```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41496-41509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16729]

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

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

[[Page 41497]]

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 ([micro]/m\3\) to 35 
[micro]/m\3\, and retaining the current annual PM2.5 
standard at 15 [micro]/m\3\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ William 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.
    \2\ William 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.
    \3\ Stephen 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 41498]]

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

[[Page 41499]]

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, 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)).
    \6\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, 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).
    \8\ On 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 41500]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 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.
    \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.
    \12\ The EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions 
regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SIP-approved 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ By 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 41501]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For 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).
    \15\ The 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).
    \16\ See, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 41502]]

     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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 41504]]

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 sub-element, 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 41506]]

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 SIP-
approved 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.

[[Page 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[n x dash]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

[[Page 41508]]

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

[[Page 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
```