17232 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

or direct the source in following the

correct permit procedures. Since small

source permits are not subject to a

public comment period or review by

USEPA, they are not federally

enforceable and cannot be used to limit

sources’ potential to emit and thereby

exempt them from the requirements of

the title v operating permit program.

(i) Incorporation by reference. Illinois

Administrative Code, Title 35:

Environmental Protection, Subtitle B:

Air Pollution, Chapter I: Pollution

Control Board.

(A) Subchapter a: Permits and General

Provisions, Part 201: Permits and

General Provisions.

(1) Subpart D: Permit Applications

and Review Process, Section 201.162

Duration and Section 201.163 Joint

Construction and Operating Permits.

Amended at 17 Ill. Reg., effective

December 7, 1993.

(2) Subpart E: Special Provisions for

Operating Permits for Certain Smaller

Sources, Section 201.180 Applicability,

Section 201.181 Expiration and Renewal

and Section 201.187 Requirement for a

Revised Permit Added at 17 Ill. Reg.,

effective December 7, 1993.

(B) Subchapter C: Emission Standards

and Limitations for Stationary Sources,

Part 211: Definitions and General

Provisions, Subpart B: Definitions,

Section 211.5500 Regulated Air

Pollutant. Adopted at 17 Ill. Reg.,

effective December 7, 1993.

[FR Doc. 95–8219 Filed 4–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[AK7–1–6588a; FRL–5171–5]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA approves the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the state of Alaska. This

revision establishes and requires the

implementation of a basic motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program in the Municipality of

Anchorage (MOA) and the Fairbanks

North Star Borough (FNSB). The

intended effect of this action is approval

of a basic motor vehicle I/M program.

This action is being taken under Section

110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

June 5, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by May 5, 1995.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Montel Livingston, SIP

Manager, Air & Radiation Branch (AT–

082), EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101.

Documents which are incorporated by

reference are available for public

inspection at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Copies of material submitted to EPA

may be examined during normal

business hours at the following

locations: EPA, Region 10, Air &

Radiation Branch, 1200 Sixth Avenue

(AT–082), Seattle, Washington 98101,

and the Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation, 410

Willoughby, Suite 105, Juneau, Alaska

99801–1795.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christi Lee, EPA, Air and Radiation

Branch (AT–082), 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553–

1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Clean Air Act Requirements

The Clean Air Act, as amended in

1990 (CAAA or Act), requires states to

make changes to improve existing I/M

programs or implement new ones.

Section 187(a)(4) and section

182(a)(2)(B) requires any carbon

monoxide (CO) nonattainment area

which has been classified as ‘‘moderate’’

(pursuant to section 181(a) of the Act)

or worse with an existing I/M program

that was part of a SIP, or any area that

was required by the 1977 Amendments

to the Act to have an I/M program, to

immediately submit a SIP revision to

bring the program up to the level

required in past EPA guidance or to

what had been committed to previously

in the SIP whichever was more

stringent.

In addition, Congress directed the

EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to publish

updated guidance for state I/M

programs, taking into consideration

findings of the Administrator’s audits

and investigations of these programs.

The states were to incorporate this

guidance into the SIP for all areas

required by the Act to have an I/M

program.

On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950),

the EPA published a final regulation

establishing the I/M requirements,

pursuant to section 182 and 187 of the

Act. The I/M regulation was codified at

40 CFR part 51, Subpart S, and requires

states to submit an I/M SIP revision

which includes all necessary legal

authority and the items specified in 40

CFR 51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by

November 15, 1993. The state of Alaska

has met these requirements.

The EPA has designated two areas as

CO nonattainment in the state of Alaska.

The Anchorage CO nonattainment area,

classified as Moderate greater than or

equal to 12.7 ppm, is bounded by the

Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)

urban area. The Fairbanks CO

nonattainment area, classified as

Moderate less than or equal to 12.7

ppm, is bounded by the Fairbanks North

Star Borough (FNSB) urban area. The

nonattainment and boundary

designations for CO were published in

the Federal Register (FR) on November

6, 1991, and November 30, 1992, and

have been codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR). See 56 FR

56694 (November 6, 1991) and 57 FR

56762 (November 30, 1992), codified at

40 CFR 81.300–81.437. Based on these

nonattainment designations, basic I/M

programs are required in both the

Anchorage and Fairbanks

nonattainment areas.

By this action, the EPA is approving

this submittal. The EPA has reviewed

the state submittal against the statutory

requirements and for consistency with

the EPA regulations. EPA summarizes

the requirements of the Federal I/M

regulations as found in 40 CFR 51.350–

51.373 and its analysis of the state

submittal below. Parties desiring

additional details on the Federal I/M

regulation are referred to the November

5, 1992 FR notice (57 FR 52950) or 40

CFR 51.350–51.373.

II. Background

On July 11, 1994 the state of Alaska

submitted to EPA a SIP revision for a

basic I/M program that had an adequate

public notice and public hearing

process (May 19, 1994) and was adopted

on June 9, 1994. The Lieutenant

Governor filed revisions to 18 AAC 52

on May 25, 1994, and the Air Quality

Control Plan revisions on July 6, 1994,

becoming effective on June 24, 1994 and

August 5, 1994, respectively.

The July 11, 1994 SIP revision was

reviewed by EPA to determine

completeness shortly after submittal, in

accordance with the completeness

criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51,

Appendix V. The submittals were found

to be complete and a letter dated July

15, 1994 was forwarded to the Governor

of Alaska indicating the completeness of

the submittal.

III. State Submittal

Both Anchorage and Fairbanks are

classified as moderate CO

nonattainment areas. Since the 1980
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 17233

census population of each urbanized

area was under 200,000, neither

community is required to implement an

enhanced I/M program. The state

submittal provides for upgrading the

existing I/M programs to EPA approved

basic I/M programs in the Municipality

of Anchorage (MOA) and Fairbanks

North Star Borough (FNSB). Both the

MOA and the FNSB programs will

consist of annual, decentralized, testand-repair which meets the

requirements of EPA’s performance

standard and other requirements

contained in the Federal I/M rule. All

testing will be performed by certified

stations or referee facilities. Other

aspects of the Alaska I/M program

include: an ‘‘Valley’’ I/M program for

vehicles commuting into Anchorage

from the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su)

borough, testing of 1968 and later

vehicles in Anchorage and testing of

1975 and later vehicles in Fairbanks, a

test fee to ensure the state has adequate

resources to oversee the implementing

agencies and implement the valley

program, enforcement by registration

denial, commitment to testing

convenience, quality assurance, data

collection and analysis, reporting, test

equipment and test procedure

specifications, commitment to ongoing

public information, inspector training

and certification, and penalties against

inspector incompetence. An analysis of

how the Alaska I/M program meets the

Federal SIP requirements (by section of

the Federal I/M rule) is provided below.

A. Applicability

The SIP needs to describe the

applicable areas in detail and,

consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, needs to

include the legal authority or rules

necessary to establish program

boundaries.

The Alaska I/M program specified in

18 AAC 52 is divided into two programs

(Anchorage and Fairbanks), based on

the designated implementing agency.

Both programs are locally implemented

and operated, with the MOA and the

FNSB having legal and administrative

responsibility for their respective

programs. The existing programs cover

the entire MOA and FNSB. An

additional I/M program, MatanuskaSusitna Valley (Valley) is not linked to

a specific geographical area, but is

aimed at vehicles that are regularly

operated in but not registered in the

Anchorage I/M program area. The

Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation (ADEC) is responsible for

administering the Valley I/M program.

The state regulations establishing

Alaska’s I/M program requirements and

boundaries are included in 18 AAC 52.

B. Basic I/M Performance Standard

The I/M programs provided for in the

SIP are required to meet a performance

standard for basic I/M for the pollutants

that caused the affected area to come

under I/M requirements. The

performance standard sets an emission

reduction target that must be met by a

program in order for the SIP to be

approvable. The SIP must also provide

that the program will meet the

performance standard in actual

operation, with provisions for

appropriate adjustments if the standard

is not met. The state has submitted a

modeling demonstration using the EPA

computer model, MOBILE 5a showing

that the basic performance standard is

met for both Anchorage and Fairbanks

I/M programs.

C. Network Type

The SIP needs to include a

description of the network to be

employed, the required legal authority,

and, in the case of areas making claims

for case-by-case equivalency, the

required demonstration.

Alaska has chosen to implement

decentralized, test-and-repair I/M

programs which are managed and

operated by MOA, FNSB and the state

with a small amount of contractor

support.

Legal authority contained in AS

46.03.020(10), 46.14.030 and 46.14.510;

and 18 AAC 52.045 authorizes the state

to implement this program.

D. Adequate Tools and Resources

The SIP needs to include a

description of the resources that will be

used for program operation, which

includes: (1) A detailed budget plan

which describes the source of funds for

personnel, program administration,

program enforcement, purchase of

necessary equipment, and any other

requirements discussed throughout, and

(2) a description of personnel resources,

the number of personnel dedicated to

overt and covert auditing, data analysis,

program administration, enforcement,

and other necessary functions and the

training attendant to each function.

The Alaska I/M program as stipulated

in 18 AAC 52.020 is funded solely by

collection of a ten dollar certificate of

inspection fee assessed to each vehicle

passing the I/M test. Legal authority

contained in AS 44.46.025 authorizes

the state to collect fees for this program.

The MOA, FNSB and the state commit

to providing the necessary

administrative, personnel, and

equipment resources to fully implement

and maintain the Alaska I/M program.

The I/M programs will be carried out

under local or state oversight, with

assistance from contractors. In the event

that either the MOA or FNSB is unable

or unwilling in the future to provide

adequate tools or resources, the state

commits to take over the administration

of the program (18 AAC 52.030).

The SIP narrative also describes the

budget, staffing support, and equipment

needed to implement the program. The

MOA funds approximately 7.0 full-time

employees (FTE), the FNSB funds 3.5

FTE and the state funds .25 FTE. The

MOA and the state will utilize 3.0 FTE

contractor personnel to support their

programs.

Referee facilities in the MOA and

FNSB provide public information and

assistance, motorist and certified

mechanic assistance, referee functions,

and training and testing of inspectors

and certified mechanics. The MOA

program, which incorporates the Valley

program, contracts out for referee

facility services while the FNSB referee

facility is operated by FNSB staff.

E. Test Frequency and Convenience

The SIP needs to include the test

schedule in detail including the test

year selection scheme if testing is other

than annual. Also, the SIP needs to

include the legal authority necessary to

implement and enforce the test

frequency requirement and explain how

the test frequency will be integrated

with the enforcement process.

The MOA and FNSB I/M programs

require annual inspections for all

subject motor vehicles (18 AAC 52.005).

However, an implementing agency may,

with approval from ADEC and the DMV,

authorize the owner or lessee of a

vehicle to obtain a biennial certificate of

inspection during the first six years of

vehicle life, if the failure rates of the

designated categories of vehicles are

below a minimum rate set by the

implementing agency and approved by

ADEC (18 AAC 52.035(e)). In addition

the MOA exempts new vehicles from

their first annual inspection.

Since the test-and-repair inspection

program has been in operation since

1985 for both programs, no special startup testing scheme is required. The

network is satisfactorily addressed in

the SIP.

Legal authority for registration and

testing of used vehicles newly arriving

into the I/M area is contained in AS

46.14.510 and 18 AAC 52.005.

F. Vehicle Coverage

The SIP needs to include a detailed

description of the number and types of

vehicles to be covered by the program,

and a plan for how those vehicles are to

be identified, including vehicles that are
17234 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

routinely operated in the area but may

not be registered in the area. Also, the

SIP needs to include a description of

any special exemptions which will be

granted by the program, and an estimate

of the percentage and number of subject

vehicles which will be impacted. Such

exemptions need to be accounted for in

the emission reduction analysis. In

addition, the SIP needs to include the

legal authority or rule necessary to

implement and enforce the vehicle

coverage requirement.

In the MOA, program coverage

includes all 1968 and newer model year

light-duty cars and trucks and heavyduty gasoline powered trucks, registered

or required to be registered within the

nonattainment areas. The FNSB

program covers the above vehicles from

1975 and newer. Vehicles will be

identified through the state of Alaska’s

Driver and Motor Vehicle Services

database. In addition, any 1968 or newer

model used to commute into MOA is

subject to I/M testing through the Valley

program.

Fleet vehicles are subject to the same

program requirements and testing

procedures as other vehicles. However,

fleets are allowed to self-test, as long as

they are certified as official test stations;

they must use certified I/M mechanics;

all tests and certificate issuance must be

conducted using certified Alaska BAR–

90 TAS; and they must comply with all

other I/M program requirements. Fleet

licenses can be removed if fleet

operation does not meet standards.

The FNSB vehicles that obtain

seasonal exemptions are subject to the

program but prohibited from being

driven during the winter CO season.

Approximately 4,000 FNSB vehicles are

in this category. Since they are not

operated during the CO nonattainment

period there is no discounting of those

vehicles.

In addition to the required I/M

programs, ADEC is now subjecting those

vehicles registered outside the MOA but

primarily operated within the MOA to

a Mat-Su Valley I/M program. The

Valley program has the same basic

design features as the Anchorage

program.

Further, vehicles registered in one AK

I/M area but primarily operated in the

other may be tested in either area, but

must pass an annual I/M test.

G. Test Procedures and Standards

The SIP needs to include a

description of each test procedure used.

The SIP also needs to include the rule,

ordinance or law describing and

establishing the test procedures.

The legal authority to establish test

procedures and standards is contained

in AS 46.03..020, 46.14.030 and

46.14.510. Written test procedures for a

2-speed idle test and pass/fail standards

for all subject vehicles have been

established. All vehicles are subject to

the HC and CO emission cutpoints set

forth in 18 AAC 52.050, and repairs

must be made if a vehicle fails any of

these cutpoints.

H. Test Equipment

The SIP needs to include written

technical specifications for all test

equipment used in the program and

shall address each of the requirements

in 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M

rule. The specifications need to describe

the emission analysis process, the

necessary test equipment, the required

features, and written acceptance testing

criteria and procedures.

The Alaska I/M SIP commits to

meeting the California BAR 90 accuracy

standards. The SIP addresses the

requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 and

includes descriptions of performance

features and functional characteristics of

the computerized test systems in the

submitted respective program design

documents. The necessary test

equipment, required features, and

acceptance testing criteria are also

contained in the SIP.

I. Quality Control

The SIP needs to include a

description of quality control and

recordkeeping procedures. The SIP

needs to include the procedures

manual, rule, and ordinance or law

describing and establishing the

procedures of quality control and

requirements.

The Alaska I/M SIP narrative contains

descriptions and requirements

establishing quality control procedures

which are similar but not identical to

the Federal I/M rule. Alaska’s program

provides for less frequent calibration

requirements than the federal I/M rule

requires. However, the frequency

requirements for gas calibrations and

leak checks contained in the Alaska

BAR–90 Test Analyzer Systems are

identical to those contained in the

current California BAR–90 specification.

In addition, Alaska’s program does not

require ambient zero air to be drawn

from outside the test bay due to the

extreme weather conditions in Alaska.

EPA believes there is adequate

justification for these exceptions.

Alaska’s quality control procedures will

help ensure that equipment calibrations

are properly performed and recorded as

well as maintaining compliance

document security.

J. Waivers and Compliance Via

Diagnostic Inspection

The SIP needs to include a maximum

waiver rate expressed as a percentage of

initially failed vehicles. This waiver rate

needs to be used for estimating emission

reduction benefits in the modeling

analysis. Also, the state needs to take

corrective action if the waiver rate

exceeds that estimated in the SIP or

revise the SIP and the emission

reductions claimed accordingly. In

addition, the SIP needs to describe the

waiver criteria and procedures,

including cost limits, quality assurance

methods and measures, and

administration. Lastly, the SIP shall

include the necessary legal authority,

ordinance, or rules to issue waivers, set

and adjust cost limits as required, and

carry out any other functions necessary

to administer the waiver system,

including enforcement of the waiver

provisions.

Legal authority to issue waivers and

administer the waiver system is

contained in AS 46.03.020, 46.14.030

and 46.14.510. Under 18 AAC 52.060

waivers may be issued in the Alaska I/

M programs for the following reasons:

repair cost exceedance, diesel engine,

seasonal waiver, special circumstances

that make it impractical to test a vehicle,

modification to the dedicated use of an

approved alternate fuel, out-of-area use,

economic hardship, parts unavailability

or grey market vehicle.

For the MOA and state programs,

necessary emissions-related repairs

must be made up to a maximum annual

repair cost of $450 for non-tamperingrelated repairs. The FNSB program has

a minimum annual repair cost of $350

for non-tampering-related repairs. For

all programs a maximum annual repair

cost of $500 exists for vehicles tampered

with prior to July 1, 1985. If the least

expensive repair would be in excess of

$500, then one repair must be made

regardless of cost. Vehicles that have

been tampered with since July 1985

must be completely repaired, regardless

of cost.

A waiver rate of 1% is assumed for

both the MOA and FNSB. If the waiver

rate for either program, as reported to

EPA in the annual Alaska I/M report, is

higher, the state will take corrective

action to lower the applicable waiver

rate by possibly requiring motorists that

apply for a waiver to reduce initial

emissions by a specified amount before

a waiver may be issued or limiting the

model years that are eligible for a waiver

or limiting waivers on vehicles to only

one inspection cycle. If any of the

waiver rates cannot be lowered to the

level committed to in the SIP, the state
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 17235

will revise the I/M emission reduction

projections in the SIP and will

implement other program changes as

necessary to ensure the performance

standard is met.

The seasonal waiver is issued to a

vehicle owner who agrees that the

vehicle will not be operated in an I/M

area during the winter CO season.

Vehicles which acquire such waivers

are issued different colored license tabs,

to make it easier to identify seasonally

waived vehicles that are being operated

illegally during winter months. If a

motorist violates the seasonal waiver, no

seasonal waiver may be issued in the

future to any vehicle owned by that

motorist.

K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement

The SIP needs to provide information

concerning the enforcement process,

including: (1) A description of the

existing compliance mechanism if it is

to be used in the future and the

demonstration that it is as effective or

more effective than registration-denial

enforcement; (2) an identification of the

agencies responsible for performing

each of the applicable activities in this

section; (3) a description of and

accounting for all classes of exempt

vehicles; and (4) a description of the

plan for testing fleet vehicles, rental car

fleets, leased vehicles, and any other

special classes of subject vehicles, e.g.

those operated in (but not necessarily

registered in) the program area. Also,

the SIP needs to include a

determination of the current compliance

rate based on a study of the system that

includes an estimate of compliance

losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting,

and unregistered vehicles. Estimates of

the effect of closing such loopholes and

otherwise improving the enforcement

mechanism need to be supported with

detailed analyses. In addition, the SIP

needs to include the legal authority to

implement and enforce the program.

Lastly, the SIP needs to include a

commitment to an enforcement level to

be used for modeling purposes and to be

maintained, at a minimum, in practice.

The motorist compliance enforcement

program will be implemented,

primarily, by Alaska’s Department of

Motor Vehicle Services (DMV), which

will ensure that owners of all subject

vehicles are denied registration unless

they provide valid proof of having

received a certificate indicating they

passed an emissions test or a valid I/M

waiver, which was issued within a 90-

day period prior to the registration

renewal date. Owners of noncomplying

vehicles operating illegally in I/M areas

will be identified and issued notices of

violation (NOV). A vehicle owner that is

issued an NOV will have 30 days to

provide proof of I/M compliance. The I/

M programs will request DMV to revoke

the vehicle’s registration in cases of

continued noncompliance. The Alaska

State Troopers and local law

enforcement agencies will provide onroad enforcement of the program.

In addition, the Department will

identify program evaders and other

noncomplying vehicles (e.g. out-of-area

commuter vehicles) through interactive

searches of several databases. Owners of

vehicles identified in this manner will

be notified by the Department of the

need to obtain an annual inspection.

The following vehicle types are

exempt from the Alaska I/M program: A

vehicle not principally located or

operated in an I/M area; a 1967 or older

vehicle for the MOA program (1974 or

older in the FNSB program); a new

vehicle with less than 2,500 miles; a

gasoline-powered vehicle that is 12,000

pounds unladen weight or heavier, a

special test vehicle that has received a

state exemption; a military tactical

vehicle; motorcycles, golf carts, allterrain vehicles, snow machines and

mopeds; and a vehicle in Alaska for less

that 30 days.

All fleet vehicles, including rental

cars, are subject to the same program

requirements and testing procedures as

other vehicles. Leased vehicles and

other vehicles subject to one of the

Alaska programs but not necessarily

registered in an I/M area must also

comply with all applicable program

requirements.

The state commits to the level of

enforcement needed to ensure

compliance rates of no less than 95

percent and 96 percent, in the MOA and

FNSB respectively. The legal authority

to implement and enforce the program

is included in AS 46.03, 46.014 and 18

AAC 52.100.

L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement

Program Oversight

The SIP needs to include a

description of enforcement program

oversight and information management

activities.

ADEC will audit the local I/M

programs on a regular basis, and will

implement a quality assurance program

to ensure effective overall performance

of the enforcement systems in both

areas. ADEC will allow EPA to conduct

regular audits of the I/M enforcement

program. ADEC, MOA, and FNSB will

also perform periodic parking lot

surveys to assess the compliance rate of

the in-use fleet.

M. Quality Assurance (QA)

The SIP needs to include a

description of the quality assurance

program, and written procedures

manuals covering both overt and covert

performance audits, record audits, and

equipment audits. This requirement

does not include materials or discussion

of details of enforcement strategies that

would ultimately hamper the

enforcement process.

The Alaska I/M SIP includes a

description of its quality assurance

program. The ongoing QA program will

be conducted to discover, correct and

prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. The

program includes quarterly performance

audits following established written

procedures, performed at certified I/M

stations. The audits will include, at a

minimum, checks for appropriate

certificate security, recordkeeping

practices, proper display of licenses and

other required information, proper

maintenance and calibration of the TAS,

and ability of the certified mechanic to

properly perform an I/M test.

In addition to the quarterly audit,

overt and covert vehicle audits will be

conducted on an unscheduled and asneeded basis. Alaska has proposed the

following exceptions to the federal

performance audit requirements

provided under 40 CFR 51.363(a): the

state will perform one quarterly audit

per facility (i.e. four audits per station

per year), plus at least one overt vehicle

audit per station per year. EPA believes

this to be adequate to ensure program

quality and comply with the federal I/

M rule. Alaska also believes that the

remote covert auditing requirement is

infeasible in Alaska due to the state’s

unique weather conditions, and

resultant station design and operation.

Unlike most other states, inspections in

Alaska are conducted in enclosed test

stations where remote covert

observations are impossible, particularly

during the wintertime. The state

believes that other performance tracking

and auditing tools dramatically reduce

the need to use remote covert audits to

maintain effective quality assurance and

compliance enforcement programs

against certified stations and mechanics.

Given Alaska’s unique circumstances

EPA concurs.

Test records will be audited on a

monthly basis, using established written

procedures to assess individual certified

mechanic and station performance.

Equipment audits will be performed

during each quarterly performance

audit, using established written

procedures, to ensure the accuracy and

reliability of all required test equipment.

Each I/M inspector will be formally
17236 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

trained and knowledgeable in all

aspects of the I/M program. Ongoing

training will be provided to I/M

inspectors to insure that they maintain

an adequate level of knowledge. The

performance of each I/M inspector will

be evaluated at least once annually to

identify any possible problem areas.

N. Enforcement Against Contractors,

Stations and Inspectors

The SIP needs to include the penalty

schedule and the legal authority for

establishing and imposing penalties,

civil fines, license suspension, and

revocations. In the case of state

constitutional impediments to

immediate suspension authority, the

state Attorney General shall furnish an

official opinion for the SIP explaining

the constitutional impediment as well

as relevant case law. Also, the SIP needs

to describe the administrative and

judicial procedures and responsibilities

relevant to the enforcement process,

including which agencies, courts, and

jurisdictions are involved; who will

prosecute and adjudicate cases; and

other aspects of the enforcement of the

program requirements, the resources to

be allocated to this function, and the

source of those funds. In states without

immediate suspension authority, the SIP

needs to demonstrate that sufficient

resources, personnel, and systems are in

place to meet the three day case

management requirement for violations

that directly affect emission reductions.

Under the Administrative Procedures

Act (AS 44.62), the Department or other

I/M implementing agency must provide

notice and opportunity for hearing

before suspending, revoking, or refusing

to renew a station’s or mechanic’s

certification issued under 18 AAC 52 or

the MOA or FNSB local implementing

ordinances. In addition, neither the

Department nor the local I/M

implementing agencies have citation

powers under Alaska Statute. As a result

of these factors, Alaska is unable to

comply with requirements contained in

40 CFR 51.364 for the imposition of

mandatory minimum penalties or the

immediate suspension of station or

mechanic certifications. If the

Department files a civil action under AS

46.03.760, there are mandatory court

imposed damages of $500 for the first

day. Because of this, the state is

proposing an alternative enforcement

mechanism which will allow the I/M

office to issue an NOV upon finding a

violation of the I/M program

requirements. A hearing will be held

within three working days of the NOV

which will allow penalties to be

assessed depending on the nature and

severity of the violation. If the hearing

results support a serious violation the

station or mechanic’s certification will

be suspended for a minimum of 6

months under the Department’s

emergency powers authority, if the

criteria for an emergency exists as

provided in AS 46.03.820. Continued

violation of program requirements may

result in permanent revocation of

certification under 18 AAC 52, after

notice and opportunity for hearing, or

the filing of a civil or criminal action

against a certified station or mechanic

under AS 46.03.760 or 46.03.790. A

finding of incompetence will result in

mandatory training before inspection

privileges are restored. EPA concludes

that this satisfies federal requirements

for enforcement against contractors and

inspectors.

O. Data Analysis and Reporting

The SIP needs to describe the types of

data to be collected. The SIP commits

ADEC to submitting an annual report to

EPA by July of each year, which will

cover the preceding calendar year and

contain statistics for the I/M test data,

quality assurance results, quality control

activities, and enforcement activities. In

addition, the state commits to

submitting a biennial report on the

overall status of the Alaska I/M program

to EPA. At a minimum, Alaska commits

to address all of the data elements listed

in 51.366 of the federal I/M rule.

P. Inspector Training and Licensing or

Certification

The SIP needs to include a

description of the training program, the

written and hands-on tests, and the

licensing or certification process.

Under 18 AAC 52. and the MOA and

FNSB I/M implementing ordinances,

formal training and licensing is required

for all inspectors (certified mechanics).

The Alaska I/M SIP provides for the

implementation of training,

certification, and refresher programs for

emission inspectors. Training will

include all elements required by

51.367(a) of the EPA I/M rule.

Certification is good for a period of two

years, with passage of a refresher

training course required for license

renewal.

Q. Improving Repair Effectiveness

The SIP needs to include a

description of the technical assistance

program to be implemented, and a

description of the repair technician

training resources available in the

community.

The Alaska SIP commits the

Department to working with MOA and

FNSB to assist the motor vehicle

industry in properly diagnosing and

repairing emission-related defects. This

assistance will include each program’s

establishment of a telephone hotline

service to assist certified mechanics and

other qualified technicians with specific

repair problems. Mechanics newsletters

will also be distributed to all certified

mechanics on an as-needed basis, to

inform them of program changes,

training course schedules, common

problems being experienced in the I/M

program, and diagnostic tips.

PC-based I/M management software

will be used to provide the I/M

programs with station and mechanic

specific estimates of repair

effectiveness. Effectiveness estimates

applicable to each certified station will

be distributed by the I/M program to

that station on at least an annual basis.

IV. This Action

The EPA is approving the Alaska I/M

SIP (Section 3.1, OAR 340–24–300

through 340–24–355; and section 5.4) as

meeting the requirements of the CAAA

and the Federal I/M rule. All required

SIP items have been adequately

addressed as discussed in this Federal

Register action.

V. Administrative Review

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

state is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

federal-state relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 65 / Wednesday, April 5, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 17237

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective June 5, 1995

unless, within 30 days of its

publication, adverse or critical

comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent notice that will withdraw

the final action. All public comments

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on this

action serving as a proposed rule. The

EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective June 5, 1995.

The EPA has reviewed this request for

revision of the federally-approved SIP

for conformance with the provisions of

the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments

enacted on November 15, 1990. The

EPA has determined that this action

conforms with those requirements.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The OMB has exempted

this regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

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 June 5, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule 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), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

Implementation Plan for the state of Alaska

was approved by the Director of the Office of

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 2, 1995.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart C—Alaska

2. Section 52.70 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) (21) to read as

follows:

§ 52.70 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(21) On July 11, 1994 ADEC submitted

a SIP revision for a basic motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program in the Municipality of

Anchorage (MOA) and the Fairbanks

North Star Borough (FNSB).

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) July 11, 1994 letter from the

Governor of Alaska to the Regional

Administrator of EPA submitting

Alaska’s amendments to the Air Quality

Control Plan and to 18 AAC 52,

Emissions Inspection and Maintenance

Requirements for Motor Vehicles; the

amendments to 18 AAC 52 (52.005,

.015, .020, .030, .035, .040, .045, .050,

.055, .060, .065, .070, .075, .080, .085,

.090, .095, .100, .105, .400, .405, .410,

.415, .420, .425, .430, .440, .445, .500,

.505, .510, .515, .520, .525, .527, .530,

.535, .540, .545, .550, and .990),

effective February 1, 1994; and the State

Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II:

Analysis of Problems, Control Actions,

Modifications to Section I, June 9, 1994;

Vol. II: Analysis of Problems, Control

Actions, Modifications to Section I, II,

III and V, adopted January 10, 1994; Vol.

III: Appendices, Modifications to

Section III.A, June 9, 1994; Vol. III:

Appendices, Modifications to Section

III.B, June 9, 1994; and Vol. III:

Appendices, Modifications to Section

III.C, June 9, 1994.

[FR Doc. 95–8313 Filed 4–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

43 CFR Part 12

RIN 1090–AA42

Uniform Administrative Requirements

for Grants and Agreements With

Institutions of Higher Education,

Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit

Organizations

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action finalizes an

interim final rule the Department

published in response to the publication

by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) of revised OMB Circular

A–110, ‘‘Uniform Administrative

Requirements for Grants and

Agreements With Institutions of Higher

Education, Hospitals, and Other NonProfit Organizations.’’

Agencies were required to adopt those

standards which would be imposed on

grantees in codified regulations within

six months after publication in the

Federal Register.

Over 200 comments were received by

OMB from Federal agencies, non-profit

organizations, professional

organizations, and others in response to

the notice published on August 27,

1992, (57 FR 39018) requesting

comments on proposed revisions. The

comments were considered in

developing the final version.

Consequently, the Department

published an interim final rule because

of the previous request for comment

process used in the development of the

Circular, the large number of comments

already received and considered by

OMB and the Federal agencies, and due

to the limited flexibility to revise the

rule provided by OMB.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 5, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean A. Titcomb, (Chief, Acquisition

and Assistance Division), (202) 208–

6432.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB

Circular A–110 (58 FR 62991) covers

both grants made by Federal agencies

and subgrants made by States to

nongovernmental organizations.

Following the August 26, 1994,

publication in the Federal Register (59

FR 44040), no public comments were

received by the Department.

This final rule essentially adopts all

the language in the Circular with two

exceptions. At Section 12.904, language

has been added to describe the

procedure for handling requests for