[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 54 (Monday, March 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13436-13441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3235]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0690; FRL-9091-5]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action to approve numerous revisions
to Alaska's State Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to the motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for the control of
carbon monoxide (CO) in Anchorage and Fairbanks maintenance areas for
CO. The State of Alaska submitted three revisions to the Alaska SIP: a
March 29, 2002 submittal containing minor revisions to the statewide I/
M program; a December 11, 2006 submittal containing more substantial
revisions to the statewide I/M program; and a June 5, 2008 submittal
containing major revisions to the statewide I/M program discontinuing
the I/M program in Fairbanks as an active control measure in the SIP
and shifting it to a contingency measure. EPA is approving these
submittals because they satisfy the
[[Page 13437]]
requirements of the Clean Air Act (hereinafter the Act or CAA).
Also in this final action, EPA is correcting a transcription error
in the boundary description for the Fairbanks CO maintenance area under
section 110(k)(6) of the Act.
DATES: This action is effective on April 21, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0690. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington
98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Bonifacino, (206) 553-2970, or by
e-mail at [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. Comments Received During the EPA Public Comment Period
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The EPA is approving revisions to Alaska's SIP related to the I/M
program. The I/M program is a control measure for CO in the maintenance
plans for the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas that were approved by EPA
on June 23, 2004 (69 FR 34935) and July 27, 2004 (69 FR 44601). The
State submitted proposed revisions to the federally-approved SIP to EPA
in three separate submittals dated March 29, 2002; December 11, 2006;
and June 5, 2008. The March 29, 2002 submittal revises the statewide I/
M regulations to provide for electronic vehicle inspection renewal and
to remove the requirement for a paper certificate to be maintained in
the vehicle; the 2006 submittal revises the statewide I/M regulations
to lengthen the time period before which new vehicles are required to
obtain their first certificate of inspection from two years to four
years. The June 5 submittal discontinues implementation of the I/M
program for CO in the Fairbanks area. Each of the submittals also
contains minor revisions that are administrative in nature. In each
submittal, Alaska (the State) included a technical analysis using EPA
approved models and methods to demonstrate that the Fairbanks and
Anchorage areas will continue to maintain the CO standard, and the
revision will not interfere with attainment of the remaining National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) including the 24-hour fine
particle (PM2.5) standard. Both the Anchorage and Fairbanks
areas have been attaining the CO standards since 2001. On September 15,
2009, EPA proposed to approve the State's submittals. 74 FR 47154. EPA
proposed to approve these submittals because they meet the requirements
of the Act. For a more detailed discussion of the background of this
rulemaking, please see EPA's notice of proposed approval. In this final
action EPA is approving all of the SIP modifications proposed in
Alaska's above-mentioned 2002, 2006, and 2008 submittals as originally
proposed.
II. Comments Received During the EPA Public Comment Period
The following summarizes the issues raised in comments on the EPA's
proposed approval published on September 15, 2009 (74 FR 47154), and
provides EPA's responses to those comments. All eight of the comments
received relate to EPA's proposed action approving the State's 2008
submittal discontinuing the I/M program for CO in Fairbanks. EPA
received a number of comments that were generally critical of the
discontinuation of the I/M program for CO in Fairbanks. These
commenters questioned the wisdom of discontinuing a program that has a
beneficial impact on the community. As discussed in greater detail
below, many of these issues fall outside of the scope of this action.
No comments were received on the 2002 or the 2006 submittals modifying
the statewide I/M program and those proposed modifications are being
finalized in this action as originally proposed.
Comment: One commenter stated that any increase in CO levels will
be a detriment to Fairbanks air quality.
Response: Under section 110(l) of the Act, the Administrator shall
not approve a revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. In addition, under section 175A of the Act, an
approved maintenance plan is required. As stated in EPA's September 15,
2009 proposed notice of approval of revisions to Alaska's CO SIP,
including Alaska's revision to the CO maintenance plan for Fairbanks,
the State's demonstration shows that emissions projections included in
the State's submittal demonstrate that levels of CO will decline from
current levels through 2015 with the discontinuation of the I/M program
and that the State will maintain the CO standard in Fairbanks through
2015. The primary driver for this decline in CO emissions is the
replacement of older, less clean burning vehicles with newer, cleaner
burning vehicles.
Comment: A number of commenters stated concerns about the effect of
the discontinuation of the Fairbanks I/M program on PM2.5 in
the area, and one stated that the I/M program should not be
discontinued until all sources of PM2.5 can be analyzed.
Response: The EPA is acting on the State's submission to revise the
CO maintenance plan for the Fairbanks area to discontinue the I/M
program beginning in calendar year 2010. As stated above, under section
110(l) of the Act, the Administrator shall not approve a revision to a
plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. This
includes a consideration of whether or not this action will interfere
with attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 and CO NAAQS. In addition,
under section 175A of the Act, the area will need to have an approved
maintenance plan. As stated in EPA's September 15, 2009 proposed notice
of approval of revisions to Alaska's CO SIP, the State's demonstration
shows that without the Fairbanks I/M program, PM2.5
emissions from mobile sources will decline as compared to 2005 levels
and the area will continue to attain the CO NAAQS through 2015.
The Fairbanks area was recently designated as a nonattainment area
for 2006 PM2.5 standard. 74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009. As
a result of the nonattainment designation for the Fairbanks area for
PM2.5, the State is required under section 172(b) of the Act
to develop and submit a State
[[Page 13438]]
Implementation Plan within three years from the effective date of the
designations that will demonstrate attainment with the PM2.5
standard in the Fairbanks area. Under section 172(c)(6) and 172(a)(2)
of the Act, the plan must contain a suite of control measures that will
be designed to address the sources of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursor emissions in the Fairbanks area contributing
to nonattainment in the area and achieve attainment status as
expeditiously as practicable but within 5 years of designation. This
submission will be due no later than December 14, 2012. 74 FR 58688.
According to Alaska's emissions analysis using the EPA-approved
mobile source model, MOBILE6.2, emissions of direct PM2.5
and PM2.5 precursors are generally projected to decline
substantially from 2005 levels through 2015 (the end of the modeling
period). Directly emitted PM2.5 emissions are projected to
decline by 66% during this period according to MOBILE6.2 and this rate
of decline is unaffected by the discontinuation of the I/M program.
EPA has promulgated regulations that address how areas that have
been designated as nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS should
address PM2.5 direct emissions and PM2.5
precursors in implementation plans. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c). Contrary to
the assertion of the commenter, Alaska is not required under these
regulations to analyze ``all sources of PM2.5.'' As
explained in the Federal Register Notice promulgating the final
PM2.5 Implementation Rule (72 FR 20586, April 25, 2007), EPA
has established requirements for PM2.5 State Implementation
Plans that take into account the contributions of PM2.5
precursor emissions under area-specific conditions. The rule represents
an approach that ``requires sulfur dioxide to be evaluated for control
measures in all areas, and describes general presumptive policies for
NOX, ammonia, and VOC for all nonattainment areas. The rule
provides a mechanism by which the State and/or EPA can make an area-
specific demonstration to reverse the general presumption for these
three precursors.''\1\ 72 FR 20589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The State must address NOX as a PM2.5
attainment plan precursor and evaluate sources of NOX
emissions in the State for control measures, unless the State and
EPA provide an appropriate technical demonstration for a specific
area showing that NOX emissions from sources in the State
do not significantly contribute to PM2.5 concentrations
in the nonattainment area. The State is not required to address VOC
as a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor and evaluate sources
of VOC emissions in the State for control measures, unless the State
provides an appropriate technical demonstration for a specific area
showing that VOC emissions from sources in the State significantly
contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment
area, and such demonstration is approved by EPA or the EPA provides
such a technical demonstration. The State is not required to address
ammonia as a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor and evaluate
sources of ammonia emissions from sources in the State for control
measures, unless the State provides an appropriate technical
demonstration for a specific area showing that ammonia emissions
from sources in the State significantly contribute to
PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment area, and such
demonstration is approved by EPA or the EPA provides such a
technical demonstration. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(1)-(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed below, taking into consideration the
Agency's policy position on determining whether or not certain
PM2.5 precursor emission sources must be taken into
consideration when selecting control measures, as well as the best
available data and modeling results regarding the anticipated effects
of the discontinuation of the Fairbanks I/M program, EPA concludes that
the minor changes in levels of certain PM2.5 precursor
emissions in the Fairbanks area will not interfere with the area's
ability to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA and Alaska have taken
into consideration the effect of potentially discontinuing the
Fairbanks I/M program on several PM2.5 precursor emissions:
hydrocarbon (HC) (also referred to as VOC), NOX,
SOx, and ammonia. Baseline emissions of direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors are projected to
decline between 2005 and 2015 regardless of whether or not the I/M
program is in place. VOC levels are projected to decline by 51% with
the I/M program and by 39% without the I/M program. NOX
levels are projected to decline by 63% with the I/M program and by 59%
without the I/M program. SOx levels are projected to almost
disappear after 2005 because of the implementation of low sulfur
gasoline and diesel fuel requirements in urban Alaskan areas. Ammonia
is the only pollutant that modeling projects to increase from 2005 to
2015, but at a very low level, (0.01 ton/day) and this is attributable
to growth in vehicle miles traveled through that period. The
discontinuation of the I/M program will not affect ammonia emissions.
In light of this information, EPA has concluded that any potential
ammonia contributions to PM2.5 formation in the Fairbanks
area can not be attributed to the discontinuation of the I/M program.
Direct PM2.5, SOx and ammonia precursor
PM2.5 emissions in the Fairbanks area are expected to be
unaffected by the discontinuation of the I/M program in Fairbanks,
while HC and NOX emissions are projected to change slightly.
The elimination of the I/M program will slightly diminish the reduction
in NOX and HC emissions predicted to occur between 2010 and
2015. EPA's review of the available data shows that the changes in
emission rates are projected to range between 0.10 and 0.17 tons/day
for each of these pollutants respectively. However, in the absence of a
demonstration that VOCs are contributing significantly to
PM2.5 nonattainment in an area, the state is not required to
develop a plan to control VOC sources for the purposes of
PM2.5 NAAQS attainment. See 40 CFR 51.1002(c)(3). EPA has no
technical basis to conclude that VOCs are a significant contributor to
PM2.5 nonattainment in Fairbanks. Consequently, EPA has
determined in this instance that changes in VOC emissions attributable
to the discontinuation of the I/M program will not interfere with
Alaska's ability to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA's PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rule requires that
PM2.5 nonattainment areas address PM2.5 precursor
NOX emissions and evaluate sources of those emissions in the
state for control measures, unless the state and EPA provide an
appropriate technical demonstration for a specific area showing that
NOX emissions from sources in the state do not significantly
contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the nonattainment
area. Data in the Technical Support Document for EPA's 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 designations evidences a poor correlation between
NOX and PM2.5 formation in Fairbanks. All
available information regarding PM2.5 precursor emissions in
the Fairbanks area supports EPA's determination in this instance that
that NOX emissions attributable to a discontinuation of the
I/M program (estimated to be no more than 0.10 tons per day) will not
significantly contribute to the formation of PM2.5 in the
affected area. Only a fraction of the .10 tons/day of NOX
would be converted to PM2.5. Additionally, a speciation
analysis of 2006-2008 PM2.5 monitoring data in Fairbanks
shows that on the 12 days when the PM2.5 standard was
exceeded in 2006-2008 the average mass of nitrate was 1.58 [mu]g/m3.
When this is adjusted for ammonium, the value of ammonium nitrate is
2.04 [mu]g/m3. This is 4.4% of the total average PM2.5 mass
(46.69 [mu]g/m3) recorded on violation days. The twelve days when the
PM2.5 standard was violated in 2006-2008 all occurred during
the winter months and the technical data in the record indicate that
levels of PM2.5 above the 35 [mu]g/m3 level of the NAAQS
were caused by increased use of wood-burning stoves and home heating
oil. These data support EPA's
[[Page 13439]]
conclusion that the small increase in precursor NOX
emissions attributable to the discontinuation of the I/M program will
not interfere with the ability of the area to attain the
PM2.5 NAAQS standard.
Comment: One anonymous commenter stated that the removal of the I/M
program will increase PM2.5 and expressed concerns about
discontinuing the I/M program, contending that there were high
PM2.5 levels in the area and citing data that shows
unexplained hotspots on Airport Road coupled with the lack of study of
mobile source concentrations.
Response: The anonymous commenter did not identify the source or
nature of the data which underlies their comment and the basis for
concluding that there is a PM2.5 ``hot spot'' on Airport
Road in Fairbanks. EPA is aware that the State has collected
preliminary screening data using instantaneous mobile monitoring around
Fairbanks that shows elevated concentrations of PM2.5 in the
vicinity of Airport Road. This data was collected to yield preliminary
information on the location of elevated PM2.5 concentrations
in the Fairbanks area. As preliminary data, it has not undergone
quality assurance processes, nor was it collected in accordance with
EPA-approved methods. EPA believes that this preliminary data is
inconclusive concerning the source(s) contributing to elevated
PM2.5 concentrations in that area. Although the monitoring
data evidences an episodic elevated concentration of PM2.5
in the Airport Road area, we have no basis to determine that these
events constitute exceedences or violations of the PM2.5
standard. Furthermore, this data does not provide a foundation to
conclude that these elevated concentrations around Airport Road are
affiliated with mobile sources that would be impacted by the
discontinuation of the I/M program. As stated above, data collected and
submitted by the State using EPA approved methods indicates that direct
PM2.5 will be unaffected by the elimination of the I/M
program in Fairbanks, and the changes in NOX and HC
precursor emissions projected to result from discontinuation of the I/M
program will not interfere with attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS in Fairbanks.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns with heath risks
attributable to PM2.5 and questioned the appropriateness of
discontinuing the I/M program because doing so would eliminate the
health-benefits of the program.
Response: Primary CO, PM2.5 and the remaining criteria
pollutant standards are health-based standards set through the process
outlined in sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act. Section
109(b)(1) defines a primary standard as one ``the attainment and
maintenance of which in the judgment of the Administrator, based on
such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite
to protect the public health.'' The State's submittal demonstrates that
the discontinuation of the I/M program in Fairbanks will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the health-based ambient air quality
standard for PM2.5. As discussed above, EPA expects that
Alaska will develop and submit for EPA approval a SIP to achieve
attainment with the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in accordance
with the schedule established by the Act.
Comment: One commenter stated that the program should be expanded
to include diesel vehicles.
Response: The CAA established a system of air quality management
whereby each state develops and proposes, after reasonable notice and
public involvement processes, proposed plans for the attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. In reviewing a state's proposed SIP
amendment, EPA must determine whether or not the proposed amendment
meets the requirements of the Act. EPA is not empowered to alter the
scope of the regulatory regime selected by the state to achieve or
maintain attainment with a national ambient air quality standard unless
it finds the state's proposed plan to be deficient and elects to
develop a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in lieu of the SIP. The
State did not include any provisions related to diesel vehicles in its
proposed SIP amendment. EPA is acting on the State's submission which
is limited in scope to revisions to the existing SIP for CO. We have
reviewed the State's submittal and found that it meets the requirements
of the Act.
Comment: One commenter expressed concerns that without the I/M
program in place in Fairbanks, vehicles that were registered as
seasonally registered vehicles prohibited from driving during the
winter under the I/M program would be permitted on the road. Another
commenter stated that the I/M program is needed to keep dirty vehicles
off of the road in the winter time.
Response: The State's emission projections include emissions from
all vehicles in the Fairbanks area including those that qualify as
seasonally registered vehicles under the I/M program. The State used
these emission projections in their demonstration of attainment and
maintenance which shows that the discontinuation of the I/M program
(which includes the discontinuation of seasonal prohibitions for
vehicles registered as seasonally registered) will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the CO or PM2.5 standards
during the winter season.
Comment: One commenter stated that without the I/M program,
maintenance of cars will be put off until vehicles fail to run.
Response: As discussed above, EPA is taking this final action in
accordance with section 110 of the Act to verify that the State's
proposed SIP modification meets the requirements of the CAA and that
the proposed SIP modification will continue to result in the
maintenance of attainment with the CO NAAQS. EPA does not have the
authority to add provisions to the state program in this action. Car
maintenance standards of the type raised by the commenter are outside
of the scope of this action when they that do not have an impact on
maintenance or attainment of ambient air quality standards.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the program should not be
discontinued because the benefits of the I/M program outweigh its
costs.
Response: The Act does not require EPA to conduct a cost-benefit
analysis when reviewing state-proposed revisions to SIPs. The State
must demonstrate that the revision to the SIP will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the health-based standards. The State has
demonstrated that the discontinuation of the Fairbanks I/M program will
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in that area,
and is therefore approvable by EPA without consideration of whether the
benefits achieved by the program exceed its costs.
III. Final Action
For the reasons provided above and in our September 15, 2009
proposed rule, we are approving Alaska's 2002, 2006, and 2008 SIP
revisions, including the discontinuation of the I/M program for CO in
the Fairbanks area beginning in calendar year 2010. Also in this
action, EPA is correcting a transcription error in the boundary
description for the Fairbanks CO maintenance area contained in 40 CFR
81.302 under section 110(k)(6) of the Act.
EPA is incorporating by reference the following new and revised
sections of the Alaska Department of Conservation's air quality
regulations: 18 AAC 50.030 Air Quality Control as in effect May 15,
2008; 18 AAC 52
[[Page 13440]]
Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Requirements for Motor Vehicles as
in effect May 15, 2008 and AO 2006-13, an ordinance amending Anchorage
Municipal Code chapters 15.80 and 15.85 to comply with State I/M
regulations and to comply with DMV Electronic Procedures January 24,
2006 and Chapters 15.80 and 15.85 of the Anchorage Municipal Code.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 21, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Dated: December 4, 2009.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart C--Alaska
0
2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(37) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.70 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(37) On March 29, 2002, December 11, 2006 and June 5, 2008 the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation submitted revisions to
the SIP approved inspection and maintenance program for Carbon
Monoxide. The SIP revisions meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) The following new and revised sections of ADEC's air quality
regulations:
(1) 18 AAC 50.030 Air Quality Control as in effect May 17, 2008.
(2) 18 AAC 52 Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Requirements for
Motor Vehicles as in effect May 17, 2008.
(3) AO 2006-13 an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code
chapters 15.80 and 15.85 to comply with State I/M regulations and to
comply with DMV Electronic Procedures January 24, 2006 and Chapters
15.80 and 15.85 of the Anchorage Municipal Code as approved February
14, 2006.
(ii) Additional material
(A) The following revised sections of Alaska's air quality
regulations:
(1) State Air Quality Control Plan--Vol. II Analysis of Problems,
Control Actions, Section II: Air Quality Program, April 4, 2008
(2) State Air Quality Control Plan--Vol. II Analysis of Problems,
Control Actions, Section III.A. Statewide Carbon Monoxide Control
Program, April 4, 2008
(3) State Air Quality Control Plan--Vol. II Analysis of Problems,
Control Actions, Section III.C. Fairbanks Transportation Control
Program, April 4, 2008
(4) Amendments to State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. III
Appendices (Appendix III.A.2 and Appendix to III.C.3), April 4, 2008
[[Page 13441]]
(5) State Air Quality Control Plan--Vol. II Analysis of Problems,
Control Actions, Section III.B. Anchorage Transportation Control
Program, September 19, 2006
(6) Vol. III. Appendix to Vol. II, Sec II, September 19, 2006
(7) Vol. III. Appendix to Vol. II, Sec III.A, September 19, 2006
(8) Vol. III. Appendix to Vol. II, Sec III.B, September 19, 2006
(9) Vol. III. Appendix to Vol. II, Sec III.C, September 19, 2006
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
3. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
4. In Sec. 81.302, the table entitled ``Alaska--Carbon Monoxide'' is
amended by revising the entry for ``Fairbanks Area Fairbanks Election
District (part)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 81.302 Alaska.
* * * * *
Alaska--Carbon Monoxide
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation Classification
Designated area -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date \i\ Type Date \1\ Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Fairbanks Area September 27, 2004 Attainment........
Fairbanks Election District
(part)
Fairbanks nonattainment area
boundary:
1. Township 1 South, Range 1
West, Sections 2 through
23, the portion of Section
1 west of the Fort
Wainwright military
reservation boundary and
the portions of Section 24
north of the Old Richardson
Highway and west of the
military reservation
boundary, also, Township 1
South, Range 2 West,
Sections 13 and 24, the
portion of Section 12
southwest of Chena Pump
Road and the portions of
Sections 14 and 23
southeast of the Chena
river. Also, Township 1
South, Range 1 East,
Sections 7, 8, and 18 and
the portion of Section 19
north of the Richardson
Highway. (Fairbanks and Ft.
Wainwright)
2. Township 2 South, Range 2
East, the portions of
Sections 9 and 10 southwest
of the Richardson Highway.
(North Pole)
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-3235 Filed 3-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P