Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16785 

unused bridge is an unreasonable 

obstruction to navigation. The Coast 

Guard will initiate a new rulemaking 

when an appropriate methodology is 

developed. 

Authority 

We issue this notice of withdrawal 

under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 494, 

502, 525; Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

Dated: March 9, 2012. 

Dana A. Goward, 

Director, Maritime Transportation Systems, 

United States Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6861 Filed 3–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2011–0883, FRL- 9650–4 ] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Alaska: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittal from the State of Alaska to 

demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

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

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 

18, 1997. EPA is proposing to find that 

the Alaska SIP meets the following 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), 

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

(M). EPA is proposing to concurrently 

approve a number of revisions to the 

Alaska SIP as a necessary condition to 

approving the 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements for ozone. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to approve revisions 

submitted by Alaska to update the SIP 

to include the ozone standard at an 8- 

hour averaging period, the associated 

federal method for measuring and 

monitoring ozone in ambient air, a 

general definition of ozone, federal 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program changes to regulate NOx 

as a precursor to ozone, and provisions 

to satisfy CAA section 128 conflict of 

interest disclosure requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2011–0883, 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/Courier: EPA Region 

10, 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–2011– 

0883. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, 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 telephone number: (206) 

553–6357, email address: 

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

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for the action that 

EPA is proposing? 

III. What infrastructure elements are required 

under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

IV. What is the scope of action on 

infrastructure submittals? 

V. What is EPA’s analysis of Alaska’s 

submittal? 

VI. Scope of Proposed Action 

VII. Proposed Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

from the State of Alaska to demonstrate 

that the SIP meets the requirements of 

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

Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) promulgated 

for ozone on July 18, 1997. EPA is 

proposing to find that the Alaska SIP 

meets the following 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 8- 

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

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

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

that each state, after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated, review their 

SIPs to ensure that they meet the 

requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

elements of section 110(a)(2). The 

Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) submitted a SIP to 

EPA on March 2, 2012, certifying that 

Alaska’s SIP meets the infrastructure 

obligations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 2008 

lead NAAQS. The submittal included an 

attachment analyzing Alaska’s SIP as it 

relates to each section of the 

infrastructure requirements. The state 

has requested parallel processing on the 

March 2, 2012 submittal. Under this 

procedure, the state submits the SIP 

revision to EPA before final adoption by 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16786 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards. ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

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

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division 

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

Guidance). 

the state. EPA reviews this proposed 

state action and prepares a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. EPA publishes its 

notice of proposed rulemaking in the 

Federal Register and solicits public 

comment in approximately the same 

time frame during which the state is 

completing its rulemaking action. ADEC 

provided a schedule to EPA for 

finalizing the March 2, 2012 SIP 

submittal, including public review, state 

adoption, and submittal of the final SIP 

package to EPA. If changes are made to 

the SIP submittal after this proposal, 

such changes will be described in EPA’s 

final rulemaking action and, if such 

changes are significant, EPA may repropose the action and provide an 

additional public comment period. 

At this time, EPA is acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submittal for the 

110(a)(2) required elements as they 

relate to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

This action does not address 

infrastructure requirements with respect 

to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 2008 

lead NAAQS which EPA intends to act 

on at a later time. This action also does 

not address the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS which were previously 

approved by EPA on October 15, 2008 

(73 FR 60955). 

EPA is proposing to concurrently 

approve a number of revisions to the 

Alaska SIP as a necessary condition to 

approving the 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements for ozone. On April 9, 2010 

ADEC submitted a SIP revision to EPA 

which includes, among other things, 

revisions to Alaska Administrative Code 

Chapter 50 ‘‘Air Quality Control’’ to 

include recent changes to the NAAQS 

for PM2.5, ozone, and lead; federal 

reference and interpretation methods for 

monitoring and measuring PM2.5, ozone 

and lead in ambient air; and definitions 

for PM2.5 and ozone. EPA is proposing 

to approve the portions of this SIP 

revision which update the Alaska SIP to 

include the ozone standard at an 8-hour 

averaging period, the associated federal 

method for measuring and monitoring 

ozone in ambient air, and a general 

definition of ozone. On November 19, 

2010, ADEC submitted a SIP revision 

which, among other things, contains 

updates to Alaska’s PSD program. EPA 

is proposing to concurrently approve 

the Alaska PSD program revisions to 

regulate NOX as a precursor to ozone. 

On March 2, 2012, ADEC submitted the 

above-described infrastructure 

certification, in addition to state conflict 

of interest and financial disclosure 

regulations for purposes of meeting the 

requirements of CAA 128 and rule 

changes to meet federal requirements 

related to nitrogen dioxide, fine 

particulate matter and lead. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to approve the 

Alaska state conflict of interest and 

financial disclosure regulations as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 128. EPA will act on the 

remainder of these SIP revisions in 

future actions. 

II. What is the background for the 

action that EPA is proposing? 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

new NAAQS for ozone. EPA revised the 

ozone NAAQS to provide an 8-hour 

averaging period which replaced the 

previous 1-hour averaging period, and 

the level of the NAAQS was changed 

from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 

0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

The CAA requires SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) be submitted by states within 3 years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

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

require states to address basic SIP 

requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the standards, so-called ’’infrastructure’’ 

requirements. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than June 

2000. However, intervening litigation 

over the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

created uncertainty about how to 

proceed, and many states did not 

provide the required infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the newly promulgated 

standard. 

To help states meet this statutory 

requirement for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

EPA issued guidance to address 

infrastructure SIP elements under 

section 110(a)(1) and (2).1 This guidance 

provides that to the extent an existing 

SIP already meets the section 110(a)(2) 

requirements, states need only to certify 

that fact via a letter to EPA. Section 

110(a) imposes the obligation upon 

states to make a SIP submission to EPA 

for a new or revised NAAQS, but the 

contents of that submission may vary 

depending upon the facts and 

circumstances. In particular, the data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s federally-approved SIP already 

contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, states typically have met 

the basic program elements required in 

section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with 

previous ozone standards. 

III. What infrastructure elements are 

required under CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2)? 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

NAAQS is promulgated. 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. 

EPA’s 2007 guidance clarified that 

two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the 3 year 

submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) 

because SIPs incorporating necessary 

local nonattainment area controls are 

not due within 3 years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, but rather are due at the time 

the nonattainment area plan 

requirements are due pursuant to CAA 

section 172. These requirements are: (i) 

Submissions required by 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 section 

110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16787 

2See, Comments of Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket #EPA– 

R05–OAR–2007–1179 (adverse comments on 

proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes 

that these public comments on another proposal are 

not relevant to this rulemaking and do not have to 

be directly addressed in this rulemaking. EPA will 

respond to these comments in the appropriate 

rulemaking action to which they apply. 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, Title I of the CAA. As a result, 

this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to 

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

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

or 110(a)(2)(I). 

This action also does not address the 

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

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS which was 

approved by EPA on October 15, 2008 

(73 FR 60955). Furthermore, EPA 

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

provision on visibility as not being 

triggered by a new NAAQS because the 

visibility requirements in part C are not 

changed by a new NAAQS. 

IV. What is the scope of action on 

infrastructure submittals? 

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various 

states across the country. Commenters 

on EPA’s recent proposals for some 

states raised concerns about EPA 

statements that it was not addressing 

certain substantive issues in the context 

of acting on those infrastructure SIP 

submissions.2 The commenters 

specifically raised concerns involving 

provisions in existing SIPs and with 

EPA’s statements in other proposals that 

it would address two issues separately 

and not as part of actions on the 

infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions during periods of start-up, 

shutdown, or malfunction at sources, 

that may be contrary to the CAA and 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess 

emissions (‘‘SSM’’); and (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

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

purport to permit revisions to SIP 

approved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (‘‘director’s 

discretion’’). EPA notes that there are 

two other substantive issues for which 

EPA likewise stated in other proposals 

that it would address the issues 

separately: (i) Existing provisions for 

minor source new source review 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs (‘‘minor source NSR’’); and (ii) 

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration programs that 

may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80,186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32,526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). In light of the comments, EPA 

believes that its statements in various 

proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs 

with respect to these four individual 

issues should be explained in greater 

depth. It is important to emphasize that 

EPA is taking the same position with 

respect to these four substantive issues 

in this action on the infrastructure SIP 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

submittal from Alaska. 

EPA intended the statements in the 

other proposals concerning these four 

issues merely to be informational, and 

to provide general notice of the 

potential existence of provisions within 

the existing SIPs of some states that 

might require future corrective action. 

EPA did not want states, regulated 

entities, or members of the public to be 

under the misconception that the 

Agency’s approval of the infrastructure 

SIP submission of a given state should 

be interpreted as a reapproval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist 

buried in the larger existing SIP for such 

state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that 

some states may have existing SIP 

approved SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 

but that ‘‘in this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing State provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at facilities.’’ EPA further 

explained, for informational purposes, 

that ‘‘EPA plans to address such State 

regulations in the future.’’ EPA made 

similar statements, for similar reasons, 

with respect to the director’s discretion, 

minor source NSR, and NSR Reform 

issues. EPA’s objective was to make 

clear that approval of an infrastructure 

SIP for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit reapproval of any existing 

provisions that relate to these four 

substantive issues. EPA is reiterating 

that position in this action on the 1997 

8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP for 

Alaska. 

Unfortunately, the commenters and 

others evidently interpreted these 

statements to mean that EPA considered 

action upon the SSM provisions and the 

other three substantive issues to be 

integral parts of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

therefore that EPA was merely 

postponing taking final action on the 

issues in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA’s 

intention. To the contrary, EPA only 

meant to convey its awareness of the 

potential for certain types of 

deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to 

prevent any misunderstanding that it 

was reapproving any such existing 

provisions. EPA’s intention was to 

convey its position that the statute does 

not require that infrastructure SIPs 

address these specific substantive issues 

in existing SIPs and that these issues 

may be dealt with separately, outside 

the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submission of a state. 

To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply 

that it was not taking a full final agency 

action on the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to any 

substantive issue that EPA considers to 

be a required part of acting on such 

submissions under section 110(k) or 

under section 110(c). Given the 

confusion evidently resulting from 

EPA’s statements in those other 

proposals, however, we want to explain 

more fully the Agency’s reasons for 

concluding that these four potential 

substantive issues in existing SIPs may 

be addressed separately from actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions. 

The requirement for the SIP 

submissions at issue arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). That provision 

requires that states must make a SIP 

submission ‘‘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 

that these SIPs are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section 

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

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must meet. EPA has 

historically referred to these particular 

submissions that states must make after 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This 

specific term does not appear in the 

statute, but EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission designed to address basic 

structural requirements of a SIP from 

other types of SIP submissions designed 

to address other different requirements, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ 

submissions required to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required to address the visibility 

protection requirements of CAA section 

169A, new source review permitting 

program submissions required to 

address the requirements of part D, and 

a host of other specific types of SIP 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16788 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) 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 substantive program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must 

have both legal authority to address emergencies 

and substantive contingency plans in the event of 

such an emergency. 

4For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

EPA to be sure that each state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

other states. This provision contains numerous 

terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in 

order to determine such basic points as what 

constitutes significant contribution. 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 25,162 (May 12, 

2005)(defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

5See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25,162, at 63–65 (May 12, 

2005)(explaining relationship between timing 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 

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

6EPA issued separate guidance to states with 

respect to SIP submissions to meet section 

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

NAAQS. See, ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, 

Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006. 

7For 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. 

8 Id., at page 2. 9 Id., at attachment A, page 1. 10 Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised 

by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to 

some substantive issues indicates that the statute is 

not so ‘‘self explanatory,’’ and indeed is sufficiently 

ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in order 

to explain why these substantive issues do not need 

to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs 

and may be addressed at other times and by other 

means. 

submissions that address other specific 

matters. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, 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 provisions, and 

some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive 

provisions.3 Some of the elements of 

section 110(a)(2) are relatively 

straightforward, but others clearly 

require interpretation by EPA through 

rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give 

specific meaning for a particular 

NAAQS.4

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) 

provides that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission 

must meet the list of requirements 

therein, EPA has long noted that this 

literal reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent, insofar as section 

110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 

SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP 

submissions in section 110(a)(1).5 This 

illustrates that EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Similarly, EPA has previously decided 

that it could take action on different 

parts of the larger, general 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for a given NAAQS 

without concurrent action on all 

subsections, such as section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency 

bifurcated the action on these latter 

‘‘interstate transport’’ provisions within 

section 110(a)(2) and worked with states 

to address each of the four prongs of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive 

administrative actions proceeding on 

different tracks with different 

schedules.6 This illustrates that EPA 

may conclude that subdividing the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may 

sometimes be appropriate for a given 

NAAQS where a specific substantive 

action is necessitated, beyond a mere 

submission addressing basic structural 

aspects of the state’s SIP. Finally, 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 and the 

attendant infrastructure SIP submission 

for that NAAQS. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that might be 

necessary for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be 

very different than what might be 

necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, 

the content of an infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element from a 

state might be very different for an 

entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor 

revision to an existing NAAQS.7

Similarly, EPA notes that other types 

of SIP submissions required under the 

statute also must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), and this also 

demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP 

submissions. For example, 

nonattainment SIPs required by part D 

likewise have to meet the relevant 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, 

it is clear that nonattainment SIPs 

would not need to meet the portion of 

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

C, i.e., the PSD requirements applicable 

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs 

required by part D also would not need 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency 

episodes, as such requirements would 

not be limited to nonattainment areas. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of 

the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that 

language in the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. 

Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 

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

EPA has adopted an approach in which 

it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 

this list of elements ‘‘as applicable.’’ In 

other words, EPA assumes that Congress 

could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the 

NAAQS in question, would meet each 

of the requirements, or meet each of 

them in the same way. EPA elected to 

use guidance to make recommendations 

for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA’s 2007 Guidance provided 

recommendations for the infrastructure 

SIP submissions for both the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. Within this guidance 

document, EPA described the duty of 

states to make these submissions to 

meet what the Agency characterized as 

the ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements for SIPs, 

which it further described as the ‘‘basic 

SIP requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the standards.’’ 8 As further 

identification of these basic structural 

SIP requirements, ‘‘attachment A’’ to the 

guidance document included a short 

description of the various elements of 

section 110(a)(2) and additional 

information about the types of issues 

that EPA considered germane in the 

context of such infrastructure SIPs. EPA 

emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment 

A was not intended ‘‘to constitute an 

interpretation of’’ the requirements, and 

was merely a ‘‘brief description of the 

required elements.’’ 9 EPA also stated its 

belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were ‘‘relatively self 

explanatory, and past experience with 

SIPs for other NAAQS should enable 

States to meet these requirements with 

assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 10 For the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16789 

11See, ‘‘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),’’ from William T, 

Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, dated 

September 25, 2009 (the ‘‘2009 Guidance’’). 

12EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a 

specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. 

See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 74 FR 21,639 

(April 18, 2011). 

13EPA has recently utilized 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 EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

75 FR 82,536 (Dec. 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove 

numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency 

determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 

FR 38,664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34,641 (June 

27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 

California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67,062 

(November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); 

and 74 FR 57,051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections 

to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

14EPA has recently disapproved 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 42,342 at 

42,344 (July 21,2010)(proposed disapproval of 

director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4,540 (Jan. 

26, 2011)(final disapproval of such provisions). 

one exception to that general 

assumption, however, i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much 

more specific recommendations. But for 

other infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

for certain elements of the submittals for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed 

that each State would work with its 

corresponding EPA regional office to 

refine the scope of a State’s submittal 

based on an assessment of how the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) should 

reasonably apply to the basic structure 

of the State’s SIP for the NAAQS in 

question. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.11 In the 

2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 

number of additional issues that were 

not germane to the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to 

these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, e.g., the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had 

bifurcated from the other infrastructure 

elements for those specific 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. Significantly, 

neither the 2007 Guidance nor the 2009 

Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, 

director’s discretion, minor source NSR, 

or NSR Reform issues as among specific 

substantive issues EPA expected states 

to address in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give 

any more specific recommendations 

with respect to how states might address 

such issues even if they elected to do so. 

The SSM and director’s discretion 

issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and the minor source NSR and NSR 

Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and 

the 2009 Guidance, however, EPA did 

not indicate to states that it intended to 

interpret these provisions as requiring a 

substantive submission to address these 

specific issues in existing SIP provisions 

in the context of the infrastructure SIPs 

for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 

Guidance merely indicated its belief 

that the states should make submissions 

in which they established that they have 

the basic SIP structure necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. EPA believes that states can 

establish that they have the basic SIP 

structure, notwithstanding that there 

may be potential deficiencies within the 

existing SIP. Thus, EPA’s proposals for 

other states mentioned these issues not 

because the Agency considers them 

issues that must be addressed in the 

context of an infrastructure SIP as 

required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), 

but rather because EPA wanted to be 

clear that it considers these potential 

existing SIP problems as separate from 

the pending infrastructure SIP actions. 

The same holds true for this action on 

the 1997 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP 

for Alaska. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

infrastructure SIP requirement is 

reasonable, because it would not be 

feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 

review of each and every provision of an 

existing SIP 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 that, 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 EPA considers the overall 

effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, 

EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP 

elements from section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a 

given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to 

need a specific SIP revision in light of 

the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for 

example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of 

the absence of underlying EPA 

regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach is a reasonable reading of 

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

statute provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow the 

Agency to take appropriate tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or otherwise to 

comply with the CAA.12 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.13

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on the infrastructure SIP is not 

the appropriate time and place to 

address all potential existing SIP 

problems does not preclude the 

Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action 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 the infrastructure 

SIP, EPA believes that section 

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

bases that the Agency cites in the course 

of addressing the issue in a subsequent 

action.14

V. What is EPA’s analysis of Alaska’s 

submittal? 

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

Control Measures 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to 

include enforceable emission limits and 

other control measures, means or 

techniques, schedules for compliance 

and other related matters. EPA notes 

that the specific nonattainment area 

plan requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

are subject to the timing requirement of 

Section 172, not the timing requirement 

of Section 110(a)(1). 

Alaska’s submittal: Alaska’s SIP 

submittal cites an overview of the 

Alaska environmental and air quality 

laws found at AS 46.03 and AS 46.14 

and regulations found at AAC Title 18 

Environmental Conservation, Chapter 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16790 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

15Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation. ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.’’ 

Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, 

August 11, 1999. 

50 Air Quality Control. The regulations 

include statewide ambient air quality 

standards, major and minor permits, 

transportation conformity and fees, 

among others. A detailed discussion of 

the relevant laws and regulations can be 

found in the technical support 

document (TSD) in the docket for this 

action. 

EPA analysis: Alaska’s SIP meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, subject 

to the following clarifications. First, this 

infrastructure element does not require 

the submittal of regulations or emission 

limitations developed specifically for 

attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

Furthermore, Alaska has no areas 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. As a result, 

Alaska primarily regulates emissions of 

ozone and its precursors through its SIPapproved major and minor source 

permitting programs. 

The current federally-approved 

Alaska ambient air quality standards 

rule at 18 AAC 50.010 contains the 

previously promulgated one-hour ozone 

standard, but not the 1997 ozone 

standard at an 8-hour averaging period. 

Alaska submitted a SIP revision to EPA 

on April 9, 2010, which includes a 

number of updates to incorporate recent 

federal ozone regulatory changes. The 

SIP revision updates Alaska’s ambient 

air quality standards at 18 AAC 50.010 

to include the 2008 ozone standard of 

0.075 ppm at an 8-hour averaging 

period. This revision inherently satisfies 

the requirements for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS because the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm is more 

stringent than the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS of 0.080 ppm. The SIP revision 

also adds a basic definition of ozone at 

18 AAC 50.990(129). In addition, the 

April 9, 2010, SIP revision revises the 

lead-in language of 18 AAC 50.010 to 

reference analytical methods adopted by 

reference at 18 AAC 50.035. The SIP 

revision then incorporates by reference 

these analytical methods (40 CFR part 

50, appendix P: Interpretation of the 

Primary and Secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone) at 18 AAC 50.035(b)(1) and adds 

a reference to 40 CFR part 50 appendix 

P at 18 AAC 50.215(a)(2). EPA is 

proposing to approve these portions of 

the April 9, 2010, SIP revision in order 

to update Alaska’s SIP to reflect the 

most recent changes to the ozone 

NAAQS and related analytical methods. 

EPA is also proposing to concurrently 

approve Alaska’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

In this action, EPA is 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. EPA believes that a number of 

states may have SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the Clean Air Act and 

existing EPA guidance 15 and the 

Agency plans to address such state 

regulations in the future. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a deficient SSM provision to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

rules with regard to director’s discretion 

or variance provisions. EPA believes 

that a number of states may have such 

provisions that are contrary to the Clean 

Air Act and existing EPA guidance (52 

FR 45109), November 24, 1987, and the 

Agency plans to take action in the future 

to address such state regulations. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a director’s discretion or 

variance provision that is contrary to the 

Clean Air Act and EPA guidance to take 

steps to correct the deficiency as soon 

as possible. 

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

Monitoring/Data System 

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 EPA 

upon request. 

Alaska’s submittal: Alaska’s SIP 

submittal references Alaska statutory 

and regulatory authority to conduct 

ambient air monitoring investigations 

relevant to the ozone NAAQS. The 

submittal 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 2011 Alaska Air 

Monitoring Network Plan at http:// 

www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/index.htm. 

There are no nonattainment areas for 

1997 8-hour ozone standard in Alaska. 

ADEC has recently implemented 

monitoring for ozone in the Anchorage 

area, as outlined in the above-referenced 

monitoring network plan. 

Alaska’s SIP submittal states that 

Alaska collects and validates State and 

Local Air Monitoring Stations and 

Special Purpose Monitoring ambient air 

quality monitoring data and reports the 

data to EPA through the Air Quality 

System (AQS) on a quarterly basis. The 

submittal notes that ADEC’s revised 

‘‘Quality Assurance Project Plan for the 

State of Alaska Air Monitoring and 

Quality Assurance Program’’ can be 

found at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/ 

doc/ADEC_AMQA_QAPP_23FEB10- 

final.pdf. 

EPA analysis: A comprehensive air 

quality monitoring plan, intended to 

meet requirements of 40 CFR part 58 

was submitted by Alaska to EPA on 

January 18, 1980 (40 CFR 52.70) and 

approved by EPA on April 15, 1981. 

This air quality monitoring plan has 

been subsequently updated and 

submitted to EPA. The most recent plan 

is dated July 1, 2011, and was approved 

by EPA on October 5, 2011. This plan 

includes, among other things, the 

locations for ozone monitoring. The 

plan is available for public review at 

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/ 

index.htm. 

As discussed above, Alaska submitted 

a SIP revision to EPA on April 9, 2010, 

which includes, among other things, the 

incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 

part 50, appendix P: Interpretation of 

the Primary and Secondary National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Ozone. EPA is proposing to approve the 

incorporation by reference of these 

analytical methods for ozone. Based on 

the foregoing, EPA is proposing to 

approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

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

of Control Measures 

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. 

Alaska’s submittal: Alaska’s SIP 

submittal 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. In 

addition, Alaska’s SIP submittal states 

that a violation of these prohibitions or 

any permit condition can result in civil 

actions, administrative penalties, or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16791 

criminal penalties. In addition, Alaska’s 

SIP submittal refers to regulations 

pertaining to compliance orders and 

enforcement proceedings found in 18 

AAC Chapter 95 Administrative 

Enforcement. Please see the TSD in the 

docket for this action for a detailed 

description. 

EPA analysis: As discussed above, 

EPA is not evaluating nonattainment 

related provisions in this action, such as 

the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D of the CAA. In 

addition, Alaska has no nonattainment 

areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA 

believes the cited Alaska SIP-approved 

provisions provide ADEC with the 

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 environment. 

Enforcement cases may be referred to 

the State Department of Law. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to approve the Alaska 

SIP as meeting the requirements of 

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

enforcement for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

EPA believes Alaska’s PSD program 

generally meets the requirements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, with the 

exception discussed below. EPA 

recently approved changes to Alaska’s 

PSD program on February 9, 2011, to 

reflect changes to the federal PSD 

program relating to the permitting of 

greenhouse gas emissions (76 FR 7116). 

Prior to that, EPA approved revisions to 

Alaska’s PSD program on August 14, 

2007 (72 FR 45378). However, in order 

for Alaska’s SIP-approved PSD program 

to satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 

the program must also properly regulate 

nitrogen oxides as a precursor to ozone. 

On November 29, 2005, EPA 

promulgated the phase 2 

implementation rule for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, which includes requirements 

for PSD programs to treat nitrogen 

oxides as a precursor to ozone (72 FR 

71612). The phase 2 implementation 

rule accordingly updated the regulations 

at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 to 

meet these requirements, effective 

January 30, 2006. This effective date is 

after the July 1, 2004 date of 

incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 

51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 by the current 

federally-approved Alaska SIP. In other 

words, Alaska’s current federallyapproved PSD program does not meet 

the requirements of the phase 2 ozone 

implementation rule. 

On November 19, 2010, Alaska 

submitted a SIP revision that includes, 

among other things, updates to the 

state’s incorporate by reference dates of 

federal PSD regulations. Specifically, 

the SIP revision updates the Alaska SIP 

to incorporate by reference revised 

federal definitions of several terms 

referenced by the Alaska PSD program 

including ‘‘major stationary source,’’ 

‘‘major modification,’’ ‘‘significant’’ and 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ As a result 

of this updated incorporation by 

reference, Alaska’s federally-approved 

PSD program will meet the requirement 

to regulate NOx as a precursor to ozone. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the portion of Alaska’s November 19, 

2010, SIP revision that updates the 

incorporation by reference dates for 40 

CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR part 52 as 

revised as of August 2, 2010, at 18 AAC 

50.040(h) for purposes of the four 

definitions listed above. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the parts of 18 

AAC 50.990 which also reference these 

federal definitions: 18 AAC 50.990(52) 

‘‘major stationary source,’’ 18 AAC 

50.990(53) ‘‘major modification,’’ and 18 

AAC 50.990(92) ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant.’’ As a result, EPA is 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) 

as they relate to PSD for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard, conditioned upon the 

approval of the SIP revisions pertaining 

to the PSD definitions identified above. 

EPA is also proposing to approve 

Alaska’s SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS with respect to the general 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to 

include a program in the SIP that 

regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. In this action, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

state rules with regard to NSR Reform 

requirements for major sources. EPA 

most recently approved changes to 

Alaska’s NSR program, including NSR 

Reform, on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 

45378). 

Alaska’s SIP-approved minor NSR 

program adopted pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulates ozone 

and its precursors. In this action, EPA 

is not proposing to approve or 

disapprove the state’s existing minor 

NSR program itself to the extent that it 

is inconsistent with EPA’s regulations 

governing this program. EPA believes 

that a number of states may have minor 

NSR provisions that are contrary to the 

existing EPA regulations for this 

program. EPA intends to work with 

states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and EPA believes it may be 

time to revisit the regulatory 

requirements for this program to give 

the states an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design a program that 

meets their particular air quality 

concerns, while assuring reasonable 

consistency across the country in 

protecting the NAAQS with respect to 

new and modified minor sources. Based 

on the above analysis, EPA is proposing 

to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

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

Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires 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, or from 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or to protect visibility in another 

state. As noted above, this action does 

not address the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, which were approved by EPA 

on October 15, 2008 (73 FR 60955). 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to 

include provisions insuring compliance 

with the applicable requirements of 

sections 126 and 115 (relating to 

interstate and international pollution 

abatement). Specifically, section 126(a) 

requires new or modified major sources 

to notify neighboring states of potential 

impacts from the source. 

EPA analysis: EPA most recently 

approved changes to Alaska’s PSD 

program on February 9, 2011, to reflect 

changes to the federal PSD program 

relating to the permitting of greenhouse 

gas emissions (76 FR 7116). Prior to 

that, EPA approved revisions to Alaska’s 

PSD program on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 

45378). 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 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2), with 

certain modifications, 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16792 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

As a result, Alaska’s PSD regulations 

provide for notice consistent with the 

requirements of the EPA PSD program. 

The state also has no pending 

obligations under section 115 or 126(b) 

of the Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

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

Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states 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) requires that the 

state comply with the requirements 

respecting state boards under 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. 

Alaska’s submittal: Alaska’s SIP 

submittal certifies that ADEC maintains 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority to implement the SIP. Alaska 

refers to existing SIP provisions to 

address this infrastructure element. 

Please see the TSD in this action for a 

detailed description. Specifically, 

Alaska refers to AS 46.14.030 ‘‘State Air 

Quality Plan’’ which provides ADEC the 

statutory authority to act for the state in 

any negotiations related to the state air 

quality control plan developed under 

the Clean Air Act and provides 

authority for ADEC to adopt regulations 

necessary to implement the SIP. 18 AAC 

50.030 ‘‘State Air Quality Control Plan’’ 

provides the regulatory authority to 

implement and enforce the SIP. 

With regards to CAA section 128 

requirements, Alaska’s submittal states 

that ADEC is submitting existing state 

regulations for approval into the SIP for 

purposes of meeting CAA 128. 

Specifically, Alaska submitted Title 2— 

Administration; Chapter 50—Alaska 

Public Offices Commission: Conflict of 

Interest, Campaign Disclosure, 

Legislative Financial Disclosure, and 

Regulations of Lobbying; Article 1— 

Public Official Financial Disclosure (2 

AAC 50.010—2 AAC 50.200) and Title 

9—Law; Chapter 52—Executive Branch 

Code of Ethics (9 AAC 52.010—9 AAC 

52.990). Copies of these regulations are 

included in the March 2, 2012 SIP 

revision and are being adopted into the 

Alaska SIP for purposes of meeting CAA 

128, through the parallel process 

previously described. ADEC states it is 

submitting these regulations to meet 

CAA 110(a)(2)(E) and CAA 128 for this 

CAA Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

infrastructure certification and for all 

future infrastructure certifications. 

There are no relevant 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 publically 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. 

With regard to assurances that the 

state has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of the plan 

where the state has relied on local or 

regional government agencies, Alaska 

states in its submittal 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.’’ 

In addition, ADEC’s submittal states it 

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 local 

agencies on nonattainment plans. 

EPA analysis: The above-listed laws 

and regulations provide Alaska with 

adequate authority to carry out SIP 

obligations with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Alaska receives 

sections 103 and 105 grant funds from 

EPA and provides state matching funds 

necessary to carry out Alaska’s SIP 

requirements. Alaska has no state 

boards responsible for approving air 

permits or enforcement orders in 

Alaska. However, the ADEC 

commissioner, as head of an executive 

agency that approves permits and 

enforcement orders, must disclose 

potential conflicts of interest as required 

by CAA section 128. In Alaska’s March 

2, 2012 SIP revision, Alaska submitted 

conflict of interest disclosure and ethics 

regulations (2 AAC 50.010–50.200 and 9 

AAC 52.010—9 AAC 52.990) for 

purposes of meeting the infrastructure 

requirement to comply with CAA 

section 128. EPA has reviewed these 

regulations and is proposing to approve 

the Alaska submittal as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 128 and 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Finally, 

Alaska’s March 2, 2012 submittal 

provides assurances of adequate state 

authority when relying on local agencies 

to implement certain provisions of the 

SIP. Therefore EPA is proposing to find 

that Alaska’s SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

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

Monitoring System 

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 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

Alaska’s submittal: Alaska’s SIP 

submittal asserts 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. Alaska’s submittal 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 ozone. 

Alaska’s submittal states the Alaska 

PSD/NSR program was originally 

approved on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 

8943) and most 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. Alaska 

refers to specific laws and regulations in 

the federally-approved SIP which are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16793 

described in detail in the TSD in the 

docket for this action. 

EPA analysis: The provisions cited by 

Alaska provide for monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for sources subject to 

major source permitting. EPA most 

recently approved changes to Alaska’s 

PSD program on February 9, 2011, to 

reflect changes to the federal PSD 

program relating to the permitting of 

greenhouse gas emissions (76 FR 7116). 

Prior to that, EPA approved revisions to 

Alaska’s PSD program on August 14, 

2007 (72 FR 45378). As noted above, 

EPA is proposing to concurrently 

approve portions of a SIP revision 

submitted to EPA by ADEC on 

November 19, 2010, which update the 

Alaska PSD program to regulate NOx as 

a precursor to ozone. Alaska also 

requires minor sources subject to 

permitting under 18 AAC 50 Article 5 

to install, use and maintain monitoring 

equipment, sample emissions according 

to prescribed methods and procedures, 

provide source test reports, monitoring 

data, and emissions data, keep data and 

make periodic reports to ADEC. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

Alaska’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

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

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. 

Alaska’s submittal: The Alaska 

submittal cites air quality laws and 

regulations which provide authority to 

adopt air quality regulations to control, 

prevent, and abate air pollution, 

including emission control regulations 

and stationary source monitoring and 

reporting requirements. Please refer to 

the TSD in this action for a detailed 

discussion. The Alaska submittal also 

cites provisions which provide ADEC 

with authority to act during air episodes 

and advisories. The submittal also 

indicates that three major municipalities 

in Alaska (Municipality of Anchorage, 

Fairbanks North Star Borough, and 

Juneau) also have ordinances, codes, or 

regulations that enable them to declare 

emergencies in the case of poor air 

quality. 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: Alaska’s statute AS 

46.03.820 ‘‘Emergency Powers’’ 

provides for emergency order authority 

consistent with CAA section 303. As 

noted in EPA’s 2007 Guidance, the 

significant harm level for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS shall remain unchanged 

at 0.60 ppm ozone, 2 hour average, as 

indicated in 40 CFR 51.151. EPA 

believes that the existing ozone-related 

provisions of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H 

remain appropriate. Alaska’s SIPapproved regulations at 18 AAC 50.245 

are consistent with the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.151. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve Alaska’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

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

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. 

Alaska’s submittal: Alaska’s SIP 

submittal 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) and AS 

46.14.010(a). Alaska’s submittal also 

refers to regulatory authority to 

implement provisions of the Clean Air 

Act at 18 AAC 50.010. ADEC states the 

department strives to establish 

regulations and update Alaska’s SIP in 

a timely fashion as new NAAQS are 

promulgated by EPA. Please see the TSD 

in the docket for this action for a 

detailed description. 

EPA analysis: EPA believes that the 

provision cited by Alaska provide the 

state with the requisite authority to 

update the SIP, and as a matter of 

practice, Alaska regularly updates the 

SIP to incorporate changes to the 

NAAQS and other federal regulatory 

changes. EPA approved numerous 

changes to Alaska’s SIP on February 5, 

2007 (72 FR 5232) which included 

adoption by reference of updated EPA 

rules. EPA most recently approved 

changes to Alaska’s SIP on February 9, 

2011, to update the state’s PSD program 

to reflect changes to the federal PSD 

program relating to the permitting of 

greenhouse gas emissions (76 FR 7116). 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

Alaska’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(H) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

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

Revision Under Part D 

There are two elements identified in 

section 110(a)(2) not governed by the 3 

year submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area 

controls are not due within 3 years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, but rather due at the time of 

the nonattainment area plan 

requirements pursuant to section 172. 

These requirements are: (i) Submissions 

required by 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 section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to 

the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D, Title I of the 

CAA. As discussed earlier, this action 

does not address infrastructure elements 

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

respect to nonattainment NSR or section 

110(a)(2)(I). 

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

Government Officials 

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 relating to consultation. 

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, 

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

meet applicable requirements of Part C 

related to prevention of significant 

deterioration and visibility protection. 

Alaska’s submittal: Alaska’s SIP 

submittal 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(3), (8). Please see the 

TSD in the docket for this action for a 

detailed description. Alaska’s submittal 

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(d). 

ADEC can adopt new CAA regulations 

only after a public hearing as per AS 

46.14.010(a). In addition, Alaska’s 

submittal states that public notice and 

public hearing regulations for SIP 

submittals and air quality discharge 

permits are found at 18 AAC 15.050 and 

18 AAC 15.060. Finally, Alaska’s 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16794 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

submittal also includes reference to the 

state’s PSD/NSR program originally 

approved on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 

8943), and most recently approved on 

August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378). The 

submittal states that Alaska’s PSD 

program implements the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS and relevant requirements of 

the phase 2 ozone implementation rule. 

Alaska submitted its Regional Haze SIP 

on April 4, 2011, to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 

EPA analysis: EPA finds that Alaska’s 

SIP contains provisions for consulting 

with government officials as specified in 

CAA 121. ADEC routinely coordinates 

with local governments, states, federal 

land managers and other stakeholders 

on air quality issues 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 U.S. EPA whose purpose is to 

understand current and evolving 

regional air quality issues in the West. 

EPA is proposing to approve Alaska’s 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation 

with government officials for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

ADEC is a partner in EPA’s AIRNOW 

and Enviroflash Air Quality Alert 

programs. Alaska provides the daily air 

quality index to the public on their Web 

site at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/aaqm/ 

Default.htm and provides air quality 

advisory information at https:// 

myalaska.state.ak.us/dec/air/ 

airtoolsweb/Advisories.aspx. ADEC also 

provides guidelines on how to minimize 

air quality impacts from open burning 

and how residents can protect 

themselves from the health effects of 

wildfires. EPA is proposing to approve 

Alaska’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(J) for public notification for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Turning to the requirement in section 

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

applicable requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA, EPA has evaluated this 

requirement in the context of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to permitting. 

EPA most recently approved changes to 

Alaska’s PSD program on February 9, 

2011, to reflect changes to the federal 

PSD program relating to the permitting 

of greenhouse gas emissions (76 FR 

7116). EPA also approved revisions to 

Alaska’s PSD program on August 14, 

2007 (72 FR 45378). As described above, 

EPA is proposing in this action to 

approve portions of a SIP revision 

submitted by ADEC on November 19, 

2010, which updates Alaska’s federallyapproved SIP to regulate NOX as a 

precursor to ozone. Alaska has no 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. EPA is also proposing 

to approve Alaska’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(J) for PSD for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

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 visibility 

obligation triggered under section 

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

becomes effective. As a result of the 

above analysis, EPA is proposing to 

approve Alaska’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

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

Data 

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. 

Alaska’s submittal: Alaska’s SIP 

submittal states that air quality 

modeling is conducted 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 are 

adopted by reference in 18 AAC 

50.040(f). This regulation allows some 

provisions to exclude concentrations 

attributable to temporary construction 

activity for a new or modified source, or 

to new sources outside the United 

States. Baseline dates and maximum 

allowable increases are found in Table 

2 and Table 3, respectively, at 18 AAC 

50.020. 

EPA analysis: EPA previously 

approved Alaska’s regulations on air 

quality modeling into the SIP. We most 

recently approved 18 AAC 50.215 

‘‘Ambient Air Quality Analysis 

Methods’’ (except (a)(3)) and 18 AAC 

50.040(f) which incorporates by 

reference EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix W (Guidelines on Air 

Quality Models) revised as of July 1, 

2004, on September 13, 2007 (72 FR 

45378). While Alaska has no 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone 

standard, Alaska has submitted 

modeling data to EPA related to other 

pollutants. For example, Alaska 

submitted the Fairbanks Carbon 

Monoxide Maintenance Plan to EPA on 

June 21, 2004, supported by air quality 

modeling. The maintenance plan and 

supporting modeling was approved by 

EPA as a SIP revision on July 27, 2004 

(69 FR 44605). Therefore, EPA is 

proposing to approve Alaska’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

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

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, until such time 

as the SIP fee requirement is superseded 

by EPA’s approval of the state’s title V 

operating permit program. 

Alaska’s submittal: Alaska’s SIP 

submittal states that ADEC’s statutory 

authority to assess and collect permit 

fees is established in AS 46.14.240 and 

AS 46.14.250. The permit fees for Title 

V stationary sources are assessed and 

collected by the Air Permits Program 

according to 18 AAC Article 4. The Air 

Permits Program 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 submittal 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: EPA fully approved 

Alaska’s title V program on July 26, 

2001 (66 FR 38940) with an effective 

data of September 24, 2001. EPA 

regularly reviews ADEC’s title V fee 

program to determine if the fee structure 

is adequate to pay for the program and 

assure the funding is only going toward 

title V implementation. While Alaska’s 

operating permit program is not 

formally approved into the state’s 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 EPA can grant full approval, 

a state must demonstrate the ability to 

collect adequate fees. Alaska’s 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16795 

70.9(b)(2)(i). Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Alaska’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

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

by Affected Local Entities 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to 

provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. 

Alaska’s submittal: Alaska’s SIP 

submittal cities AS 46.03.020 ‘‘Powers 

of the Department’’ which provides 

authority to ADEC to consult with and 

cooperate with ‘‘officials and 

representatives of any nonprofit 

corporation or organization in the state’’ 

and ‘‘persons, organizations, and 

groups, public and private, using, 

served by, interested in, or concerned 

with the environment of the state.’’ This 

section also provides authority to ADEC 

to ‘‘advise and cooperate with 

municipal, regional, and other local 

agencies and officials in the state, to 

carry out the purposes of this chapter.’’ 

Please see the TSD in the docket for this 

action for a detailed description. 

EPA analysis: AS 46.03.020 provides 

authority for local and regional 

authorities to participate and consult in 

the SIP development process. In 

addition, AS 46.14.400(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. 

Therefore EPA proposes to find that 

Alaska’s SIP meets the requirements of 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

VI. Scope of Proposed Action 

The SIP approval does not extend to 

sources or activities located in Indian 

Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. 

EPA will continue to implement the 

CAA in Indian Country in Alaska 

because ADEC has not adequately 

demonstrated authority over sources 

and activities located within the exterior 

boundaries of the Annette Island 

Reserve and other areas of Indian 

Country in Alaska. 

VII. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP 

submittal from the State of Alaska to 

demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

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

of the CAA for the NAAQS promulgated 

for ozone on July 18, 1997. EPA is 

proposing to approve in full the 

following section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure elements for Alaska for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), 

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

EPA is taking no action on 

infrastructure elements (D)(i) and (I) for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is 

proposing to concurrently approve a 

number of revisions to the Alaska SIP as 

a necessary condition to approving the 

110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for 

ozone. Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve revisions submitted by the state 

to revise the Alaska SIP to include the 

ozone standard at an 8-hour averaging 

period, the associated federal method 

for measuring and monitoring ozone in 

ambient air, a general definition of 

ozone, federal Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program changes to 

regulate NOX as a precursor to ozone, 

and regulations to meet CAA section 

128. This action is being taken under 

section 110 and part C of the CAA. 

VIII. 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, 

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 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in Alaska, and EPA notes that it 

will not impose substantial direct costs 

on tribal governments or preempt tribal 

law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, and 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 9, 2012. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6923 Filed 3–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2012–0032, FRL -9651–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Operating 

Permits Program; Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico; Administrative Changes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Puerto Rico Regulations 

for the Control of Atmospheric 

Pollution, submitted to EPA by the 

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality 

Board (PREQB) on July 13, 2011. This 

action proposes to approve revisions to 

Rules 102, 111, 115, 116, 609 and 

Appendix A. Generally the revisions to 

the regulations involve administrative 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS