[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 96 (Monday, May 19, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27199-27201]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13038]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AK-12-7100; FRL-5826-8]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting interim approval of a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by Alaska. This revision does not affect 
or change the currently operating basic inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program in the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) and the Fairbanks 
North Star Borough (FNSB). The intended effect of this action is to 
approve the level of effectiveness credit for the state's

[[Page 27200]]

existing de-centralized I/M program for an interim period to last 18 
months, based upon its good faith estimate of the program's 
performance. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean 
Air Act and section 348 of the National Highway Systems Designation 
Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on June 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
Office of Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 
1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101. They are also available for 
inspection at the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 410 
Willoughby, Suite 105, Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
II. Public Comments/Response to Comments
III. Final Rulemaking Action
IV. Requirements for Permanent I/M SIP Approval
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Unfunded Mandates Act
    D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
    E. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. Background

    On October 10, 1996 (61 FR 53163), EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Alaska. The NPR proposed 
interim approval of Alaska's credit claim for its existing de-
centralized basic inspection and maintenance program, submitted to 
satisfy the applicable requirements of both the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 
the National Highway Safety Designation Act (NHDSA). The formal SIP 
revision submitted by the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation was received on March 26, 1996. In that submittal the 
state proposed a number of modifications to the plan in addition to the 
request that the current de-centralized I/M program be allotted 85% of 
the credit of centralized programs. These additional modifications, 
noted in the NPR, have not been acted upon, and are therefore not 
approved. They will be acted upon in a future action by EPA.
    As described in the earlier notice, the NHSDA directs EPA to grant 
interim approval for a period of 18 months to approvable I/M submittals 
under this Act. The NHSDA also directs EPA and the states to review the 
interim program results at the end of that 18-month period, 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 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. Therefore, EPA believes Congress intended for program 
evaluations to start up as soon as possible, so that at least six 
months of operational program data can be collected to evaluate the 
programs' effectiveness before the end of the interim period.
    The program evaluation to be used by the state during the 18-month 
interim period must be acceptable to EPA. The Environmental Council of 
States (ECOS) group has developed such a program evaluation process 
which includes both qualitative and quantitative measures, and this 
process has been deemed acceptable to EPA. The core requirement for the 
quantitative measure is that a mass emission transient test (METT) be 
performed on 0.1% of the subject fleet, as required for enhanced 
programs by the I/M Rule at 40 CFR 51.353 and 366. EPA believes METT 
evaluation testing is not precluded by the NHSDA, and, therefore, is 
still required to be performed by states implementing enhanced I/M 
programs under the NHSDA and the CAA.
    The need for METT testing in states that have basic programs was 
apparently not included among the ECOS recommendations. The Agency 
favors the introduction of METT testing for de-centralized basic 
programs attempting to demonstrate that their programs are more 
effective than the 50% discount applied by EPA in the past. Since these 
tests are not required by regulation, however, the Agency can only 
recommend them as an appropriate tool for evaluating program 
effectiveness, and ask states who decide to reject the recommendation 
to design their evaluations in a way that the goals of METT auditing 
can be met adequately through another means.
    Per the NHSDA requirements, this interim rulemaking will expire on 
November 19, 1998. A full approval of Alaska'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 
sections 182, 184 or 187 of the CAA. After EPA reviews Alaska's 
submitted program evaluation and regulations, final rulemaking on the 
state's SIP revision will occur.
    Specific information regarding Alaska's I/M credit claim, the 
justification presented by the state, the rationale for EPA's proposed 
action, and the specific proposed SIP revisions acted upon and not 
acted upon are explained in the October 10, 1996, NPR and will not be 
restated here.

II. Public Comments/Response to Comments

    No comments were submitted to the docket during the comment period 
for the notice of proposed rulemaking, published in the October 10, 
1996, Federal Register.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

    EPA is granting interim approval of Alaska's claim for 
decentralized I/M program effectiveness as a revision to the SIP. The 
approval will cover a period of eighteen months, allowing the state to 
demonstrate the ``actual'' effectiveness of its program.

IV. Requirements for Permanent I/M SIP Approval

    This approval is being granted on an interim basis for a period of 
18 months, under the authority of section 348 of the National Highway 
Systems Designation Act of 1995. At the end of this period, this 
interim approval will lapse. After Alaska submits a request for 
approval, EPA will take final rulemaking action on the state's SIP 
revision, under the authority of section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 
Final approval of Alaska's plan will be granted based upon the 
following criteria:
    (1) The state has complied with all the conditions of its 
evaluation commitment to EPA,
    (2) 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,
    (3) Final program regulations are submitted to EPA, and
    (4) The state's I/M program continues to meet all of the 
requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S.

V. Administrative Requirements

    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

[[Page 27201]]

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

A. 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.

B. 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.
    Interim approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D, of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new 
requirements, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on 
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a 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).
    If the interim approval is converted to a disapproval under section 
110(k), based on the state's failure to meet the commitment, it will 
not affect any existing state requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect 
its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal 
does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies 
that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove 
existing requirements nor does it substitute a new federal requirement.

C. Unfunded Mandates Act

    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 
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 small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted on by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated 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 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

E. 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 July 18, 1997.
    Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this 
final rule to conditionally approve the Alaska I/M SIP, on an interim 
basis, 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) of the Administrative Procedures Act).

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: May 2, 1997.
Charles Findley,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 97-13038 Filed 5-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P