### ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

18 AAC 50 Air Quality Control

Responsiveness Summary

Transportation Conformity and Adoption Updates

September 19 , 2014

1 of 5

### Table of Contents

Introduction 3 Opportunities for Public Participation 4 Comments by Category 5

2 of 5Introduction

The proposed revisions to 18 AAC 50 primarily updated the air quality regulations to meet new
federal requirements (transportation conformity) and federal rules incorporated by reference. Transportation conformity only applies to federally funded transportation project s in air quality

maintenance and non

- attainment areas

. Conformity requirements are intended to insure that federal
project s do not adversely impact local air quality. The pro posed revisions also included updates to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), updates to documents adopted by reference, and re

designation of the Mendenhall Valley area of Juneau from “nonattainment” to “attainment” for coarse particulate (PM10) pollutant s.

The federal conformity rules were streamlined from the previous requirements, so the department’s
adoption of the federal rules helps reduce the burden on the regulated community. The updates to
adoptions by reference helps maintain consistency between federal and state rules, so permittees can
comply with all applicable requirements in one permit process.

3 of 5Opportunities for Public Participation

The proposed regulation changes to 18 AAC 50 were described in DEC’s public notice issued
March 17, 2014, which was published in the Anchorage Daily News and posted on the public notice
web pages of the State of Alaska, the Department of Environmental Cons ervation, and the Division
of Air Quality. Public comments were due by April 22, 2014. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency requires states to hold a public hearing regarding regulation changes if a hearing is requested.
DEC tentatively scheduled a p ublic hearing for April 18, 2014. DEC’s public notice, dated March
17, 2014, required that DEC receive a request for a public hearing by April 15, 2014, for the public
hearing to proceed. DEC received no requests to hold a public hearing; therefore, DEC cancelled
the hearing by posting a public notice of cancellation on the State, Department, and Air Permits
Programs public notice web pages on April 16, 2014.

4 of 5Comments by Category

Fiscal Impacts Comments: There were no comments regarding fiscal impa cts of the proposed regulations changes.

Non

- fiscal Impact Comments: The Fairbanks Metropolitan Transportation System (FMATS) provided comments on the conformity determinations approval process in the Fairbanks Metropolitan Planning area and provided clarifying information about FMATS’s public process and the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Fairbanks and the Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). ADEC updated the State Implementation Plan ( SIP) as ne cessary to address the comments from FMATS.

The Sierra Club provided comments on ADEC’s draft “Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 110 Infrastructure Certification for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) 1

- hour

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” henceforth known as the NO 2 /SO 2 I

- SIP.

Sierra Club stated that Alaska must submit an I

- SIP that addresses all the requirements in sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. The Sierra Club commented that the current draft I

- SIP di d not satisfy a number of the requirements. The Sierra Club also commented that EPA should not approve Alaska’s draft I

- SIP because it fails to demonstrate attainment, maintenance, and

enforcement of the new 1

- hour NO 2 /SO 2 NAAQS, thus, failing to meet the intent of the I

- SIP.

ADEC and the Department of Law believe that the Sierra Club is misinterpreting the CAA and the intended purpose of the I

- SIP. The Sierra Club submitted similar arguments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding Virginia ’s recent ozone I

- SIP submittal

. In their response, EPA stated, in part:

“ EPA does not believe that section 110 (a) (2) (A) requires detailed planning SIPs demonstrating either attainment or maintenance for specific geographic areas of the state. The infrastructure SIP is triggered by promulgation of the NAAQS, not designation. Moreover, infrastructure SIPs are due three years following promulgation of the NAAQS and designations are not due until two years (or in some cases three years) following promu lgation of the NAAQS. Thus, during a significant portion of the period that a state has available for developing the infrastructure SIP, it does not know what the designation will be for individual areas of the state. In light of the structure of the CAA, EPA’s long

- standing position regarding infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a NAAQS in general throughout the state and not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for each individual area of the state ” [79 FR 17046, March 27, 2014].

ADEC concurs with EPA’s interpretation of the CAA. Therefore, it is ADEC’s understanding that

the draft NO 2 /SO 2 I

- SIP meets the structural requirements of CAA Section 110 (a) (1) & (a) (2) and EPA’s associated guidance documents. DEC would be required to submit an attainment demonstration for any area of Alaska if designated, in the future, as non

- attainment for th e 1

- hour

NO 2 or SO 2 NAAQS.

5 of 5