[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72940-72947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33525]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[AK-21-1709-a; FRL-6515-3]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves various
revisions to the carbon monoxide (CO) Alaska State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for Alaska. These revisions to the SIP were submitted in three
different packages to EPA, dated February 6, 1997, June 1, 1998, and
September 10, 1998.
The revisions cover numerous regulations, the Transportation
Conformity Rule (18 AAC 50); Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
requirements for Motor Vehicles (18 AAC 52); and Fuel Requirements for
Motor Vehicles (18 AAC 53). Highlights include changing the I/M program
schedule from annual to biennial, replacing the CO contingency measures
for Anchorage, and streamlining and updating several portions of the
Alaska Air Quality Control Plan for more efficient reading and
organization.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on February 28, 2000 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 28,
2000. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Ms. Montel
Livingston, SIP Manager, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 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,
D.C. 20460. Copies of material submitted to EPA may be examined during
normal business hours at the following locations: EPA, Region 10,
Office of Air Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue (OAQ-107), Seattle, Washington
98101, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 410
Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105, Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Montel Livingston, Office of Air
Quality (OAQ-107), EPA, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-0180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is
organized as follows:
A. What SIP Amendments is EPA Approving?
B. What CO Updates and Changes Were Made to Air Quality
Projections and CO Contingency Measures?
C. What Are the Significant Changes to Alaska's I/M Air Quality
Program and Regulations (AAC 52)?
D. What Are the Overall Changes to Alaska's Regulations AAC 50
and 53?
E. What Is Transportation Conformity?
F. How Does Transportation Conformity Work?
[[Page 72941]]
G. What Are the Effects to Alaska's Transportation Conformity
Program from the I/M Rule Change?
H. Why Must the State Have A Transportation Conformity SIP?
I. What is EPA Approving Today for Transportation Conformity and
Why?
J. How Did the State Satisfy the Transportation Conformity
Interagency Consultation Process (40 CFR 93.105)?
K. What Parts of the Transportation Conformity Rule Are
Excluded?
A. What SIP amendments is EPA approving?
The following table outlines the submittals EPA received and is
approving in this action:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of submittal to EPA Items Revised
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-6-97................................ --Alaska State Air Quality
Control Plan: Volume II,
Section I.
--Alaska State Inspection and
Maintenance Program Manual.
--Biennial Vehicle Inspection
Program.
--Revised Rollback Calculation.
6-1-98................................ --Emission Inspection and
Maintenance Requirements.
9-10-98............................... --Alaska State Air Quality
Control Plan: Volume II,
Sections II and III.
--Air Quality Control
Regulations, Transportation
Conformity Rule 18 AAC 50.
--Fuel Requirements for Motor
Vehicles: Regulations 18 AAC
53.
--Anchorage Carbon Monoxide
Contingency Measures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What CO Updates and Changes Were Made to Air Quality Projections
and CO Contingency Measures?
EPA Approves a new CO Contingency Measure for Anchorage
that replaces its past two CO Contingency Measures.
In the September 10, 1998 submittal from ADEC, ADEC requests EPA's
approval of its new CO contingency measure, an enhanced technician
training certification (TTC) program in Anchorage. The TTC contingency
measure consists of additional local training and certification for
mechanics. The TTC program includes a series of enhanced technician
training modules aimed at competency areas such as electrical theory,
emission control systems, electronic ignitions, fuel injection, on-
board diagnostics, advanced diagnostic tools and procedures, oxygen
sensors, catalytic converters, and the use of current analytical
equipment.
The TTC program helps ensure that mechanics are trained to properly
maintain and repair newer vehicles with advanced technology. It may
also enhance efficiency, which would provide a cost benefit to
consumers.
The TTC program, found in State regulation 18 AAC 52.400-410, was
adopted by the State as a CO contingency measure for Anchorage upon
Anchorage's reclassification to a serious CO nonattainment area. In
addition, the TTC program was already approved by EPA on February 14,
1996 (61 FR 5704) as a CO contingency measure for Fairbanks, Alaska.
The TTC program also becomes the contingency measure for the
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecasting and tracking requirement found
in section 187 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
The two replaced contingency measures for Anchorage were (1)
compressed natural gas vehicles (CNG) procurement requirements for
government fleets, and, (2) the expansion of the oxygenated fuels
program to the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Both of these contingency
measures were impractical to initiate upon Anchorage's CO
reclassification to serious.
Using the CNG procurement requirements for government fleets as a
contingency measure was determined unworkable at this time. Major
issues included lack of a refueling infrastructure for CNG vehicles in
and around Anchorage, and there are only selected models available now
which are dedicated CNG vehicles certified to ultra low emission
vehicle standards. The extent of these issues were such that it would
be infeasible to implement the CNG contingency measure in Anchorage and
expect to gain meaningful reductions in emissions.
The second contingency measure was the expansion of the oxygenated
fuels program. With the continued fleet turnover to newer, cleaner
(technologically improved) cars, the information from the oxygenated
fuels program in Anchorage indicates that oxyfuel expansion to the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley was unlikely to provide the benefits
originally projected.
Expanding the oxygenated gasoline control area to the Matanuska-
Susitna Valley was inherently less cost effective than an oxyfuel
requirement in Anchorage. Expanding the requirement to the valley is
less effective because vehicles fueled in the valley spend less time,
on average, traveling in the nonattainment area than those fueled in
Anchorage itself.
Although the benefits of oxygenated gasoline were estimated on the
basis of the best information available at the time, recent MOBILE
model updates have suggested that oxygenated gasoline CO emission
reductions may be overestimated in some cases. Extending the program to
the valley is likely to result in even smaller benefits than were
originally anticipated in the plan.
EPA concurs with ADEC's request to repeal and replace the past
contingency measures with the TTC program.
How Does Approval of the New Contingency Measure Change
Alaska's Air Quality Control Regulations in 18 AAC 53, Fuel
Requirements for Motor Vehicles?
Regulation 18 AAC 53.015, Expansion of Control Area (found under
Chapter 53, Article I, Oxygenated Gasoline Requirements), is repealed.
This regulation had served as a CO contingency measure for Anchorage
and described the geographic boundaries of an expanded oxygenated fuels
programs in Anchorage if implemented as a contingency measure.
The Rollback Modeling Calculation Used to Determine CO
Emission Reductions is Clarified.
ADEC typically uses rollback modeling to determine CO emission
reductions needed to reach attainment of the CO national ambient air
quality and standards (NAAQS). The rollback calculation determines a
percentage reduction target by taking the ratio of the difference
between the second highest CO exceedance value in the emission
inventory base year and the ambient standard, and the second highest
value in the base year adjusted for the ambient background
concentration. ADEC clarifies in Alaska's CO SIP that the target CO
level for SIP purposes is 9.0 ppm, or the CO NAAQS. Using 9 ppm as the
appropriate target level gives ADEC the
[[Page 72942]]
amount of control necessary to attain and maintain the CO NAAQS.
Long-Term Air Quality Projections are Updated.
The on-road mobile source portion of Anchorage's 1990 base year CO
emission inventory was updated, using MOBILE5a which was the latest
emission estimation model available as of December 1, 1994. The 1993
periodic inventory was developed and adjusted for population growth
factors, and for changes in the Inspection and Maintenance program. The
1995 projected year inventory was also developed and adjusted for
population growth factors, and for changes in the inspection and
maintenance program and oxygenated fuels program. Tables provide
summaries of the 1990 base year and 1995 projected year emissions by
source category. In addition, daily emissions are calculated.
Also, data was updated to include 1995 2nd highest 8-hour ambient
CO concentrations recorded at Anchorage monitoring sites.
In addition, best estimates of future VMT projections in Anchorage
were completed through 1995.
Information is Streamlined and Reorganized in Alaska's CO
SIP.
The numerous non-substantive reformatting and restructuring changes
streamline the Alaska SIP and make for more efficient and customer-
friendly reading. They collectively, rather than individually, result
in a much more significant impact on the SIP's organization.
As an example, a table was created showing the 1998 Transportation
Control Strategies for Anchorage. Headings include Federal Control
Strategies, State Control Strategies, and Local primary Control
Strategies. Only one footnote accompanied the table, and that was an
explanation of the oxygenated fuels program. The table is easy to
understand and effectively summarizes important information.
Other similar edits found in Volume II, sections II and III of the
State Air Quality Control Plan removed out-of-date references,
eliminated duplicity and redundancy, reflected changes to Alaska's
Inspection and Maintenance program, and generally reorganized for
better sequence of information and requirements, while graphing
projections and trends in population and average daily traffic.
C. What are the Significant Changes to Alaska's I/M Air Quality
Program and Regulations (AAC 52)?
EPA approves all the changes to Alaska's I/M regulations submitted
by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) on
February 6, 1997 and June 1, 1998. The following explains the major
changes:
I/M Program Changes From Annual to Biennial.
In 1995, the Alaska State Legislature in Senate Bill 28 required
that all State I/M programs implement biennial I/M testing beginning no
later than January 1, 1997. In February 1997, ADEC submitted to EPA the
updated State I/M regulations that reflect this change. Many States
nationwide have changed their I/M programs from annual to biennial
programs. This change has provided more convenience to vehicle owners
(inspections are required less frequently, except when ownership of a
vehicle is transferred), only negligible increases in vehicle
emissions, and improved I/M program efficiency. ADEC analyzed the
impact of changing the I/M program from an annual to a biennial program
on motor vehicle emissions and found it would not significantly impact
emission reductions. The I/M regulations also reflect a change in fees.
Alaska's I/M programs in Fairbanks and Anchorage are operated by local
government, Fairbanks North Star Borough and the Municipality of
Anchorage, respectively, who have the authority to set their own
program fees. In addition, in June 1998 the vehicle inspection schedule
was changed to match the vehicle registration schedule (required by
Alaska Statute 28.10.108), resulting in vehicle inspection and
registration occurring on the same biennial schedule. The certificate
of inspection is $18 in both Anchorage and Fairbanks. Anchorage has set
a maximum of $60 and Fairbanks $35 for inspection testing.
Provisions for Waivers and Emissions-Related Repair Costs
Changed.
The provisions for waivers granted to motorists from passing an I/M
program inspection have been revised. Waivers are now valid for one
inspection cycle (every two years), instead of for one year. ADEC
offset the change by proposing more stringent requirements for repair
cost waivers. Section 18AAC 52.065 (``Emissions-Related Repair Cost
Minimum'') was updated to require motorists to meet the minimum
necessary repair costs of $450 per inspection cycle before qualifying
for a waiver, as opposed to spending a maximum of $450 annually. The
new requirements should increase the number of repairs completed, which
could benefit air quality. This change should address public concern
over waivers being valid for two years (one inspection cycle).
New Requirements for Dealers of Used Motor Vehicles.
In accordance with Alaska statute 45.45.400 (``Prohibited transfer
of used motor vehicle''), the I/M regulations contain new requirements
for dealers of used motor vehicles. The requirements apply only to cars
tested by a dealership and held in inventory on a used car lot, since
these cars are not likely to pollute the air. In general, an I/M
certificate is good for one year for cars that are inspected while in
the dealer's inventory or if the dealer registers the vehicle in the
buyer's name. The new requirements are outlined in the I/M regulation
under 18 AAC 52.020 (``Certificate of Inspection Requirements'').
ADEC's Dual Authority With an Implementing Agency
Clarified.
The regulations clarify ADEC's dual authority with the implementing
agencies, Fairbanks North Star Borough and the Municipality of
Anchorage, under the provisions for enforcement procedures. ADEC has
the authority to take an enforcement action against a motorist,
certified mechanic, or station with or without the participation of the
implementing agency to ensure compliance with enforcement provisions
(18 AAC 52.100 and AAC 52.105).
Notice of Violation Provisions Pertaining to Motorist
Updated.
More stringent enforcement procedures for violations by motorists
are outlined in 18 AAC 52.100. ``If a motorist fails to respond or
provide appropriate proof of compliance with this chapter within 30
days after receiving a notice of violation,'' the implementing agency
may refer the matter for prosecution under the provision of Alaska
state law pertaining to Local Air Quality Control Programs (AS
46.14.400(j)) or as a Class A misdemeanor under the provision for
Criminal Penalties (AS 46.03.790). The penalty for motorists who fail
to respond to a notice of violation (or fail to provide appropriate
proof of compliance) was changed from potential loss of vehicle
registration to the possibility of prosecution under Alaska's
misdemeanor statutes.
New Provision Allows for Visual Identification of
Certificate of Inspection (`Sticker Program').
A new provision allows the implementing agency to require a visual
identification, such as windshield sticker or license plate tab, that
clearly shows compliance with inspection requirements. A sticker
program (or similar program) provides easy visual verification of
program compliance, which improves enforcement and
[[Page 72943]]
provides incentive to motorists to have their cars inspected. Details
of this provision are outlined in 18 AAC 52.025.
Update to Requirements for Grey Market Vehicles.
Grey market vehicles are manufactured for use outside of, and
imported into, the United States. The revised provision for grey market
vehicles (18 AAC 52.080) reduces the requirements for issuing a
certificate of inspection on a grey market vehicle when it has a United
States title. However, grey market vehicles are required to pass visual
and functional inspections and/or tailpipe emission standards required
by the I/M program manual. In addition, motorists are still required to
obtain the applicable importation documents issued by EPA or the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
D. What are the Overall Changes to Alaska's Regulations AAC 50 and
53?
EPA is approves in part, and takes no action on the following
Alaska Air Quality Control Regulations:
Approvals 18 AAC 50
EPA is approving the following transportation conformity
regulations under 18 AAC 50 as adopted by ADEC and effective on
September 4, 1998: Section 700; 705; Section 710 with the exception of
incorporation by reference of sections 93.102(c), 93.102(d), 93.104(d),
93.104(e)(2), 93.109(c)-(f), 93.118(e), 93.119(f)(3), 93.120(a)(2),
93.121(a)(1) and (b), and 93.124(b); 715; and 720. EPA takes no action
at this time on the exceptions found under section 710. (For an
explanation of incorporation by reference, please see ``I.'')
No Action 18 AAC 50
In addition to the transportation conformity exceptions listed in
the preceding paragraph, EPA is taking no action at this time on any of
the 18 AAC 50 regulations, Articles 1 through 9, submitted on September
10, 1998. These regulations that are not being acted upon relate to the
permitting of new and modified stationary sources or do not relate to
the purposes of the SIP under section 110 of the Act or implement other
provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Approvals 18 AAC 53
EPA is approving the regulations found in 18 AAC 53 regarding fuel
requirements for motor vehicles, with the exception of section 015
which is repealed (see below). These regulations had minor, non-
substantive and streamlining changes.
Repeal of 18 AAC 53.015
Regulation 18 AAC 53.015, Expansion of Control Area (found under
Chapter 53,Article I, Oxygenated Gasoline Requirements),is repealed.
This regulation had served as a CO contingency measure for Anchorage
and described the geographic boundaries of an expanded oxygenated fuels
programs in Anchorage if implemented as a contingency measure.
E. What is Transportation Conformity?
Conformity first appeared in the Act's 1977 amendments (Pub. L. 95-
95). Although the Act did not define conformity, it stated that no
Federal department could engage in, support in any way or provide
financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any activity
which did not conform to a SIP which has been approved or promulgated.
The Act's 1990 Amendments expanded the scope and content of the
conformity concept by defining conformity to an implementation plan.
Section 176(c) of the Act defines conformity as conformity to the SIP's
purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of
violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such
standards. Also, the Act states that no Federal activity will: (1)
cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area,
(2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any
standard in any area, or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or
any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any
area.
F. How Does Transportation Conformity Work?
The Federal or State Transportation Conformity Rule applies to all
nonattainment and maintenance areas in the State. The Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPO), the State Departments of Transportation
(in absence of a MPO), and U.S. Department of Transportation make
conformity determinations. These agencies make conformity
determinations on programs and plans such as transportation improvement
programs, transportation plans, and projects. The MPOs calculate the
projected emissions for the transportation plans and programs and
compare those calculated emissions to the motor vehicle emissions
ceiling established in the SIP. The calculated emissions must be
smaller than the motor vehicle emissions ceiling for showing a positive
conformity with the SIP.
G. What are the Effects to Alaska's Transportation Conformity
Program From the I/M Rule Change?
The I/M action has no impact on the transportation emissions
budget. However, the switch to biennial I/M does make it somewhat more
difficult to demonstrate regional conformity, since it results in small
increases in future emissions projections (while the allowable
emissions budgets do not increase). However, this impact has not caused
a significant problem in continuing to demonstrate conformity in
Anchorage and Fairbanks, largely due to the continued decline in
projected emissions resulting from fleet turnover.
Updated baseline and attainment inventories are scheduled for
Anchorage and Fairbanks as part of the revised air quality attainment
plans that must be prepared due to the redesignation to serious CO
nonattainment status. As part of this process, the biennial I/M
programs will become part of both the baseline and attainment
inventories (and thus emissions budgets associated with each
inventory), thereby totally eliminating any impact on regional
conformity determinations.
H. Why Must the State Have a Transportation Conformity SIP?
EPA was required to issue criteria and procedures for determining
conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects to a SIP by
section 176(c) of the Act. The Act also required the procedure to
include a requirement that each State submit a revision to its SIP
including conformity criteria and procedures. EPA published the first
transportation conformity rule in the November 24, 1993, Federal
Register (FR), and it was codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and 40
CFR part 93, subpart A. EPA required the States and local agencies to
adopt and submit a transportation conformity SIP revision by November
25, 1994. The State of Alaska sent a transportation conformity SIP on
November 6, 1994, and EPA approved this SIP on November 8, 1995 (60 FR
56244). EPA revised the transportation conformity rule on August 7,
1995 (60 FR 40098), November 14, 1995 (60 FR 57179), August 15, 1997
(62 FR 43780), and it was codified under 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and
40 CFR part 93, subpart A--Conformity to State or Federal
Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects
Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal
Transit Laws (62 FR 43780). EPA's action of August 15, 1997, required
the States to
[[Page 72944]]
change their rules and send a SIP revision by August 15, 1998.
I. What is EPA Approving Today for Transportation Conformity and
Why?
EPA is approving the Alaska Transportation Conformity Rule that the
Governor of Alaska submitted on December 10, 1998 except for the
incorporation by reference of sections 93.102(c), 93.102 (d),
93.104(d), 93.104(e)(2), 93.109(c)-(f), 93.118(e), 93.119(f)(3),
93.120(a)(2), 93.121(a)(1) and (b), and 93.124(b) of 40 CFR into AAC
50.710. The rationale for exclusion of these sections is discussed in
Question K.
ADEC has adopted the Federal rules by ``incorporation by
reference'' (except for the interagency consultation section 40 CFR
93.105 where they customized the rules for Alaska) ``Incorporation by
Reference'' (IBR) means that the State adopted the Federal rules
without rewriting the text of the Federal rules but by referring to
them for inclusion as if they were printed in the state regulation. The
Federal Transportation Conformity Rule required the states to adopt
majority of the Federal rules in verbatim form with a few exceptions.
The States can not make their rules more stringent than the Federal
rules unless the State's rules apply equally to non-federal entities as
well as Federal entities. The Alaska Transportation Conformity Rule is
the same as the Federal rule and the State has made no additional
changes or modifications, with the exception to the consultation
section. EPA has evaluated this SIP revision and has determined that
the State has fully adopted the Federal Transportation Conformity rules
as described in 40 CFR part 51, subpart T and 40 CFR part 93, subpart
A. Also, the ADEC has completed and satisfied the public participation
and comprehensive interagency consultations during development and
adoption of these rules at the local level. Therefore, EPA is approving
this SIP revision.
J. How did the State Satisfy the Transportation Conformity
Interagency Consultation Process (40 CFR 93.105)?
EPA's rule requires the States to develop their own processes and
procedures for interagency consultation among the Federal, State, and
local agencies and resolution of conflicts meeting the criteria in 40
CFR 93.105. The SIP revisions must include processes and procedures to
be followed by the MPO, State Department of Transportation (DOT), and
the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) in consulting with the
State and local air quality agencies and EPA before making conformity
determinations. Also, the transportation conformity SIP revision must
have processes and procedures for the State and local air quality
agencies and EPA in coordinating development of applicable SIPs with
MPOs, State DOT, and USDOT. The State developed its own consultation
rule based on the elements in 40 CFR 93.105, and excluded this section
from IBR.
The Alaska consultation rule specifically addresses interagency
consultation procedures between ADEC, the local air planning agency,
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, the local
transportation agency, any agency created under state law that sponsors
or approves transportation projects, the U.S. EPA, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. The rule
includes provision for consultation, review procedures, and conflict
resolution for elements such as: discussion draft conformity
determinations on transportation plans, programs, and projects; traffic
demand modeling; regional emissions modeling; transportation control
measures; and projects that should be considered regionally
significant. It also includes provision for public review of conformity
determinations.
K. What Parts of the Transportation Conformity Rule are Excluded?
EPA promulgated the transportation conformity rule on August 15,
1997. On November 4, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit held in Sierra Club v. Environmental
Protection Agency, No. 96-1007, ruled that EPA's grace period violates
the plain terms of the Act and, therefore, is unlawful. Based on this
court action, EPA cannot approve 40 CFR 93.102(d). On March 2, 1999,
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
issued its opinion in Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental
Protection Agency, No. 97-1637. The Court granted the environmental
group's petition for review and ruled that 40 CFR 93.102(c)(1),
93.121(a)(1), and 93.124(b) are unlawful and remanded 40 CFR 93.118(e)
and 93.120(a)(2) to EPA for revision to harmonize these provisions with
the requirements of the Act for an affirmative determination the
Federal actions will not cause or increase violations or delay
attainment. The sections that were included in this decision were: (a)
40 CFR 93.102(c)(1) which allowed certain projects for which the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process has been completed by
the DOT to proceed toward implementation without further conformity
determinations during a conformity lapse, (b) 40 CFR 93.118(e) which
allowed use of motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) in the submitted
SIPs after 45 days if EPA had not declared them inadequate, (c) 40 CFR
93.120(a)(2) which allowed use of the MVEB in a disapproved SIP for 120
days after disapproval, (d) 40 CFR 93.121(a)(1) which allowed the non-
federally funded projects to be approved if included in the first three
years of the most recently conforming transportation plan and
transportation improvement programs, even if conformity status is
currently lapsed, and (e) 40 CFR 93.124(b) which allowed areas to use a
submitted SIP that allocated portions of a safety margin to
transportation activities for conformity purposes before EPA approval.
Since the States were required to submit transportation conformity SIPs
not later than August 15, 1998, and include those provisions in
verbatim form, the State's SIP revision includes all those sections
which the Court ruled unlawful or remanded for consistency with the
Act. The EPA can not approve these sections. EPA believes that ADEC has
complied with the SIP requirements and has adopted the Federal rules
which were in effect at the time that the transportation conformity SIP
was due to EPA. If the court had issued its ruling before adoption and
SIP submittal by the ADEC, we believe the ADEC would have removed these
sections from its IBR. The ADEC has expended its resources and time in
preparing this SIP and meeting the Act's statutory deadline, and EPA
acknowledges the agency's good faith effort in submitting the
transportation conformity SIP on time. ADEC will be required to submit
a SIP revision in the future when EPA revises its rule to comply with
the court decision. Because the court decision has invalidated these
provisions, EPA believes that it would be reasonable to exclude the
corresponding sections of the state rules from this SIP approval
action. As a result, we are not taking any action on the IBR of
sections 93.102(c), 93.102 (d), 93.104(d), 93.104(e)(2), 93.109(c)-(f),
93.118(e), 93.119(f)(3), 93.120(a)(2), 93.121(a)(1) and (b), and
93.124(b) of 40 CFR at 18 AAC 50.710 under the State Transportation
Conformity Rule. The conformity determinations affected by these
sections should comply with the relevant requirements of the statutory
provisions of the Act underlying the court's decision on these issues.
The EPA will be issuing guidance on how to
[[Page 72945]]
implement these provisions in the interim prior to EPA amendment of the
federal transportation conformity rules. Once these Federal rules have
been revised, conformity determinations in Alaska should comply with
the requirements of the revised Federal rule until corresponding
provisions of the Alaska conformity SIP have been approved by EPA.
II. Summary of Action
EPA approves and takes no action on certain regulations found in 18
AAC 50, 52, and 53, which were submitted for inclusion into Alaska's
SIP. EPA also approves deletions listed below from the Alaska SIP.
18 AAC 50 Approvals
EPA approves sections 700, 705, 710 except for the incorporation by
reference of sections 93.102(c), 93.102 (d), 93.104(d), 93.104(e)(2),
93.109(c)-(f), 93.118(e), 93.119(f)(3), 93.120(a)(2); 715, and 720.
18 AAC 50 No Action
As stated in ``D'', EPA takes no action on the remainder of those
regulations submitted on September 10, 1998, found in Articles 1-9, 18
AAC 50.
18 AAC 52
The 18 AAC 52 Inspection and Maintenance Air Quality Program and
Regulations that are approved by EPA are: Effective January 1, 1998,
Section 005; 010; 015; 020; 025; 035; 037; 050; 060, except for
subsections (8)(c), (8)(d)(2) and (8)(e); 065; 070; 080; 085; 095; 100;
105; 400; 405; 415, except subsection (f)(1); 420, except subsection
(a)(11); 425; 440; 500; 515; 520, except subsection (c)(9); 525; 527;
530, except subsections (b)(3), (c)(4)(C) and (d)(9); 535; 540; 545;
546; 990.
Effective January 1, 1997: Section 055; 090.
Remove the following provisions of 18 AAC 52: effective January 1,
1997, Section 060, subsection 8 (c) and 8 (e); Section 520, subsection
(c)(9).
Remove the following provisions of 18 AAC 52: effective January 1,
1998: Section 060, subsection 8 (d)(2); Section 415, subsection (f)(1);
Section 420, subsection (a) (11); Section 530, subsection (b)(3) and
(d)(9).
Remove the following provisions of 18 AAC 52, effective January 4,
1995: Section 530, subsection (c) (4)(c).
The 18 AAC 53 Fuel Requirements for Motor Vehicles Regulations that
are approved by EPA are: Effective October 31, 1997, Section 05; 07;
10; 20; 30; 35; 40; 45; 60; 70; 80; 90; 200; 105; 120; 130; 140; 150;
160; 170; and 190; and effective September 4, 1998, 18 AAC 53.990.
Remove the following provision of 18 AAC 53.015, Expansion of
Control Area, effective October 31, 1997.
EPA also approves numerous edits, updates, and improved
reorganization to the narrative portions of Alaska's CO SIP for easier
reading and understanding.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective February 28,
2000 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments
by January 28, 2000.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on February 28, 2000 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 13132
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. This direct final rule will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves a
state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6
of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance
[[Page 72946]]
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation.
In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
I. Petitions for Judicial 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 February 28, 2000. 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).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 10, 1999.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
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 et seq.
Subpart C--Alaska
2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (29) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.70 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(29) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves various
amendments to the Alaska State Air Quality Control Plan which are
contained in three separate submittals to EPA, dated February 6, 1997,
June 1, 1998, and September 10, 1998, and which include the inspection
and maintenance program.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Air Quality Control Regulations, 18 AAC 50.
Effective September 4, 1998: Section 700; Section 705; Section 710
(except for the incorporation by reference of
[[Page 72947]]
sections 93.102(c), 93.102 (d), 93.104(d), 93.104(e)(2), 93.109(c)-(f),
93.118(e), 93.119(f)(3), 93.120(a)(2), 93.121(a)(1) and (b), and
93.124(b) of 40 CFR); Section 715; and Section 720.
(B) Emissions Inspection and Maintenance Requirements for Motor
Vehicles 18 AAC 52.
(1) Effective January 1, 1998: Section 005; Section 010; 015; 020;
025; 035; 037; 050; 060, except for subsections (8)(c), (8)(d)(2) and
(8)(e); 065; 070; 080; 085; 095; 100; 105; 400; 405; 415, except
subsection (f)(1); 420, except subsection (a)(11); 425; 440; 500; 515;
520, except subsection (c)(9); 525; 527; 530, except subsections
(b)(3), (c)(4)(C) and (d)(9); 535; 540; 545; 546; 990.
(2) Effective January 1, 1997: Section 055; 090.
(3) Remove the following provisions of 18 AAC 52, effective January
1, 1997: Section 060, subsection 8 (c) and 8 (e); Section 520,
subsection (c)(9).
(4) Remove the following provisions of 18 AAC 52, effective January
1, 1998: Section 060, subsection 8 (d)(2); Section 415, subsection
(f)(1); Section 420, subsection (a) (11); Section 530, subsection
(b)(3) and (d)(9).
(5) Remove the following provisions of 18 AAC 52, effective January
4, 1995: Section 530, subsection (c) (4)(c).
(C) Fuel Requirements for Motor Vehicles 18 AAC 53.
(1) Effective October 31, 1997: Section 05; 07; 10; 20; 30; 35; 40;
45; 60; 70; 80; 90; 200; 105; 120; 130; 140; 150; 160; 170; 190 and
effective September 4, 1998, Section 990.
(2) Remove the following provision of 18 AAC 53.015, Expansion of
Control Area, effective October 31, 1997.
(ii) Additional Material.
(A) Revisions to Alaska's State Air Quality Control Plan, Volume
II: Section I, ``Background,'' I.A; I.B., I.C., I.D., and I.E., adopted
11/26/96; Part B--Anchorage Contingency Measures, adopted 5/18/98;
Section II, ``State Air Quality Control Program,'' pages II-1 through
II-4, adopted 5/18/98; Section III.A. ``Statewide Carbon Monoxide
Control Program,'' pages III.A.1-1 through III.A.3-4, adopted 5/18/98;
III.B. ``Anchorage Transportation Control Program,'' pages III.B.1-1
through III.B.6-7, adopted 5/18/98; III.B.8. ``Modeling and
Projections,'' pages III.B.8-1 through III.B.9-2, adopted 5/18/98;
III.B.10, ``Anchorage Air Pollution Episode Curtailment Plan,'' pages
III.B.10-1 and III.B.10-2, revised 12/19/93; III.B.11. ``Assurance of
Adequacy,'' pages III.B.11-1 through III.B.11-3, revised 5/18/98;
III.B.12. ``Emissions Budget,'' page III.B.12-1, adopted 11/26/96; and
various CO SIP streamlining edits throughout Volume II and Volume III
of the State Air Quality Control Plan which make the document easier to
read and better organized, adopted 5/18/98.
[FR Doc. 99-33525 Filed 12-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
