47154 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Cause of action and remedies. The 

section 104(a)(2) exclusion may apply to 

damages recovered for a physical 

personal injury or sickness under a 

statute, even if that statute does not 

provide for a broad range of remedies. 

The injury need not be defined as a tort 

under state or common law. 

(3) Effective/applicability date. This 

paragraph (c) applies to damages paid 

pursuant to a written binding 

agreement, court decree, or mediation 

award entered into or issued after 

September 13, 1995, and received after 

the date these regulations are published 

as final regulations in the Federal 

Register. Taxpayers also may apply 

these proposed regulations to damages 

paid pursuant to a written binding 

agreement, court decree, or mediation 

award entered into or issued after 

September 13, 1995, and received after 

August 20, 1996. If applying these 

proposed regulations to damages 

received after August 20, 1996, results 

in an overpayment of tax, the taxpayer 

may file a claim for refund before the 

period of limitations under section 6511 

expires. 

Notwithstanding the date these 

regulations are proposed to become 

effective, the statutory amendments to 

section 104(a) under section 1605 of the 

Small Business Job Protection Act of 

1996, Public Law 104–188, (110 Stat. 

1838), are effective for amounts received 

after August 20, 1996, except for any 

amount received under a written 

binding agreement, court decree, or 

mediation award in effect on (or issued 

on or before) September 13, 1995. 

* * * * * 

Linda E. Stiff, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E9–22221 Filed 9–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

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 R10-Public_Comments@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. 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47155 

1See EPA Air Quality Monitoring data http:// 

epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?st∼K∼Alaska. 

2See EPA’s Green Book http://www.epa.gov/oar/ 

oaqps/greenbk/index.html. 

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 PM2.5

standard, the State submitted a 

technical analysis demonstrating that 

removal of the I/M program in Fairbanks 

will not result in an increase in PM2.5

direct or precursor emissions.1 The 

State is well within the compliance 

levels for the remaining NAAQS.2

Based on our review of the State’s 

analyses for CO and PM2.5, 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, PM2.5, 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
47156 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

3Emissions Inventory Requirements for Carbon 

Monoxide State Implementation Plans EPA–450/4– 

91–011. 

4A 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. 

demonstrating that removal of the I/M 

program in Fairbanks will not impact 

attainment or maintenance of the 24- 

hour PM2.5 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, nonroad 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. 

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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 47157 

5http://epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?st

∼AK∼Alaska. 

6Based on the most recent three years of data 

(2006–2008) the Fairbanks area is in violation of the 

24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

7http://epa.gov/air/data/ 

monvals.html?st∼AK∼Alaska. 

TABLE 1—FNSB MOTOR VEHICLE

EMISSIONS BUDGET

Calendar year CO emissions 

(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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 standard.5, 6

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 PM2.5 standard in Fairbanks 

and in light of this submitted a technical 

analysis that demonstrates that PM2.5

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 PM2.5

To assess the impact of discontinuing 

the I/M program on PM2.5 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 PM2.5 standard in 

Fairbanks are seasonal, episodic and 

occur in winter.7 Because the 

exceedances of the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 and precursor emissions 

during the winter season. Estimates 

were prepared for directly emitted 

PM2.5, VOCs or hydrocarbon (HC), NOX, 

SOX, and NH3 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 

PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 analysis. 

Conclusion 

The State’s forecast of motor vehicle 

pollutant emissions shows that with the 

exception of ammonia, PM2.5 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 

PM2.5 standard in Fairbanks. Based on 

this, EPA finds that the discontinuation 

of the I/M program will not interfere 

with attainment of the ambient PM2.5

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
47158 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

8See EPA’s Green Book http://www.epa.gov/oar/ 

oaqps/greenbk/index.html. 9See 40 CFR 51.358. 

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 

PM2.5 standard.8 Given that the increase 

in CO emissions from this revision are 

less than a half percent, EPA does not 

believe that PM2.5 or any of the other 

NAAQS will increase from this revision 

to the extent that it will interfere with 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

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 PM2.5

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. 

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 PM2.5 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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: 

• 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 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS