Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 55325 

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 

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 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

55326 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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). 

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: 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). 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 55327 

2There 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. 

3See 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). 

4See air quality monitoring data reports in the 

docket. 

5Emissions Inventory Requirements for Carbon 

Monoxide State Implementation Plans EPA–450/4– 

91–011. 

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: 

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. 

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 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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. 

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

Calendar year 

CO 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 7, 2011 / Proposed Rules 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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: 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: http:// 

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 

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 

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 

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 http://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 http:// 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS