[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 [email protected].
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
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
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
[[Page 47156]]
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, 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 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 PM2.5
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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, 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
[[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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 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
[[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:
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