41496 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

to accomplish the goals of the Kansas 

Air Quality Act. KSA section 65– 

3005(a)(16). 

Currently, KDHE’s Bureau of Air and 

Radiation has signed state and/or local 

agreements with the Department of Air 

Quality from the Unified Government of 

Wyandotte County—Kansas City, 

Kansas; the Wichita Office of 

Environmental Health; the Shawnee 

County Health Department, the Johnson 

County Department of Health and 

Environment; and the Mid-America 

Regional Council. These agreements 

establish formal partnerships between 

the Bureau of Air and Radiation and 

these local agencies to work together to 

develop and annually update strategic 

goals, objectives and strategies for 

reducing emissions and improving air 

quality. 

In addition, as previously noted in the 

discussion about section 110(a)(2)(J), 

Kansas’ statutes and regulations require 

that KDHE consult with local political 

subdivisions for the purposes of 

carrying out its air pollution control 

responsibilities. 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 O3 NAAQS, and relevant statutory 

and regulatory authorities and 

provisions referenced in the submission 

or referenced in Kansas’ SIP, EPA 

believes that Kansas has the adequate 

infrastructure needed to address section 

110(a)(2)(M) for the 2008 O3 NAAQS 

and is proposing to approve this 

element of the March 19, 2013, and May 

9, 2013, submissions. 

V. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

infrastructure SIP submissions from 

Kansas which address the requirements 

of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as 

applicable to the 2008 O3 NAAQS. 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve the following infrastructure 

elements, or portions thereof: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

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

discussed in each applicable section of 

this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing 

action on section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), 

section 110(a)(2)(I)—Nonattainment 

Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part 

D, and on the visibility protection 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J). 

Based upon review of the state’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions and 

relevant statutory and regulatory 

authorities and provisions referenced in 

that submission or referenced in Kansas’ 

SIP, EPA believes that Kansas has the 

infrastructure to address all applicable 

required elements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) (except otherwise noted) to 

ensure that the 2008 O3 NAAQS are 

implemented in the state. 

We are hereby soliciting comment on 

this proposed action. Final rulemaking 

will occur after consideration of any 

comments. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

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 proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the terms of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993) and is therefore not subject to 

review under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011). 

• 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. 

Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by section 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 1, 2014. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16741 Filed 7–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0140, FRL–9913–83– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Alaska: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the Alaska State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) as meeting specific infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 

18, 1997, and October 17, 2006, and for 

ozone on March 12, 2008. Whenever a 

new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, 

the CAA requires states to submit a plan 

for the implementation, maintenance 

and enforcement of such NAAQS. The 

plan is required to address basic 

program elements, including but not 

limited to regulatory structure, 

monitoring, modeling, legal authority, 

and adequate resources necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

standards. These elements are referred 

to as infrastructure requirements. As 

discussed further below, final action is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41497 

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. 2William 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 2006 24- 

hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS).’’ Memorandum to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, 

September 25, 2009. 

3Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2).’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

Directors, Regions 1–10, September 13, 2013. 

contingent upon the EPA first taking 

final action on separately-submitted 

revisions to the Alaska SIP to reflect 

changes to the NAAQS and associated 

Federal prevention of significant 

deterioration permitting requirements. 

Final action on those SIP revisions will 

be addressed in a separate action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2014–0140, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 

Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Attention: Kristin Hall, 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–2014– 

0140. 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 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which 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 the 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 the 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, 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 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 

the disclosure of which 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. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

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, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, 

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

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Elements 

III. EPA Approach to Review of Infrastructure 

SIP Submissions 

IV. Analysis of the Alaska Submissions 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, the EPA 

promulgated a new 24-hour and a new 

annual NAAQS for fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) (62 FR 38652). More 

recently, on October 17, 2006, the EPA 

revised the standards for PM2.5, 

tightening the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (m/ 

m3) to 35 m/m3, and retaining the 

current annual PM2.5 standard at 15 m/ 

m3 (71 FR 61144). In addition, on March 

12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of 

the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone 

standards to 0.075 parts per million (73 

FR 16436). 

The CAA requires SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) be submitted by states within three 

years after promulgation of a new or 

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

(2) require states to address basic SIP 

requirements, so-called ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

elements. To assist states, the EPA 

issued several guidance documents. On 

October 2, 2007, the EPA issued 

guidance to address infrastructure SIP 

elements for the 1997 ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.1 On September 25, 2009, 

the EPA issued guidance to address 

infrastructure SIP elements for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.2 On September 

13, 2013, the EPA issued guidance to 

address infrastructure SIP elements for 

multiple pollutants, including the 2008 

ozone NAAQS.3 As noted in the 

guidance documents, to the extent an 

existing SIP already meets the CAA 

section 110(a)(2) requirements, states 

may certify that fact via a letter to the 

EPA. 

On July 9, 2012, the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) submitted to the 

EPA a certification that Alaska’s SIP 

meets the infrastructure requirements 

for multiple NAAQS, including the 

1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

2008 ozone, and 2008 lead NAAQS. The 

certification included an analysis of 

Alaska’s SIP as it relates to each section 

of the infrastructure requirements at 

CAA section 110(a)(2). The State 

provided notice of public comment and 

an opportunity for public hearing on the 

submission from March 4, 2012, through 

April 10, 2012. Notices were published 

in the Anchorage Daily News on March 

4 and March 5, 2012, the Fairbanks 

Daily News-Miner on March 5 and 

March 6, 2012, and the Juneau Empire 

on March 6, 2012. The State extended 

the comment period to April 24, 2012, 

and provided notice of the extension in 

the same publications. The EPA has 

evaluated the State’s July 9, 2012, 

submission and determined that the 

State met the requirements for 

reasonable notice and public hearing 

under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. 

Previously, on March 29, 2011, Alaska 

submitted the ‘‘Alaska Interstate 

Transport of Pollution SIP’’ to address 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The State provided 

notice and an opportunity for public 

comment on the submission from 

October 7, 2010, through November 19, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41498 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

2010. A notice of public hearing was 

published in the Anchorage Daily News 

and the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner on 

October 9, October 10, and October 11, 

2010, and the Peninsula Clarion on 

October 25, October 26, and October 27, 

2010. The State extended the comment 

period to December 6, 2010, and 

provided notice of the extension in the 

same publications. The State held a 

public hearing on November 16, 2010, 

in Anchorage, Alaska. The EPA has 

evaluated the State’s March 29, 2011, 

submission and determined that the 

State met the requirements for 

reasonable notice and public hearing 

under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. 

At this time, the EPA is acting on the 

Alaska submissions for 110(a)(2) 

required elements as they relate to the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. This action does not address 

the CAA infrastructure requirements 

with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

which we approved on October 22, 2012 

(77 FR 64425). This action also does not 

address the CAA infrastructure 

requirements of the 2008 lead NAAQS, 

which we intend to address in a 

separate action. This action also does 

not address the interstate transport 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, which we previously approved 

on October 15, 2008 (73 FR 60955), nor 

the interstate transport requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS which we are 

addressing in a separate action 

(proposed April 28, 2014, 79 FR 23303). 

Finally, this action does not address the 

emergency episode requirements of 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. We intend to address 

them in a separate action. 

II. CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Elements 

CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. CAA section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements that 

states must meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. These 

requirements include SIP infrastructure 

elements such as modeling, monitoring, 

and emissions inventories that are 

designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

requirements, with their corresponding 

CAA subsection, are listed below: 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and meet the applicable 

requirements of part D. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

The EPA’s guidance clarified that two 

elements identified in CAA section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the three 

year submission deadline of CAA 

section 110(a)(1) because SIPs 

incorporating necessary local 

nonattainment area controls are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due 

at the time the nonattainment area plan 

requirements are due pursuant to CAA 

section 172 and the various pollutant 

specific subparts 2–5 of part D. These 

requirements are: (i) Submissions 

required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to 

the extent that subsection refers to a 

permit program as required in part D, 

title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions 

required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) 

which pertain to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D, title I 

of the CAA. As a result, this action does 

not address infrastructure elements 

related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with 

respect to nonattainment new source 

review (NSR) or CAA section 

110(a)(2)(I). Furthermore, the EPA 

interprets the CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) 

provision on visibility as not being 

triggered by a new NAAQS because the 

visibility requirements in part C, title I 

of the CAA are not changed by a new 

NAAQS. 

III. EPA Approach To Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submissions 

The EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Alaska that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The requirement for states to 

make a SIP submission of this type 

arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 

years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),’’ and these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

the EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

The EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

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

as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, the EPA 

uses the term to distinguish this 

particular type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by the EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.4 The 

EPA therefore believes that while the 

timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) 

is unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, the EPA believes that the list 

of required elements for infrastructure 

SIP submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41499 

5See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

6The EPA notes that this ambiguity within 

section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that 

various subparts of part D set specific dates for 

submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 

designated nonattainment areas for various 

pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides 

specific dates for submission of emissions 

inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these 

specific dates are necessarily later than three years 

after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS. 

7See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (the EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of the EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (the EPA’s final action on 

the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

8On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to the EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The EPA proposed 

action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), the EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submission. 

9For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

10The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the 

CAA requires the EPA to provide guidance or to 

promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and 

requires the submission of infrastructure SIP 

submissions, regardless of whether or not the EPA 

provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 

submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in 

order to assist states, as appropriate. 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for the 

EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) 

and section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while the 

EPA has long noted that this literal 

reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent and would create a conflict 

with the nonattainment provisions in 

part D of title I of the CAA, which 

specifically address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.5 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires the EPA to 

establish a schedule for submission of 

such plans for certain pollutants when 

the Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.6 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 

strict literal sense, the EPA must 

determine which provisions of section 

110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether the 

EPA must act upon such SIP submission 

in a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, the 

EPA interprets the CAA to allow states 

to make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, the EPA can elect to 

act on such submissions either 

individually or in a larger combined 

action.7 Similarly, the EPA interprets 

the CAA to allow it to take action on the 

individual parts of one larger, 

comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submission for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submission. For example, the EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submission.8

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, the EPA notes that not every 

element of section 110(a)(2) would be 

relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in 

the same way, for each new or revised 

NAAQS. The states’ attendant 

infrastructure SIP submissions for each 

NAAQS therefore could be different. For 

example, the monitoring requirements 

that a state might need to meet in its 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could 

be very different for different pollutants, 

for example because the content and 

scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.9

The EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

the EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, the EPA also has to 

identify and interpret the relevant 

elements of section 110(a)(2) that 

logically apply to these other types of 

SIP submissions. For example, section 

172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan 

SIP submissions required by part D have 

to meet the ‘‘applicable requirements’’ 

of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, 

attainment plan SIP submissions must 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable 

emission limits and control measures 

and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air 

agency resources and authority. By 

contrast, it is clear that attainment plan 

SIP submissions required by part D 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the 

PSD program required in part C of title 

I of the CAA, because PSD does not 

apply to a pollutant for which an area 

is designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), the EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, the EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, the EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, the EPA has elected to 

use guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.10 The EPA most 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41500 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

12The EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did 

not make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions regarding section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

13By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were 

to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then the EPA would need to evaluate 

that provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).11 The EPA 

developed this document to provide 

states with up-to-date guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs for any new or 

revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, 

the EPA describes the duty of states to 

make infrastructure SIP submissions to 

meet basic structural SIP requirements 

within three years of promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS. The EPA also 

made recommendations about many 

specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) 

that are relevant in the context of 

infrastructure SIP submissions.12 The 

guidance also discusses the 

substantively important issues that are 

germane to certain subsections of 

section 110(a)(2). Significantly, the EPA 

interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP 

submissions need to address certain 

issues and need not address others. 

Accordingly, the EPA reviews each 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

compliance with the applicable 

statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), 

as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, the EPA reviews infrastructure 

SIP submissions to ensure that the 

state’s SIP appropriately addresses the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and section 128. The 2013 Guidance 

explains the EPA’s interpretation that 

there may be a variety of ways by which 

states can appropriately address these 

substantive statutory requirements, 

depending on the structure of an 

individual state’s permitting or 

enforcement program (e.g., whether 

permits and enforcement orders are 

approved by a multi-member board or 

by a head of an executive agency). 

However they are addressed by the 

state, the substantive requirements of 

section 128 are necessarily included in 

the EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure 

SIP submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, the EPA’s review 

of infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and the EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and NSR 

pollutants, including greenhouse gases. 

By contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions 

that are not required under the EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are 

merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the 2012 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter 

optional provisions are types of 

provisions the EPA considers irrelevant 

in the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, the EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates 

whether the state has an EPA-approved 

minor new source review program and 

whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

the EPA does not think it is necessary 

to conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

the EPA does not believe that an action 

on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is necessarily the 

appropriate type of action in which to 

address possible deficiencies in a state’s 

existing SIP. These issues include: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions from sources during periods 

of startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

that may be contrary to the CAA and the 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess 

emissions (‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

may be contrary to the CAA because 

they purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring 

further approval by the EPA; and (iii) 

existing provisions for PSD programs 

that may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of the EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007). Thus, the EPA 

believes it may approve an 

infrastructure SIP submission without 

scrutinizing the totality of the existing 

SIP for such potentially deficient 

provisions and may approve the 

submission even if it is aware of such 

existing provisions.13 It is important to 

note that the EPA’s approval of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission should 

not be construed as explicit or implicit 

re-approval of any existing potentially 

deficient provisions that relate to the 

three specific issues just described. 

The EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

The EPA believes that this approach to 

the review of a particular infrastructure 

SIP submission is appropriate, because 

it would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and the EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when the EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. The EPA believes that 

a better approach is for states and the 

EPA to focus attention on those 

elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 

most likely to warrant a specific SIP 

revision due to the promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, the EPA’s 2013 

Guidance gives simpler 

recommendations with respect to 

carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 

pollutants to meet the visibility 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41501 

14For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah 

to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related 

to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

15The EPA has used this authority to correct 

errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to 

PSD programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). The EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA section 

110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions 

that the Agency determined it had approved in 

error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 

FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American 

Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada 

SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) 

(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 

(November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and 

Nevada SIPs). 

16See, e.g., the EPA’s disapproval of a SIP 

submission from Colorado on the grounds that it 

would have included a director’s discretion 

provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, 

including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 

42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed 

disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 

FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such 

provisions). 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, the EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow the EPA to take 

appropriately tailored action, depending 

upon the nature and severity of the 

alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) 

authorizes the EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ 

whenever the EPA determines that a 

state’s SIP is substantially inadequate to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS, to 

mitigate interstate transport, or to 

otherwise comply with the CAA.14

Section 110(k)(6) authorizes the EPA to 

correct errors in past actions, such as 

past approvals of SIP submissions.15

Significantly, the EPA’s determination 

that an action on a state’s infrastructure 

SIP submission is not the appropriate 

time and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude the EPA’s subsequent reliance 

on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as 

part of the basis for action to correct 

those deficiencies at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on an infrastructure SIP 

submission, the EPA believes that 

section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the 

statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 

the course of addressing such deficiency 

in a subsequent action.16

IV. Analysis of the Alaska Submissions 

The July 9, 2012, submission 

summarizes ADEC’s statutory and 

regulatory authority to act on behalf of 

the State of Alaska in any matter 

pertaining to the state air quality control 

plan. The submission lists specific 

provisions of the Alaska Statute (AS) 

Title 46 Water, Air Energy and 

Environmental Conservation, Chapter 

03 Environmental Conservation and 

Chapter 14 Air Quality Control; Alaska 

Administrative Code (AAC) Title 18 

Environmental Conservation (18 AAC 

50); and the Alaska SIP. The specific 

sections are listed below, with a 

discussion of how the Alaska SIP meets 

the requirements. We note that on May 

5, 2014, we proposed to approve a 

number of revisions to the Alaska SIP, 

including revisions to update the SIP to 

reflect changes to the NAAQS and 

Federal prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) permitting 

requirements associated with the 

NAAQS (79 FR 25533). Final action on 

this infrastructure SIP is contingent 

upon the EPA first taking final action on 

the May 5, 2014, proposed approval of 

those separately submitted revisions to 

the Alaska SIP to implement the 

NAAQS and Federal PSD permitting 

requirements. Final action on those SIP 

revisions will be addressed in a separate 

action. 

110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other 

Control Measures 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limits and other control measures, 

means or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance, as may 

be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of the CAA. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission cites Alaska environmental 

and air quality laws set forth at AS 

46.03 and AS 46.14 and State 

regulations set forth at 18 AAC 50. AS 

46.03.020 ‘‘Powers of the department’’ 

provides authority for ADEC to adopt 

regulations providing for control, 

prevention, and abatement of air, water, 

land or subsurface land pollution. AS 

46.03.860 ‘‘Inspection warrant’’ 

provides authority for ADEC to 

investigate actual or suspected sources 

of pollution or contamination, or to 

ascertain compliance or noncompliance. 

AS 46.14.010 ‘‘Emission control 

regulations’’ provides authority for 

ADEC to adopt regulations establishing 

ambient air quality standards, emission 

standards, or exemptions to implement 

a state air quality control program. AS 

46.14.240 ‘‘Permit administration fees’’ 

and AS 46.14.250 ‘‘Emission fees’’ 

provide authority to assess permit 

administration fees and emission fees to 

sources. AS 46.14.515 ‘‘Inspection’’ 

provides authority to inspect regulated 

sources, including records, emissions 

units, monitoring equipment or 

methods, and to sample any emissions 

the source is required to sample. 

The regulations cited by ADEC 

include statewide ambient air quality 

standards, major and minor permits, 

emission limits for specific sources, 

transportation conformity and fees. The 

relevant regulations are listed below: 

• 18 AAC 50.005: Purpose and 

Applicability of Chapter. 

• 18 AAC 50.010: Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

• 18 AAC 50.035: Documents, 

Procedures, and Methods Adopted by 

Reference. 

• 18 AAC 50.040: Federal Standards 

Adopted by Reference. 

• 18 AAC 50.045: Prohibitions. 

• 18 AAC 50.050: Incinerator 

Emission Standards. 

• 18 AAC 50.055: Industrial Processes 

and Fuel Burning Equipment. 

• 18 AAC 50.060: Pulp Mills. 

• 18 AAC 50.065: Open Burning. 

• 18 AAC 50.070: Marine Vessel 

Visible Emission Standards. 

• 18 AAC 50.075: Wood Fired 

Heating Devices Visible Emission 

Standards. 

• 18 AAC 50.201: Ambient Air 

Quality Investigation. 

• 18 AAC 50.302: Construction 

Permits. 

• 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Permits. 

• 18 AAC 50.345: Construction and 

Operating Permits: Standard Permit 

Conditions. 

• 18 AAC 50.400–18 AAC 50.499: 

User Fees. 

• 18 AAC 50.502: Minor Permits for 

Air Quality Protection. 

• 18 AAC 50.540: Minor Permit 

Application. 

• 18 AAC 50.542: Minor Permit 

Review and Issuance. 

• 18 AAC 50.544: Minor Permits: 

Content. 

• 18 AAC 50.700–18 AAC 50.735: 

Conformity. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41502 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

17For further description of the EPA’s SSM 

Policy, see, e.g., a memorandum dated September 

20, 1999, titled, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,’’ from 

Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation. Also, the EPA issued a proposed 

action on February 12, 2013, titled ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for 

Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; 

and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to 

Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, 

Shutdown and Malfunction.’’ This rulemaking 

responds to a petition for rulemaking filed by the 

Sierra Club that concerns SSM provisions in 39 

states’ SIPs (February 22, 2013, 78 FR 12460). 

• 18 AAC 50.990: Definitions. 

EPA analysis: Alaska generally 

regulates emissions of PM2.5 and its 

precursors, and ozone precursors 

through its SIP-approved major and 

minor new source review (NSR) 

permitting programs, in addition to 

other rules described below. We note 

that the EPA does not consider SIP 

requirements triggered by the 

nonattainment area mandates in part D, 

title I of the CAA to be governed by the 

submission deadline of CAA section 

110(a)(1). Regulations and other control 

measures for purposes of attainment 

planning under part D, title I of the CAA 

are due on a different schedule than 

infrastructure SIPs. 

Alaska’s major NSR program generally 

incorporates the Federal PSD and 

nonattainment NSR programs by 

reference into the Alaska SIP. The EPA 

most recently proposed approval of 

revisions to Alaska’s major and minor 

NSR permitting programs on May 5, 

2014 (79 FR 25533). After finalizing the 

May 5, 2014, proposed action, the 

Alaska SIP will incorporate by reference 

Federal PSD requirements at 40 CFR 

52.21 and 40 CFR 51.166 revised as of 

July 1, 2011. 

With respect to Alaska’s minor NSR 

permitting program, at 18 AAC 50.502– 

18 AAC 50.544, we have determined 

that the program regulates minor 

sources for purposes of the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. In addition to Alaska’s major 

and minor NSR permitting programs, 

Alaska’s SIP contains rules that 

establish various controls on emissions 

of particulate matter and its precursors. 

These controls include incinerator 

emission standards, emission limits for 

specific industrial processes and fuel 

burning equipment, emission limits for 

pulp mills, open burning controls, and 

visible emission limits on marine vessel 

emissions and wood-fired heating 

devices. 

Based on the foregoing, we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Final action is contingent upon the EPA 

first taking final action on the May 5, 

2014, proposed approval of revisions to 

the Alaska SIP to reflect changes to the 

NAAQS and Federal PSD permitting 

requirements. 

In this action, we are not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction (SSM) of operations at a 

facility. The EPA believes that a number 

of states may have SSM provisions that 

are contrary to the CAA and existing 

EPA guidance 17 and the EPA plans to 

address such state regulations in the 

future. In the meantime, we encourage 

any state having a deficient SSM 

provision to take steps to correct it as 

soon as possible. 

In addition, we are not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

State rules with respect to director’s 

discretion or variance provisions. The 

EPA believes that a number of states 

may have such provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (November 24, 1987, 52 FR 

45109), and the EPA plans to take action 

in the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, we 

encourage any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision that is 

contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance 

to take steps to correct the deficiency as 

soon as possible. 

110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) requires 

SIPs to include provisions to provide for 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, collecting and 

analyzing ambient air quality data, and 

making these data available to the EPA 

upon request. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission references Alaska statutory 

and regulatory authority to conduct 

ambient air monitoring investigations. 

AS 46.03.020 ‘‘Powers of the 

department’’ paragraph (5) provides 

authority to undertake studies, 

inquiries, surveys, or analyses essential 

to the accomplishment of the purposes 

of ADEC. AS 46.14.180 ‘‘Monitoring’’ 

provides authority to require sources to 

monitor emissions and ambient air 

quality to demonstrate compliance with 

applicable permit program 

requirements. 18 AAC 50.201 ‘‘Ambient 

Air Quality Investigation’’ provides 

authority to require a source to do 

emissions testing, reduce emissions, and 

apply controls to sources. 

The submission also describes 

Memoranda of Understanding between 

ADEC and the Municipality of 

Anchorage (MOA) and Fairbanks North 

Star Borough (FNSB) to operate air 

quality control programs in their 

respective jurisdictions. ADEC’s Air 

Non-Point Mobile Source Program and 

Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance 

Program work with MOA and FNSB to 

prepare Alaska’s annual ambient air 

monitoring network plan, the most 

recent of which is the 2012 Alaska Air 

Monitoring Network Plan. Alaska 

collects and validates State and Local 

Air Monitoring Stations and Special 

Purpose Monitoring ambient air quality 

monitoring data and electronically 

reports these data to the EPA through 

the Air Quality System (AQS) on a 

quarterly basis. ADEC’s revised ‘‘Quality 

Assurance Project Plan for the State of 

Alaska Air Monitoring and Quality 

Assurance Program’’ was adopted by 

reference into the State Air Quality 

Control Plan on October 29, 2010. 

EPA analysis: A comprehensive air 

quality monitoring plan, intended to 

meet requirements of 40 CFR part 58 

was submitted by Alaska to the EPA on 

January 18, 1980 (40 CFR 52.70) and 

approved by the EPA on April 15, 1981. 

This air quality monitoring plan has 

been subsequently updated and 

approved by the EPA on March 10, 

2014. This plan includes, among other 

things, the locations for ozone and 

particulate matter monitoring. Alaska 

makes this plan available for public 

review at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/ 

air/am/index.htm. Based on the 

foregoing, we are proposing to approve 

the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement 

of Control Measures 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

states to include a program providing 

for enforcement of all SIP measures and 

the regulation of construction of new or 

modified stationary sources, including a 

program to meet PSD and 

nonattainment NSR requirements. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission refers to ADEC’s statutory 

authority to regulate stationary sources 

via an air permitting program 

established in AS 46.14 ‘‘Air Quality 

Control,’’ Article 01 ‘‘General 

Regulations and Classifications’’ and 

Article 02 ‘‘Emission Control Permit 

Program.’’ The submission states that 

ADEC’s PSD/NSR programs were 

approved by the EPA on August 14, 

2007 (72 FR 45378). The submission 

references the following regulations: 

• 18 AAC 50.045: Prohibitions. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41503 

• 18 AAC 50.302: Construction 

Permits. 

• 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Permits. 

• 18 AAC 50.345: Construction and 

Operating Permits: Standard Permit 

Conditions. 

• 18 AAC 50.508: Minor Permits 

Requested by the Owner or Operator. 

• 18 AAC 50.540: Minor Permit: 

Application. 

• 18 AAC 50.542: Minor Permit 

Review and Issuance. 

• 18 AAC 50.542(c): Screening 

Ambient Air Quality Analysis. 

The submission states that a violation 

of the prohibitions in the regulations 

above, or any permit condition, can 

result in civil actions (AS 46.03.760 

‘‘Civil action for pollution; damages’’), 

administrative penalties (AS 46.03.761 

‘‘Administrative penalties’’), or criminal 

penalties (AS 46.03.790 ‘‘Criminal 

penalties’’). In addition, Alaska refers to 

regulations pertaining to compliance 

orders and enforcement proceedings 

found at 18 AAC Chapter 95 

‘‘Administrative Enforcement.’’ Finally, 

AS 46.03.820 ‘‘Emergency Powers’’ 

provides ADEC with emergency order 

authority where there is an imminent 

and present danger to health or welfare. 

EPA analysis: With respect to the 

requirement to have a program 

providing for enforcement of all SIP 

measures, we are proposing to find that 

Alaska statute provides ADEC with 

authority to enforce air quality 

regulations, permits, and orders 

promulgated pursuant to AS 46.03 and 

AS 46.14. ADEC staffs and maintains an 

enforcement program to ensure 

compliance with SIP requirements. 

ADEC has emergency order authority 

when there is an imminent or present 

danger to health or welfare or potential 

for irreversible or irreparable damage to 

natural resources or the environment. 

Enforcement cases may be referred to 

the State Department of Law. Therefore, 

we are proposing to approve the Alaska 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) related to 

enforcement for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

To generally meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to 

the regulation of construction of new or 

modified stationary sources, the State is 

required to have PSD, nonattainment 

NSR, and minor NSR permitting 

programs adequate to implement the 

1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. As explained above, we are not 

evaluating nonattainment related 

provisions, such as the nonattainment 

NSR program required by part D, title I 

of the CAA. 

The EPA originally approved Alaska’s 

PSD/NSR program on February 16, 1995 

(60 FR 8943), and we most recently 

proposed revisions on May 5, 2014 (79 

FR 25533). These revisions, among other 

things, update the Alaska PSD program 

for fine particulate matter 

implementation in attainment and 

unclassifiable areas. Previously on 

February 9, 2011, we approved a 

revision to the Alaska SIP to provide 

authority to implement the PSD 

permitting program with respect to 

greenhouse gas emissions (76 FR 7116). 

Alaska’s PSD program generally 

incorporates by reference the Federal 

PSD program requirements at 40 CFR 

52.21. In some cases, ADEC adopted 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.166 rather than 

the comparable provisions of 40 CFR 

52.21 because 40 CFR 51.166 was a 

better fit for a SIP-approved PSD 

program. 

Upon finalization of the May 5, 2014, 

proposed approval of revisions to the 

Alaska PSD program, the State’s 

Federally-approved SIP will incorporate 

by reference PSD requirements at 40 

CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 51.166 revised as 

of July 1, 2011. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to PSD 

for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Final action is 

contingent upon the EPA first taking 

final action on the May 5, 2014, 

proposed approval of revisions to the 

Alaska SIP to reflect changes to the 

NAAQS and Federal PSD permitting 

requirements. 

We note that on January 4, 2013, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of 

Columbia, in Natural Resources Defense 

Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), 

issued a judgment that remanded two of 

the EPA’s rules implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 

‘‘Implementation of New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ (73 

FR 28321, May 16, 2008) (2008 PM2.5

NSR Implementation Rule). The court 

ordered the EPA to ‘‘repromulgate these 

rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent 

with this opinion.’’ Id. at 437. Subpart 

4 of part D, title I of the CAA establishes 

additional provisions for particulate 

matter nonattainment areas. The 2008 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule 

addressed by the court’s decision 

promulgated NSR requirements for 

implementation of PM2.5 in both 

nonattainment areas (nonattainment 

NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable 

areas (PSD). As the requirements of 

subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment 

areas, the EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 attainment and 

unclassifiable areas to be affected by the 

court’s opinion. Moreover, the EPA does 

not anticipate the need to revise any 

PSD requirements promulgated in the 

2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule in 

order to comply with the court’s 

decision. Accordingly, the EPA’s 

proposed approval of elements 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), with 

respect to the PSD requirements, does 

not conflict with the court’s opinion. 

The EPA interprets the CAA section 

110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure 

submissions due three years after 

adoption or revision of a NAAQS to 

exclude nonattainment area 

requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR 

program. Instead, these elements are 

typically referred to as nonattainment 

SIP or attainment plan elements, which 

are due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 

under part D, extending as far as ten 

years following designations for some 

elements. 

In addition, on January 22, 2013, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 

F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued a 

judgment that, inter alia, vacated the 

provisions adding the PM2.5 Significant 

Monitoring Concentration (SMC) to the 

Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), 

that were promulgated as part of the 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 

2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC); Final Rule,’’ (75 FR 64864, 

October 10, 2010) (2010 PSD PM2.5

Implementation Rule). In its decision, 

the court held that the EPA did not have 

the authority to use SMCs to exempt 

permit applicants from the statutory 

requirement in section 165(e)(2) of the 

CAA that ambient monitoring data for 

PM2.5 be included in all PSD permit 

applications. Thus, although the PM2.5

SMC was not a required element of a 

state’s PSD program, were a state PSD 

program that contains such a provision 

to use that provision to issue new 

permits without requiring ambient PM2.5

monitoring data, such application of the 

vacated SMC would be inconsistent 

with the court’s opinion and the 

requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the 

CAA. 

This decision also, at the EPA’s 

request, vacated and remanded to the 

EPA for further consideration the 

portions of the 2010 PSD PM2.5

Implementation Rule that revised 40 

CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 related to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41504 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) for 

PM2.5. The EPA requested this vacatur 

and remand of two of the three 

provisions in the EPA regulations that 

contain SILs for PM2.5, because the 

wording of these two SIL provisions (40 

CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 

52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the 

explanation of when and how SILs 

should be used by permitting authorities 

that we provided in the preamble to the 

Federal Register publication when we 

promulgated these provisions. The third 

SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was 

not vacated and remains in effect. The 

court’s decision does not affect the PSD 

increments for PM2.5 promulgated as 

part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5

Implementation Rule. 

We note that the EPA recently 

amended its regulations to remove the 

vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions 

from PSD regulations on December 9, 

2013 (78 FR 73698). In addition, the 

EPA will initiate a separate rulemaking 

in the future regarding the PM2.5 SILs 

that will address the court’s remand. In 

the meantime, we are advising states to 

begin preparations to remove the 

vacated provisions from state PSD 

regulations. 

Because of the vacatur of the EPA 

regulations as they relate to the PM2.5

SILs and SMC, and the EPA’s December 

9, 2013, rulemaking action, Alaska 

withdrew the rule revisions that would 

have implemented these vacated 

provisions. Please see our proposed 

action on May 5, 2014 (79 FR 25533). 

Therefore, in this action we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) as 

those elements relate to a 

comprehensive PSD program. 

Turning to the minor NSR 

requirement, we have determined that 

the Alaska minor NSR program 

regulates minor sources for purposes of 

the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Based on the foregoing, 

we are proposing to approve the Alaska 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 PM2.5,

2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Final action is contingent upon the EPA 

first taking final action on the May 5, 

2014, proposed approval of revisions to 

the Alaska SIP to reflect changes to the 

NAAQS and Federal PSD permitting 

requirements. 

110(a)(2)(D): Interstate Transport 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

state SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). 

Further, this section requires state SIPs 

to include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration (PSD) of air 

quality, or from interfering with 

measures required to protect visibility 

(i.e. measures to address regional haze) 

in any state (CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). As noted above, this 

action also does not address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS which we previously approved 

on October 15, 2008 (73 FR 60955). In 

addition, this action does not address 

the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

which we are addressing in a separate 

action (proposed April 28, 2014, 79 FR 

23303). In this action, we are proposing 

to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS, and CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

State submission: On March 29, 2011, 

Alaska submitted the ‘‘Alaska Interstate 

Transport of Pollution SIP’’ to address 

interstate transport requirements for 

multiple NAAQS, including the 2006 

PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. For 

purposes of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the submission 

referenced the State’s SIP-approved PSD 

program and the State’s Regional Haze 

Plan. As a result of the State’s analysis 

and consultation, Alaska concluded that 

emissions of fine particulate matter and 

its precursors and ozone precursors 

from sources in Alaska do not interfere 

with other states’ efforts to prevent 

significant air quality degradation and 

protect visibility. 

EPA analysis: As noted above, this 

action also does not address the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS which we previously approved 

on October 15, 2008 (73 FR 60955). In 

addition, this action does not address 

the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

which we are addressing in a separate 

action (proposed April 28, 2014, 79 FR 

23303). In this action, we are proposing 

to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 PM2.5 and 

2008 ozone NAAQS, and CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requires state SIPs to contain adequate 

provisions prohibiting emissions which 

will interfere with any other state’s 

required measures to prevent significant 

deterioration (PSD) of its air quality 

(prong 3), and adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions which will 

interfere with any other state’s required 

measures to protect visibility (prong 4). 

To address whether emissions from 

sources in Alaska interfere with any 

other state’s required measures to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality, the March 29, 2011, and July 9, 

2012, submissions referenced the State’s 

Federally-approved PSD program. The 

EPA originally approved Alaska’s PSD 

program on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 

8943), and most recently proposed 

approval of revisions on May 5, 2014 

(79 FR 25533). Upon finalization of our 

May 5, 2014, proposed approval of 

revisions to the Alaska PSD program, 

the Alaska SIP will incorporate by 

reference Federal PSD requirements as 

of July 1, 2011. We believe that our 

proposed approval of element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is not affected by 

recent court vacaturs of EPA PSD 

implementing regulations. Please see 

our discussion at section 110(a)(2)(C). 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to PSD 

(prong 3) for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Final action is 

contingent upon the EPA first taking 

final action on the May 5, 2014, 

proposed approval of revisions to the 

Alaska SIP to reflect changes to the 

NAAQS and Federal PSD permitting 

requirements. 

To address whether emissions from 

sources in Alaska interfere with any 

other state’s required measures to 

protect visibility, Alaska’s submissions 

reference the Alaska Regional Haze SIP, 

which was submitted to the EPA on 

March 29, 2011. The Alaska Regional 

Haze SIP addresses visibility impacts 

across states within the region. On 

February 14, 2013, the EPA approved 

the Alaska Regional Haze SIP, including 

the requirements for best available 

retrofit technology (78 FR 10546). 

The EPA believes, as noted in the 

September 13, 2013, infrastructure 

guidance, that with respect to the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility subelement, where a state’s regional haze 

SIP has been approved as meeting all 

current obligations, a state may rely 

upon those provisions in support of its 

demonstration that it satisfies the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it relates to 

visibility. Because the Alaska Regional 

Haze SIP was found to meet Federal 

requirements, we are proposing to 

approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41505 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to 

visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 

ozone NAAQS (prong 4). 

Interstate and International Transport 

Provisions 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires 

SIPs to include provisions insuring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements of CAA sections 126 and 

115 (relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement). 

Specifically, CAA section 126(a) 

requires new or modified major sources 

to notify neighboring states of potential 

impacts from the source. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission references the State’s 

Federally-approved PSD program. The 

submission also references SIP revisions 

submitted by ADEC for purposes of 

implementing PM2.5 requirements in the 

Alaska PSD program. 

EPA analysis: The EPA originally 

approved Alaska’s PSD program on 

February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943), and 

most recently proposed approval of 

revisions on May 5, 2014 (79 FR 25533). 

In general, ADEC incorporates by 

reference the Federal PSD rules at 40 

CFR 52.21. In some cases, ADEC 

adopted provisions of 40 CFR 51.166, 

rather than the comparable provisions of 

40 CFR 52.21, because 40 CFR 51.166 

was a better fit for a SIP-approved PSD 

program. 

At 18 AAC 50.306(b), Alaska’s 

Federally-approved SIP incorporates by 

reference the general provisions of 40 

CFR 51.166(q)(2) to describe the public 

participation procedures for PSD 

permits, including requiring notice to 

states whose lands may be affected by 

the emissions of sources subject to PSD. 

As a result, Alaska’s PSD regulations 

provide for notice consistent with the 

requirements of the EPA PSD program. 

Alaska also has no pending obligations 

under section 115 or 126(b) of the CAA. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. Final 

action is contingent upon the EPA first 

taking final action on the May 5, 2014, 

proposed approval of revisions to the 

Alaska SIP to reflect changes to the 

NAAQS and Federal PSD permitting 

requirements. 

110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) requires 

each state to provide (i) necessary 

assurances that the state will have 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out 

the SIP (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of Federal or state law from 

carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), 

(ii) requirements that the state comply 

with the requirements respecting state 

boards under CAA section 128 and (iii) 

necessary assurances that, where the 

state has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any SIP 

provision, the state has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such SIP provision. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission states that ADEC maintains 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority to implement the SIP. The 

submission refers to AS 46.14.030 

‘‘State Air Quality Control Plan’’ which 

provides ADEC statutory authority to act 

for the state and adopt regulations 

necessary to implement the State air 

plan. The submission also references 18 

AAC 50.030 ‘‘State Air Quality Control 

Plan’’ which provides regulatory 

authority to implement and enforce the 

SIP. 

With respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), the submission states 

that Alaska’s regulations on ‘‘conflict of 

interest’’ are found in Title 2- 

Administration, Chapter 50 Alaska 

Public Offices Commission: Conflict of 

Interest, Campaign Disclosure, 

Legislative Financial Disclosure, and 

Regulations of Lobbying (2 AAC 

50.010—2 AAC 50.920). Regulations 

concerning financial disclosure are 

found in Title 2, Chapter 50, Article 1— 

Public Official Financial Disclosure. 

There are no state air quality boards in 

Alaska, however, the ADEC 

commissioner, as an appointed official 

and the head of an executive agency, is 

required to file a financial disclosure 

statement annually by March 15th of 

each year with the Alaska Public Offices 

Commission (APOC). These disclosures 

are publicly available through APOC’s 

Anchorage office. Alaska’s Public 

Officials Financial Disclosure Forms 

and links to Alaska’s financial 

disclosure regulations can be found at 

the APOC Web site: http:// 

doe.alaska.gov/apoc/home.html. 

Additional links to Alaska’s ethics 

statutes and regulations are found at 

http://law.alaska.gov/doclibrary/ 

ethics.html. 

With respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii) and assurances that the 

state has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of the plan 

where the state has relied on local or 

regional government agencies, the 

submission states that ADEC insures 

local programs have adequate resources 

and documents this in the appropriate 

SIP section. Statutory authority for 

establishing local air pollution control 

programs is found at AS 46.14.400 

‘‘Local air quality control programs.’’ 

The submission also states that ADEC 

provides technical assistance and 

regulatory oversight to the Municipality 

of Anchorage (MOA), Fairbanks North 

Star Borough (FNSB) and other local 

jurisdictions to ensure that the State Air 

Quality Control Plan and SIP objectives 

are satisfactorily carried out. ADEC has 

a Memorandum of Understanding with 

the MOA and FNSB that allows them to 

operate air quality control programs in 

their respective jurisdictions. The South 

Central Clean Air Authority has been 

established to aid the MOA and the 

Matanuska-Susitna Borough in pursuing 

joint efforts to control emissions and 

improve air quality in the air-shed 

common to the two jurisdictions. In 

addition, ADEC indicates the 

department works closely with locals on 

nonattainment plans. 

EPA analysis: We are proposing to 

find that the Alaska SIP meets the 

adequate personnel, funding and 

authority requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i). Alaska receives sections 

103 and 105 grant funds from the EPA 

and provides state matching funds 

necessary to carry out SIP requirements. 

For purposes of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), we previously approved 

Alaska’s conflict of interest disclosure 

and ethics regulations as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 128 on 

October 22, 2012 (77 FR 64427). In 

addition, we are proposing to find that 

the State has provided necessary 

assurances that, where the State has 

relied on a local or regional government, 

agency, or instrumentality for the 

implementation of any SIP provision, 

the State has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of the SIP 

with respect to the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS as 

required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(iii). Therefore we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source 

Monitoring System 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) requires (i) 

the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions-related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to the CAA, which 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41506 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission states that ADEC has general 

statutory authority to regulate stationary 

sources via an air permitting program 

which includes permit reporting 

requirements, completeness 

determinations, administrative actions, 

and stack source monitoring 

requirements. The submission states 

ADEC has regulatory authority to 

determine compliance with these 

statutes via information requests and 

ambient air quality investigations. 

Monitoring protocols and test methods 

for stationary sources have been 

adopted by reference including the 

Federal reference and interpretation 

methods for particulate matter. 

The submission references the State’s 

Federally-approved PSD program 

originally approved on February 16, 

1995 (60 FR 8943) and more recently 

approved on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 

45378). Ambient air quality and 

meteorological data that are collected 

for PSD purposes by stationary sources 

are reported to ADEC on a quarterly and 

annual basis. 

The submission refers to the following 

statutory and regulatory provisions 

which provide authority and 

requirements for source emissions 

monitoring, reporting, and correlation 

with emission limits or standards: 

• AS 46.14.140: Emission control 

permit program regulations. 

• AS 46.14.180: Monitoring. 

• 18 AAC 50.035: Documents, 

Procedures, and Methods Adopted by 

Reference. 

• 18 AAC 50.040: Federal Standards 

Adopted by Reference. 

• 18 AAC 50.200: Information 

Requests. 

• 18 AAC 50.201: Ambient Air 

Quality Investigation. 

• 18 AAC 50.220: Enforceable test 

methods. 

• 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Permits. 

• 18 AAC 50.345: Construction and 

Operating Permits: Standard Permit 

Conditions. 

EPA analysis: The Alaska SIP 

establishes compliance requirements for 

sources subject to major and minor 

source permitting to monitor emissions, 

keep and report records, and collect 

ambient air monitoring data. 18 AAC 

50.200 ‘‘Information Requests’’ provides 

ADEC authority to issue information 

requests to an owner, operator, or 

permittee for purposes of ascertaining 

compliance. 18 AAC 50.201 ‘‘Ambient 

Air Quality Investigations’’ provides 

authority to require an owner, operator, 

or permittee to evaluate the effect 

emissions from the source have on 

ambient air quality. In addition, 18 AAC 

50.306 ‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Permits’’ and 18 AAC 

50.544 ‘‘Minor Permits: Content’’ 

provide for establishing permit 

conditions to require the permittee to 

install, use and maintain monitoring 

equipment, sample emissions, provide 

source test reports, monitoring data, 

emissions data, and information from 

analysis, keep records and make 

periodic reports on process operations 

and emissions. This information is 

made available to the public through 

public processes outlined in these SIPapproved rules. 

Additionally, the State is required to 

submit emissions data to the EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is the EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

The EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through the EPA’s 

online Emissions Inventory System. 

States report emissions data for the six 

criteria pollutants and their associated 

precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter, and 

volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA 

compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and 

releases it to the general public through 

the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/eiinformation.html. 

Based on the above analysis, we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Episodes 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) requires 

states to provide for authority to address 

activities causing imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission cites AS 46.03.820 

‘‘Emergency powers’’ which provides 

ADEC with emergency order authority 

where there is an imminent or present 

danger to the health or welfare of the 

people of the state or would result in or 

be likely to result in irreversible or 

irreparable damage to the natural 

resources or environment. The 

submission also refers to18 AAC 50.245 

‘‘Air Episodes and Advisories’’ which 

authorizes ADEC to declare an air alert, 

air warning, or air advisory to notify the 

public and prescribe and publicize 

curtailment action. The submission 

states that ADEC is working to update 

this rule for purposes of PM2.5.

The three major municipalities in 

Alaska (Anchorage, Fairbanks, and 

Juneau) also have ordinances, codes, or 

regulations that enable them to declare 

emergencies in the case of poor air 

quality due to forest fires, volcanoes, 

wood smoke or other air quality 

problem. ADEC is working with the 

FNSB to develop an Emergency Episode 

Contingency Plan for PM2.5 for the FNSB 

nonattainment area as outlined in 40 

CFR subpart H—Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes, and in 

Appendix L to subpart 51 ‘‘Example 

Regulations for Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes.’’ ADEC 

personnel remain in close contact with 

each municipality when an air 

emergency is declared, assisting with air 

monitoring and analysis, and 

implementing safety and control 

measures, as needed. 

EPA analysis: Section 303 of the CAA 

provides authority to the EPA 

Administrator to restrain any source 

from causing or contributing to 

emissions which present an ‘‘imminent 

and substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment.’’ 

The EPA finds that AS 46.03.820 

‘‘Emergency Powers’’ provides 

emergency order authority comparable 

to CAA Section 303. We also find that 

Alaska’s emergency episode rule at 18 

AAC 50.245 ‘‘Air Episodes and 

Advisories,’’ most recently approved by 

the EPA on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 

45378), is consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51 subpart 

H (prevention of air pollution 

emergency episodes, sections 51.150 

through 51.153) for purposes of the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Because Alaska’s SIP 

revision for PM2.5 emergency episode 

planning is in development and has not 

yet been submitted to the EPA, we are 

deferring action on this element for 

purposes of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. We will address the 

requirements in a separate action. 

Based on the foregoing, we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41507 

110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP Revisions 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that 

SIPs provide for revision of such plan (i) 

from time to time as may be necessary 

to take account of revisions of such 

national primary or secondary ambient 

air quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standard, and (ii), 

except as provided in paragraph 

110(a)(3)(C), whenever the 

Administrator finds on the basis of 

information available to the 

Administrator that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements under the CAA. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission refers to statutory authority 

to adopt regulations in order to 

implement the CAA and the state air 

quality control program at AS 

46.03.020(10)(A) ‘‘Powers of the 

Department’’ and AS 46.14.010(a) 

‘‘Emission Control Regulations.’’ The 

submission also refers to regulatory 

authority to implement provisions of the 

CAA at 18 AAC 50.010 ‘‘Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.’’ The submission 

affirms that ADEC regularly update the 

Alaska SIP as new NAAQS are 

promulgated by the EPA. 

EPA analysis: As cited above, the 

Alaska SIP provides for revisions, and 

in practice, Alaska regularly submits SIP 

revisions to the EPA to take into account 

revisions to the NAAQS and other 

Federal regulatory changes. On May 5, 

2014, the EPA proposed to approve 

numerous revisions to the Alaska SIP, 

including updates to Alaska’s rules to 

reflect recent Federal changes to the 

NAAQS and permitting requirements 

(79 FR 25533). We previously approved 

revisions to the Alaska SIP on August 9, 

2013 (78 FR 48611), May 9, 2013 (78 FR 

27071) and January 7, 2013 (78 FR 900). 

We are proposing to approve the Alaska 

SIP as meeting the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan 

Revision Under Part D 

EPA analysis: There are two elements 

identified in CAA section 110(a)(2) not 

governed by the three-year submission 

deadline of CAA section 110(a)(1), 

because SIPs incorporating necessary 

local nonattainment area controls are 

not due within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, but are rather due at the time 

of the nonattainment area plan 

requirements pursuant to section 172 

and the various pollutant specific 

subparts 2–5 of part D. These 

requirements are: (i) Submissions 

required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to 

the extent that subsection refers to a 

permit program as required in part D, 

title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions 

required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) 

which pertain to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D, title I 

of the CAA. As a result, this action does 

not address infrastructure elements 

related to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with 

respect to nonattainment NSR or CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(I). 

110(a)(2)(J): Consultation With 

Government Officials 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires 

states to provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers carrying out 

NAAQS implementation requirements 

pursuant to Section 121. CAA section 

110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to 

notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states 

to meet applicable requirements of part 

C, title I of the CAA related to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility protection. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission refers to statutory authority 

to consult and cooperate with officials 

of local governments, state and Federal 

agencies, and non-profit groups found at 

AS 46.030.020 ‘‘Powers of the 

department’’ paragraphs (3) and (8). The 

submission states that municipalities 

and local air quality districts seeking 

approval for a local air quality control 

program shall enter into a cooperative 

agreement with ADEC according to AS 

46.14.400 ‘‘Local air quality control 

programs’’ paragraph (d). ADEC can 

adopt new CAA regulations only after a 

public hearing as per AS 46.14.010 

‘‘Emission control regulations’’ 

paragraph (a). In addition, the 

submission states that public notice and 

public hearing regulations for SIP 

submission and air quality discharge 

permits are found at 18 AAC 15.050 and 

18 AAC 15.060. Finally, the submission 

also references the Federally-approved 

Alaska PSD program originally 

approved on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 

8943), and Alaska’s Regional Haze SIP 

submitted to the EPA on March 29, 

2011. 

EPA analysis: The EPA finds that the 

Alaska SIP contains provisions for 

consulting with government officials as 

specified in CAA section 121, including 

the Alaska rules for major source 

permitting. Alaska’s PSD program 

provides opportunity and procedures 

for public comment and notice to 

appropriate Federal, state and local 

agencies. We most recently proposed 

approval of revisions to the Alaska PSD 

program on May 5, 2014 (79 FR 25533). 

In addition, the EPA approved the 

Alaska rules that define transportation 

conformity consultation on December 

29, 1999 (64 FR 72940). Finally, on 

February 14, 2013, we approved the 

Alaska Regional Haze SIP (78 FR 

10546). 

ADEC routinely coordinates with 

local governments, states, Federal land 

managers and other stakeholders on air 

quality issues including transportation 

conformity and regional haze, and 

provides notice to appropriate agencies 

related to permitting actions. Alaska 

regularly participates in regional 

planning processes including the 

Western Regional Air Partnership which 

is a voluntary partnership of states, 

tribes, Federal land managers, local air 

agencies and the EPA whose purpose is 

to understand current and evolving 

regional air quality issues in the West. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) 

for consultation with government 

officials for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires the 

public be notified if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. ADEC 

is a partner in the EPA’s AIRNOW and 

Enviroflash Air Quality Alert programs, 

which provide air quality information to 

the public for five major air pollutants 

regulated by the CAA: ground-level 

ozone, particulate matter, carbon 

monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen 

dioxide. Alaska also provides real-time 

air monitoring information to the public 

on the ADEC air quality Web site at 

http://dec.alaska.gov/applications/air/ 

envistaweb/, in addition to air advisory 

information. During the summer 

months, the Fairbanks North Star 

Borough prepares a weekly Air Quality 

forecast for the Fairbanks area. The 

forecast is on their Web site (http:// 

co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/). 

We are therefore proposing to approve 

the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) 

for public notification for the 1997 

PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Turning to the requirement in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA, we have evaluated this 

requirement in the context of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to 

permitting. The EPA originally 

approved Alaska’s PSD program on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
41508 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943), and 

most recently proposed to approve 

revisions on May 5, 2014 (79 FR 25533). 

Alaska’s PSD program generally 

incorporates by reference the Federal 

PSD program requirements at 40 CFR 

52.21. In some cases, ADEC adopted 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.166, rather than 

the comparable provisions of 40 CFR 

52.21, because 40 CFR 51.166 was a 

better fit for a SIP-approved PSD 

program. Upon finalization of our May 

5, 2014 proposed approval, the State’s 

Federally-approved SIP will incorporate 

by reference PSD requirements at 40 

CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 51.166 revised as 

of July 1, 2011. We are therefore 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for PSD for the 1997 

PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. Final action is contingent upon 

the EPA first taking final action on the 

May 5, 2014, proposed approval of 

revisions to the Alaska SIP to reflect 

changes to the NAAQS and Federal PSD 

permitting requirements. We note that 

we believe that our proposed approval 

of element 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to 

PSD is not affected by recent court 

vacaturs of the EPA’s PSD implementing 

regulations. Please see our discussion 

above regarding section 110(a)(2)(C). 

With respect to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

the EPA recognizes that states are 

subject to visibility and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA. In the event of the 

establishment of a new NAAQS, 

however, the visibility and regional 

haze program requirements under part C 

do not change. Thus we find that there 

is no new applicable requirement 

related to visibility triggered under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS 

becomes effective. 

Based on the analysis above, we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 p.m.2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Final action is contingent upon the EPA 

first taking final action on the May 5, 

2014, proposed approval of revisions to 

the Alaska SIP to reflect changes to the 

NAAQS and Federal PSD permitting 

requirements. 

110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality and Modeling/ 

Data 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that 

SIPs provide for (i) the performance of 

such air quality modeling as the 

Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the 

Administrator has established a national 

ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the 

submission, upon request, of data 

related to such air quality modeling to 

the Administrator. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission states that air quality 

modeling is regulated under 18 AAC 

50.215(b) ‘‘Ambient Air Quality 

Analysis Methods.’’ Estimates of 

ambient concentrations and visibility 

impairment must be based on applicable 

air quality models, databases, and other 

requirements specified in the ‘‘EPA’s 

Guideline on Air Quality Models’’ 

which is adopted by reference in 18 

AAC 50.040 ‘‘Federal Standards 

Adopted by Reference.’’ Baseline dates 

and maximum allowable increases are 

found in Table 2 and Table 3, 

respectively, at 18 AAC 50.020 

‘‘Baseline Dates and Maximum 

Allowable Increases.’’ 

EPA analysis: On May 5, 2014, we 

proposed to approve revisions to 18 

AAC 50.215 ‘‘Ambient Air Quality 

Analysis Methods’’ and 18 AAC 

50.040(f) ‘‘Federal Standards Adopted 

by Reference’’ (79 FR 25533). After 

finalizing our May 5, 2014, action, 18 

AAC 50.040(f) ‘‘Federal Standards 

Adopted by Reference’’ will incorporate 

by reference the EPA regulations at 40 

CFR Part 51, Appendix W (Guidelines 

on Air Quality Models) revised as of 

July 1, 2011. In addition, as an example 

of Alaska’s modeling capacity, the State 

submitted the Fairbanks Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan to the EPA 

on June 21, 2004, supported by air 

quality modeling. The maintenance plan 

and supporting modeling was approved 

by the EPA as a SIP revision on July 27, 

2004 (69 FR 44605). Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs 

to require each major stationary source 

to pay permitting fees to cover the cost 

of reviewing, approving, implementing 

and enforcing a permit. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission states that ADEC’s statutory 

authority to assess and collect permit 

fees is established in AS 46.14.240 

‘‘Permit Administration Fees’’ and AS 

46.14.250 ‘‘Emission Fees.’’ The permit 

fees for title V stationary sources are 

assessed and collected by the Air 

Permits Program according to 18 AAC 

50, Article 4. ADEC is required to 

evaluate emission fee rates at least every 

four years and provide a written 

evaluation of the findings (AS 

46.14.250(g); 18 AAC 50.410). The 

submission states that ADEC’s most 

recent emission fee evaluation report 

was completed in October 2010 and that 

the next emission fee review is 

scheduled for 2014. 

EPA analysis: The EPA fully approved 

Alaska’s title V program on July 26, 

2001 (66 FR 38940) with an effective 

data of September 24, 2001. While 

Alaska’s operating permit program is 

not formally approved into the SIP, it is 

a legal mechanism the State can use to 

ensure that ADEC has sufficient 

resources to support the air program, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

SIP. Before the EPA can grant full 

approval, a state must demonstrate the 

ability to collect adequate fees. The 

Alaska title V program included a 

demonstration the state will collect a fee 

from title V sources above the 

presumptive minimum in accordance 

with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). In addition, 

Alaska regulations at 18 AAC 

50.306(d)(2) and 18 AAC 50.311(d)(2) 

require fees for purposes of major NSR 

permitting as specified in 18 AAC 

50.400 through 18 AAC 50.499. 

Therefore, we are proposing to conclude 

that Alaska has satisfied the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 

PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation 

by Affected Local Entities 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(M) requires 

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. 

State submission: The July 9, 2012, 

submission states that ADEC has 

authority to consult and cooperate with 

officials and representatives of any 

organization in the state; and persons, 

organization, and groups, public and 

private using, served by, interested in, 

or concerned with the environment of 

the state. Alaska refers to AS 46.030.020 

‘‘Powers of the department’’ paragraphs 

(3) and (8) which provides authority to 

ADEC to consult and cooperate with 

affected state and local entities. In 

addition, AS 46.14.400 ‘‘Local air 

quality control programs’’ paragraph (d) 

provides authority for local air quality 

control programs and requires 

cooperative agreements between ADEC 

and local air quality control programs 

that specify the respective duties, 

funding, enforcement responsibilities, 

and procedures. 

EPA analysis: The EPA finds that the 

Alaska provisions cited above provide 

for local and regional authorities to 

participate and consult in the SIP 

development process. Therefore we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Proposed Rules 41509 

section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 PM2.5, 

2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

Alaska SIP as meeting the following 

CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 

and 2008 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), 

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

We are also proposing to approve the 

Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it 

applies to prevention of significant 

deterioration and visibility for the 2006 

PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. In 

addition, we are proposing to approve 

the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

As discussed above, final action is 

contingent upon the EPA first taking 

final action on the May 5, 2014, 

proposed approval of revisions to the 

Alaska SIP to reflect changes to the 

NAAQS and Federal PSD permitting 

requirements (79 FR 25533). 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves the state’s law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the state’s 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 

it does not involve technical standards; 

and 

• Does not provide the 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 Alaska, and the 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 3, 2014. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16729 Filed 7–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0183; FRL–9913–72– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Wyoming; 

Revisions to the Air Quality Standards 

and Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

changes to Wyoming’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). On February 

10, 2014, the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality (WDEQ) 

submitted to EPA revisions to the 

Wyoming SIP. These revisions included 

edits to Wyoming Air Quality Standards 

and Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 3, 

section 2(d). In this action, EPA is 

proposing to approve the revisions of 

this provision into the SIP because the 

revisions are consistent with Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requirements. The revisions 

will correct certain deficiencies related 

to the correct treatment of excess 

emissions from sources. EPA will 

address the remaining revisions from 

Wyoming’s February 10, 2014 

submission in separate actions. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2014–0183, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2014– 

0183. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS