```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8252-8253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3389]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0820; FRL-9631-2]

Adequacy Status of the Anchorage, Alaska, Carbon Monoxide 
Maintenance Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy determination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is notifying the public of its finding 
that the new motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) in the Anchorage, 
Alaska, Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan, submitted by the State 
of Alaska on September 20, 2011, is adequate for conformity purposes. 
EPA made this finding pursuant to the adequacy process established at 
40 CFR 93.118(f)(1). As a result of this finding, the Municipality of 
Anchorage, Alaska, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, 
and the U.S. Department of Transportation will be required to use

[[Page 8253]]

this motor vehicle emissions budget for future transportation 
conformity determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective February 29, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The finding will be available at EPA's 
conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. You may also contact Wayne Elson, U.S. EPA, Region 10 
(OAWT-107), 1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle WA 98101; (206) 553-1463 
or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action provides notice of EPA's 
adequacy finding regarding the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) in 
the carbon monoxide Maintenance Plan for Anchorage, Alaska. EPA's 
finding was made pursuant to the adequacy review process for 
implementation plan submissions delineated at 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1) under 
which EPA reviews the adequacy of an implementation plan submission 
prior to EPA's final action on the implementation plan.
    On September 20, 2011, Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation submitted a CO maintenance plan revision to EPA. Pursuant 
to 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1), EPA notified the public of its receipt of this 
plan that would be reviewed for an adequacy determination on EPA's Web 
site and requested public comment by no later than November 7, 2011. 
EPA received no comments on the plan during that comment period. As 
part of our review, we also reviewed comments submitted to the Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation on the Maintenance Plan during 
the public hearing process. There were no adverse comments submitted 
during the State hearing process regarding the new MVEB. EPA Region 10 
sent a letter to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation on 
December 16, 2011, subsequent to the close of the comment period 
stating EPA found the new MVEB in the submitted Anchorage CO 
Maintenance Plan to be adequate for use in transportation conformity. 
The new MVEB that EPA determined to be adequate for purposes of 
transportation conformity is 156.5 tons of CO per winter day.
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the 
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule requires transportation plans, 
programs, and projects to conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria 
and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a 
SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air 
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely 
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
    The minimum criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor 
vehicle emission budget is adequate for conformity purposes are 
specified at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA's analysis of how the state's 
submission satisfies these criteria is found in the Technical Support 
Document. EPA's MVEB adequacy review is separate from EPA's SIP 
completeness review and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's 
ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find the budget adequate, the 
SIP could later be disapproved.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: February 2, 2012.
 Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012-3389 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```