Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska, 55325-55329 [2011-22841]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
miscellaneous itemized deductions
under section 67(b), is incurred by an
estate or non-grantor trust, and
commonly or customarily would be
incurred by a hypothetical individual
holding the same property.
(b) ‘‘Commonly’’ or ‘‘Customarily’’
Incurred—(1) In general. In analyzing a
cost to determine whether it commonly
or customarily would be incurred by a
hypothetical individual owning the
same property, it is the type of product
or service rendered to the estate or nongrantor trust in exchange for the cost,
rather than the description of the cost of
that product or service, that is
determinative. In addition to the types
of costs described in paragraphs (b)(2),
(3) and (4) of this section, costs that are
incurred commonly or customarily by
individuals also include expenses that
do not depend upon the identity of the
payor (in particular, whether the payor
is an individual or instead is an estate
or trust). Such commonly or customarily
incurred costs include, but are not
limited to, costs incurred in defense of
a claim against the estate, the decedent,
or the non-grantor trust that are
unrelated to the existence, validity, or
administration of the estate or trust.
(2) Ownership costs. Ownership costs
are costs that are chargeable to or
incurred by an owner of property
simply by reason of being the owner of
the property, such as condominium
fees, real estate taxes, insurance
premiums, maintenance and lawn
services, automobile registration and
insurance costs, and partnership costs
deemed to be passed through to and
reportable by a partner. For purposes of
section 67(e), ownership costs are
commonly or customarily incurred by a
hypothetical individual owner of such
property.
(3) Tax preparation fees. The
application of the 2-percent floor to the
cost of preparing tax returns on behalf
of the estate, decedent, or non-grantor
trust will depend upon the particular
tax return. All estate and generationskipping transfer tax returns, fiduciary
income tax returns, and the decedent’s
final individual income tax returns are
not subject to the 2-percent floor. The
costs of preparing other individual
income tax returns, gift tax returns, and
tax returns for a sole proprietorship or
a retirement plan, for example, are costs
commonly and customarily incurred by
individuals and thus are subject to the
2-percent floor.
(4) Investment advisory fees. Fees for
investment advice (including any
related services that would be provided
to any individual investor as part of an
investment advisory fee) are incurred
commonly or customarily by a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Sep 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
hypothetical individual investor and
therefore are subject to the 2-percent
floor. However, certain incremental
costs of investment advice beyond the
amount that normally would be charged
to an individual investor are not subject
to the 2-percent floor. For this purpose,
such an incremental cost is a special,
additional charge added solely because
the investment advice is rendered to a
trust or estate instead of to an
individual, that is attributable to an
unusual investment objective or the
need for a specialized balancing of the
interests of various parties (beyond the
usual balancing of the varying interests
of current beneficiaries and
remaindermen), in each case such that
a reasonable comparison with
individual investors would be improper.
(c) Bundled fees—(1) In general. If an
estate or a non-grantor trust pays a
single fee, commission, or other expense
(such as a fiduciary’s commission,
attorney’s fee, or accountant’s fee) for
both costs that are subject to the
2-percent floor and costs (in more than
a de minimus amount) that are not, then
the single fee, commission, or other
expense (bundled fee) must be
allocated, for purposes of computing the
adjusted gross income of the trust or
estate in compliance with section 67(e),
between the costs subject to the
2-percent floor and those that are not.
Out-of-pocket expenses billed to the
trust or estate are treated as separate
from the bundled fee.
(2) Exception. If a bundled fee is not
computed on an hourly basis, only the
portion of that fee that is attributable to
investment advice is subject to the
2-percent floor; the remaining portion is
not subject to that floor. In addition,
payments made from the bundled fee to
third parties that would have been
subject to the 2-percent floor if they had
been paid directly by the non-grantor
trust or estate are subject to the
2-percent floor, as are any fees or
expenses separately assessed by the
fiduciary or other payee of the bundled
fee (in addition to the usual or basic
bundled fee) for services rendered to the
trust or estate that are commonly or
customarily incurred by an individual.
Example. A corporate trustee charges a
percentage of the value of the trust income
and corpus as its annual commission. In
addition, the trustee bills a separate amount
to the trust each year as compensation for
leasing and managing the trust’s rental real
estate. The separate real estate management
fee is subject to the 2-percent floor because
it is a fee commonly or customarily incurred
by an individual owner of rental real estate.
(3) Reasonable Method. Any
reasonable method may be used to
allocate a bundled fee between those
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55325
costs that are subject to the 2-percent
floor and those costs that are not,
including without limitation the
allocation of a portion of a fiduciary
commission that is a bundled fee to
investment advice. The reasonable
method standard does not apply to
determine the portion of the bundled fee
attributable to payments made to third
parties for expenses subject to the
2-percent floor or to any other
separately assessed expense commonly
or customarily incurred by an
individual, because those payments and
expenses are readily identifiable
without any discretion on the part of the
fiduciary or return preparer.
(d) Effective/applicability date. These
regulations apply to taxable years
beginning on or after the date that these
regulations are published as final
regulations in the Federal Register.
Steven T. Miller,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011–22732 Filed 9–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0917; FRL–9460–7]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Implementation Plans: Alaska
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to Alaska’s State
Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to
the motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program (I/M) for control
of carbon monoxide (CO) in Anchorage.
The State of Alaska submitted two
revisions to the Alaska SIP: a November
13, 2009, submittal containing revisions
to the statewide I/M program and a
September 29, 2010, submittal
discontinuing the I/M program in
Anchorage as an active control measure
in the SIP and shifting it to a
contingency measure. The State’s
submittals include a revised a CO
emissions inventory and motor vehicle
emissions budget. EPA is proposing to
approve the 2010 submittal because it
satisfies the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act). EPA is not
taking action on the 2009 submittal
because the 2010 submittal supersedes
the 2009 revision.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 7, 2011.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
55326
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2010–0917, by one of the
following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel,
U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle,
Washington 98101.
C. Hand Delivery: US EPA Region 10
Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Attention: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel,
Office of Air Waste, and Toxics (AWT–
107). Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2010–
0917. The EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and
may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to the EPA without
going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Sep 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone
number: (206) 553–6121, e-mail
address: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov, or
Krishna Viswanathan at telephone
number: (206) 553–2684, e-mail
address: viswanathan.krishna@epa.gov,
or the above EPA, Region 10 address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA. Information is organized as
follows:
Table of Contents
I. What is EPA’s proposed action?
II. What is the background for this proposed
action?
III. What changes to the Alaska SIP were
submitted for EPA approval?
IV. What criteria apply to Alaska’s request?
V. What is EPA’s analysis of Alaska’s SIP
revision?
VI. What are EPA’s conclusions concerning
the removal of the I/M program in
Anchorage?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is EPA’s proposed action?
EPA is proposing to approve revisions
to the Alaska I/M program contained in
the State’s September 29, 2010,
submittal. The submittal contains
substantial revisions to the Anchorage
CO maintenance plan that remove the
I/M program as an active control
measure for CO in the SIP and move it
to the contingency measures portion of
the SIP. Upon final approval of this
revision by EPA, the I/M program in
Anchorage will no longer be an active
control measure in the SIP, but will be
a contingency measure that may be
implemented in the future if the need
arises.
II. What is the background for this
proposed action?
Anchorage, Alaska, was first declared
a nonattainment area for CO and
classified as moderate on January 27,
1978. The Municipality of Anchorage
prepared a plan to attain the CO
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) 1 by December 31, 1987;
1 The national 8-hour CO ambient standard is
attained when the highest 8-hour CO concentration
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
however, Anchorage failed to achieve
attainment by December 31, 1987. The
CAA was amended in November 1990,
and EPA designated Anchorage as a
moderate nonattainment area for CO
and required submission of a revised air
quality plan to bring Anchorage into
attainment by December 31, 1995. EPA
approved the plan in 1995, however,
two violations of the NAAQS in 1996
resulted in EPA reclassifying Anchorage
to serious nonattainment on July 13,
1998, with an attainment date of
December 31, 2000. The State submitted
a new plan on January 4, 2002, and EPA
proposed approval of the plan (67 FR
38218) on June 3, 2002. On September
18, 2002, EPA approved the Anchorage
CO attainment plan (67 FR 58711).
On February 18, 2004, the State
submitted a maintenance plan and a
redesignation request for the Anchorage
CO nonattainment area. EPA proposed
approval of the Anchorage CO
maintenance plan on May 10, 2004 (69
FR 25869) and approved the plan on
June 23, 2004 (69 FR 34935). The
maintenance plan relied on control
strategies needed to assure maintenance
of the CO NAAQS. The strategy focused
on the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission
Control Program, an I/M program,
expanded wintertime transit service,
and promotion of engine pre-heaters.
On March 29, 2002, and December 11,
2006, the State submitted revisions to
the CO SIP. The 2002 submittal revised
the statewide I/M regulations to provide
for electronic vehicle inspection
renewal and to remove the requirement
for a paper certificate to be maintained
in the vehicle. The 2006 submittal
revised the statewide I/M regulations to
lengthen the time period before which
new vehicles were required to obtain
their first certificate of inspection from
two years to four years. Each of the
submittals also contained minor
revisions that were administrative in
nature. On September 15, 2009, EPA
proposed to approve the State’s
submittals (74 FR 47154) and finalized
the approval on April 21, 2010 (75 FR
13436).
III. What changes to the Alaska SIP
were submitted for EPA approval?
The State has submitted two revisions
to the Anchorage CO maintenance plan:
a November 13, 2009, submittal
containing revisions to the statewide
I/M program and a September 29, 2010,
submittal discontinuing the I/M
program in Anchorage as an active
of 9 parts per million (ppm) is exceeded no more
than one time in a calendar year. EPA has proposed
to retain the current standard of 9 ppm, based on
the latest review of the CO NAAQS (76 FR 8158,
February 11, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
control measure in the SIP and shifting
it to a contingency measure.
The 2010 submittal supersedes the
2009 submittal with a significant
revision to the Anchorage CO
maintenance plan that will remove the
I/M program as an active control
measure in the SIP upon final approval
of this revision by EPA. The 2010
submittal updates the 2007–2023
emissions inventory to account for the
removal of the I/M program after 2011
and includes a revised motor vehicle
emissions budget. The submittal moves
the I/M program as an active control
measure in the SIP and shifts it to a
contingency measure that can be
implemented should a violation of the
CO standard occur. The 2010 submittal
also includes the contingency measures
that were updated in the 2009 submittal.
In addition, the 2010 submittal
establishes CO background values to be
used in future CO project-level
conformity analyses.2
Alaska’s 2010 SIP amendment
submittal is reviewed below. The EPA
has also prepared a Technical Support
Document (TSD) with more detailed
analysis of the SIP revisions the State
submitted for approval. The TSD is
available for public review as part of the
docket for this action.
IV. What criteria apply to Alaska’s
request?
The Anchorage CO maintenance plan
relies on control strategies needed to
assure maintenance of the NAAQS for
CO. As stated earlier in this document,
one of the primary control measures is
an I/M program. The I/M program may
be revised or removed as an active
control measure in the SIP, provided the
State can satisfy the requirements of
CAA section 110(l), which states:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Each revision to an implementation plan
submitted by a State under this Act shall be
adopted by such State after reasonable notice
and public hearing. The Administrator shall
not approve a revision to a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of this Act.
EPA must evaluate whether the
State’s proposed revisions will interfere
with attainment or maintenance of any
NAAQS and any other applicable
requirement of the Act. In addition,
although EPA may approve removal of
a control measure with such a
demonstration, any measure that is
removed from the active portion of a SIP
2 There is no requirement to establish CO
background values for project-level conformity
analyses in the SIP. EPA is not proposing to take
action on this component of the 2010 submittal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Sep 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
must be retained as a contingency
measure under section 175A(d) of the
Act.3 EPA’s review concerns the
removal of the I/M program. We are not
acting on the State’s addition of CO
background concentrations for CO
project-level conformity analyses.
V. What is EPA’s analysis of Alaska’s
SIP revision?
To satisfy section 110(l) of the Act,
the State submitted a technical analysis
using probabilistic rollback modeling
that demonstrates that the State will
continue to maintain the CO standard in
Anchorage without the I/M program in
place. All of the technical work
contained in the State’s submittal was
performed using similar methodology
that the State used to demonstrate
maintenance in the Anchorage
maintenance plan that EPA approved in
2004. Where data was available,
emissions inventory and modeling
inputs were updated with more recent
information. This is explained further in
our review and analysis of the State’s
submittal below and in the TSD for this
proposed action. The Anchorage CO
maintenance area is well within the
attainment limits for all of the other
criteria pollutants that are monitored in
the area.4 Based on this information,
EPA concludes that removing the I/M
program will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of other
NAAQS.
A. Emissions inventory
The State submitted an updated
emissions inventory for the period
2007–2023. The inventory was prepared
in accordance with EPA’s CO emissions
inventory guidance.5 The inventory
included emissions for stationary
sources, area sources, non-road mobile
sources and on-road mobile sources on
a typical 24-hour winter day. The State
prepared an area-wide inventory of the
Anchorage CO maintenance area and a
micro-inventory of the area surrounding
the Turnagain monitoring station in
west Anchorage. The Turnagain station
exhibits the highest CO concentrations
of the current monitoring network; it
has been shown to be approximately
20% higher than the next highest site.
The Turnagain micro-inventory
provides added insight into the sources
3 See September 4, 1992 memorandum from John
Calcagni to the EPA Air Division Directors
(‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment,’’ Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division).
4 See air quality monitoring data reports in the
docket.
5 Emissions Inventory Requirements for Carbon
Monoxide State Implementation Plans EPA–450/4–
91–011.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55327
of CO surrounding the monitor and
guided the State in developing control
strategies for the Anchorage CO
maintenance area. The State projected
the area-wide and Turnagain inventories
from the 2007 base year inventory to the
years 2008–2023. The complete
inventory is included in the State’s
submittal. The TSD for this proposed
action contains a detailed discussion
and table of emissions from the 2007–
2023 inventory.
Area-wide Emissions Inventory
In the 2010 submittal, the area-wide
inventory depicts elimination of the I/M
program starting in 2011. Without an
I/M program, total area-wide CO
emissions are projected to decline by 3.5
tons per day (tpd) (3.5%) between the
2007 base year (101 tpd) and the 2023
horizon planning year (97.5 tpd). This is
caused by a 16% reduction in on-road
emissions (from 51.04 tpd to 42.85 tpd)
during this timeframe. The primary
driver of lower on-road emissions is a
sustained reduction in average in-use
emission rates as newer, cleaner
vehicles continue to replace older,
higher emitting vehicles. Projections
from the area-wide emissions inventory
indicate that CO emissions reductions
from 2007–2023 are expected to occur
in Anchorage either with or without the
I/M program in place.
Turnagain Micro-Inventory
The Turnagain micro-inventory
represents the area near the Turnagain
monitoring station, located in the
Spenard-area neighborhood, which the
State has identified as having the
highest CO concentrations of all the
monitoring stations in Anchorage.
Maximum 8-hour concentrations were
typically 10 to 20% higher than the next
highest site, Garden, in east Anchorage.
During a 1997–98 CO Saturation Study,
8-hour CO concentrations at the
Turnagain site were the highest among
the 20 sites included in the study. The
State provided support to establish that
the probability of exceeding the NAAQS
at the Turnagain station at current CO
emission levels is about 1 in 100 while
the probability of violating at the
Garden station is less than 1 in 1,000.
For this reason, the State prepared a
micro-inventory of the area surrounding
the Turnagain monitoring site for the
maintenance demonstration. In order to
perform this demonstration, CO
emissions were estimated from the 2007
base year and projected through 2023.
Emissions are projected to decrease by
about 12% in the Turnagain microinventory area without an I/M program.
The micro-inventory trends are
consistent with the area-wide trends.
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
55328
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
B. Maintenance Demonstration
Because the Turnagain monitoring
site exhibits the highest CO
concentrations in the monitoring
network, the State used the microinventory from the Turnagain area in
the maintenance demonstrations. The
State used a probabilistic roll-forward
approach to demonstrate maintenance
with the CO standard. A detailed
discussion of this methodology and
results can be found in the State’s
submittal and in EPA’s TSD for this
proposed action.
Consistent with methods used in
previous plans submitted by the State
and approved by EPA, at least a 90%
confidence interval is desirable for a
long-term demonstration of attainment
for a maintenance plan. Based on the
modeling results contained in the
State’s submittal, the probability of
attainment is 99% or higher for all years
in the State’s maintenance
demonstration. In addition, the State
performed a sensitivity analysis that
assumed three times higher rates of
growth in vehicle travel than projected
and a 2% per annum growth in wood
burning. The probability of compliance
with the higher rates remains at 99% or
greater each year through 2023 with or
without an I/M program. EPA’s
evaluation of the probabilistic rollback
modeling in the State’s 2010 submittal
concludes that the Anchorage area will
continue to attain and maintain the CO
standard through the year 2023 without
the I/M program in place. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to approve this
modification to the State’s CO SIP.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Contingency Measures
As a primary control strategy in the
current CO SIP, the I/M program for
Anchorage must be retained as a
contingency measure. In addition to this
contingency measure, the previously
approved contingency measures in the
SIP continue to apply. As stated above,
section 175A(d) of the Act requires that
the State will implement all measures
with respect to the control of the air
pollutant concerned which were
contained in the SIP for the area before
redesignation of the area to attainment.
To satisfy this requirement, the I/M
program will no longer serve as an
active control measure in the SIP and
will shift to a contingency measure that
will be available for implementation if
needed to ensure continued
maintenance of the CO NAAQS. As
documented in the State’s 2010
submittal, Anchorage will retain the
local legal authority necessary to
implement the I/M program as a
contingency measure. Similarly, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Sep 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
State will retain its authority to
implement the I/M program.
The 2009 submittal, for which EPA is
not taking action, updated the
contingency measures section of the
Anchorage CO maintenance plan. EPA
is proposing to approve the contingency
measures specified in the 2010
submittal, which include some that
were originally included in the State’s
2009 submittal. The revised CO
contingency measures that EPA is
proposing to include in this action
include the following strategies:
Increase public awareness and
education, transit, carpool, and vanpool
promotion efforts; curtail or limit the
use of fireplaces, wood stoves and other
wood burning appliances when high CO
is predicted; promote increase in transit
ridership among commuters by offering
reduced fares or free transit fares for
employees of companies that contribute
to subsidy.
D. Conformity Budget
Under section 176 of the Act,
transportation plans, programs, and
projects in nonattainment or
maintenance areas that are funded or
approved under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal
Transit Act must conform to an
approved SIP. In short, a transportation
plan is deemed to conform to the
applicable SIP if the emissions resulting
from implementation of that
transportation plan are less than or
equal to the motor vehicle emission
level established in the SIP for the
maintenance year and other analysis
years. A motor vehicle emissions budget
applies as a ceiling on emissions in the
year for which it is defined, and for all
subsequent years until another year for
which a budget is defined or until a SIP
revision modifies the budget.
The State’s submittal establishes a
new on-road motor vehicle emissions
budget for the Anchorage area to be
used for transportation conformity and
regional conformity analyses. Once the
motor vehicle emissions budget is
approved by EPA, emissions modeled
from the transportation network
reflected in the Anchorage Long Range
Transportation Plan and Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) must be
less than or equal to the approved motor
vehicle emissions budget. For projects
not from a conforming TIP, the
additional emissions from the project
together with the TIP emission must be
less than or equal to the budget.
Consistent with the previously
approved Anchorage CO maintenance
plan, the motor vehicle emissions
budget is based on emissions
inventories and attainment thresholds
calculated using a hybrid method that
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
combined measured idle test data and
plug-in data with outputs from
MOBILE6.2. The maintenance plan sets
out a means for agencies to compute
emissions for use in TIP and project
conformity determinations.
The Anchorage motor vehicle
emissions budget is based on the
emission inventories and attainment
projections found in the State’s
submittal. The State used the most
recent population, employment, and
land use assumptions and forecasts to
generate the 2007 base year CO
inventory and forecasts through 2023.
This motor vehicle emissions budget
applies for each of the years listed in the
table below. The values presented are
based upon the 90% confidence level
target for maintenance plans.
ANCHORAGE MOTOR VEHICLE
EMISSIONS BUDGET
Calendar year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
CO
Emissions
(tpd)
92.1
91.7
91.2
90.8
90.3
89.9
89.4
89.0
88.5
88.0
87.6
87.0
86.4
85.8
85.2
84.6
84.0
Based on this analysis, EPA concludes
that the conformity budget in the 2010
submittal meets the purpose of section
176(c)(2)(A) and meets the criteria
contained in the conformity rule 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve the conformity
budget contained in the State’s 2010
submittal.
VI. What are EPA’s conclusions
concerning the removal of the I/M
program in Anchorage?
The State’s forecast and analysis of
motor vehicle pollutant emissions show
that CO concentrations will decline
substantially in Anchorage through
2023 without the I/M program in place.
The Anchorage CO maintenance area is
well within the attainment limits for all
of the criteria pollutants that are
monitored in the area. Based on this
information, EPA concludes that
removing the I/M program will not
interfere with attainment or
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules
maintenance of CO or any other NAAQS
in the area. EPA finds that the 2010
submittal meets the requirements of
section 110(l) of the Act and proposes
to approve it. EPA is not proposing to
take action on the State’s CO
background concentrations for CO
project-level conformity analyses.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• 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);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:43 Sep 06, 2011
Jkt 223001
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 25, 2011.
Michael A. Bussell,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2011–22841 Filed 9–6–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0082; FRL–8886–7]
Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions
Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various
Commodities
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and
request for comment.
AGENCY:
This document announces the
Agency’s receipt of several initial filings
of pesticide petitions requesting the
establishment or modification of
regulations for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various commodities.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number and the pesticide petition
number (PP) of interest as shown in the
body of this document, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001.
• Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S–4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55329
Facility’s normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is
(703) 305–5805.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
the docket ID number and the pesticide
petition number of interest as shown in
the body of this document. EPA’s policy
is that all comments received will be
included in the docket without change
and may be made available on-line at
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The
regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the docket index available
at https://www.regulations.gov. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either in the
electronic docket at https://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S–
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket
Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55325-55329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22841]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0917; FRL-9460-7]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Alaska's State
Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to the motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program (I/M) for control of carbon monoxide (CO) in
Anchorage. The State of Alaska submitted two revisions to the Alaska
SIP: a November 13, 2009, submittal containing revisions to the
statewide I/M program and a September 29, 2010, submittal discontinuing
the I/M program in Anchorage as an active control measure in the SIP
and shifting it to a contingency measure. The State's submittals
include a revised a CO emissions inventory and motor vehicle emissions
budget. EPA is proposing to approve the 2010 submittal because it
satisfies the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). EPA
is not taking action on the 2009 submittal because the 2010 submittal
supersedes the 2009 revision.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 7, 2011.
[[Page 55326]]
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2010-0917, by one of the following methods:
A. https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of
Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
C. Hand Delivery: US EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel,
Office of Air Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107). Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2010-0917. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the EPA
without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include
your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and
with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and
be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at telephone
number: (206) 553-6121, e-mail address: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov, or
Krishna Viswanathan at telephone number: (206) 553-2684, e-mail
address: viswanathan.krishna@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10
address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized
as follows:
Table of Contents
I. What is EPA's proposed action?
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
III. What changes to the Alaska SIP were submitted for EPA approval?
IV. What criteria apply to Alaska's request?
V. What is EPA's analysis of Alaska's SIP revision?
VI. What are EPA's conclusions concerning the removal of the I/M
program in Anchorage?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is EPA's proposed action?
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Alaska I/M program
contained in the State's September 29, 2010, submittal. The submittal
contains substantial revisions to the Anchorage CO maintenance plan
that remove the I/M program as an active control measure for CO in the
SIP and move it to the contingency measures portion of the SIP. Upon
final approval of this revision by EPA, the I/M program in Anchorage
will no longer be an active control measure in the SIP, but will be a
contingency measure that may be implemented in the future if the need
arises.
II. What is the background for this proposed action?
Anchorage, Alaska, was first declared a nonattainment area for CO
and classified as moderate on January 27, 1978. The Municipality of
Anchorage prepared a plan to attain the CO National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) \1\ by December 31, 1987; however, Anchorage failed to
achieve attainment by December 31, 1987. The CAA was amended in
November 1990, and EPA designated Anchorage as a moderate nonattainment
area for CO and required submission of a revised air quality plan to
bring Anchorage into attainment by December 31, 1995. EPA approved the
plan in 1995, however, two violations of the NAAQS in 1996 resulted in
EPA reclassifying Anchorage to serious nonattainment on July 13, 1998,
with an attainment date of December 31, 2000. The State submitted a new
plan on January 4, 2002, and EPA proposed approval of the plan (67 FR
38218) on June 3, 2002. On September 18, 2002, EPA approved the
Anchorage CO attainment plan (67 FR 58711).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The national 8-hour CO ambient standard is attained when the
highest 8-hour CO concentration of 9 parts per million (ppm) is
exceeded no more than one time in a calendar year. EPA has proposed
to retain the current standard of 9 ppm, based on the latest review
of the CO NAAQS (76 FR 8158, February 11, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 18, 2004, the State submitted a maintenance plan and a
redesignation request for the Anchorage CO nonattainment area. EPA
proposed approval of the Anchorage CO maintenance plan on May 10, 2004
(69 FR 25869) and approved the plan on June 23, 2004 (69 FR 34935). The
maintenance plan relied on control strategies needed to assure
maintenance of the CO NAAQS. The strategy focused on the Federal Motor
Vehicle Emission Control Program, an I/M program, expanded wintertime
transit service, and promotion of engine pre-heaters.
On March 29, 2002, and December 11, 2006, the State submitted
revisions to the CO SIP. The 2002 submittal revised the statewide I/M
regulations to provide for electronic vehicle inspection renewal and to
remove the requirement for a paper certificate to be maintained in the
vehicle. The 2006 submittal revised the statewide I/M regulations to
lengthen the time period before which new vehicles were required to
obtain their first certificate of inspection from two years to four
years. Each of the submittals also contained minor revisions that were
administrative in nature. On September 15, 2009, EPA proposed to
approve the State's submittals (74 FR 47154) and finalized the approval
on April 21, 2010 (75 FR 13436).
III. What changes to the Alaska SIP were submitted for EPA approval?
The State has submitted two revisions to the Anchorage CO
maintenance plan: a November 13, 2009, submittal containing revisions
to the statewide I/M program and a September 29, 2010, submittal
discontinuing the I/M program in Anchorage as an active
[[Page 55327]]
control measure in the SIP and shifting it to a contingency measure.
The 2010 submittal supersedes the 2009 submittal with a significant
revision to the Anchorage CO maintenance plan that will remove the I/M
program as an active control measure in the SIP upon final approval of
this revision by EPA. The 2010 submittal updates the 2007-2023
emissions inventory to account for the removal of the I/M program after
2011 and includes a revised motor vehicle emissions budget. The
submittal moves the I/M program as an active control measure in the SIP
and shifts it to a contingency measure that can be implemented should a
violation of the CO standard occur. The 2010 submittal also includes
the contingency measures that were updated in the 2009 submittal. In
addition, the 2010 submittal establishes CO background values to be
used in future CO project-level conformity analyses.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ There is no requirement to establish CO background values
for project-level conformity analyses in the SIP. EPA is not
proposing to take action on this component of the 2010 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's 2010 SIP amendment submittal is reviewed below. The EPA
has also prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD) with more detailed
analysis of the SIP revisions the State submitted for approval. The TSD
is available for public review as part of the docket for this action.
IV. What criteria apply to Alaska's request?
The Anchorage CO maintenance plan relies on control strategies
needed to assure maintenance of the NAAQS for CO. As stated earlier in
this document, one of the primary control measures is an I/M program.
The I/M program may be revised or removed as an active control measure
in the SIP, provided the State can satisfy the requirements of CAA
section 110(l), which states:
Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State
under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable
notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a
revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of this Act.
EPA must evaluate whether the State's proposed revisions will
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS and any other
applicable requirement of the Act. In addition, although EPA may
approve removal of a control measure with such a demonstration, any
measure that is removed from the active portion of a SIP must be
retained as a contingency measure under section 175A(d) of the Act.\3\
EPA's review concerns the removal of the I/M program. We are not acting
on the State's addition of CO background concentrations for CO project-
level conformity analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni to the
EPA Air Division Directors (``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni,
Director, Air Quality Management Division).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. What is EPA's analysis of Alaska's SIP revision?
To satisfy section 110(l) of the Act, the State submitted a
technical analysis using probabilistic rollback modeling that
demonstrates that the State will continue to maintain the CO standard
in Anchorage without the I/M program in place. All of the technical
work contained in the State's submittal was performed using similar
methodology that the State used to demonstrate maintenance in the
Anchorage maintenance plan that EPA approved in 2004. Where data was
available, emissions inventory and modeling inputs were updated with
more recent information. This is explained further in our review and
analysis of the State's submittal below and in the TSD for this
proposed action. The Anchorage CO maintenance area is well within the
attainment limits for all of the other criteria pollutants that are
monitored in the area.\4\ Based on this information, EPA concludes that
removing the I/M program will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of other NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See air quality monitoring data reports in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Emissions inventory
The State submitted an updated emissions inventory for the period
2007-2023. The inventory was prepared in accordance with EPA's CO
emissions inventory guidance.\5\ The inventory included emissions for
stationary sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources and on-road
mobile sources on a typical 24-hour winter day. The State prepared an
area-wide inventory of the Anchorage CO maintenance area and a micro-
inventory of the area surrounding the Turnagain monitoring station in
west Anchorage. The Turnagain station exhibits the highest CO
concentrations of the current monitoring network; it has been shown to
be approximately 20% higher than the next highest site. The Turnagain
micro-inventory provides added insight into the sources of CO
surrounding the monitor and guided the State in developing control
strategies for the Anchorage CO maintenance area. The State projected
the area-wide and Turnagain inventories from the 2007 base year
inventory to the years 2008-2023. The complete inventory is included in
the State's submittal. The TSD for this proposed action contains a
detailed discussion and table of emissions from the 2007-2023
inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Emissions Inventory Requirements for Carbon Monoxide State
Implementation Plans EPA-450/4-91-011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area-wide Emissions Inventory
In the 2010 submittal, the area-wide inventory depicts elimination
of the I/M program starting in 2011. Without an I/M program, total
area-wide CO emissions are projected to decline by 3.5 tons per day
(tpd) (3.5%) between the 2007 base year (101 tpd) and the 2023 horizon
planning year (97.5 tpd). This is caused by a 16% reduction in on-road
emissions (from 51.04 tpd to 42.85 tpd) during this timeframe. The
primary driver of lower on-road emissions is a sustained reduction in
average in-use emission rates as newer, cleaner vehicles continue to
replace older, higher emitting vehicles. Projections from the area-wide
emissions inventory indicate that CO emissions reductions from 2007-
2023 are expected to occur in Anchorage either with or without the I/M
program in place.
Turnagain Micro-Inventory
The Turnagain micro-inventory represents the area near the
Turnagain monitoring station, located in the Spenard-area neighborhood,
which the State has identified as having the highest CO concentrations
of all the monitoring stations in Anchorage. Maximum 8-hour
concentrations were typically 10 to 20% higher than the next highest
site, Garden, in east Anchorage. During a 1997-98 CO Saturation Study,
8-hour CO concentrations at the Turnagain site were the highest among
the 20 sites included in the study. The State provided support to
establish that the probability of exceeding the NAAQS at the Turnagain
station at current CO emission levels is about 1 in 100 while the
probability of violating at the Garden station is less than 1 in 1,000.
For this reason, the State prepared a micro-inventory of the area
surrounding the Turnagain monitoring site for the maintenance
demonstration. In order to perform this demonstration, CO emissions
were estimated from the 2007 base year and projected through 2023.
Emissions are projected to decrease by about 12% in the Turnagain
micro-inventory area without an I/M program. The micro-inventory trends
are consistent with the area-wide trends.
[[Page 55328]]
B. Maintenance Demonstration
Because the Turnagain monitoring site exhibits the highest CO
concentrations in the monitoring network, the State used the micro-
inventory from the Turnagain area in the maintenance demonstrations.
The State used a probabilistic roll-forward approach to demonstrate
maintenance with the CO standard. A detailed discussion of this
methodology and results can be found in the State's submittal and in
EPA's TSD for this proposed action.
Consistent with methods used in previous plans submitted by the
State and approved by EPA, at least a 90% confidence interval is
desirable for a long-term demonstration of attainment for a maintenance
plan. Based on the modeling results contained in the State's submittal,
the probability of attainment is 99% or higher for all years in the
State's maintenance demonstration. In addition, the State performed a
sensitivity analysis that assumed three times higher rates of growth in
vehicle travel than projected and a 2% per annum growth in wood
burning. The probability of compliance with the higher rates remains at
99% or greater each year through 2023 with or without an I/M program.
EPA's evaluation of the probabilistic rollback modeling in the State's
2010 submittal concludes that the Anchorage area will continue to
attain and maintain the CO standard through the year 2023 without the
I/M program in place. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve this
modification to the State's CO SIP.
C. Contingency Measures
As a primary control strategy in the current CO SIP, the I/M
program for Anchorage must be retained as a contingency measure. In
addition to this contingency measure, the previously approved
contingency measures in the SIP continue to apply. As stated above,
section 175A(d) of the Act requires that the State will implement all
measures with respect to the control of the air pollutant concerned
which were contained in the SIP for the area before redesignation of
the area to attainment. To satisfy this requirement, the I/M program
will no longer serve as an active control measure in the SIP and will
shift to a contingency measure that will be available for
implementation if needed to ensure continued maintenance of the CO
NAAQS. As documented in the State's 2010 submittal, Anchorage will
retain the local legal authority necessary to implement the I/M program
as a contingency measure. Similarly, the State will retain its
authority to implement the I/M program.
The 2009 submittal, for which EPA is not taking action, updated the
contingency measures section of the Anchorage CO maintenance plan. EPA
is proposing to approve the contingency measures specified in the 2010
submittal, which include some that were originally included in the
State's 2009 submittal. The revised CO contingency measures that EPA is
proposing to include in this action include the following strategies:
Increase public awareness and education, transit, carpool, and vanpool
promotion efforts; curtail or limit the use of fireplaces, wood stoves
and other wood burning appliances when high CO is predicted; promote
increase in transit ridership among commuters by offering reduced fares
or free transit fares for employees of companies that contribute to
subsidy.
D. Conformity Budget
Under section 176 of the Act, transportation plans, programs, and
projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas that are funded or
approved under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act must conform to an
approved SIP. In short, a transportation plan is deemed to conform to
the applicable SIP if the emissions resulting from implementation of
that transportation plan are less than or equal to the motor vehicle
emission level established in the SIP for the maintenance year and
other analysis years. A motor vehicle emissions budget applies as a
ceiling on emissions in the year for which it is defined, and for all
subsequent years until another year for which a budget is defined or
until a SIP revision modifies the budget.
The State's submittal establishes a new on-road motor vehicle
emissions budget for the Anchorage area to be used for transportation
conformity and regional conformity analyses. Once the motor vehicle
emissions budget is approved by EPA, emissions modeled from the
transportation network reflected in the Anchorage Long Range
Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) must
be less than or equal to the approved motor vehicle emissions budget.
For projects not from a conforming TIP, the additional emissions from
the project together with the TIP emission must be less than or equal
to the budget.
Consistent with the previously approved Anchorage CO maintenance
plan, the motor vehicle emissions budget is based on emissions
inventories and attainment thresholds calculated using a hybrid method
that combined measured idle test data and plug-in data with outputs
from MOBILE6.2. The maintenance plan sets out a means for agencies to
compute emissions for use in TIP and project conformity determinations.
The Anchorage motor vehicle emissions budget is based on the
emission inventories and attainment projections found in the State's
submittal. The State used the most recent population, employment, and
land use assumptions and forecasts to generate the 2007 base year CO
inventory and forecasts through 2023. This motor vehicle emissions
budget applies for each of the years listed in the table below. The
values presented are based upon the 90% confidence level target for
maintenance plans.
Anchorage Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO
Calendar year Emissions
(tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007....................................................... 92.1
2008....................................................... 91.7
2009....................................................... 91.2
2010....................................................... 90.8
2011....................................................... 90.3
2012....................................................... 89.9
2013....................................................... 89.4
2014....................................................... 89.0
2015....................................................... 88.5
2016....................................................... 88.0
2017....................................................... 87.6
2018....................................................... 87.0
2019....................................................... 86.4
2020....................................................... 85.8
2021....................................................... 85.2
2022....................................................... 84.6
2023....................................................... 84.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this analysis, EPA concludes that the conformity budget in
the 2010 submittal meets the purpose of section 176(c)(2)(A) and meets
the criteria contained in the conformity rule 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the conformity budget
contained in the State's 2010 submittal.
VI. What are EPA's conclusions concerning the removal of the I/M
program in Anchorage?
The State's forecast and analysis of motor vehicle pollutant
emissions show that CO concentrations will decline substantially in
Anchorage through 2023 without the I/M program in place. The Anchorage
CO maintenance area is well within the attainment limits for all of the
criteria pollutants that are monitored in the area. Based on this
information, EPA concludes that removing the I/M program will not
interfere with attainment or
[[Page 55329]]
maintenance of CO or any other NAAQS in the area. EPA finds that the
2010 submittal meets the requirements of section 110(l) of the Act and
proposes to approve it. EPA is not proposing to take action on the
State's CO background concentrations for CO project-level conformity
analyses.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
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);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 25, 2011.
Michael A. Bussell,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2011-22841 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
