[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 198 (Thursday, October 10, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53163-53166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25981]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AK12-7100; FRL-5634-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Alaska: Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed interim rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an interim approval of a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Alaska. This revision 
requires the continued implementation of an inspection and maintenance 
(I/M) program in the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) and the Fairbanks 
North Star Borough (FNSB). Alaska's current program was reviewed and 
approved by EPA in a SIP action that became effective on June 5, 1995. 
The intended effect of this action is to propose interim approval for a 
revised I/M program credit claim proposed by the State, based upon the 
state's good faith estimate, which asserts that the state's claimed 
network design credits are appropriate and the revision is otherwise in 
compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA). This action is being taken 
under section 348 of the National Highway System Designation Act of 
1995 (NHSDA) and section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing and postmarked on or before 
November 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Montel Livingston, SIP Manager, 
Office of Air Quality (OAQ 107), Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101. Copies of the 
documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection 
during normal business hours at: EPA Region 10, Office of Air Quality, 
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, and the Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation, 410 Willoughby, Suite 105, 
Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1795.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Jones, EPA, Office of Air Quality 
(OA-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, (206) 553-
1743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Impact of the National Highway System Designation Act on the Design 
and Implementation of Inspection & Maintenance Programs Under the Clean 
Air Act

    The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA) 
establishes two key changes to the I/M rule requirements previously 
developed by EPA. Under the NHSDA, EPA cannot require states to adopt 
or implement centralized, test-only IM240 enhanced vehicle inspection 
and maintenance programs as a means of compliance with section 182, 184 
or 187 of the CAA. Also under the NHSDA, EPA cannot disapprove a State 
SIP revision, nor apply an automatic discount to a State SIP revision 
under section 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA, because the I/M program in 
such plan revision is decentralized, or a test-and-repair program. 
Accordingly, the so-called 50% credit discount that was established by 
the EPA's I/M Program Requirements Final Rule, (published November 5, 
1992, and herein referred to as the I/M Rule) has been effectively 
replaced with a presumptive equivalency criteria, which places the 
emission reductions credits for decentralized networks on par with 
credit assumptions for centralized networks, based upon a state's good 
faith estimate of reductions as provided by the NHSDA and explained 
below in this section.
    EPA's I/M Rule established many other criteria unrelated to network 
design or test type for states to use in designing I/M programs. All 
other elements of the I/M Rule, and the statutory requirements 
established in the CAA continue to be required of those states 
submitting I/M SIP revisions under the NHSDA, and the NHSDA 
specifically requires that these submittals must otherwise comply in 
all respects with the I/M Rule and the CAA.
    Submission criteria described under the NHSDA allows for a State to 
submit proposed regulations for this interim program, provided that the 
State has all of the statutory authority necessary to carry out the 
program. Also, in proposing the interim credits for this program, 
states are required to make good faith estimates regarding the 
performance of their I/M program. Since these estimates are expected to 
be difficult to quantify, the state need only provide that the proposed 
credits claimed for the submission have a basis in fact. A good faith 
estimate of a State's program may be an estimate that is based on any 
of the following: the performance of any previous I/M program; the 
results of remote sensing or other roadside testing techniques; fleet 
and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) profiles; demographic studies; or 
other evidence which has relevance to the effectiveness or emissions 
reducing capabilities of an I/M program.
    This action is being taken under the authority of both the NHSDA 
and section 110 of the CAA. Section 348 of the NHSDA expressly directs 
EPA to issue this interim approval for a period of 18 months, at which 
time the interim program will be evaluated in concert with the 
appropriate state agencies and EPA. At that time, the Conference Report 
on section 348 of the NHSDA states that it is expected that the 
proposed credits claimed by the State in its submittal, and the 
emissions reductions demonstrated through the program data may not 
match exactly. Therefore, the Conference Report suggests that EPA use 
the program data to appropriately adjust these credits on a program 
basis as demonstrated by the program data.

B. Interim Approvals Under the NHSDA

    The NHSDA directs EPA to grant interim approval for a period of 18 
months to approvable I/M submittals under this Act. This Act also 
directs EPA and the states to review the interim program results at the 
end of 18 months, and to make a determination as to the effectiveness 
of the interim program. Following this demonstration, EPA will adjust 
any credit claims made by the state in its good faith effort to reflect 
the emissions reductions actually measured

[[Page 53164]]

by the state during the program evaluation period. The NHSDA is clear 
that the interim approval shall last for only 18 months, and that the 
program evaluation is due to EPA at the end of that period. Evaluation 
periods must begin such that at least 6 months of operational program 
data can be collected to demonstrate the effectiveness of the interim 
program.
    The program evaluation to be used by the State during the 18 month 
interim period must be acceptable to EPA. EPA anticipates that such a 
program evaluation process will be developed by the Environmental 
Council of State (ECOS) group that is convening now and that was 
organized for this purpose. In addition to this interim evaluation, EPA 
further encourages the State to conduct a longer term, ongoing 
evaluation of its I/M program.

C. Process for Full Approvals of This Program under the CAA

    As per the NHSDA requirements, this interim rulemaking will expire 
within 18 months of the final interim approval, or the date of final 
approval. A full approval of the state's final I/M SIP revision (which 
will include the state's program evaluation and final adopted state 
regulations) is still necessary under section 110 and under section 
182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. After EPA reviews the State's submitted 
program evaluation, final rulemaking on the State's SIP revision will 
occur.

II. EPA's Analysis of Alaska's Submittal

    On March 26, 1996, the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation (ADEC) submitted a revision to its State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) for an I/M program to qualify under the NHSDA. The revision 
consists of enabling legislation that will allow the state to continue 
implementing the I/M program, proposed regulations, a description of 
the I/M program (including a modeling analysis and detailed description 
of program features), and a good faith estimate that includes the 
state's basis in fact for emission reductions claims of the program. 
The state's credit assumptions should be based upon the removal of the 
50% credit discount for all portions of the program that are based on a 
test-and-repair network, and the application of the State's own 
estimate of the effectiveness of its decentralized test and repair 
program.

A. Analysis of the NHSDA Submittal Criteria

Transmittal Letter
    On March 26, 1996, Alaska submitted an I/M SIP revision to EPA, 
requesting action under the NHSDA of 1995 and the CAA of 1990. The 
official submittal was made by the appropriate state official, Michele 
Brown, Commissioner of ADEC, and was addressed to the appropriate EPA 
official in the Region.
Enabling Legislation
    The State of Alaska has regulations at 18 AAC 52, enabling the 
implementation of a basic I/M program.
Proposed Regulations
    On April 5, 1995, the state of Alaska was granted EPA approval for 
their basic I/M program (60 FR 17232). The approval became effective on 
June 5, 1995. On March 26, 1996 the state proposed amendments to the 
approved program. The state anticipates fully adopting amended 
regulations by November 1996.
Program Description
    Alaska currently operates an approved basic I/M program. Amendments 
to the program submitted on March 26, 1996, and acted upon in this 
notice, do not modify the operation of the program in any manner.
Emission Reduction Claim and Basis for the Claim
    Alaska has approved basic I/M programs in the Fairbanks North Star 
Borough (FNSB) and the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA). Currently, to 
comply with national policy related to the efficacy of test-and-repair 
I/M operations, the SIP discounts these programs by 50% (in relation to 
centralized I/M programs). The SIP revision submitted by the state 
establishes a level of credit for Alaska's basic, de-centralized I/M 
program at 85% of the credit applied to centralized programs. Alaska's 
claim is based on: (1) an estimation of approximate equivalency with 
California's ``Smog Check'' I/M program; (2) the California I/M Review 
Committee's 1993 evaluation of the Smog Check program (entitled 
``Evaluation of the California Smog Check Program and Recommendations 
for Program Improvements, Fourth Report to the Legislature'') and the 
Report's conclusions about the program's effectiveness; and, (3) an 
assertion that the carbon monoxide emission reduction effectiveness 
claimed for the California program should be translatable into at least 
85% of the credit applied to test-only programs.
    Although the evidence submitted in support of Alaska's claim that 
their I/M program is at least 85% as effective as a centralized, test-
only program is insufficient by itself to gain full approval of the 
credit claim, EPA believes that the state's assertion may be borne out 
by a well-designed demonstration study. It is also the Agency's 
position that this preliminary credit estimate, however speculative at 
this time, is based on a factual argument that has been prepared in 
good faith. EPA, therefore, proposes to conclude that Alaska's 85% 
estimate for I/M effectiveness merits interim approval for the eighteen 
month evaluation period.

B. Analysis of the EPA I/M Regulation and CAA Requirements

    As previously stated, the NHSDA left those elements of the 1992 I/M 
Rule that do not pertain to network design and test type intact. Based 
upon EPA's review of Alaska's submittal, and the lack of any actual 
modification to the approved program, EPA believes the state has 
complied with all aspects of the NHSDA, the CAA and the 1992 I/M Rule.
    Alaska's currently approved SIP includes provisions that assure 
that applicable federal regulations contained in 40 CFR 51.350 through 
51.373 are met. As part of this Federal Register action, no 
modifications to these SIP provisions are acted upon.

III. Explanation of the Interim Approval

    At the end of the 18 month interim period, pursuant to the NHSDA, 
the approval status for this program will automatically lapse. It is 
expected that the state will at that time be able to make a 
demonstration of the program's effectiveness using an appropriate 
evaluation criteria. EPA expects that the state will have at least 6 
months of program data that can be used for the demonstration. If the 
state fails to provide a demonstration of the program's effectiveness 
to EPA within 18 months of the final interim rulemaking, the interim 
approval will lapse, and EPA will be forced to disapprove the state's 
permanent I/M SIP revision. If the state's program evaluation 
demonstrates that a lesser amount of emission reductions were actually 
realized than were claimed in the state's March 26, 1996 submittal, EPA 
will adjust the state's credits accordingly, and use this information 
to act on the state's permanent I/M program.

[[Page 53165]]

IV. Requirements for Permanent I/M SIP Approval

    At the end of the 18 month period, final approval of the state's 
full SIP revision will be granted based upon the following criteria:
    1. EPA's review of the state's program evaluation confirms that the 
appropriate amount of program credit was claimed by the state and 
achieved with the interim program,
    2. Final program regulations are submitted to EPA, and
    3. The state I/M program continues to meet all of the requirements 
of EPA's I/M Rule.

V. EPA's Evaluation of the Interim Submittal

    EPA's review of this material indicates that a credit claim of 85% 
of test-only credit was prepared in good faith and is based in fact. 
EPA is therefore proposing an interim approval of the Alaska SIP 
revision for I/M program credit claims, which was submitted on March 
26, 1996. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in 
this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be 
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may 
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written 
comments to the EPA Regional office listed in the ADDRESSES section of 
this document.

VI. Proposed Action

    This action proposes to modify sections III.A, III.B, and III.C of 
the Alaska SIP, and add an appendix to Section III.B entitled 
``Estimating the Emission Reductions from the Alaska I/M Programs.'' 
The proposal is for interim approval of these modifications and 
additions. Not all the revisions submitted on March 26 have been acted 
upon and proposed for interim approval, however. Pages proposed for 
interim approval by this action include:
    (1) Page III.A.2-5.
    (2) Page III.A.2-6. Table A.2-1.
    (3) Page III.A.2-30, Milestone Table, with the exception of 
revisions calling for biennial testing.
    (4) Page III.B.3-1, second paragraph.
    (5) Page III.B.5-13, fourth paragraph revisions prior to the new 
section entitled ``Level of Proposed Credit,'' except for sentence 
related to biennial testing.
    (6) Page III.B.5-13, section entitled ``Level of Proposed Credit.''
    (7) Page III.B.5-14, Table B.5-1.
    (8) Page III.C.3-1, second paragraph.
    (9) Page III.C.5-6, first paragraph revisions prior to the new 
section entitled ``Level of Proposed Credit,'' except for sentence 
related to biennial testing.
    (10) Page III.C.5-6, section entitled ``Level of Proposed Credit.''
    (11) Page III.C.5-7, Table C.5-1.
    (12) Appendix to Section III.B entitled ``Estimating the Emission 
Reductions from the Alaska I/M Programs.''
    Pages submitted by the state as revisions, but not acted upon, and 
therefore not proposed for interim approval include:
    (1) Page III.B.3-1, last partial paragraph.
    (2) Page III.B.3-3, Table B.3-2.
    (3) Page III.B.6-5.
    (4) Page III.B.6-6, Figure B.6-1.
    (5) Page III.B.8-6.
    (6) Page III.B.8-7, Figure B.8-1 and the section entitled ``State 
Oxygenated Fuels Program.''
    (7) Page III.B.8-8, Figure 8-2.
    (8) Page III.B.8-9.
    (9) Page III.B.8-10.
    (10) Page III.C.3-1, after the second paragraph (reference to Table 
III.C.3-2).
    (11) Page III.C.3-3, Table C.3-2.
    (12) Page III.C.3-7, Table C.3-3.
    (13) Page III.C.3-7 and 3-8.
    (14) Page III.C.5-4.
    (15) Page III.C.5-5, Figure C.5-1.
    (16) Page III.C.8-2.
    (17) Page III.C.8-3 and 8-4.
    (18) Page III.C.8-3, Figure III.C.8-1.
    (19) appendix to Section III.A entitled ``Mobile Source CO 
Emissions Inventory Update #3.''
    This latter group of revisions relates to: the effectiveness of the 
I/M program in the context of total carbon monoxide emission reductions 
in Anchorage and Fairbanks; state oxyfuel programs; and/or, future 
biennial I/M testing. Since these topics have not been considered 
appropriate for inclusion within an action leading to interim approval, 
the respective revisions will be reviewed, together with other separate 
state submittals, in a future SIP action by EPA.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

VII. Administrative Requirements

Executive Order 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
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 impose any new requirements, the 
Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on 
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a 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). The 
Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the SIP revision will 
be based on whether it meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)-
(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA regulations in 
40 CFR Part 51.

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 that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the 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

[[Page 53166]]

small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the 
rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 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 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: September 13, 1996.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-25981 Filed 10-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P