Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Alaska

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AK7-1-6588a; FRL-5171-5]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA approves the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the state of Alaska. This revision establishes and

requires the implementation of a basic motor vehicle 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 approval of a basic motor vehicle I/M program. This action is

being taken under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective on June 5, 1995 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by May 5, 1995. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Montel Livingston,

SIP Manager, Air & Radiation Branch (AT-082), 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,

DC 20460. Copies of material submitted to EPA may be examined during

normal business hours at the following locations: EPA, Region 10, Air &

Radiation Branch, 1200 Sixth Avenue (AT-082), Seattle, Washington

98101, and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 410

Willoughby, Suite 105, Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Lee, EPA, Air and Radiation

Branch (AT-082), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206)

553-1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Clean Air Act Requirements

The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAAA or Act), requires

states to make changes to improve existing I/M programs or implement

new ones. Section 187(a)(4) and section 182(a)(2)(B) requires any

carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area which has been classified as

``moderate'' (pursuant to section 181(a) of the Act) or worse with an

existing I/M program that was part of a SIP, or any area that was

required by the 1977 Amendments to the Act to have an I/M program, to

immediately submit a SIP revision to bring the program up to the level

required in past EPA guidance or to what had been committed to

previously in the SIP whichever was more stringent.

In addition, Congress directed the EPA in section 182(a)(2)(B) to

publish updated guidance for state I/M programs, taking into

consideration findings of the Administrator's audits and investigations

of these programs. The states were to incorporate this guidance into

the SIP for all areas required by the Act to have an I/M program.

On November 5, 1992 (57 FR 52950), the EPA published a final

regulation establishing the I/M requirements, pursuant to section 182

and 187 of the Act. The I/M regulation was codified at 40 CFR part 51,

Subpart S, and requires states to submit an I/M SIP revision which

includes all necessary legal authority and the items specified in 40

CFR 51.372 (a)(1) through (a)(8) by November 15, 1993. The state of

Alaska has met these requirements.

The EPA has designated two areas as CO nonattainment in the state

of Alaska. The Anchorage CO nonattainment area, classified as Moderate

greater than or equal to 12.7 ppm, is bounded by the Municipality of

Anchorage (MOA) urban area. The Fairbanks CO nonattainment area,

classified as Moderate less than or equal to 12.7 ppm, is bounded by

the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) urban area. The nonattainment

and boundary designations for CO were published in the Federal Register

(FR) on November 6, 1991, and November 30, 1992, and have been codified

in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). See 56 FR 56694 (November 6,

1991) and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992), codified at 40 CFR 81.300-

81.437. Based on these nonattainment designations, basic I/M programs

are required in both the Anchorage and Fairbanks nonattainment areas.

By this action, the EPA is approving this submittal. The EPA has

reviewed the state submittal against the statutory requirements and for

consistency with the EPA regulations. EPA summarizes the requirements

of the Federal I/M regulations as found in 40 CFR 51.350-51.373 and its

analysis of the state submittal below. Parties desiring additional

details on the Federal I/M regulation are referred to the November 5,

1992 FR notice (57 FR 52950) or 40 CFR 51.350-51.373.

II. Background

On July 11, 1994 the state of Alaska submitted to EPA a SIP

revision for a basic I/M program that had an adequate public notice and

public hearing process (May 19, 1994) and was adopted on June 9, 1994.

The Lieutenant Governor filed revisions to 18 AAC 52 on May 25, 1994,

and the Air Quality Control Plan revisions on July 6, 1994, becoming

effective on June 24, 1994 and August 5, 1994, respectively.

The July 11, 1994 SIP revision was reviewed by EPA to determine

completeness shortly after submittal, in accordance with the

completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. The

submittals were found to be complete and a letter dated July 15, 1994

was forwarded to the Governor of Alaska indicating the completeness of

the submittal.

III. State Submittal

Both Anchorage and Fairbanks are classified as moderate CO

nonattainment areas. Since the 1980 [[Page 17233]] census population of

each urbanized area was under 200,000, neither community is required to

implement an enhanced I/M program. The state submittal provides for

upgrading the existing I/M programs to EPA approved basic I/M programs

in the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) and Fairbanks North Star Borough

(FNSB). Both the MOA and the FNSB programs will consist of annual,

decentralized, test-and-repair which meets the requirements of EPA's

performance standard and other requirements contained in the Federal I/

M rule. All testing will be performed by certified stations or referee

facilities. Other aspects of the Alaska I/M program include: an

``Valley'' I/M program for vehicles commuting into Anchorage from the

Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) borough, testing of 1968 and later vehicles

in Anchorage and testing of 1975 and later vehicles in Fairbanks, a

test fee to ensure the state has adequate resources to oversee the

implementing agencies and implement the valley program, enforcement by

registration denial, commitment to testing convenience, quality

assurance, data collection and analysis, reporting, test equipment and

test procedure specifications, commitment to ongoing public

information, inspector training and certification, and penalties

against inspector incompetence. An analysis of how the Alaska I/M

program meets the Federal SIP requirements (by section of the Federal

I/M rule) is provided below.

A. Applicability

The SIP needs to describe the applicable areas in detail and,

consistent with 40 CFR 51.372, needs to include the legal authority or

rules necessary to establish program boundaries.

The Alaska I/M program specified in 18 AAC 52 is divided into two

programs (Anchorage and Fairbanks), based on the designated

implementing agency. Both programs are locally implemented and

operated, with the MOA and the FNSB having legal and administrative

responsibility for their respective programs. The existing programs

cover the entire MOA and FNSB. An additional I/M program, Matanuska-

Susitna Valley (Valley) is not linked to a specific geographical area,

but is aimed at vehicles that are regularly operated in but not

registered in the Anchorage I/M program area. The Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is responsible for administering the

Valley I/M program. The state regulations establishing Alaska's I/M

program requirements and boundaries are included in 18 AAC 52.

B. Basic I/M Performance Standard

The I/M programs provided for in the SIP are required to meet a

performance standard for basic I/M for the pollutants that caused the

affected area to come under I/M requirements. The performance standard

sets an emission reduction target that must be met by a program in

order for the SIP to be approvable. The SIP must also provide that the

program will meet the performance standard in actual operation, with

provisions for appropriate adjustments if the standard is not met. The

state has submitted a modeling demonstration using the EPA computer

model, MOBILE 5a showing that the basic performance standard is met for

both Anchorage and Fairbanks I/M programs.

C. Network Type

The SIP needs to include a description of the network to be

employed, the required legal authority, and, in the case of areas

making claims for case-by-case equivalency, the required demonstration.

Alaska has chosen to implement decentralized, test-and-repair I/M

programs which are managed and operated by MOA, FNSB and the state with

a small amount of contractor support.

Legal authority contained in AS 46.03.020(10), 46.14.030 and

46.14.510; and 18 AAC 52.045 authorizes the state to implement this

program.

D. Adequate Tools and Resources

The SIP needs to include a description of the resources that will

be used for program operation, which includes: (1) A detailed budget

plan which describes the source of funds for personnel, program

administration, program enforcement, purchase of necessary equipment,

and any other requirements discussed throughout, and (2) a description

of personnel resources, the number of personnel dedicated to overt and

covert auditing, data analysis, program administration, enforcement,

and other necessary functions and the training attendant to each

function.

The Alaska I/M program as stipulated in 18 AAC 52.020 is funded

solely by collection of a ten dollar certificate of inspection fee

assessed to each vehicle passing the I/M test. Legal authority

contained in AS 44.46.025 authorizes the state to collect fees for this

program. The MOA, FNSB and the state commit to providing the necessary

administrative, personnel, and equipment resources to fully implement

and maintain the Alaska I/M program. The I/M programs will be carried

out under local or state oversight, with assistance from contractors.

In the event that either the MOA or FNSB is unable or unwilling in the

future to provide adequate tools or resources, the state commits to

take over the administration of the program (18 AAC 52.030).

The SIP narrative also describes the budget, staffing support, and

equipment needed to implement the program. The MOA funds approximately

7.0 full-time employees (FTE), the FNSB funds 3.5 FTE and the state

funds .25 FTE. The MOA and the state will utilize 3.0 FTE contractor

personnel to support their programs.

Referee facilities in the MOA and FNSB provide public information

and assistance, motorist and certified mechanic assistance, referee

functions, and training and testing of inspectors and certified

mechanics. The MOA program, which incorporates the Valley program,

contracts out for referee facility services while the FNSB referee

facility is operated by FNSB staff.

E. Test Frequency and Convenience

The SIP needs to include the test schedule in detail including the

test year selection scheme if testing is other than annual. Also, the

SIP needs to include the legal authority necessary to implement and

enforce the test frequency requirement and explain how the test

frequency will be integrated with the enforcement process.

The MOA and FNSB I/M programs require annual inspections for all

subject motor vehicles (18 AAC 52.005). However, an implementing agency

may, with approval from ADEC and the DMV, authorize the owner or lessee

of a vehicle to obtain a biennial certificate of inspection during the

first six years of vehicle life, if the failure rates of the designated

categories of vehicles are below a minimum rate set by the implementing

agency and approved by ADEC (18 AAC 52.035(e)). In addition the MOA

exempts new vehicles from their first annual inspection.

Since the test-and-repair inspection program has been in operation

since 1985 for both programs, no special start-up testing scheme is

required. The network is satisfactorily addressed in the SIP.

Legal authority for registration and testing of used vehicles newly

arriving into the I/M area is contained in AS 46.14.510 and 18 AAC

52.005.

F. Vehicle Coverage

The SIP needs to include a detailed description of the number and

types of vehicles to be covered by the program, and a plan for how

those vehicles are to be identified, including vehicles that are

[[Page 17234]] routinely operated in the area but may not be registered

in the area. Also, the SIP needs to include a description of any

special exemptions which will be granted by the program, and an

estimate of the percentage and number of subject vehicles which will be

impacted. Such exemptions need to be accounted for in the emission

reduction analysis. In addition, the SIP needs to include the legal

authority or rule necessary to implement and enforce the vehicle

coverage requirement.

In the MOA, program coverage includes all 1968 and newer model year

light-duty cars and trucks and heavy-duty gasoline powered trucks,

registered or required to be registered within the nonattainment areas.

The FNSB program covers the above vehicles from 1975 and newer.

Vehicles will be identified through the state of Alaska's Driver and

Motor Vehicle Services database. In addition, any 1968 or newer model

used to commute into MOA is subject to I/M testing through the Valley

program.

Fleet vehicles are subject to the same program requirements and

testing procedures as other vehicles. However, fleets are allowed to

self-test, as long as they are certified as official test stations;

they must use certified I/M mechanics; all tests and certificate

issuance must be conducted using certified Alaska BAR-90 TAS; and they

must comply with all other I/M program requirements. Fleet licenses can

be removed if fleet operation does not meet standards.

The FNSB vehicles that obtain seasonal exemptions are subject to

the program but prohibited from being driven during the winter CO

season. Approximately 4,000 FNSB vehicles are in this category. Since

they are not operated during the CO nonattainment period there is no

discounting of those vehicles.

In addition to the required I/M programs, ADEC is now subjecting

those vehicles registered outside the MOA but primarily operated within

the MOA to a Mat-Su Valley I/M program. The Valley program has the same

basic design features as the Anchorage program.

Further, vehicles registered in one AK I/M area but primarily

operated in the other may be tested in either area, but must pass an

annual I/M test.

G. Test Procedures and Standards

The SIP needs to include a description of each test procedure used.

The SIP also needs to include the rule, ordinance or law describing and

establishing the test procedures.

The legal authority to establish test procedures and standards is

contained in AS 46.03..020, 46.14.030 and 46.14.510. Written test

procedures for a 2-speed idle test and pass/fail standards for all

subject vehicles have been established. All vehicles are subject to the

HC and CO emission cutpoints set forth in 18 AAC 52.050, and repairs

must be made if a vehicle fails any of these cutpoints.

H. Test Equipment

The SIP needs to include written technical specifications for all

test equipment used in the program and shall address each of the

requirements in 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M rule. The

specifications need to describe the emission analysis process, the

necessary test equipment, the required features, and written acceptance

testing criteria and procedures.

The Alaska I/M SIP commits to meeting the California BAR 90

accuracy standards. The SIP addresses the requirements in 40 CFR 51.358

and includes descriptions of performance features and functional

characteristics of the computerized test systems in the submitted

respective program design documents. The necessary test equipment,

required features, and acceptance testing criteria are also contained

in the SIP.

I. Quality Control

The SIP needs to include a description of quality control and

recordkeeping procedures. The SIP needs to include the procedures

manual, rule, and ordinance or law describing and establishing the

procedures of quality control and requirements.

The Alaska I/M SIP narrative contains descriptions and requirements

establishing quality control procedures which are similar but not

identical to the Federal I/M rule. Alaska's program provides for less

frequent calibration requirements than the federal I/M rule requires.

However, the frequency requirements for gas calibrations and leak

checks contained in the Alaska BAR-90 Test Analyzer Systems are

identical to those contained in the current California BAR-90

specification. In addition, Alaska's program does not require ambient

zero air to be drawn from outside the test bay due to the extreme

weather conditions in Alaska. EPA believes there is adequate

justification for these exceptions. Alaska's quality control procedures

will help ensure that equipment calibrations are properly performed and

recorded as well as maintaining compliance document security.

J. Waivers and Compliance Via Diagnostic Inspection

The SIP needs to include a maximum waiver rate expressed as a

percentage of initially failed vehicles. This waiver rate needs to be

used for estimating emission reduction benefits in the modeling

analysis. Also, the state needs to take corrective action if the waiver

rate exceeds that estimated in the SIP or revise the SIP and the

emission reductions claimed accordingly. In addition, the SIP needs to

describe the waiver criteria and procedures, including cost limits,

quality assurance methods and measures, and administration. Lastly, the

SIP shall include the necessary legal authority, ordinance, or rules to

issue waivers, set and adjust cost limits as required, and carry out

any other functions necessary to administer the waiver system,

including enforcement of the waiver provisions.

Legal authority to issue waivers and administer the waiver system

is contained in AS 46.03.020, 46.14.030 and 46.14.510. Under 18 AAC

52.060 waivers may be issued in the Alaska I/M programs for the

following reasons: repair cost exceedance, diesel engine, seasonal

waiver, special circumstances that make it impractical to test a

vehicle, modification to the dedicated use of an approved alternate

fuel, out-of-area use, economic hardship, parts unavailability or grey

market vehicle.

For the MOA and state programs, necessary emissions-related repairs

must be made up to a maximum annual repair cost of $450 for non-

tampering-related repairs. The FNSB program has a minimum annual repair

cost of $350 for non-tampering-related repairs. For all programs a

maximum annual repair cost of $500 exists for vehicles tampered with

prior to July 1, 1985. If the least expensive repair would be in excess

of $500, then one repair must be made regardless of cost. Vehicles that

have been tampered with since July 1985 must be completely repaired,

regardless of cost.

A waiver rate of 1% is assumed for both the MOA and FNSB. If the

waiver rate for either program, as reported to EPA in the annual Alaska

I/M report, is higher, the state will take corrective action to lower

the applicable waiver rate by possibly requiring motorists that apply

for a waiver to reduce initial emissions by a specified amount before a

waiver may be issued or limiting the model years that are eligible for

a waiver or limiting waivers on vehicles to only one inspection cycle.

If any of the waiver rates cannot be lowered to the level committed to

in the SIP, the state [[Page 17235]] will revise the I/M emission

reduction projections in the SIP and will implement other program

changes as necessary to ensure the performance standard is met.

The seasonal waiver is issued to a vehicle owner who agrees that

the vehicle will not be operated in an I/M area during the winter CO

season. Vehicles which acquire such waivers are issued different

colored license tabs, to make it easier to identify seasonally waived

vehicles that are being operated illegally during winter months. If a

motorist violates the seasonal waiver, no seasonal waiver may be issued

in the future to any vehicle owned by that motorist.

K. Motorist Compliance Enforcement

The SIP needs to provide information concerning the enforcement

process, including: (1) A description of the existing compliance

mechanism if it is to be used in the future and the demonstration that

it is as effective or more effective than registration-denial

enforcement; (2) an identification of the agencies responsible for

performing each of the applicable activities in this section; (3) a

description of and accounting for all classes of exempt vehicles; and

(4) a description of the plan for testing fleet vehicles, rental car

fleets, leased vehicles, and any other special classes of subject

vehicles, e.g. those operated in (but not necessarily registered in)

the program area. Also, the SIP needs to include a determination of the

current compliance rate based on a study of the system that includes an

estimate of compliance losses due to loopholes, counterfeiting, and

unregistered vehicles. Estimates of the effect of closing such

loopholes and otherwise improving the enforcement mechanism need to be

supported with detailed analyses. In addition, the SIP needs to include

the legal authority to implement and enforce the program. Lastly, the

SIP needs to include a commitment to an enforcement level to be used

for modeling purposes and to be maintained, at a minimum, in practice.

The motorist compliance enforcement program will be implemented,

primarily, by Alaska's Department of Motor Vehicle Services (DMV),

which will ensure that owners of all subject vehicles are denied

registration unless they provide valid proof of having received a

certificate indicating they passed an emissions test or a valid I/M

waiver, which was issued within a 90-day period prior to the

registration renewal date. Owners of noncomplying vehicles operating

illegally in I/M areas will be identified and issued notices of

violation (NOV). A vehicle owner that is issued an NOV will have 30

days to provide proof of I/M compliance. The I/M programs will request

DMV to revoke the vehicle's registration in cases of continued

noncompliance. The Alaska State Troopers and local law enforcement

agencies will provide on-road enforcement of the program.

In addition, the Department will identify program evaders and other

noncomplying vehicles (e.g. out-of-area commuter vehicles) through

interactive searches of several databases. Owners of vehicles

identified in this manner will be notified by the Department of the

need to obtain an annual inspection.

The following vehicle types are exempt from the Alaska I/M program:

A vehicle not principally located or operated in an I/M area; a 1967 or

older vehicle for the MOA program (1974 or older in the FNSB program);

a new vehicle with less than 2,500 miles; a gasoline-powered vehicle

that is 12,000 pounds unladen weight or heavier, a special test vehicle

that has received a state exemption; a military tactical vehicle;

motorcycles, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, snow machines and

mopeds; and a vehicle in Alaska for less that 30 days.

All fleet vehicles, including rental cars, are subject to the same

program requirements and testing procedures as other vehicles. Leased

vehicles and other vehicles subject to one of the Alaska programs but

not necessarily registered in an I/M area must also comply with all

applicable program requirements.

The state commits to the level of enforcement needed to ensure

compliance rates of no less than 95 percent and 96 percent, in the MOA

and FNSB respectively. The legal authority to implement and enforce the

program is included in AS 46.03, 46.014 and 18 AAC 52.100.

L. Motorist Compliance Enforcement Program Oversight

The SIP needs to include a description of enforcement program

oversight and information management activities.

ADEC will audit the local I/M programs on a regular basis, and will

implement a quality assurance program to ensure effective overall

performance of the enforcement systems in both areas. ADEC will allow

EPA to conduct regular audits of the I/M enforcement program. ADEC,

MOA, and FNSB will also perform periodic parking lot surveys to assess

the compliance rate of the in-use fleet.

M. Quality Assurance (QA)

The SIP needs to include a description of the quality assurance

program, and written procedures manuals covering both overt and covert

performance audits, record audits, and equipment audits. This

requirement does not include materials or discussion of details of

enforcement strategies that would ultimately hamper the enforcement

process.

The Alaska I/M SIP includes a description of its quality assurance

program. The ongoing QA program will be conducted to discover, correct

and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. The program includes quarterly

performance audits following established written procedures, performed

at certified I/M stations. The audits will include, at a minimum,

checks for appropriate certificate security, recordkeeping practices,

proper display of licenses and other required information, proper

maintenance and calibration of the TAS, and ability of the certified

mechanic to properly perform an I/M test.

In addition to the quarterly audit, overt and covert vehicle audits

will be conducted on an unscheduled and as-needed basis. Alaska has

proposed the following exceptions to the federal performance audit

requirements provided under 40 CFR 51.363(a): the state will perform

one quarterly audit per facility (i.e. four audits per station per

year), plus at least one overt vehicle audit per station per year. EPA

believes this to be adequate to ensure program quality and comply with

the federal I/M rule. Alaska also believes that the remote covert

auditing requirement is infeasible in Alaska due to the state's unique

weather conditions, and resultant station design and operation. Unlike

most other states, inspections in Alaska are conducted in enclosed test

stations where remote covert observations are impossible, particularly

during the wintertime. The state believes that other performance

tracking and auditing tools dramatically reduce the need to use remote

covert audits to maintain effective quality assurance and compliance

enforcement programs against certified stations and mechanics. Given

Alaska's unique circumstances EPA concurs.

Test records will be audited on a monthly basis, using established

written procedures to assess individual certified mechanic and station

performance. Equipment audits will be performed during each quarterly

performance audit, using established written procedures, to ensure the

accuracy and reliability of all required test equipment. Each I/M

inspector will be formally [[Page 17236]] trained and knowledgeable in

all aspects of the I/M program. Ongoing training will be provided to I/

M inspectors to insure that they maintain an adequate level of

knowledge. The performance of each I/M inspector will be evaluated at

least once annually to identify any possible problem areas.

N. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors

The SIP needs to include the penalty schedule and the legal

authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil fines, license

suspension, and revocations. In the case of state constitutional

impediments to immediate suspension authority, the state Attorney

General shall furnish an official opinion for the SIP explaining the

constitutional impediment as well as relevant case law. Also, the SIP

needs to describe the administrative and judicial procedures and

responsibilities relevant to the enforcement process, including which

agencies, courts, and jurisdictions are involved; who will prosecute

and adjudicate cases; and other aspects of the enforcement of the

program requirements, the resources to be allocated to this function,

and the source of those funds. In states without immediate suspension

authority, the SIP needs to demonstrate that sufficient resources,

personnel, and systems are in place to meet the three day case

management requirement for violations that directly affect emission

reductions.

Under the Administrative Procedures Act (AS 44.62), the Department

or other I/M implementing agency must provide notice and opportunity

for hearing before suspending, revoking, or refusing to renew a

station's or mechanic's certification issued under 18 AAC 52 or the MOA

or FNSB local implementing ordinances. In addition, neither the

Department nor the local I/M implementing agencies have citation powers

under Alaska Statute. As a result of these factors, Alaska is unable to

comply with requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.364 for the imposition

of mandatory minimum penalties or the immediate suspension of station

or mechanic certifications. If the Department files a civil action

under AS 46.03.760, there are mandatory court imposed damages of $500

for the first day. Because of this, the state is proposing an

alternative enforcement mechanism which will allow the I/M office to

issue an NOV upon finding a violation of the I/M program requirements.

A hearing will be held within three working days of the NOV which will

allow penalties to be assessed depending on the nature and severity of

the violation. If the hearing results support a serious violation the

station or mechanic's certification will be suspended for a minimum of

6 months under the Department's emergency powers authority, if the

criteria for an emergency exists as provided in AS 46.03.820. Continued

violation of program requirements may result in permanent revocation of

certification under 18 AAC 52, after notice and opportunity for

hearing, or the filing of a civil or criminal action against a

certified station or mechanic under AS 46.03.760 or 46.03.790. A

finding of incompetence will result in mandatory training before

inspection privileges are restored. EPA concludes that this satisfies

federal requirements for enforcement against contractors and

inspectors.

O. Data Analysis and Reporting

The SIP needs to describe the types of data to be collected. The

SIP commits ADEC to submitting an annual report to EPA by July of each

year, which will cover the preceding calendar year and contain

statistics for the I/M test data, quality assurance results, quality

control activities, and enforcement activities. In addition, the state

commits to submitting a biennial report on the overall status of the

Alaska I/M program to EPA. At a minimum, Alaska commits to address all

of the data elements listed in 51.366 of the federal I/M rule.

P. Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification

The SIP needs to include a description of the training program, the

written and hands-on tests, and the licensing or certification process.

Under 18 AAC 52. and the MOA and FNSB I/M implementing ordinances,

formal training and licensing is required for all inspectors (certified

mechanics). The Alaska I/M SIP provides for the implementation of

training, certification, and refresher programs for emission

inspectors. Training will include all elements required by 51.367(a) of

the EPA I/M rule. Certification is good for a period of two years, with

passage of a refresher training course required for license renewal.

Q. Improving Repair Effectiveness

The SIP needs to include a description of the technical assistance

program to be implemented, and a description of the repair technician

training resources available in the community.

The Alaska SIP commits the Department to working with MOA and FNSB

to assist the motor vehicle industry in properly diagnosing and

repairing emission-related defects. This assistance will include each

program's establishment of a telephone hotline service to assist

certified mechanics and other qualified technicians with specific

repair problems. Mechanics newsletters will also be distributed to all

certified mechanics on an as-needed basis, to inform them of program

changes, training course schedules, common problems being experienced

in the I/M program, and diagnostic tips.

PC-based I/M management software will be used to provide the I/M

programs with station and mechanic specific estimates of repair

effectiveness. Effectiveness estimates applicable to each certified

station will be distributed by the I/M program to that station on at

least an annual basis.

IV. This Action

The EPA is approving the Alaska I/M SIP (Section 3.1, OAR 340-24-

300 through 340-24-355; and section 5.4) as meeting the requirements of

the CAAA and the Federal I/M rule. All required SIP items have been

adequately addressed as discussed in this Federal Register action.

V. Administrative Review

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the 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 regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because

the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates

no adverse [[Page 17237]] comments. However, in a separate document in

this Federal Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the

SIP revision should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action

will be effective June 5, 1995 unless, within 30 days of its

publication, adverse or critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn

before the effective date by publishing a subsequent notice that will

withdraw the final action. All public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should

do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is

advised that this action will be effective June 5, 1995.

The EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federally-

approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air

Act Amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The EPA has determined

that this action conforms with those requirements.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific technical, economic and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The OMB has exempted this regulatory action from

E.O. 12866 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 June 5, 1995. 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), 42 U.S.C.

7607(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for

the state of Alaska was approved by the Director of the Office of

Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 2, 1995.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

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. 7401-7671q.

Subpart C--Alaska

2. Section 52.70 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (21) to read as

follows:

Sec. 52.70 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(21) On July 11, 1994 ADEC submitted a SIP revision for a basic

motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in the

Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) and the Fairbanks North Star Borough

(FNSB).

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) July 11, 1994 letter from the Governor of Alaska to the

Regional Administrator of EPA submitting Alaska's amendments to the Air

Quality Control Plan and to 18 AAC 52, Emissions Inspection and

Maintenance Requirements for Motor Vehicles; the amendments to 18 AAC

52 (52.005, .015, .020, .030, .035, .040, .045, .050, .055, .060, .065,

.070, .075, .080, .085, .090, .095, .100, .105, .400, .405, .410, .415,

.420, .425, .430, .440, .445, .500, .505, .510, .515, .520, .525, .527,

.530, .535, .540, .545, .550, and .990), effective February 1, 1994;

and the State Air Quality Control Plan, Vol. II: Analysis of Problems,

Control Actions, Modifications to Section I, June 9, 1994; Vol. II:

Analysis of Problems, Control Actions, Modifications to Section I, II,

III and V, adopted January 10, 1994; Vol. III: Appendices,

Modifications to Section III.A, June 9, 1994; Vol. III: Appendices,

Modifications to Section III.B, June 9, 1994; and Vol. III: Appendices,

Modifications to Section III.C, June 9, 1994.

[FR Doc. 95-8313 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P