[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