[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 54 (Monday, March 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13436-13441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3235]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8defe2e3e4ebeceee4e3e2a3eae4e3eccde8fdeca3eae2fb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fb999495929d9a98929594d59c92959abb9e8b9ad59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> in 
the area, and one stated that the I/M program should not be 
discontinued until all sources of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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, PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. 74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009. As 
a result of the nonattainment designation for the Fairbanks area for 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, the State is required under section 172(b) of the Act 
to develop and submit a State

[[Page 13438]]

Implementation Plan within three years from the effective date of the 
designations that will demonstrate attainment with the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
and PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursors are generally projected to decline 
substantially from 2005 levels through 2015 (the end of the modeling 
period). Directly emitted PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS should 
address PM<INF>2.5</INF> direct emissions and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>.'' As 
explained in the Federal Register Notice promulgating the final 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> Implementation Rule (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007), EPA 
has established requirements for PM<INF>2.5</INF> State Implementation 
Plans that take into account the contributions of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The State must address NO<INF>X</INF> as a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
attainment plan precursor and evaluate sources of NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions in the State for control measures, unless the State and 
EPA provide an appropriate technical demonstration for a specific 
area showing that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from sources in the State 
do not significantly contribute to PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations 
in the nonattainment area. The State is not required to address VOC 
as a PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed below, taking into consideration the 
Agency's policy position on determining whether or not certain 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor 
emissions in the Fairbanks area will not interfere with the area's 
ability to attain the PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA and Alaska have taken 
into consideration the effect of potentially discontinuing the 
Fairbanks I/M program on several PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions: 
hydrocarbon (HC) (also referred to as VOC), NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>x</INF>, and ammonia. Baseline emissions of direct 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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. NO<INF>X</INF> 
levels are projected to decline by 63% with the I/M program and by 59% 
without the I/M program. SO<INF>x</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in the Fairbanks 
area can not be attributed to the discontinuation of the I/M program.
    Direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>, SO<INF>x</INF> and ammonia precursor 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions in the Fairbanks area are expected to be 
unaffected by the discontinuation of the I/M program in Fairbanks, 
while HC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions are projected to change slightly. 
The elimination of the I/M program will slightly diminish the reduction 
in NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment in an area, the state is not required to 
develop a plan to control VOC sources for the purposes of 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS attainment. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3). EPA has no 
technical basis to conclude that VOCs are a significant contributor to 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    EPA's PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS implementation rule requires that 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> nonattainment areas address PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from sources in the state do not significantly 
contribute to PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in the nonattainment 
area. Data in the Technical Support Document for EPA's 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> designations evidences a poor correlation between 
NO<INF>X</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> formation in Fairbanks. All 
available information regarding PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor emissions in 
the Fairbanks area supports EPA's determination in this instance that 
that NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the 
affected area. Only a fraction of the .10 tons/day of NO<INF>X</INF> 
would be converted to PM<INF>2.5</INF>. Additionally, a speciation 
analysis of 2006-2008 PM<INF>2.5</INF> monitoring data in Fairbanks 
shows that on the 12 days when the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard was 
exceeded in 2006-2008 the average mass of nitrate was 1.58 [mu]g/m3. 
When this is adjusted for ammonium, the value of ammonium nitrate is 
2.04 [mu]g/m3. This is 4.4% of the total average PM<INF>2.5</INF> mass 
(46.69 [mu]g/m3) recorded on violation days. The twelve days when the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard was violated in 2006-2008 all occurred during 
the winter months and the technical data in the record indicate that 
levels of PM<INF>2.5</INF> above the 35 [mu]g/m3 level of the NAAQS 
were caused by increased use of wood-burning stoves and home heating 
oil. These data support EPA's

[[Page 13439]]

conclusion that the small increase in precursor NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions attributable to the discontinuation of the I/M program will 
not interfere with the ability of the area to attain the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS standard.
    Comment: One anonymous commenter stated that the removal of the I/M 
program will increase PM<INF>2.5</INF> and expressed concerns about 
discontinuing the I/M program, contending that there were high 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> ``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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> in the 
vicinity of Airport Road. This data was collected to yield preliminary 
information on the location of elevated PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations 
in the Fairbanks area. As preliminary data, it has not undergone 
quality assurance processes, nor was it collected in accordance with 
EPA-approved methods. EPA believes that this preliminary data is 
inconclusive concerning the source(s) contributing to elevated 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations in that area. Although the monitoring 
data evidences an episodic elevated concentration of PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
in the Airport Road area, we have no basis to determine that these 
events constitute exceedences or violations of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> will be unaffected by the elimination of the I/M 
program in Fairbanks, and the changes in NO<INF>X</INF> and HC 
precursor emissions projected to result from discontinuation of the I/M 
program will not interfere with attainment of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
NAAQS in Fairbanks.
    Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns with heath risks 
attributable to PM<INF>2.5</INF> and questioned the appropriateness of 
discontinuing the I/M program because doing so would eliminate the 
health-benefits of the program.
    Response: Primary CO, PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>. As discussed above, EPA expects that 
Alaska will develop and submit for EPA approval a SIP to achieve 
attainment with the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 13440]]

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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(37) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 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]

0
3. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. In Sec.  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:


Sec.  81.302  Alaska.

* * * * *

                                             Alaska--Carbon Monoxide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                           Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       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)
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-3235 Filed 3-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>