. 

Response: Under section 110(l) of the 

Act, the Administrator shall not approve 

a revision to a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. In addition, 

under section 175A of the Act, an 

approved maintenance plan is required. 

As stated in EPA’s September 15, 2009 

proposed notice of approval of revisions 

to Alaska’s CO SIP, including Alaska’s 

revision to the CO maintenance plan for 

Fairbanks, the State’s demonstration 

shows that emissions projections 

included in the State’s submittal 

demonstrate that levels of CO will 

decline from current levels through 

2015 with the discontinuation of the I/ 

M program and that the State will 

maintain the CO standard in Fairbanks 

through 2015. The primary driver for 

this decline in CO emissions is the 

replacement of older, less clean burning 

vehicles with newer, cleaner burning 

vehicles. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

stated concerns about the effect of the 

discontinuation of the Fairbanks I/M 

program on PM2.5 in the area, and one 

stated that the I/M program should not 

be discontinued until all sources of 

PM2.5 can be analyzed. 

Response: The EPA is acting on the 

State’s submission to revise the CO 

maintenance plan for the Fairbanks area 

to discontinue the I/M program 

beginning in calendar year 2010. As 

stated above, under section 110(l) of the 

Act, the Administrator shall not approve 

a revision to a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress (as defined 

in section 171), or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. This includes a 

consideration of whether or not this 

action will interfere with attainment of 

the 2006 PM2.5 and CO NAAQS. In 

addition, under section 175A of the Act, 

the area will need to have an approved 

maintenance plan. As stated in EPA’s 

September 15, 2009 proposed notice of 

approval of revisions to Alaska’s CO 

SIP, the State’s demonstration shows 

that without the Fairbanks I/M program, 

PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources 

will decline as compared to 2005 levels 

and the area will continue to attain the 

CO NAAQS through 2015. 

The Fairbanks area was recently 

designated as a nonattainment area for 

2006 PM2.5 standard. 74 FR 58688, 

November 13, 2009. As a result of the 

nonattainment designation for the 

Fairbanks area for PM2.5, the State is 

required under section 172(b) of the Act 

to develop and submit a State 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
13438 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1The State must address NOX as a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor and evaluate sources of 

NOX emissions in the State for control measures, 

unless the State and EPA provide an appropriate 

technical demonstration for a specific area showing 

that NOX emissions from sources in the State do not 

significantly contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in 

the nonattainment area. The State is not required 

to address VOC as a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor and evaluate sources of VOC emissions in 

the State for control measures, unless the State 

provides an appropriate technical demonstration for 

a specific area showing that VOC emissions from 

sources in the State significantly contribute to PM2.5

concentrations in the nonattainment area, and such 

demonstration is approved by EPA or the EPA 

provides such a technical demonstration. The State 

is not required to address ammonia as a PM2.5

attainment plan precursor and evaluate sources of 

ammonia emissions from sources in the State for 

control measures, unless the State provides an 

appropriate technical demonstration for a specific 

area showing that ammonia emissions from sources 

in the State significantly contribute to PM2.5

concentrations in the nonattainment area, and such 

demonstration is approved by EPA or the EPA 

provides such a technical demonstration. See 40 

CFR 51.1002(c)(1)–(4) 

Implementation Plan within three years 

from the effective date of the 

designations that will demonstrate 

attainment with the PM2.5 standard in 

the Fairbanks area. Under section 

172(c)(6) and 172(a)(2) of the Act, the 

plan must contain a suite of control 

measures that will be designed to 

address the sources of PM2.5 and PM2.5

precursor emissions in the Fairbanks 

area contributing to nonattainment in 

the area and achieve attainment status 

as expeditiously as practicable but 

within 5 years of designation. This 

submission will be due no later than 

December 14, 2012. 74 FR 58688. 

According to Alaska’s emissions 

analysis using the EPA-approved mobile 

source model, MOBILE6.2, emissions of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are 

generally projected to decline 

substantially from 2005 levels through 

2015 (the end of the modeling period). 

Directly emitted PM2.5 emissions are 

projected to decline by 66% during this 

period according to MOBILE6.2 and this 

rate of decline is unaffected by the 

discontinuation of the I/M program. 

EPA has promulgated regulations that 

address how areas that have been 

designated as nonattainment for the 

PM2.5 NAAQS should address PM2.5

direct emissions and PM2.5 precursors in 

implementation plans. See 40 CFR 

51.1002(c). Contrary to the assertion of 

the commenter, Alaska is not required 

under these regulations to analyze ‘‘all 

sources of PM2.5.’’ As explained in the 

Federal Register Notice promulgating 

the final PM2.5 Implementation Rule (72 

FR 20586, April 25, 2007), EPA has 

established requirements for PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plans that take into 

account the contributions of PM2.5

precursor emissions under area-specific 

conditions. The rule represents an 

approach that ‘‘requires sulfur dioxide to 

be evaluated for control measures in all 

areas, and describes general 

presumptive policies for NOX, 

ammonia, and VOC for all 

nonattainment areas. The rule provides 

a mechanism by which the State and/or 

EPA can make an area-specific 

demonstration to reverse the general 

presumption for these three 

precursors.’’1 72 FR 20589. 

For the reasons discussed below, 

taking into consideration the Agency’s 

policy position on determining whether 

or not certain PM2.5 precursor emission 

sources must be taken into 

consideration when selecting control 

measures, as well as the best available 

data and modeling results regarding the 

anticipated effects of the 

discontinuation of the Fairbanks I/M 

program, EPA concludes that the minor 

changes in levels of certain PM2.5

precursor emissions in the Fairbanks 

area will not interfere with the area’s 

ability to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

and Alaska have taken into 

consideration the effect of potentially 

discontinuing the Fairbanks I/M 

program on several PM2.5 precursor 

emissions: hydrocarbon (HC) (also 

referred to as VOC), NOX, SOx, and 

ammonia. Baseline emissions of direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are projected 

to decline between 2005 and 2015 

regardless of whether or not the I/M 

program is in place. VOC levels are 

projected to decline by 51% with the 

I/M program and by 39% without the 

I/M program. NOX levels are projected 

to decline by 63% with the I/M program 

and by 59% without the I/M program. 

SOx levels are projected to almost 

disappear after 2005 because of the 

implementation of low sulfur gasoline 

and diesel fuel requirements in urban 

Alaskan areas. Ammonia is the only 

pollutant that modeling projects to 

increase from 2005 to 2015, but at a very 

low level, (0.01 ton/day) and this is 

attributable to growth in vehicle miles 

traveled through that period. The 

discontinuation of the I/M program will 

not affect ammonia emissions. In light 

of this information, EPA has concluded 

that any potential ammonia 

contributions to PM2.5 formation in the 

Fairbanks area can not be attributed to 

the discontinuation of the I/M program. 

Direct PM2.5, SOx and ammonia 

precursor PM2.5 emissions in the 

Fairbanks area are expected to be 

unaffected by the discontinuation of the 

I/M program in Fairbanks, while HC and 

NOX emissions are projected to change 

slightly. The elimination of the I/M 

program will slightly diminish the 

reduction in NOX and HC emissions 

predicted to occur between 2010 and 

2015. EPA’s review of the available data 

shows that the changes in emission rates 

are projected to range between 0.10 and 

0.17 tons/day for each of these 

pollutants respectively. However, in the 

absence of a demonstration that VOCs 

are contributing significantly to PM2.5

nonattainment in an area, the state is 

not required to develop a plan to control 

VOC sources for the purposes of PM2.5

NAAQS attainment. See 40 CFR 

51.1002(c)(3). EPA has no technical 

basis to conclude that VOCs are a 

significant contributor to PM2.5

nonattainment in Fairbanks. 

Consequently, EPA has determined in 

this instance that changes in VOC 

emissions attributable to the 

discontinuation of the I/M program will 

not interfere with Alaska’s ability to 

attain the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA’s PM2.5 NAAQS implementation 

rule requires that PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas address PM2.5 precursor NOX

emissions and evaluate sources of those 

emissions in the state for control 

measures, unless the state and EPA 

provide an appropriate technical 

demonstration for a specific area 

showing that NOX emissions from 

sources in the state do not significantly 

contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the 

nonattainment area. Data in the 

Technical Support Document for EPA’s 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 designations 

evidences a poor correlation between 

NOX and PM2.5 formation in Fairbanks. 

All available information regarding 

PM2.5 precursor emissions in the 

Fairbanks area supports EPA’s 

determination in this instance that that 

NOX emissions attributable to a 

discontinuation of the I/M program 

(estimated to be no more than 0.10 tons 

per day) will not significantly contribute 

to the formation of PM2.5 in the affected 

area. Only a fraction of the .10 tons/day 

of NOX would be converted to PM2.5. 

Additionally, a speciation analysis of 

2006–2008 PM2.5 monitoring data in 

Fairbanks shows that on the 12 days 

when the PM2.5 standard was exceeded 

in 2006–2008 the average mass of nitrate 

was 1.58 μg/m3. When this is adjusted 

for ammonium, the value of ammonium 

nitrate is 2.04 μg/m3. This is 4.4% of the 

total average PM2.5 mass (46.69 μg/m3) 

recorded on violation days. The twelve 

days when the PM2.5 standard was 

violated in 2006–2008 all occurred 

during the winter months and the 

technical data in the record indicate that 

levels of PM2.5 above the 35 μg/m3 level 

of the NAAQS were caused by increased 

use of wood-burning stoves and home 

heating oil. These data support EPA’s 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 13439 

conclusion that the small increase in 

precursor NOX emissions attributable to 

the discontinuation of the I/M program 

will not interfere with the ability of the 

area to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS 

standard. 

Comment: One anonymous 

commenter stated that the removal of 

the I/M program will increase PM2.5 and 

expressed concerns about discontinuing 

the I/M program, contending that there 

were high PM2.5 levels in the area and 

citing data that shows unexplained 

hotspots on Airport Road coupled with 

the lack of study of mobile source 

concentrations. 

Response: The anonymous 

commenter did not identify the source 

or nature of the data which underlies 

their comment and the basis for 

concluding that there is a PM2.5 ‘‘hot 

spot’’ on Airport Road in Fairbanks. EPA 

is aware that the State has collected 

preliminary screening data using 

instantaneous mobile monitoring 

around Fairbanks that shows elevated 

concentrations of PM2.5 in the vicinity of 

Airport Road. This data was collected to 

yield preliminary information on the 

location of elevated PM2.5

concentrations in the Fairbanks area. As 

preliminary data, it has not undergone 

quality assurance processes, nor was it 

collected in accordance with EPAapproved methods. EPA believes that 

this preliminary data is inconclusive 

concerning the source(s) contributing to 

elevated PM2.5 concentrations in that 

area. Although the monitoring data 

evidences an episodic elevated 

concentration of PM2.5 in the Airport 

Road area, we have no basis to 

determine that these events constitute 

exceedences or violations of the PM2.5

standard. Furthermore, this data does 

not provide a foundation to conclude 

that these elevated concentrations 

around Airport Road are affiliated with 

mobile sources that would be impacted 

by the discontinuation of the I/M 

program. As stated above, data collected 

and submitted by the State using EPA 

approved methods indicates that direct 

PM2.5 will be unaffected by the 

elimination of the I/M program in 

Fairbanks, and the changes in NOX and 

HC precursor emissions projected to 

result from discontinuation of the I/M 

program will not interfere with 

attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

Fairbanks. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concerns with heath risks 

attributable to PM2.5 and questioned the 

appropriateness of discontinuing the I/ 

M program because doing so would 

eliminate the health-benefits of the 

program. 

Response: Primary CO, PM2.5 and the 

remaining criteria pollutant standards 

are health-based standards set through 

the process outlined in sections 108 and 

109 of the Clean Air Act. Section 

109(b)(1) defines a primary standard as 

one ‘‘the attainment and maintenance of 

which in the judgment of the 

Administrator, based on such criteria 

and allowing an adequate margin of 

safety, are requisite to protect the public 

health.’’ The State’s submittal 

demonstrates that the discontinuation of 

the I/M program in Fairbanks will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the health-based 

ambient air quality standard for PM2.5. 

As discussed above, EPA expects that 

Alaska will develop and submit for EPA 

approval a SIP to achieve attainment 

with the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 

accordance with the schedule 

established by the Act. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the program should be expanded to 

include diesel vehicles. 

Response: The CAA established a 

system of air quality management 

whereby each state develops and 

proposes, after reasonable notice and 

public involvement processes, proposed 

plans for the attainment or maintenance 

of the NAAQS. In reviewing a state’s 

proposed SIP amendment, EPA must 

determine whether or not the proposed 

amendment meets the requirements of 

the Act. EPA is not empowered to alter 

the scope of the regulatory regime 

selected by the state to achieve or 

maintain attainment with a national 

ambient air quality standard unless it 

finds the state’s proposed plan to be 

deficient and elects to develop a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) in lieu of the 

SIP. The State did not include any 

provisions related to diesel vehicles in 

its proposed SIP amendment. EPA is 

acting on the State’s submission which 

is limited in scope to revisions to the 

existing SIP for CO. We have reviewed 

the State’s submittal and found that it 

meets the requirements of the Act. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concerns that without the I/M program 

in place in Fairbanks, vehicles that were 

registered as seasonally registered 

vehicles prohibited from driving during 

the winter under the I/M program 

would be permitted on the road. 

Another commenter stated that the I/M 

program is needed to keep dirty vehicles 

off of the road in the winter time. 

Response: The State’s emission 

projections include emissions from all 

vehicles in the Fairbanks area including 

those that qualify as seasonally 

registered vehicles under the I/M 

program. The State used these emission 

projections in their demonstration of 

attainment and maintenance which 

shows that the discontinuation of the I/ 

M program (which includes the 

discontinuation of seasonal prohibitions 

for vehicles registered as seasonally 

registered) will not interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the CO or 

PM2.5 standards during the winter 

season. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

without the I/M program, maintenance 

of cars will be put off until vehicles fail 

to run. 

Response: As discussed above, EPA is 

taking this final action in accordance 

with section 110 of the Act to verify that 

the State’s proposed SIP modification 

meets the requirements of the CAA and 

that the proposed SIP modification will 

continue to result in the maintenance of 

attainment with the CO NAAQS. EPA 

does not have the authority to add 

provisions to the state program in this 

action. Car maintenance standards of 

the type raised by the commenter are 

outside of the scope of this action when 

they that do not have an impact on 

maintenance or attainment of ambient 

air quality standards. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the program should not be 

discontinued because the benefits of the 

I/M program outweigh its costs. 

Response: The Act does not require 

EPA to conduct a cost-benefit analysis 

when reviewing state-proposed 

revisions to SIPs. The State must 

demonstrate that the revision to the SIP 

will not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of the health-based 

standards. The State has demonstrated 

that the discontinuation of the 

Fairbanks I/M program will not interfere 

with attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS in that area, and is therefore 

approvable by EPA without 

consideration of whether the benefits 

achieved by the program exceed its 

costs. 

III. Final Action 

For the reasons provided above and in 

our September 15, 2009 proposed rule, 

we are approving Alaska’s 2002, 2006, 

and 2008 SIP revisions, including the 

discontinuation of the I/M program for 

CO in the Fairbanks area beginning in 

calendar year 2010. Also in this action, 

EPA is correcting a transcription error in 

the boundary description for the 

Fairbanks CO maintenance area 

contained in 40 CFR 81.302 under 

section 110(k)(6) of the Act. 

EPA is incorporating by reference the 

following new and revised sections of 

the Alaska Department of 

Conservation’s air quality regulations: 

18 AAC 50.030 Air Quality Control as 

in effect May 15, 2008; 18 AAC 52 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
13440 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Emissions Inspection and Maintenance 

Requirements for Motor Vehicles as in 

effect May 15, 2008 and AO 2006–13, an 

ordinance amending Anchorage 

Municipal Code chapters 15.80 and 

15.85 to comply with State I/M 

regulations and to comply with DMV 

Electronic Procedures January 24, 2006 

and Chapters 15.80 and 15.85 of the 

Anchorage Municipal Code. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and the EPA notes 

that it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by May 21, 2010. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: December 4, 2009. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

10. 

■ 40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart C—Alaska 

■ 2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding 

paragraph (c)(37) to read as follows: 

§ 52.70 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(37) On March 29, 2002, December 11, 

2006 and June 5, 2008 the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation submitted revisions to the 

SIP approved inspection and 

maintenance program for Carbon 

Monoxide. The SIP revisions meet the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) The following new and revised 

sections of ADEC’s air quality 

regulations: 

(1) 18 AAC 50.030 Air Quality Control 

as in effect May 17, 2008. 

(2) 18 AAC 52 Emissions Inspection 

and Maintenance Requirements for 

Motor Vehicles as in effect May 17, 

2008. 

(3) AO 2006–13 an ordinance 

amending Anchorage Municipal Code 

chapters 15.80 and 15.85 to comply 

with State I/M regulations and to 

comply with DMV Electronic 

Procedures January 24, 2006 and 

Chapters 15.80 and 15.85 of the 

Anchorage Municipal Code as approved 

February 14, 2006. 

(ii) Additional material 

(A) The following revised sections of 

Alaska’s air quality regulations: 

(1) State Air Quality Control Plan— 

Vol. II Analysis of Problems, Control 

Actions, Section II: Air Quality Program, 

April 4, 2008 

(2) State Air Quality Control Plan— 

Vol. II Analysis of Problems, Control 

Actions, Section III.A. Statewide Carbon 

Monoxide Control Program, April 4, 

2008 

(3) State Air Quality Control Plan— 

Vol. II Analysis of Problems, Control 

Actions, Section III.C. Fairbanks 

Transportation Control Program, April 

4, 2008 

(4) Amendments to State Air Quality 

Control Plan, Vol. III Appendices 

(Appendix III.A.2 and Appendix to 

III.C.3), April 4, 2008 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 54 / Monday, March 22, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 13441 

(5) State Air Quality Control Plan— 

Vol. II Analysis of Problems, Control 

Actions, Section III.B. Anchorage 

Transportation Control Program, 

September 19, 2006 

(6) Vol. III. Appendix to Vol. II, Sec 

II, September 19, 2006 

(7) Vol. III. Appendix to Vol. II, Sec 

III.A, September 19, 2006 

(8) Vol. III. Appendix to Vol. II, Sec 

III.B, September 19, 2006 

(9) Vol. III. Appendix to Vol. II, Sec 

III.C, September 19, 2006 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

■ 3. The authority citation for Part 81 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 4. In § 81.302, the table entitled 

‘‘Alaska—Carbon Monoxide’’ is 

amended by revising the entry for 

‘‘Fairbanks Area Fairbanks Election 

District (part)’’ to read as follows: 

§ 81.302 Alaska. 

* * * * * 

ALASKA—CARBON MONOXIDE

Designated area 

Designation Classification 

Date i Type Date 1 Type 

* * * * * * * 

Fairbanks Area September 27, 

2004.

Attainment.

Fairbanks Election District (part) 

Fairbanks nonattainment area boundary: 

1. Township 1 South, Range 1 West, Sections 2 through 23, 

the portion of Section 1 west of the Fort Wainwright military 

reservation boundary and the portions of Section 24 north of 

the Old Richardson Highway and west of the military reservation boundary, also, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Sections 13 and 24, the portion of Section 12 southwest of 

Chena Pump Road and the portions of Sections 14 and 23 

southeast of the Chena river. Also, Township 1 South, Range 

1 East, Sections 7, 8, and 18 and the portion of Section 19 

north of the Richardson Highway. (Fairbanks and Ft. Wainwright) 

2. Township 2 South, Range 2 East, the portions of Sections 9 

and 10 southwest of the Richardson Highway. (North Pole) 

* * * * * * * 

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–3235 Filed 3–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 395 

Hours of Service; Limited 90-Day 

Waiver for the Distribution of 

Anhydrous Ammonia in Agricultural 

Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Grant of waiver. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA grants a limited 90- 

day waiver from the Federal hours-ofservice (HOS) regulations for the 

transportation of anhydrous ammonia 

from any distribution point to a local 

farm retailer or to the ultimate 

consumer, and from a local farm retailer 

to the ultimate consumer, as long as the 

transportation takes place within a 100 

air-mile radius of the retail or wholesale 

distribution point. This waiver extends 

the agricultural operations exemption 

established by section 345 of the 

National Highway System Designation 

Act of 1995, as amended by the sections 

4115 and 4130 of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation 

Equity: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA– 

LU) to certain motor carriers engaged in 

the distribution of anhydrous ammonia 

during the 2010 spring planting season. 

The Agency has determined that the 

waiver would likely achieve a level of 

safety that is equivalent to, or greater 

than, the level that would be achieved 

absent such exemption, based on the 

terms and conditions imposed. This 

waiver preempts inconsistent State and 

local requirements applicable to 

interstate commerce. 

DATES: The waiver is effective March 22, 

2010. The waiver expires on June 21, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas L. Yager, Chief, Driver and 

Carrier Operations Division, Office of 

Bus and Truck Standards and 

Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

E-mail: MCPSD@dot.gov. Phone (202) 

366–4325. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis 

The Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century (TEA–21) (Pub. L. 105– 

178, 112 Stat. 107, June 9, 1998) 

provides the Secretary of Transportation 

(the Secretary) the authority to grant 

waivers from any of the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) 

issued under Chapter 313 of Title 49 of 

the United States Code or 49 U.S.C. 

31136, to a person(s) seeking regulatory 

relief. (49 U.S.C. 31136, 31315(a)) The 

Secretary must make a determination 

that the waiver is in the public interest, 

and that it is likely to achieve a level of 

safety that is equivalent to, or greater 

than, the level of safety that would be 

obtained in the absence of the waiver. 

Individual waivers may only be granted 

to a person for a specific unique, nonemergency event, for a period up to 

three months. TEA–21 authorizes the 

Secretary to grant waivers without 

requesting public comment, and 

without providing public notice. 

The Administrator of FMCSA has 

been delegated authority under 49 CFR 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES