[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16785-16795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6923]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 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:
    <bullet> www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7426454459240116181d172b371b1919111a0007341104155a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8bd9babba6dbfee9e7e2e8d4c8e4e6e6eee5fff8cbeefbeaa5ece4fd">[email protected]</span></a>
    <bullet> Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
    <bullet> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80e8e1ececaeebf2e9f3f4e9eec0e5f0e1aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fb939a9797d5908992888f9295bb9e8b9ad59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>, 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 16786]]

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 re-propose 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF>, ozone, and 
lead; federal reference and interpretation methods for monitoring and 
measuring PM<INF>2.5</INF>, ozone and lead in ambient air; and 
definitions for PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, 
October 2, 2007 (2007 Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the 
applicable requirements of part D.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; 
public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
and visibility protection.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
    <bullet> 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 16787]]

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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated 
May 31, 2011. Docket <greek-i>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 16788]]

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

    \3\ For 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.
    \4\ For 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 NO<INF>X</INF> SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25,162 
(May 12, 2005)(defining, among other things, the phrase ``contribute 
significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \5\ See, 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)).
    \6\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP 
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 
1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
    \7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS.
    EPA's 2007 Guidance provided recommendations for the infrastructure 
SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 16789]]

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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific 
recommendations. But for other infrastructure SIP submittals, and for 
certain elements of the submittals for the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations 
to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS, but 
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA 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).
    \13\ EPA 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 Emitting-Sources 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).
    \14\ EPA 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 16790]]

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

    \15\ Steven 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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 federally-approved 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.

[[Page 16792]]

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

[[Page 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 SIP-approved 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

[[Page 16794]]

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 
federally-approved SIP to regulate NO<INF>X</INF> 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

[[Page 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>