[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5064-5069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2505]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AK-01-004a; FRL-7133-1]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of 
Alaska; Fairbanks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Alaska. 
This

[[Page 5065]]

revision provides for attainment of the carbon monoxide (CO) national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Fairbanks Nonattainment 
Area. This action also approves the use of the ``CO Emissions Model'' 
for SIP development purposes in EPA Region 10.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective on April 5, 2002, 
without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by 
March 6, 2002. If relevant adverse comments are received, EPA will 
publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal 
Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. 
Please note that if EPA receives relevant adverse comment on an 
amendment, paragraph or section of this rule and if that provision may 
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those 
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of a relevant adverse 
comment.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Connie Robinson, 
EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 
Washington 98101.
    Copies of the State's requests, and other information relevant to 
this action are available for inspection during normal business hours 
at the following locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, and the Alaska Department of 
Environmental Conservation, 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303, Juneau, 
Alaska 99801-1795.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Robinson, Office of Air Quality 
(OAQ-107), EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 
553-1086.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
is organized as follows:

I. Background Information.
    A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is 
considered in today's action?
    B. What is the history behind this action?
    C. What Clean Air Act (CAA) statutory, regulatory, and policy 
requirements must be met to approve this action?
II. EPA's Review of the Fairbanks CO Plan.
    A. Does the Fairbanks CO Plan meet all the procedural 
requirements as required by Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA?
    B. Does the Fairbanks CO plan include a comprehensive, accurate, 
current base year inventory from all sources as required in section 
187(a)(1) and periodic revisions as required in section 187(a)(5) of 
the CAA?
    C. Does the Fairbanks CO plan meet the requirements of section 
187(a)(7) of the CAA which require that serious CO areas submit an 
Attainment Demonstration which includes annual emissions reductions 
necessary for reaching attainment by the deadline?
    D. Has the State adopted transportation control measures (TCMs) 
for the purpose of reducing CO emissions as required by section 
182(d)(1) and described in section 108(f) (1)(A) of the CAA?
    E. Does the Fairbanks CO plan include a forecast of vehicle 
miles traveled (VMT) for each year before the attainment year of 
2001 as required by 187(a) (2) (A) of the CAA?
    F. Does the Fairbanks CO plan include contingency measures 
required by Section 187(a)(3) of the CAA?
    G. What levels of CO are estimated for the base year and 
projected for future years and does the Fairbanks CO plan provide 
for reasonable further progress (RFP) as required by Section 
172(c)(2) and Section 171(1) of the CAA?
    H. Is the motor vehicle emission budget approvable as required 
by Section 176(c)(2)(A) of the CAA and outlined in conformity rules, 
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)?
    I. Does Fairbanks have an Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 
program in place that meets EPA requirements in section 
182(a)(2)(B)of the CAA?
    J. Are there controls on stationary sources of CO as required by 
Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA?
III. Summary of EPA's Action.
IV. Administrative Requirements.

I. Background Information

A. What National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Is Considered in 
Today's Action?

    CO is among the ambient air pollutants for which EPA has 
established a health-based standard and is the pollutant that is the 
subject of this action. CO is a colorless, odorless gas emitted in 
combustion processes. CO enters the bloodstream through the lungs and 
reduces oxygen delivery to the body's organs and tissues. Exposure to 
elevated CO levels is associated with impairment of visual perception, 
work capacity, manual dexterity, and learning ability, and with illness 
and death for those who already suffer from cardiovascular disease, 
particularly angina or peripheral vascular disease.
    Under section 109(a)(1)(A) of the CAA, we have established primary, 
health-related NAAQS for CO: 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 
8-hour period, and 35 ppm averaged over 1 hour. Fairbanks has never 
exceeded the 1-hour NAAQS; therefore, the State Implementation Plan 
revision (Fairbanks CO plan), and this action address only the 8-hour 
CO NAAQS. Attainment of the 8-hour CO NAAQS is achieved if not more 
than one non-overlapping 8-hour average in any consecutive 2-year 
period per monitoring site exceeds 9 ppm (values below 9.5 are rounded 
down to 9.0 and are not considered exceedances).

B. What Is the History Behind This Action?

    Upon enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments, areas meeting the 
requirements of section 107(d) of the CAA were designated nonattainment 
for CO by operation of law. Under section 186(a) of the CAA, each CO 
nonattainment area was also classified by operation of law as either 
moderate or serious depending on the severity of the area's air quality 
problems. Fairbanks was classified as a moderate CO nonattainment area. 
Moderate CO nonattainment areas were expected to attain the CO NAAQS as 
expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 1995. If a 
moderate CO nonattainment area was unable to attain the CO NAAQS by 
December 31, 1995, the area was reclassified as a serious CO 
nonattainment area by operation of law. Fairbanks was unable to meet 
the CO NAAQS by December 31, 1995, and was reclassified as a serious 
nonattainment area effective March 30, 1998. As a result of the 
reclassification, the State had 18 months or until October 1, 1999, to 
submit a new Fairbanks CO plan demonstrating attainment of the CO NAAQS 
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2000, 
the CAA attainment date for all serious CO areas.
    The required Fairbanks CO plan was not submitted by October 1, 
1999, and we made a finding of failure to submit the required plan (See 
65 FR 17444, April 3, 2000) which triggered the 18-month time clock for 
mandatory application of sanctions and a year time clock for additional 
sanctions and the requirement for a Federal Implementation Plan under 
the CAA. A complete Fairbanks CO plan was due by October 3, 2001, to 
stop the clocks.
    On August 30, 2001, the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation (ADEC) submitted the Fairbanks CO plan as a revision to 
the Alaska SIP. We determined this submittal to be complete and stopped 
the sanctions' clocks effective September 24, 2001.
    Fairbanks did not have the two years of clean data required to 
attain the standard by December 31, 2000, the required attainment date 
for CO serious areas, and under section 186(a)(4) of the CAA, Alaska 
requested and EPA granted a one year extension of the attainment date 
deadline to December 31, 2001 (66 FR 28836, May 25, 2001).

[[Page 5066]]

C. What Clean Air Act (CAA) Statutory, Regulatory, and Policy 
Requirements Must Be Met To Approve This Action?

    Section 172 of the CAA contains general requirements applicable to 
SIP revisions for nonattainment areas. Sections 186 and 187 of the CAA 
set out additional air quality planning requirements for CO 
nonattainment areas.
    EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing the agency's 
preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIP revisions submitted 
under Title I of the CAA. See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 
and 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). The reader should refer to the 
General Preamble for a more detailed discussion of the interpretations 
of Title I requirements. In this direct final rulemaking action, we are 
applying these policies to the Fairbanks CO plan, taking into 
consideration specific factual issues presented.

II. EPA's Review of the Fairbanks CO Plan

A. Does the Fairbanks CO Plan Meet All the Procedural Requirements as 
Required by Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA?

    The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing implementation plans and revisions for submission to EPA. 
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA provides that each implementation plan 
submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public 
hearing. Public noticing for a public meeting held on July 17, 2001, 
occurred through advertisements in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner and 
the Internet. The SIP submittal includes a description of the public 
meeting where the public had the opportunity to comment on the issues 
addressed in the plan. Also included are the comments received from the 
public and the response developed by the ADEC staff. Following the 
required public participation, the State adopted the Fairbanks CO plan 
on July 27, 2001. The Fairbanks CO Plan demonstrates it has met the 
procedural requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

B. Does the Fairbanks CO Plan Include a Comprehensive, Accurate, 
Current Base Year Inventory From All Sources as Required in Section 
187(a)(1) and Periodic Revisions as Required in Section 187(a)(5) of 
the CAA?

    Yes. Fairbanks submitted a base year inventory for 1995 based on 
EPA guidance that determined that an inventory for 1995 would satisfy 
the requirement for a base year inventory. A periodic inventory for 
1998 was also submitted. The inventories contain point, area, on-road 
and non-road mobile source data, and documentation. The inventories 
were prepared for a typical winter day for each of the years. Emissions 
for these groupings are presented in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Daily emissions  (tons/
                                                          day)
               Emission category               -------------------------
                                                 Base year     Periodic
                                                    1995      year 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources.................................         4.14         4.20
Area Sources..................................         1.53         1.34
Non-road mobile sources.......................         4.00         3.72
On-road mobile sources........................        21.69        17.74
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................        31.36        27.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total average daily, CO season emissions associated with the 
Fairbanks nonattainment area for the 1995 base year are 31.36 tons per 
day. The methodologies used to prepare the base year emissions 
inventory, as described in the Fairbanks CO plan, are acceptable.
    The plan must also revise the inventory every three years until the 
area reaches attainment. The methodologies used to prepare the periodic 
year emissions inventory, as described in the Fairbanks CO plan, are 
acceptable. A discussion of how these inventories meet the requirements 
needed for approval is in the technical support document (TSD) for this 
action. Detailed inventory data is contained in the docket maintained 
by EPA.

C. Does the Fairbanks CO Plan Meet the Requirements of Section 
187(a)(7) of the CAA Which Require That Serious CO Areas Submit an 
Attainment Demonstration Which Includes Annual Emissions Reductions 
Necessary for Reaching Attainment by the Deadline?

    The Fairbanks CO Plan contains an attainment demonstration using 
rollback modeling to show that emission reductions resulting from 
implementation of control measures are sufficient to ``roll back'' the 
design value to a concentration at or below the NAAQS for CO of 9 ppm. 
Alaska showed that the 8-hour design value concentration of 9.0 
predicted for 2001, the attainment year, documents attainment of the 8-
hour CO NAAQS.

D. Has the State Adopted Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) for the 
Purpose of Reducing CO Emissions as Required by Section 182(d)(1) and 
Described in Section 108(f) (1)(A) of the CAA?

    Section 187(b)(2) of the CAA requires States with serious CO 
nonattainment areas to submit a SIP revision that includes 
transportation control strategies and measures to offset any growth in 
emissions due to growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or vehicle 
trips. In developing such strategies, a State must consider measures 
specified in section 108(f) of the CAA and choose and implement such 
measures as are necessary to demonstrate attainment with the NAAQS. 
TCMs are designed to reduce mobile pollutant emissions by either 
improving transportation efficiency or reducing single-occupant vehicle 
trips. The EPA has reviewed the TCMs in the Fairbanks CO plan and 
approves them. Our full review of the TCMs is included in the TSD for 
this action. Following is a brief description of the TCMs included in 
the plan.
Engine Preheater Control Measure
    A control measure included in the plan to reduce motor vehicle cold 
start emissions was passed by the Fairbanks North Star Borough (the 
Borough) on April 12, 2001. The local ordinance requires employers with 
275 or more parking spaces to provide power to electrical outlets at 
temperatures of +20 deg. F or lower. In addition, provisions were 
included to require new or enlarged parking lots of 275 spaces or more 
to install electrical outlets for parking spaces intended to be used by 
motorists for more than two hours and to provide power. Provisions were 
also included for recordkeeping, maintaining existing plug-ins in an 
operable condition, and penalties for failure to comply. This mandatory 
component of the plug-in program will help insure that emission 
reductions are being achieved through plugging-in at temperatures of 
20 deg. F and colder when thermal inversions often occur.
Other Control Measures
    Engine preheaters are used extensively throughout Fairbanks to 
ensure vehicles can be easily started under extremely cold conditions. 
Vehicle emission testing in Alaska has confirmed that preheating 
vehicles, a practice commonly referred to as ``plugging-in,'' provides 
a substantial reduction in motor vehicle idling time and cold start 
emissions as described in section 108(f)(1)(A)(xi)and (xii). 
Recognizing the many benefits of

[[Page 5067]]

plugging-in, the Borough has a long-standing practice of expanding the 
number of parking spaces with electrical outlets. A recent survey 
showed that more than 90% of employee parking areas with more than 100 
spaces are currently equipped with electrical outlets. The Borough also 
conducted public awareness campaigns to encourage the use of plug-ins 
at home and at parking spaces with electrical outlets.
    Transit system improvements include expanded service and free 
wintertime service. The Borough also ran a public awareness campaign to 
boost transit ridership. These measures have resulted in a 72% increase 
in ridership during the CO season.
    In addition, a total of 11 separate highway improvement projects 
focusing on intersection and signal improvements have been completed in 
the nonattainment area during the past 5 years. These projects have a 
small regional effect on emissions.

E. Does the Fairbanks CO Plan Include a Forecast of Vehicle Miles 
Traveled (VMT) for Each Year Before the Attainment Year of 2001 as 
Required by 187(a)(2)(A) of the CAA?

    Yes. Estimates of average winter weekday VMT were supplied by 
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF). 
VMT was projected to grow at a rate of 1.2% per year from 1995 to 2001.
    Fairbanks has committed to preparing annual VMT estimates and 
forecasts and to submitting these reports (``VMT tracking reports'') to 
EPA. Under section 187(a)(3) of the Act, annual VMT tracking reports 
provide a potential basis for triggering implementation of contingency 
measures in the event that estimates of actual VMT exceed the forecasts 
contained in the prior annual VMT tracking report.

F. Does the Fairbanks CO Plan Include Contingency Measures Required by 
Section 187(a)(3) of the CAA?

    Section 187(a)(3) of the Act requires serious CO nonattainment 
areas, such as Fairbanks, to submit a plan revision that provides for 
contingency measures. The CAA specifies that such measures are to be 
implemented if any estimate of VMT submitted in an annual VMT tracking 
report exceeds the VMT predicted in the most recent prior forecast or 
if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date. As a 
general rule, contingency measures must be structured to take effect 
without further action by the State or EPA upon the occurrence of 
certain triggering events.
    The Fairbanks Plan includes contingency measures that meet the 
requirements of section 187(a)(3) of the CAA. In the event that 
Fairbanks exceeds the ambient CO standard, a number of contingency 
measures have been established to provide additional emission 
reductions. Measures are focused on expanded transit operations, 
increasing the number of parking spaces equipped with electrical plug-
in units, and road system improvements. Fairbanks will be implementing 
these measures whether or not they have a violation which automatically 
triggers contingency measures.

G. What Levels of CO Are Estimated for the Base Year and Projected for 
Future Years and Does the Fairbanks CO Plan Provide for Reasonable 
Further Progress (RFP) as Required by Section 172(c)(2) and Section 
171(1) of the CAA?

    Under the CAA, states have the responsibility to inventory 
emissions contributing to NAAQS nonattainment, to track these emissions 
over time, and to ensure that control strategies are being implemented 
that reduce emissions and move areas toward attainment. Section 
172(c)(1) of the CAA requires all nonattainment plans to contain 
provisions to provide for ``the implementation of all reasonably 
available control measures as expeditiously as practicable'' and to 
provide for the attainment of the applicable national ambient standard. 
Further, section 172(c)(2) states that such plan provisions shall 
require RFP.
    Fairbanks has made considerable progress in reducing carbon 
monoxide emissions over the past three decades. CO concentrations have 
decreased from a second-high eight-hour average of 19.0 ppm and 45 
violations in 1983, to a second-high eight-hour average of 8.9 ppm and 
zero violations in calendar year 2000. The implementation of local 
control programs contributed to those reductions. These programs in 
combination with state and federal programs such as the clean vehicles 
standard and activity changes have produced a 25.4% reduction in total 
emissions in the nonattainment area between 1995 and 2001. Based on 
these considerations, EPA finds that RFP has been demonstrated.

H. Is the Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Approvable as Required by 
Section 176(c)(2)(A) of the CAA and Outlined in Conformity Rules, 40 
CFR 93.118(e)(4)?

    Section 176(c)(2)(A) of the CAA requires regional transportation 
plans to be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget 
contained in the applicable air quality plans for the Fairbanks area. 
The motor vehicle emissions budget that is established for the 2001 
attainment year is approved for Fairbanks. It is as follows:

                   FNSB Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           CO emissions
                     Source category                      for 2001 (tons/
                                                               day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Road Sources--Initial Idle...........................            6.49
On-Road Sources--Traveling..............................            7.91
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (total on-road source               14.40
 emissions).............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TSD summarizes how the CO motor vehicle emissions budget meets 
the criteria contained in the conformity rule (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)) and 
is approved for conformity. The initial idle emissions are based on 
actual vehicle testing and the traveling emissions are based on an 
emissions model.
    This action also approves the use of the ``CO Emissions Model'' for 
SIP development purposes. The CO Emissions Model is an on-road motor 
vehicle emission factor model that was specifically developed for cases 
like the Fairbanks CO attainment SIP. In August of 1999, EPA reviewed 
and preliminarily approved the use of the CO Emissions Model for CO SIP 
development purposes, due to the unique CO issues involved in Alaska 
and the absence of a more recent update to the MOBILE model at that 
time. Today's document formalizes that approval of the use of the CO 
Emissions Model for SIP development for a limited number of CO areas in 
EPA Region 10 in low altitude regions.
    The CO Emissions Model is considered an interim update to MOBILE5b 
developed to take advantage of the best information currently available 
on CO emissions, particularly for cold climates, such as Alaska. As 
such, the CO Emissions Model is not required to be used for SIP 
development in any area, however, it was approved for use on a 
voluntary basis for SIP development prior to the official release of 
MOBILE6, EPA's next motor vehicle emission factor model. MOBILE6 was 
not available at the time that the Fairbanks attainment SIP was being 
developed to meet FNSB's regulatory time constraints. However, since 
EPA is expected to approve MOBILE6 early this year, MOBILE6 should be 
used for the next control strategy SIP for Fairbanks.
    When EPA's approval for the current Fairbanks CO attainment SIP is 
effective, all future transportation conformity determinations for CO 
in

[[Page 5068]]

Fairbanks must be based on the CO Emissions Model until MOBILE6 is 
officially released. When MOBILE6 is released, Fairbanks must rely upon 
either the CO Emissions Model or MOBILE6 for new conformity analyses 
that begin prior to the end of the grace period for use of MOBILE6, 
which EPA intends to establish as two years after MOBILE6's official 
release. After the end of the MOBILE6 conformity grace period which EPA 
intends to establish under 40 CFR 93.111 when it officially releases 
the model, all new conformity analyses must be based on MOBILE6.
    Fairbanks is currently the only area that has used the CO Emissions 
Model in its SIP which EPA has formally acted upon. Therefore, no other 
area should be using the CO Emissions Model for transportation 
conformity purposes at this time. However, the above Fairbanks policy 
would apply to any other areas that have completed significant SIP work 
with the CO Emissions Model prior to MOBILE6's release. At this time, 
EPA anticipates that Medford, Oregon, and Anchorage, Alaska, are the 
only other areas that have developed CO SIPs with the CO Emissions 
Model. EPA will expect future SIP submissions in these areas to be 
based on Mobile6. Areas that have questions about using the CO 
Emissions Model should consult the EPA Region 10 Office on whether this 
is appropriate.

I. Does Fairbanks Have an Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program in 
Place That Meets EPA Requirements in Section 182(a)(2)(B) of the CAA?

    Yes. Fairbanks primary CO control measure is their I/M program 
initially implemented in 1985. Since then, Fairbanks has continued to 
improve its performance. Improved program elements include: test 
equipment and procedures, quality assurance and quality control 
procedures, vehicle repair requirements and enforcement. The Fairbanks 
I/M program, improvements and amendments, have been adopted through 
previous SIP revisions (51 FR 8203, September 15, 1986; 54 FR 31522, 
July 31, 1989; 60 FR 17232, April 5, 1995; 64 FR 72940, December 29, 
1999) or are being acted on in other Federal Register documents (67 FR 
822, January 8, 2002 and 67 FR 849, January 8, 2002).

J. Are There Controls on Stationary Sources of CO as Required by 
Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA?

    Yes. Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires States with 
nonattainment areas to include in their SIPs a permit program for the 
construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources 
in nonattainment areas. In a separate, prior action, we approved the 
new source review permit program for Alaska. (See 60 FR 8943, February 
16, 1995.)

III. Summary of EPA's Actions

    We are approving the following elements of the Fairbanks CO 
Attainment Plan, as submitted on August 30, 2001:
    A. Procedural requirements, under section 110(a)(1) of the CAA;
    B. Baseline and projected emission inventories, under sections 
172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the CAA;
    C. Attainment demonstration, under section 187(a)(7) of the CAA;
    D. The TCM program under 182(d)(1) and 108(f)(A) of the CAA
    E. VMT forecasts under section 187(a)(2)(A) of the CAA;
    F. Contingency measures under section 187(a)(3) of the CAA.
    G. RFP demonstration, under sections 171(1), 172(c)(2), and 
187(a)(7) of the CAA;
    H. The conformity budget under section 176(c)(2)(A) of the CAA and 
section 93.118 of the transportation conformity rule (40 CAR part 93, 
subpart A); and

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does 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 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 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. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of

[[Page 5069]]

this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
appropriate circuit by April 5, 2002. 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 Parts 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 16, 2002.
Randall F. Smith,
Acting 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)(32) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.70  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (32) On August 30, 2001 the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation submitted revisions to the Carbon Monoxide State 
Implementation Plan for Fairbanks, Alaska.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Air Quality Control Regulations, 18 AAC 50.030, as adopted 7/
27/01, effective 9/21/01.
    (B) Assembly Ordinance 2001-17  mandating a Fairbanks North Star 
Borough motor vehicle plug-in program, as adopted 4/12/2001, effective 
4/13/01.
    (ii) Additional Material.
    Volume II, Section III.C of the State Air Quality Control Plan 
adopted 7/27/01, effective 9/21/01; Volume III.C3, III.C.5, C.11, and 
C.12 of the Appendices; adopted 7/27/01, effective 9/21/01.

[FR Doc. 02-2505 Filed 2-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P