[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 15, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47154-47159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22208]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0690; FRL-8956-7]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve numerous revisions to Alaska's 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to the motor vehicle 
inspection and maintenance program for control of carbon monoxide (CO) 
in Anchorage and Fairbanks. The State of Alaska submitted three 
revisions to the Alaska SIP: a March 29, 2002 submittal containing 
minor revisions to the Statewide Inspection and Maintenance Program, a 
December 11, 2006 submittal containing more substantial revisions to 
the Statewide Inspection and Maintenance Program, and a June 5, 2008 
submittal containing major revisions to the Statewide Inspection and 
Maintenance Program discontinuing the Inspection and Maintenance 
Program in Fairbanks as an active control measure in the SIP and 
shifting it to contingency measures. EPA is proposing to approve these 
submittals because they satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(hereinafter the Act or CAA).
    Also in this action, EPA is proposing a technical correction to the 
boundary description for the Fairbanks CO maintenance area, to correct 
a transcription error in the boundary description.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2008-0690, by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. Mail: Gina Bonifacino, EPA, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics 
(AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    C. Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Gina Bonifacino, Office 
of Air Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107). Such deliveries are only accepted 
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be 
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2008-0690. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know 
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body 
of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the EPA 
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address 
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If 
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include 
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and 
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and 
be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Bonifacino, (206) 553-2970, or by 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#237112130e7356414f4a407c604c4e4e464d5750634653420d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="500261607d0025323c39330f133f3d3d353e2423103520317e373f26">[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. Proposed Actions
    A. 2008 Submittal
    B. 2006 Submittal
    C. 2002 Submittal
    D. 110(k)(6) Correction
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

Fairbanks North Star Borough Maintenance Area Planning History

    The urban portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB or 
Fairbanks) was designated in 1990 as a nonattainment area for CO and 
classified as moderate. On March 30, 1998, Fairbanks was reclassified 
as a serious nonattainment area for failing to attain the ambient 
eight-hour CO

[[Page 47155]]

standard by the December 31, 1995 deadline. A new plan was required by 
October 1, 1999; however, an attainment plan was not submitted to EPA 
by the deadline. On April 3, 2000, EPA published a Federal Register 
Notice (65 FR 17444) stating that initial, mandatory sanctions would be 
triggered if a new plan was not submitted by October 2, 2001. On March, 
2001, Fairbanks and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 
(ADEC or the State) submitted a request to EPA for an extension of the 
attainment date from December 31, 2000 to December 31, 2001. On May 25, 
2001, EPA granted approval. See 66 FR 28836. Alaska submitted a new 
plan on August 30, 2001, and EPA approved the plan on February 4, 2002 
(67 FR 5064). ADEC submitted a maintenance plan and redesignation 
request to EPA on June 21, 2004. EPA proposed (69 FR 44632) and 
approved (69 FR 44601) the plan and redesignated the Fairbanks CO area 
to attainment on July 27, 2004. The maintenance plan relies on control 
strategies needed to assure maintenance of the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide: The Federal Motor 
Vehicle Emission Control Program, a basic inspection and maintenance 
(I/M) program, a plug-in ordinance, and a woodstove curtailment 
program.

Anchorage Maintenance Area Planning History

    Anchorage, Alaska, was first declared a nonattainment area for CO 
and classified as moderate on January 27, 1978. The Municipality of 
Anchorage (MOA) prepared a plan to attain the NAAQS by December 31, 
1987; however, Anchorage failed to achieve attainment by December 31, 
1987. The Clean Air Act was amended in November 1990, and EPA 
designated Anchorage as a moderate nonattainment area for CO and 
required submission of a revised air quality plan to bring Anchorage 
into attainment by December 31, 1995. EPA approved the plan in 1995. 
However, two violations of the NAAQS in 1996 resulted in EPA 
reclassifying Anchorage to serious nonattainment on July 13, 1998 with 
an attainment date of December 31, 2000. The MOA submitted a new plan 
on January 4, 2002 and EPA proposed approval of the plan (67 FR 38218) 
on June 3, 2002. On September 18, 2002, EPA approved the Anchorage CO 
attainment plan (67 FR 58711). The MOA submitted a maintenance plan and 
a redesignation request for the Anchorage CO nonattainment area on 
February 18, 2004. EPA proposed approval of the Anchorage CO 
maintenance plan (69 FR 25869) on May 10, 2004 and approved the plan on 
June 23, 2004 (69 FR 34935). The maintenance plan relies on control 
strategies needed to assure maintenance of the NAAQS for CO. The 
strategy focuses on the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program, 
an I/M program, expanded wintertime transit service and promotion of 
engine preheaters.

II. Proposed Actions

    As stated above, the EPA is proposing to approve numerous revisions 
to the Alaska I/M program contained in three SIP submittals. The March 
29, 2002 submittal (the 2002 submittal) includes minor revisions to the 
statewide I/M program contained in 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 
50 and 52, the December 11, 2006 (the 2006 submittal) contains 
revisions to the statewide I/M program contained in 18 AAC 50 and 52 
and the June 5, 2008 (the 2008 submittal) contains substantial 
revisions to 18 AAC 52 removing the I/M program in Fairbanks from the 
active part of the SIP and moving it to the contingency measures 
portion of the SIP. Upon EPA approval of the revised maintenance plan, 
the I/M program in Fairbanks will no longer be an active control 
measure in the SIP but will be a contingency measure that may be 
implemented in the future if the need arises.
    Alaska's SIP amendment submittals are reviewed below in reverse 
chronological order. Following the EPA's review of each of the 
submittals, we establish the basis for a technical correction to the 
Fairbanks CO area boundary under section 110(k)(6) of the Act. The EPA 
has also prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD) with more detailed 
analysis of the SIP revisions the State of Alaska has submitted for 
approval. The TSD is available for public review as part of the docket 
for this action.

A. 2008 Submittal

Clean Air Act Basis for Review
    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states:

    Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State 
under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable 
notice and public hearing. 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 this Act.
EPA's Evaluation of the State's CAA Section 110(l) Demonstration in the 
2008 Submittal
    The I/M program is a primary control measure in the current 
Federally approved CO maintenance plan for the Fairbanks area. The 
State's 2008 submittal revises the maintenance plan for the Fairbanks 
area to discontinue the I/M program beginning in calendar year 2010 and 
to shift it to the contingency measures section of the SIP. To satisfy 
section 110(l) of the Act, the State submitted a technical analysis 
using probabilistic rollback modeling that demonstrates that the State 
will continue to maintain the CO standard in Fairbanks without the I/M 
program in place. In addition, since based on 2006-2008 air quality 
monitoring data, the State is violating the 2006 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard, the State submitted a technical analysis 
demonstrating that removal of the I/M program in Fairbanks will not 
result in an increase in PM<INF>2.5</INF> direct or precursor 
emissions.\1\ The State is well within the compliance levels for the 
remaining NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See EPA Air Quality Monitoring data http://epa.gov/air/data/
monvals.html?st~K~Alaska.
    \2\ See EPA's Green Book http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the State's analyses for CO and 
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, we have concluded that the 2008 SIP revision 
discontinuing the I/M program in Fairbanks as a control measure in the 
Fairbanks maintenance plan will not interfere with attainment or 
maintenance of the NAAQS, including CO, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, or any other 
requirement of the Act. Accordingly, we are proposing to approve the 
removal of the I/M program in Fairbanks from the active control 
measures portion of the maintenance plan. Based on section 175(A)(d) of 
the Act, any measure that is removed from the active portion of a 
maintenance plan must be retained as a contingency measure, therefore, 
EPA is proposing to retain the I/M program in the Fairbanks CO 
maintenance plan as a contingency measure. See September 4, 1992 
memorandum from John Calcagni to the EPA Air Division Directors 
(``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division), which is included in the docket for this action.
    The following is EPA's evaluation of the State's 2008 SIP revision 
that demonstrates that removing the I/M program in Fairbanks will not 
impact attainment or maintenance of the CO standard in Fairbanks 
followed by our evaluation of the State's analysis

[[Page 47156]]

demonstrating that removal of the I/M program in Fairbanks will not 
impact attainment or maintenance of the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard in Fairbanks.
EPA's Evaluation of the Updated Components of the Federally Approved CO 
Maintenance Plan for Fairbanks and our Evaluation of the State's 
Analysis of Impacts of Removing the I/M Program in Fairbanks on the CO 
Standard
    In the 2008 submittal, the State provided updates to components of 
the Fairbanks CO maintenance plan reflecting removal of the I/M program 
in Fairbanks and demonstrating continued maintenance of the CO standard 
in Fairbanks. These components include an updated emissions inventory 
for the period 2006-2015 reflecting the removal of the I/M program 
beginning in calendar year 2010, a demonstration of maintenance of the 
CO standard in Fairbanks without the I/M program in place, updated 
contingency measures that incorporate the I/M program as a contingency 
measure, and an updated motor vehicle emissions budget for the CO SIP 
that reflects the removal of the I/M program in Fairbanks.
    The following is EPA's evaluation of these updated components. All 
of the technical work contained in the State's 2008 submittal was 
performed using the same methodology that was used to demonstrate 
maintenance in the Fairbanks CO maintenance plan that EPA approved in 
2004. See 69 FR 44601. Where data was available, emissions inventory 
and modeling inputs were updated with more recent information. This is 
explained further in our evaluation below and in the TSD for this 
proposed action.
Emissions Inventory
    The State submitted an updated emissions inventory for the period 
2006-2015 reflecting the discontinuation of the I/M program in 
Fairbanks in 2010. The inventory was prepared in accordance with EPA's 
CO emissions inventory guidance.\3\ The inventory includes emissions 
for stationary sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources and on-
road mobile sources on a worst case or ``design day.'' \4\ The complete 
inventory is included in the Appendix to Volume II Section III.C. of 
the State's submittal. The base year for the inventory is 2005 which 
corresponds to a year when the area was in attainment with the 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Emissions Inventory Requirements for Carbon Monoxide State 
Implementation Plans EPA-450/4-91-011.
    \4\ A worst case design day for Fairbanks is during the 
wintertime when meteorological conditions such as inversions are 
present that are most likely to cause exceedances and emissions are 
highest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State projected the 2005 base year inventory to the years 2006-
2015 to serve as the modeling inventory. This modeling inventory 
accounts for the elimination of the I/M program after 2009. EPA's 
review of the modeling inventory indicates that there is an overall 
decline in base emissions by 4.84 tons per day (tpd) (14%) between the 
2005 base year and the 2015 horizon planning year. This is caused by a 
24% reduction in on-road emissions (from 25.29 tpd to 19.18 tpd) during 
this timeframe. The primary driver in lower on-road emissions is a 
sustained reduction in average in-use emission rates as newer, cleaner 
vehicles continue to replace older, higher emitting vehicles. The TSD 
for this proposed action contains a detailed discussion and table of 
emissions from the 2006-2015 inventory.
Maintenance Demonstration
    The State used a probabilistic rollback approach for the 
maintenance demonstration in the 2008 SIP submittal. This is the same 
methodology that the State used and EPA approved in previous submittals 
to model attainment/maintenance with the CO standard in Fairbanks. See 
69 FR 44601 and the Technical Support Document for 69 FR 44601. A 
detailed discussion of the methodology and results can be found in the 
Appendix to Volume II Section III.C of the State's submittal and in 
EPA's TSD for this proposed action.
    The State's 2008 submittal contains a summary of the probability of 
attainment through 2015 without the I/M program in place from the 
probabilistic rollback analysis. Consistent with methods used in 
previous plans submitted by the State and approved by EPA, at least a 
90% confidence interval is desirable for a long-term demonstration of 
attainment for a maintenance plan. Based on the modeling results 
contained in the State's submittal, the probability of attainment is 
93% or above for all years in the State's maintenance demonstration 
(2006-2015). EPA's evaluation of the probabilistic rollback modeling in 
the State's 2008 submittal concludes that the Fairbanks area will 
continue to attain and maintain the CO standard through the year 2015 
without the I/M program in place.
Contingency Measures
    As a primary control strategy in the Alaska SIP, the I/M program 
for Fairbanks must be retained as a contingency measure. In addition to 
this contingency measure, the previously approved contingency measures 
in the SIP continue to apply. See 69 FR 44604. As stated above, Section 
175A(d) of the Clean Air Act requires that maintenance plans include as 
contingency measures all control measures which were contained in the 
State implementation plan before redesignation to attainment. To 
satisfy this requirement, EPA will be removing the Fairbanks I/M 
Program as a control measure in the SIP and shifting it to a 
contingency measure that will be available for implementation if needed 
to ensure continued maintenance of the ambient CO standard. As 
documented in the State's submittal in Section III.C.9, Fairbanks will 
retain the local legal authority necessary to implement the I/M Program 
as a contingency measure. Similarly, the State will retain its 
authority to implement the I/M Program under State regulation, 18 AAC 
52 (included in the State's submittal in the Appendix to Section 
III.A.2), as specified in Alaska Statutes 46.14.400 (included in the 
State' submittal in the Appendix to Volume II. of this plan).
Conformity Budget
    Under section 176 of the Act, transportation plans, programs, and 
projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas that are founded or 
approved under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act must conform to an 
approved SIP. In short, a transportation plan is deemed to conform to 
the applicable SIP if the emissions resulting from implementation of 
that transportation plan are less than or equal to the motor vehicle 
emission level established in the SIP for the maintenance year and 
other analysis years. A motor vehicle emissions budget applies as a 
ceiling on emissions in the year for which it is defined, and for all 
subsequent years until another year for which a budget is defined or 
until a SIP revision modifies the budget. Section III.C.10 of the 
State's submittal discusses the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 
Fairbanks, Alaska area. For transportation conformity and regional 
conformity analysis purposes, motor vehicle emissions budgets for CO 
have been established for on-road motor vehicle emissions.
    The budget is based on the emission inventories and attainment 
projections found in the State's submittal in Volume III Appendix to 
Section III.C.3. This motor vehicle emissions budget applies for each 
of the years listed in Table 1. The values presented for 2006, 2010 and 
2015 are based upon the 90% confidence level target for maintenance 
plans that EPA has used in past approvals of the Fairbanks CO SIP.

[[Page 47157]]



              Table 1--FNSB Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           CO emissions
                      Calendar year                         (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006....................................................           24.62
2010....................................................           24.01
2015....................................................           23.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motor vehicle emissions budget in the submitted SIP meets the 
following criteria contained in the conformity rule (40 CFR 
93.118(3)(4)) and summarized here. The budget must: be endorsed by the 
Governor (or a designee); be subject to a public hearing; be developed 
through consultation among Federal, State and local agencies; be 
supported by documentation that has been provided to EPA; address any 
EPA concerns received during the comment period; clearly identify and 
precisely quantify the revised budget; show that the motor vehicle 
emissions budget, when considered together with all other emissions 
sources, is consistent with the requirements for continued maintenance 
of the ambient CO standard; demonstrate that the budget is consistent 
with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control 
measures in the plan revision; explain and document revisions to the 
previous budget and control measures, and include any impacts on point 
or area sources; and address all public comment on the plan's revisions 
and include a compilation of these comments. EPA's TSD for this 
proposed action contains a detailed review of the Agency's 
determination that these criteria have been satisfied.
    Once a motor vehicle emissions budget is approved by EPA, the 
Fairbanks Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program 
(TIP) must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget. 
For projects not from a conforming TIP, the additional emissions from 
the project together with the TIP emission must be less than or equal 
to the budget.
    Consistent with the previously approved maintenance plan, the on-
road source budget is based on emissions inventories and attainment 
thresholds calculated using a AKMOBILE6, a hybrid method that 
specialized combined measured idle test data with MOBILE6.2. See 67 FR 
5067 (February 4, 2002). As a result of the hybrid method used for 
calculation of Fairbanks mobile source emissions, it is necessary to 
clearly set out a means for agencies to compute emissions for use in 
TIP and project conformity determinations. Volume III. Section III.C.10 
of the State's submittal contains an explanation on this.
    EPA has found that the conformity budget in the 2008 submittal 
meets the purpose of section 176(c)(2)(A) and meets the criteria 
contained in the conformity rule 40 CFR 93.118(3)(4). Accordingly, EPA 
is proposing to approve the conformity budget contained in the State's 
2008 submittal.
EPA's Evaluation of the State's Analysis of the Impact of Removing I/M 
Program on PM<INF>2.5</INF> in Fairbanks
    Based on a review of the most recent three years of data in EPA's 
Air Quality System database for, Alaska is within the attainment limits 
for all of the criteria pollutant standards except the 24-hour 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.<SUP>5, 6</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?st~AK~Alaska.
    \6\ Based on the most recent three years of data (2006-2008) the 
Fairbanks area is in violation of the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states:

    Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State 
under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable 
notice and public hearing. 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 this Act.

    The State acknowledged in its submittal that recent air quality 
monitoring data shows exceedances of the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard in Fairbanks and in light of this submitted a technical 
analysis that demonstrates that PM<INF>2.5</INF> direct and precursor 
emissions will decline through 2015 in Fairbanks without the I/M 
program in place.
EPA's Review of the State's 110(l) Analysis for PM<INF>2.5</INF>
    To assess the impact of discontinuing the I/M program on 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> and precursor emissions, the State provided estimates 
of motor vehicle emissions within the CO maintenance area with and 
without the I/M program using EPA's approved regulatory model for 
calculating emissions from motor vehicles, MOBILE6.2. See 69 FR 28830 
(May 19, 2004). These estimates were computed using the MOBILE6.2 
settings and activity data used to prepare the maintenance 
demonstration discussed above in this proposed action. A review of 
monitoring data collected in Fairbanks in recent years shows that the 
exceedances of the PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in Fairbanks are seasonal, 
episodic and occur in winter.\7\ Because the exceedances of the 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard have occurred in the winter in Fairbanks, the 
State's analysis examined the impact of removing the I/M program in 
Fairbanks on direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> and precursor emissions during the 
winter season. Estimates were prepared for directly emitted 
PM<INF>2.5,</INF> VOCs or hydrocarbon (HC), NO<INF>X</INF>, 
SO<INF>X</INF>, and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions. With the exception of 
ammonia, the State's analysis shows that emissions of all pollutants 
are projected to decline substantially between 2005 and 2015. The 
increase in ammonia is slight (by .01 tons per day), and EPA does not 
believe this increase in ammonia will interfere with attainment the 24-
hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard. As with the CO projections described 
above, the primary driver for lower on-road emissions is a sustained 
reduction of average in-use emission rates, as newer, cleaner vehicles 
continue to replace older, higher emitting vehicles. EPA's TSD for this 
proposed action contains EPA's detailed review of the State's 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?st~AK~Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion
    The State's forecast of motor vehicle pollutant emissions shows 
that with the exception of ammonia, PM<INF>2.5</INF> and its precursors 
will decline substantially in Fairbanks between 2005 and 2015 without 
the I/M program in place. Because the increase in ammonia is slight (by 
.01 ton/day) we do not believe this increase in ammonia will not 
interfere with attainment the 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in 
Fairbanks. Based on this, EPA finds that the discontinuation of the I/M 
program will not interfere with attainment of the ambient 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard in Fairbanks. As stated above, the State's 
submittal demonstrates that removal of the I/M program for control of 
CO in Fairbanks will not interfere with attainment and maintainence of 
the CO standard in Fairbanks. The 2008 submittal meets the requirements 
of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act.

B. 2006 Submittal

    The 2006 submittal contains minor revisions to the Statewide 
Emissions and Inspection and Maintenance Requirements for Motor 
Vehicles and the State Air Quality Control Plan that: remove outdated 
language and requirements from the SIP documents that are obsolete with 
previous EPA approved revisions to the SIP or with outdated timeframes; 
clarify wording and add flexibility to enforce the I/M programs by 
allowing the implementing

[[Page 47158]]

agency to bring a civil action for pollution under AS 46.03.760(e); and 
update the Alaska I/M program manual to include the latest technologies 
and the list of aftermarket parts that could be used in the repair of a 
vehicle which fails the test. The 2006 revisions also contain a more 
substantive revision that lengthens the grace period for new vehicles 
to obtain the first certificate of inspection from two years to four 
years. The Statewide Inspection and Maintenance Requirements are 
approved measures in the maintenance plans for the Fairbanks 
maintenance area and for the Anchorage maintenance area; therefore, any 
revisions to them are subject to section 110(l) of the Act.
EPA's Review of the 2006 Submittal
    To address the requirements of Section 110(l) of the Act, the State 
submitted a technical analysis that shows that the 2006 revision to the 
statewide I/M program that lengthens the time period before new 
vehicles are required to obtain their first certificate of inspection 
from two years to four years will not result in any substantial 
increase in CO emissions and therefore will not impact attainment or 
maintenance of the CO standard in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
    EPA's review of the State's submittal confirms that the 2006 
revisions are minor revisions that are administrative in nature, with 
the exception of the lengthening of the time period before new vehicles 
are required to obtain the first certificate of inspection from two 
years to four years.
    As stated above, the State's analysis focuses on demonstrating 
continued maintenance of the CO standard by showing that CO emissions 
will not increase substantially as a result of lengthening the time 
period before new vehicles are required to obtain the first certificate 
of inspection from two to four years. See Appendix to Vol. II Section 
III.B and III.C of the State's submittal for the analysis. For the 
analysis, the State prepared a revised emissions inventory reflecting 
the change in the new vehicle grace period from two years to four 
years. The same methods that were used to prepare the emissions 
inventory for the 2004 maintenance plans for Anchorage and Fairbanks 
were used. See 69 FR 44601 and 69 FR 34935, respectively. The analysis 
in the State's submittal demonstrates that the impact of the revision 
of the new vehicle grace period is small, and constitutes a .3% 
increase in total area wide emissions for the year 2006, the first year 
of the grace period, from 119.7 tons per day to 120.1 tons per day in 
Anchorage and a .27% increase in the Fairbanks emissions from 2005-
2015. Given this negligible change in emissions, EPA finds that the 
revision in the new vehicle inspection grace period will not impact 
continued attainment of the CO standard or any of the other NAAQS in 
Anchorage or Fairbanks for the remainder of the maintenance period 
approved by EPA in 2004. See 69 FR 44601 and 69 FR 34935, respectively.
    Additionally, the State is well below the standards for the other 
NAAQS with the exception of the current 24-hour PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard.\8\ Given that the increase in CO emissions from this revision 
are less than a half percent, EPA does not believe that 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> or any of the other NAAQS will increase from this 
revision to the extent that it will interfere with attainment of the 
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See EPA's Green Book http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion
    With the exception of the revision of the grace period for new 
vehicle inspection from 2-4 years, the revisions submitted to the 
Alaska SIP are administrative changes and updates that will not result 
in a change in emissions. The State's analysis of changes in emissions 
resulting from the revised grace period indicates that any increases 
due to a revision of the grace period for new vehicle inspection from 
two to four years are negligible. Therefore, elimination of the I/M 
program will not interfere with either the attainment or reasonable 
further progress towards attainment of the ambient PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
standard in Fairbanks and EPA proposes to approve the 2006 SIP 
revisions.

C. 2002 Submittal

    The March 2002 submittal contains revisions to the Statewide 
Inspection and Maintenance Program contained in 18 AAC 52 that: provide 
for electronic vehicle registration renewal and remove the requirement 
for the paper part of the certificate of inspection to be maintained in 
the vehicle, replacing it with display certificates of inspection on 
car windshields; and update the Alaska I/M Program Manual from the 
manual dated January 2, 2000 to the manual dated February 21, 2002 to 
incorporate up to date technology and Federal changes to the on-board 
diagnostic or OBDII portion of the I/M program.
EPA's Review and Conclusions on the State's 2002 Submittal
    As stated above, revisions to the I/M program in Alaska are subject 
to Section 110(l) of the Act. EPA's review of the State's 2002 
submittal finds that these are minor revisions that are administrative 
in nature and will not result in an increase or change in CO emissions 
since these revisions simplify implementation of the program by moving 
from paper systems to electronic systems and update I/M program 
elements to reflect updated Federal requirements.\9\ Based on this, EPA 
concludes that the 2002 revisions to the I/M program in Alaska will not 
interfere with either the attainment or maintenance of the CO standard 
or any of the NAAQS or applicable requirements in the Act in Anchorage 
and Fairbanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 40 CFR 51.358.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on EPA's review of the State's 2002 submittal which finds 
that the 2002 revisions to the AK I/M program are administrative in 
nature that do not result in any increase or change in emissions, our 
review of the 2006 SIP revisions which finds that revision to the I/M 
grace period for new vehicles from two years to four years the 2006 
revisions would result in a negligible change in CO emissions and our 
review of the 2008 submittal which finds that the area will continue to 
maintain the CO standard and PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions will decrease 
through 2015 without the I/M program in place, we are proposing to 
approve the State's 2002, 2006 and 2008 submittals.

D. Technical Correction to the Boundary

    In an e-mail dated February 9, 2009 from Alice Edwards, Acting 
Director of the Air Quality Division of the Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation to Mahbubul Islam, Manager of the State and 
Tribal Air Programs Unit, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, Region 10, 
EPA was notified of a discrepancy in the description of the boundary of 
the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area in the Alaska SIP documents and as 
published in 40 CFR Part 81. EPA has reviewed this discrepancy and 
determined that the description in 40 CFR 81.302 contains a 
transcription error. EPA is, therefore, providing notice of its intent 
to amend the boundary for the Fairbanks area in 40 CFR 81.302 to 
include the missing phrase included in the boundary description in the 
Alaska SIP.
    Section 110 (k)(6) of the Act states:

    Whenever the Administrator determines that the Administrator's 
action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan 
revision (or part thereof), area designation, redesignation, 
classification, or reclassification was in error, the Administrator 
may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation 
revise such action as appropriate without

[[Page 47159]]

requiring any further submission from the State. Such determination 
and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State and public.

    The table in 40 CFR 81.302 contains the following description of 
the Fairbanks Area for Carbon Monoxide:
    Fairbanks Area--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 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.)
    The description of the area in the State Implementation Plan (See 
Vol. II Analysis of Problems, Control Actions Section III.C.2-1 of the 
SIP (contained in the State's 2006 submittal)) is the following:
    1. The Fairbanks/Fort Wainwright sub-area includes (a) 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; (b) 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; and (c) Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Sections 7, 8, and 18, 
and the portions of Section 19 north of the Richardson Highway.
    2. The North Pole sub-area includes Township 2 South, Range 2 East, 
and the portions of Section 9 and 10 southwest of the Richardson 
Highway.
    EPA's review of the boundary description in the Alaska SIP and the 
boundary description on 40 CFR 81.302 finds that the boundary 
description in 40 CFR 81.302 is ambiguous as to the eastern portion of 
the nonattainment area. The description of the boundary in 40 CFR 
81.302 omits the phrase 14 and 23 southeast of the Chena River. Also, 
Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Sections and by doing so defines 
sections 7, 8 and 19 as being part of Township 1 South Range 2 West. 
However, sections 7, 8 and 19 of Township 1 Range South Range 2 West 
are noncontiguous with the rest of the Fairbanks nonattainment area 
boundary and therefore the description is ambiguous and clearly 
erroneous. See Figure 4 of the TSD for this action for a figure of the 
Fairbanks area.
    EPA also notes that all previous SIP elements including emissions 
inventories and modeling, regulations and contingency measures 
submitted by the State and approved by EPA were prepared and 
implemented for the area as it was described in the Alaska SIP. EPA 
notes that as a result of these planning efforts, the area has attained 
the CO standard.
    For these reasons, EPA is under section 110(k)(6) of the Act 
correcting the boundary description for the Fairbanks CO area to 
include the phrase 14 and 23 southeast of the Chena River. Also, 
Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Sections. The corrected version of the 
description of the description of the Fairbanks CO area in 40 CFR 
81.302 will read in full as follows:

    Fairbanks Area--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).

III. 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, the EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed 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 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 EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: September 8, 2009.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. E9-22208 Filed 9-14-09; 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>