64422 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

completed product. A single stationary 

source may contain more than one 

process unit, and a process unit may 

contain more than one emissions unit. 

For a petroleum refinery, there are 

several categories of process units that 

could include: Those that separate and/ 

or distill petroleum feedstocks; those 

that change molecular structures; 

petroleum treating processes; auxiliary 

facilities, such as steam generators and 

hydrogen production units; and those 

that load, unload, blend or store 

intermediate or completed products. 

SO 2 means sulfur dioxide. 

Startup means the setting in operation 

of an affected facility for any purpose. 

(3) Reasonable Progress Measures. On 

June 7, 2011, EPA and HOVENSA 

entered into a Consent Decree (CD) in 

the U.S. District Court for the Virgin 

Islands to resolve alleged Clean Air Act 

violations at its St. Croix, Virgin Islands 

facility. The CD requires HOVENSA, 

among other things, to achieve emission 

limits and install new pollution controls 

pursuant to a schedule for compliance. 

The measures required by the CD reduce 

emissions of NOX by 5,031 tons per year 

(tpy) and SO2 by 3,460 tpy. The 

emission limitations, pollution controls, 

schedules for compliance, reporting, 

and recordkeeping provisions of the 

HOVENSA CD constitute an element of 

the long term strategy and address the 

reasonable progress provisions of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(1). Should the existing 

federally enforceable HOVENSA CD be 

revised, EPA will reevaluate, and if 

necessary, revise the FIP after public 

notice and comment. 

(4) HOVENSA requirement for 

notification. HOVENSA must notify 

EPA 60 days in advance of startup and 

resumption of operation of refinery 

process units at the HOVENSA, St. 

Croix, Virgin Islands facility. HOVENSA 

shall submit such notice to the Director 

of the Clean Air and Sustainability 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York, 10007– 

1866. HOVENSA’s notification to EPA 

that it intends to startup refinery 

process units must include information 

regarding those emission units that will 

be operating, including unit design 

parameters such as heat input and 

hourly emissions, information on 

potential to emit limitations, pollution 

controls and control efficiencies, and 

schedules for compliance. EPA will 

revise the FIP as necessary, after public 

notice and comment, in accordance 

with regional haze requirements 

including the ‘‘reasonable progress’’ 

provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). 

HOVENSA will be required to install 

any controls that are required by the 

revised FIP as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than 5 years 

after the effective date of the revised 

FIP. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25806 Filed 10–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0541; FRL–9733–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Greif Packaging, LLC Adjusted 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving into the 

Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

an adjusted standard for the Greif 

Packaging, LLC facility located at 5 S 

220 Frontenac Road in Naperville, 

Illinois (Greif). On June 20, 2012, the 

Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (IEPA) submitted to EPA for 

approval an adjustment to the general 

rule, Organic Material Emission 

Standards and Limitations for the 

Chicago Area; Subpart TT: Other 

Emission Units, as it applies to 

emissions of volatile organic matter 

(VOM) from Greif’s fiber drum container 

manufacturing facility. VOM, as defined 

by the State of Illinois, is identical to 

volatile organic compound (VOC), as 

defined by EPA. The adjusted standard 

replaces portions of the general rule for 

VOM emissions with site-specific 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) requirements for 

the Greif facility. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective December 21, 2012, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

November 21, 2012. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal 

Registerinforming the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0541, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Doug Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Doug Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0541. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.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 email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

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, 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 www.regulations.gov 

index. 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, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64423 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–1767, 

dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of Greif’s adjusted 

standard? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

Greif operates a fiber drum container 

manufacturing facility. In general, fiber 

drums are produced by cutting fiber 

material to the appropriate length, 

forming the material into a cylinder, and 

attaching a top and bottom to the 

cylinder. Some of the fiber drums 

require the addition of a polyethylene 

drum liner to meet customer 

specifications, particularly for storage 

and transport of food-grade products. 

Greif conducts quality control (QC) 

testing of these liners by spraying a test 

fluid into the interior of the drums. The 

test fluid is a denatured alcohol 

product, which is a VOC. 

EPA requires that existing VOC 

sources in certain ozone nonattainment 

areas meet a level of control referred to 

as RACT. See 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(2). 

EPA defines RACT as ‘‘the lowest 

emission limitation that a particular 

source is capable of meeting by the 

application of control technology that is 

reasonably available considering 

technological and economic feasibility.’’ 

See 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979). 

For many source categories, EPA has 

established guidance documents, 

referred to as Control Technique 

Guideline (CTG) documents, which 

fairly explicitly establish the level of 

control that represents RACT for a 

specific source category. The 

implementation of RACT is also 

required at major stationary sources for 

which EPA has not issued CTGs. Illinois 

has adopted a general rule applicable to 

these major sources at title 35 of the 

Illinois Administrative Code (Ill. Adm. 

Code), part 218, subpart TT. Because 

neither a CTG document nor explicit 

guidance has been established for fiber 

drum container manufacturing facilities, 

the general rule at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

subpart TT applies to the Greif facility. 

A source is subject to this rule if it has 

the potential to emit 22.7 Mg (25 tons) 

or more of VOM per year (35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.980(b)). 

Greif is subject to a Federally 

Enforceable State Operating Permit 

(FESOP) which limits VOM emissions 

from the QC test process to 22.8 tons per 

year (tpy) and VOM emissions from the 

remainder of the plant to 1.4 tpy. This 

limits facility VOM emissions to an 

aggregate of 24.2 tpy, below the 25 tpy 

threshold. However, Greif reported QC 

test process emissions of 35.2, 46.7, 

19.1, 7.7, and 8.5 tpy for 2006, 2007, 

2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. The 

high emissions in 2006 and 2007 put the 

source over the 25 tpy threshold, 

triggering the applicability of subpart 

TT. See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.980(b)(1). 

Under 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.980(d), 

subpart TT limits do not apply to 

emission units with emissions of VOC 

less than or equal to 2.5 tpy, providing 

that the total emissions from such 

emission units does not exceed 5.0 tpy. 

Therefore, the only emission unit at the 

Greif facility subject to limits under 

subpart TT is the QC test process. This 

process became subject to the 

requirement to reduce uncontrolled 

emissions by 81 percent. (35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.986(a)) 

Greif filed a petition for an adjusted 

standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.986(a) on January 24, 2011, in 

accordance with section 28.1 of the 

Illinois Environmental Protection Act. A 

final Opinion and Order of the Illinois 

Pollution Control Board granted Greif an 

adjusted standard on April 5, 2012. 

II. What is EPA’s analysis of Greif’s 

adjusted standard? 

Greif evaluated emission control 

options for the QC test process to satisfy 

RACT control requirements in 35 Ill. 

Adm. Code 218.986(a). Greif considered 

capture plus recuperative thermal 

oxidizers, capture plus carbon 

adsorbers, and capture plus biofilters 

and material substitution. Each of these 

control options could achieve 

compliance with the 81 percent 

reduction requirement, but were 

estimated to cost from $11,667–$17,672 

per ton of VOM controlled. 

Given the high cost of add on 

controls, Greif looked at two options for 

reducing VOC emissions through 

material substitution, mixing the QC test 

fluid with acetone and mixing the QC 

test fluid with water. Mixing the QC test 

fluid with acetone was found to be 

technically infeasible because acetone 

would dissolve the gasket material that 

seals the bottom of the drum to the side 

walls. Greif found that the QC test fluid 

could be diluted with water to reduce 

VOC emissions, while continuing to 

satisfy product quality standards. Greif 

determined that a dilution of 45 percent 

denatured alcohol and 55 percent water 

was the highest dilution percentage that 

would allow the facility to meet 

customer quality assurance 

requirements. Using this dilution would 

result in a 55 percent reduction in VOM 

emissions. In addition, Greif determined 

that it could reduce the amount of test 

fluid sprayed on each drum to an 

amount not to exceed 48 grams. These 

modifications would reduce VOC 

emissions from Greif’s QC test process 

by 70 percent on a unit basis and result 

in annual emissions below the 22.8 tpy 

limit in the FESOP. 

Greif concluded that achieving a 

capture and control rate of at least 81 

percent from its QC test process was not 

economically reasonable, and that the 

water-diluted QC test process was the 

only technically feasible and 

economically reasonable alternative. 

The Illinois Pollution Control Board 

adopted a final Opinion and Order on 

April 5, 2012. In summary, the order 

required the following: 

(1) An automated, mechanical wand 

that is calibrated so that each spray 

releases approximately the same amount 

of QC test fluid; 

(2) Test fluid composed of no more 

that 45 percent denatured alcohol by 

weight and no less than 55 percent 

water by weight; 

(3) Calibration of the automated QC 

test process equipment to spray an 

average of no more than 48 grams of QC 

test fluid per drum, with compliance to 

be measured as least once per calendar 

quarter; 

(4) Limits on VOM usage from the QC 

test process of 2.3 tons per month and 

22.8 tpy; and, 

(5) Limits on VOM emissions from the 

QC test process of 2.3 tons per month 

and 22.8 tpy. 

In addition the order contains 

detailed recordkeeping requirements 

and compliance determination 

procedures. EPA finds the requirements 

in the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s 

Opinion and Order dated April 5, 2012 

to represent RACT for the QC test 

process at Greif. 

In addition, EPA’s approval is based 

on consideration of whether the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
64424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

adjusted standard meets the 

requirements of section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 

To be approved, a SIP revision must not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment, 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. The 

adjusted standard will not result in any 

increase in VOC emissions from the QC 

test process, therefore the adjusted 

standard will not interfere with 

attainment or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving into the Illinois SIP 

an adjusted standard for the Greif 

facility located at 5 S 220 Frontenac 

Road in Naperville. This Adjusted 

Standard from 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.986(a) replaces the capture and 

control requirements in 35 Ill. Adm. 

Code 218.986(a) for VOM emissions 

from Greif’s fiber drum container 

manufacturing facility with the control 

requirements in the Illinois Pollution 

Control Board’s April 5, 2012 Order. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective December 21, 2012 without 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by November 

21, 2012. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. If we do not receive any 

comments, this action will be effective 

December 21, 2012. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 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 CAA; 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 21, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 13, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart O—Illinois 

■ 2. Section 52.720 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(193) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.720 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 204 / Monday, October 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 64425 

1William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, Regions I–X, October 2, 2007. 

(193) On June 20, 2012, Illinois 

submitted an Adjusted Standard for the 

Greif Packaging, LLC facility located at 

5 S 220 Frontenac Road in Naperville, 

DuPage County. This adjustment to the 

Standard at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 

218.986(a) for Greif’s fiber drum 

manufacturing facility replaces the 

VOM capture and control requirements 

in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.986(a) with the 

control requirements in the Illinois 

Pollution Control Board’s April 5, 2012 

Order. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) April 5, 2012 Opinion and Order 

of the Illinois Pollution Control Board 

(AS 2011–01), effective April 5, 2012. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25819 Filed 10–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0883; FRL–9701–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Alaska: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals 

from the State of Alaska to demonstrate 

that the SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997. 

EPA finds that the Alaska SIP meets the 

following 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is 

concurrently approving a number of 

revisions to the Alaska SIP as a 

necessary condition to approving the 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for 

ozone. Specifically, EPA is approving 

revisions submitted by Alaska to update 

the SIP to include the ozone standard at 

an 8-hour averaging period, the 

associated federal method for measuring 

and monitoring ozone in ambient air, a 

general definition of ozone, federal 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program changes to regulate NOx 

as a precursor to ozone, and provisions 

to satisfy CAA section 128 conflict of 

interest disclosure requirements. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

November 21, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0883. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics (AWT–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The Regional Office’s 

official hours of business are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at telephone number: (206) 

553–6357, email address: 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Scope of Action 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

new NAAQS for ozone. EPA revised the 

ozone NAAQS to provide an 8-hour 

averaging period which replaced the 

previous 1-hour averaging period, and 

the level of the NAAQS was changed 

from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 

0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). The CAA 

requires SIPs meeting the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) be 

submitted by states within 3 years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

standard. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

require states to address basic SIP 

requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the standards, so-called ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

requirements. To help states meet this 

statutory requirement for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, EPA issued 

guidance to address infrastructure SIP 

elements under section 110(a)(1) and 

(2).1 In the case of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, states typically have met 

the basic program elements required in 

section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous ozone standards. The State of 

Alaska submitted a SIP to EPA on 

March 2, 2012, which, among other 

things, certified that Alaska’s SIP meets 

the infrastructure obligations for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

certification included an analysis of 

Alaska’s SIP as it relates to each section 

of the infrastructure requirements with 

regard to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The State also submitted as 

part of the March 2, 2012, SIP submittal, 

existing state regulatory provisions to be 

approved into the Alaska SIP for 

purposes of meeting CAA section 128 

conflict of interest disclosure 

requirements. The state requested 

parallel processing of the March 2, 2012, 

submittal. Under this procedure, the 

state submits the SIP revision to EPA 

before final adoption by the state. EPA 

reviews this proposed state action and 

prepares a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. EPA publishes its notice of 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register and solicits public comment in 

approximately the same time frame 

during which the state is completing its 

rulemaking action. 

On March 22, 2012, EPA published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for 

the State of Alaska to act on the State’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (77 FR 16785). 

Specifically in the NPR, EPA proposed 

to approve Alaska’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements for the following 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

EPA also proposed to concurrently 

approve a number of revisions to the 

Alaska SIP as a necessary condition to 

approving the 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements for ozone. Specifically, EPA 

proposed to approve revisions 

submitted by Alaska on April 9, 2010, 

and November 19, 2010, to update the 

SIP to include the ozone standard at an 

8-hour averaging period, the associated 

federal method for measuring and 

monitoring ozone in ambient air, a 

general definition of ozone, and federal 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program changes to regulate NOX

as a precursor to ozone. EPA also 

proposed to concurrently approve the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with