[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55325-55329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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. http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 http://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 
http://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 http://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: [email protected], or 
Krishna Viswanathan at telephone number: (206) 553-2684, e-mail 
address: [email protected], 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