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 5
Introduction

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 projects in air quality 

maintenance and non-attainment areas. Conformity requirements are intended to insure that federal 

projects do not adversely impact local air quality. The proposed revisions also included updates to 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP), updates to documents adopted by reference, and redesignation of the Mendenhall Valley area of Juneau from “nonattainment” to “attainment” for 

coarse particulate (PM10) pollutants.

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 5
Opportunities 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 Conservation, 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 public 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 5
Comments by Category

Fiscal Impacts Comments: There were no comments regarding fiscal impacts 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 necessary 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 (NO2) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),” henceforth known as the NO2/SO2 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 did 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 NO2/SO2 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 promulgation 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 NO2/SO2 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 the 1-hour 

NO2 or SO2 NAAQS.

5 of 5