newsminer.com

A reader asks: “Has anyone at the borough I/M said yet what is going to happen with the seasonal waiver vehicles that are on the road starting Nov. 1?”

The short answer is that it is illegal to drive a car with a seasonal waiver after Nov. 1, even though the program making it illegal might expire at the end of the year.

So if you have a vehicle registration that needs to be renewed in October, November or December, you are required to get an emissions test and sticker.

But more and more motorists, thinking that the program is about to end, have been getting seasonal waivers from the borough.

These people are promising they won’t drive their vehicles from November until March.

Some of the people paying $23 for the seasonal waiver — instead of about $85 or more for an I/M test — plan to drive during the winter, despite a notarized pledge to the contrary.

Little white lie or not, everyone going that route is risking a fine in the final two months of the year and possibly jail time, as it is a Class A misdemeanor that could mean a penalty of $5,000 and “not more than one year” in jail.

I’m not saying that’s going to happen, but it is possible.

And the law enforcement people are not about to make a public announcement that they won’t be enforcing this part of the law during the last two months of the year. The safe alternative is to get the inspection and spend the extra money.

Seasonal drivers are also taking a risk that the federal and state rules requiring inspections will be changed by Jan. 1 and that an inspection program will no longer be required.

It is possible that all the regulatory hoops will be cleared by the end of December, but it’s not a certainty.

The borough has eliminated funding for the I/M program and taken it out of the budget as of New Year’s Day.

And the Environmental Protection Agency published a notice Sept. 15 agreeing with the proposal from the borough and state to end the inspections. EPA said the authority to run an I/M program would remain on the books as a contingency, as is routine across the country.

The EPA said it agreed that removing the program would not create new problems with carbon monoxide, the pollutant that led to the first inspections nearly 25 years ago.

Fairbanks has been in compliance with the carbon monoxide standard for the past five years.

The EPA said last month that getting rid of the I/M operation would not interfere with efforts in Fairbanks to remove the tiny pieces of dirt and soot from the air, known as “PM 2.5,” which are about one-thirtieth the width of a human hair or smaller.

Fairbanks was declared a nonattainment area for fine particulates last week. The action was based on EPA standards for clean air that Fairbanks and 30 other parts of the country have failed to meet.

The deadline for comments on the EPA plan to suspend the I/M system is today, but the agency has received some objections to eliminating the program.

Whether those comments will prompt the EPA to delay or change its position is unknown.

One argument is that by allowing winter use of junkers that have been exclusively used during the summer up to now, more particulates will be emitted and thus it will be harder to meet the PM 2.5 standard and clean the air.

If delays occur and the EPA has not signed off on the suspension by the end of December, the state may be required under federal law to implement a temporary Fairbanks I/M program of its own in early 2010.

If you have a column idea, contact me at cole@newsminer.com or

459-7530.