Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47103 

the state, the Federal Government, other 

states, interstate agencies, groups, 

political subdivisions, and industries 

affected by the provisions of this act, 

rules, or policies of the department.’’ 

Furthermore, FDEP has demonstrated 

consultation with, and participation by, 

affected local entities through its work 

with local political subdivisions during 

the developing of its Transportation 

Conformity SIP and Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that Florida’s 

SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

local entities related to the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of the elements 

related to the ambient air quality 

monitoring and data system of section 

110(a)(2)(B), the PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), 

and (J), and the interstate transport 

provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states of prongs 1 and 2 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA is proposing to 

approve Florida’s January 22, 2013, SIP 

submission to incorporate provisions 

into the Florida SIP to address 

infrastructure requirements for the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS. EPA is proposing 

to approve portions of Florida’s 

infrastructure submission for the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS because this 

submission is consistent with section 

110 of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 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 state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 8, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17055 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0133, FRL–9949–33– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Alaska: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Whenever a new or revised 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) is promulgated, states must 

submit a plan for the implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement of such 

standard, commonly referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve the May 12, 

2015 Alaska State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission as meeting the 

infrastructure requirements for the 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 19, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2016–0133, at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from http://

www.regulations.gov. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 

video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 

written comment. The written comment 

is considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47104 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

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

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

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

information that is restricted by statute 

from disclosure. Certain other material, 

such as copyrighted material, is not 

placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air and Waste, EPA Region 10, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357 or 

hall.kristin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Infrastructure Elements 

III. EPA Approach to Review of Infrastructure 

SIP Submissions 

IV. EPA Evaluation 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On January 22, 2010, the EPA 

established a primary NO2 NAAQS at 

100 parts per billion (ppb), averaged 

over one hour, supplementing the 

existing annual standard (75 FR 6474). 

On June 2, 2010, the EPA promulgated 

a revised primary SO2 NAAQS at 75 

ppb, based on a three-year average of the 

annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily 

maximum concentrations (75 FR 35520). 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that 

states submit SIPs meeting CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three 

years after promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS. CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) require states to address basic 

SIP elements, including but not limited 

to emissions inventories, monitoring, 

and modeling to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of the NAAQS, the socalled infrastructure requirements. On 

September 13, 2013, the EPA issued 

guidance to address the infrastructure 

requirements for multiple standards, 

including the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS.1

On May 12, 2015, the Alaska 

Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) made a 

submission for purposes of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2010 

NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. We note 

that the submission also included 

revisions to Alaska’s transportation 

conformity regulations, approved on 

September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53735), and 

updates to general air quality and 

permitting regulations, approved on 

May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511). 

II. Infrastructure Elements 

CAA section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIP submissions after a new or revised 

standard is promulgated. CAA section 

110(a)(2) lists specific elements that 

states must meet for infrastructure SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. These 

requirements include SIP infrastructure 

elements such as modeling, monitoring, 

and emissions inventories that are 

designed to implement, maintain and 

enforce 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 applicable 

requirements of part D. 

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

The EPA’s guidance document 

clarified that two elements identified in 

CAA section 110(a)(2) are not governed 

by the three-year submission deadline of 

CAA section 110(a)(1) because SIPs 

incorporating necessary local 

nonattainment area controls are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather, are 

due at the time the nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due, pursuant to 

CAA section 172 and the various 

pollutant specific subparts 2–5 of part 

D. These requirements are: (i) 

Submissions required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection 

refers to a permit program as required in 

part D, title I of the CAA, and (ii) 

submissions required by CAA section 

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

nonattainment planning requirements of 

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

this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to CAA 

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

nonattainment new source review 

(NSR), nor does it address CAA section 

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

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

provision on visibility as not triggered 

by a new or revised NAAQS, because 

the visibility requirements in part C, 

title I of the CAA are not changed by a 

new or revised NAAQS. 

III. EPA Approach to Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submissions 

The EPA is acting upon the May 12, 

2015, submission from Alaska that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states 

to make a SIP submission of this type 

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

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

must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 

years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),’’ and these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

the EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

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

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

The EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

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

as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, the EPA 

uses the term to distinguish this 

particular type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by the EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47105 

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

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

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

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

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

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

3See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

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

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

relationship between timing requirement of section 

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

4The EPA notes that this ambiguity within 

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

various subparts of part D set specific dates for 

submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 

designated nonattainment areas for various 

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

specific dates for submission of emissions 

inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these 

specific dates are necessarily later than three years 

after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS. 

5See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

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

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

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of the EPA’s 2008 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) NSR rule), and ‘‘Approval 

and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate 

Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (the 

EPA’s final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

6On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to the EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

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

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

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

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

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

42997), the EPA took separate proposed and final 

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

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submission. 

7For example, implementation of the 1997 fine 

particulate matter NAAQS required the deployment 

of a system of new monitors to measure ambient 

levels of that new indicator species for the new 

NAAQS. 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.2 The 

EPA therefore believes that while the 

timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) 

is unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, the EPA believes that the list 

of required elements for infrastructure 

SIP submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for the 

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

and section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while the 

EPA has long noted that this literal 

reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent and would create a conflict 

with the nonattainment provisions in 

part D of title I of the CAA, which 

specifically address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.3 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements, and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires the EPA to 

establish a schedule for submission of 

such plans for certain pollutants when 

the Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

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

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.4 This ambiguity illustrates 

that, rather than apply all the stated 

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

strict literal sense, the EPA must 

determine which provisions of section 

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

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

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

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether the 

EPA must act upon such SIP submission 

in a single action. Although section 

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

plan’’ to meet these requirements, the 

EPA interprets the CAA to allow states 

to make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, the EPA can elect to 

act on such submissions either 

individually or in a larger combined 

action.5 Similarly, the EPA interprets 

the CAA to allow it to take action on the 

individual parts of one larger, 

comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submission for a given NAAQS, without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submission. For example, the EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submission.6

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

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

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, the EPA notes that not every 

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

relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in 

the same way, for each new or revised 

NAAQS. The states’ attendant 

infrastructure SIP submissions for each 

NAAQS therefore could be different. For 

example, the monitoring requirements 

that a state might need to meet in its 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

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

be very different for different pollutants, 

for example, because the content and 

scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.7

The EPA notes that interpretation of 

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

the EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, the EPA also has to 

identify and interpret the relevant 

elements of section 110(a)(2) that 

logically apply to these other types of 

SIP submissions. For example, section 

172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan 

SIP submissions required by part D have 

to meet the ‘‘applicable requirements’’ 

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

attainment plan SIP submissions must 

meet the requirements of section 

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

emission limits and control measures, 

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

agency resources and authority. By 

contrast, it is clear that attainment plan 

SIP submissions required by part D 

would not need to meet the portion of 

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

PSD program required in part C of title 

I of the CAA, because PSD does not 

apply to a pollutant for which an area 

is designated nonattainment, and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

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

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

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

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

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

in the context of acting on a particular 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47106 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

8The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the 

CAA requires the EPA to provide guidance or to 

promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and 

requires the submission of infrastructure SIP 

submissions, regardless of whether or not the EPA 

provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 

submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in 

order to assist states, as appropriate. 

9 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

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

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

10The EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did 

not make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions regarding section 

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

11Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, the 

EPA’s interpretation of the CAA with respect to the 

approvability of affirmative defense provisions in 

SIPs has changed. See ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement 

and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to 

SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP 

Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess 

Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and 

Malfunction,’’ 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a 

result, EPA’s 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no 

longer represents the EPA’s view concerning the 

validity of affirmative defense provisions, in light 

of the requirements of section 113 and section 304. 

12By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were 

to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption or affirmative defense for 

excess emissions during SSM events, then the EPA 

would need to evaluate that provision for 

compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA 

requirements in the context of the action on the 

infrastructure SIP. 

SIP submission. In other words, the EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, the EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

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

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, the EPA has elected to 

use guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.8 The EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).9 The EPA 

developed this document to provide 

states with up-to-date guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs for any new or 

revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, 

the EPA describes the duty of states to 

make infrastructure SIP submissions to 

meet basic structural SIP requirements 

within three years of promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS. The EPA also 

made recommendations about many 

specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) 

that are relevant in the context of 

infrastructure SIP submissions.10 The 

guidance also discusses the 

substantively important issues that are 

germane to certain subsections of 

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

interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP 

submissions need to address certain 

issues, and need not address others. 

Accordingly, the EPA reviews each 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

compliance with the applicable 

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

as appropriate. 

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

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders, and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, the EPA reviews infrastructure 

SIP submissions to ensure that the 

state’s SIP appropriately addresses the 

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

and section 128. The 2013 Guidance 

explains the EPA’s interpretation that 

there may be a variety of ways by which 

states can appropriately address these 

substantive statutory requirements, 

depending on the structure of an 

individual state’s permitting or 

enforcement program (e.g., whether 

permits and enforcement orders are 

approved by a multi-member board or 

by a head of an executive agency). 

However they are addressed by the 

state, the substantive requirements of 

section 128 are necessarily included in 

the EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure 

SIP submissions because section 

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

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, the EPA’s review 

of infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

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

(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and (a)(2)(J) focuses upon 

the structural PSD program 

requirements contained in part C and 

the EPA’s PSD regulations. Structural 

PSD program requirements include 

provisions necessary for the PSD 

program to address all regulated sources 

and NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gases. By contrast, structural 

PSD program requirements do not 

include provisions that are not required 

under the EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

51.166, but are merely available as an 

option for the state, such as the option 

to provide grandfathering of complete 

permit applications with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the 

latter optional provisions are types of 

provisions the EPA considers irrelevant 

in the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

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

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

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

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

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates 

whether the state has an EPA-approved 

minor new source review program and 

whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

the EPA does not think it is necessary 

to conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and the EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

the EPA does not believe that an action 

on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is necessarily the 

appropriate type of action in which to 

address possible deficiencies in a state’s 

existing SIP. These issues include: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions from sources during periods 

of startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

that may be contrary to the CAA and the 

EPA’s policies addressing such excess 

emissions (‘‘SSM’’); 11 (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

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

may be contrary to the CAA because 

they purport to allow revisions to SIPapproved emissions limits while 

limiting public process or not requiring 

further approval by the EPA; and (iii) 

existing provisions for PSD programs 

that may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of the EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

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

believes it may approve an 

infrastructure SIP submission without 

scrutinizing the totality of the existing 

SIP for such potentially deficient 

provisions and may approve the 

submission even if it is aware of such 

existing provisions.12 It is important to 

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

infrastructure SIP submission should 

not be construed as explicit or implicit 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47107 

13For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah 

to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related 

to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 14The EPA has used this authority to correct 

errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to 

PSD programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). The EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA section 

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

that the Agency determined it had approved in 

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

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

Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada 

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

(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 

(November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and 

Nevada SIPs). 

15See, e.g., the EPA’s disapproval of a SIP 

submission from Colorado on the grounds that it 

would have included a director’s discretion 

provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, 

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

42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed 

disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 

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

provisions). 

re-approval of any existing potentially 

deficient provisions that relate to the 

three specific issues just described. 

The EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

The EPA believes that this approach to 

the review of a particular infrastructure 

SIP submission is appropriate, because 

it would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

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

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

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and the EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when the EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. The EPA believes that 

a better approach is for states and the 

EPA to focus attention on those 

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

most likely to warrant a specific SIP 

revision due to the promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, the EPA’s 2013 

Guidance gives simpler 

recommendations with respect to 

carbon monoxide than other NAAQS 

pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

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

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

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

Finally, the EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

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

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow the EPA to take 

appropriately tailored action, depending 

upon the nature and severity of the 

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

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

whenever the EPA determines that a 

state’s SIP is substantially inadequate to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS, to 

mitigate interstate transport, or to 

otherwise comply with the CAA.13

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

correct errors in past actions, such as 

past approvals of SIP submissions.14

Significantly, the EPA’s determination 

that an action on a state’s infrastructure 

SIP submission is not the appropriate 

time and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude the EPA’s subsequent reliance 

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

part of the basis for action to correct 

those deficiencies at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on an infrastructure SIP 

submission, the EPA believes that 

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

statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 

the course of addressing such deficiency 

in a subsequent action.15

IV. EPA Evaluation 

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

Control Measures 

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

SIPs to include enforceable emission 

limits and other control measures, 

means or techniques (including 

economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance, as may 

be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of the CAA. 

State submission: The submission 

cites Alaska environmental and air 

quality laws set forth at Alaska Statutes 

(AS) Chapters 46.03 Environmental 

Conservation and 46.14 Air Quality 

Control, and regulations set forth at 18 

AAC 50 Alaska Administrative Code 

Title 18 Environmental Conservation, 

Chapter 50 Air Quality Control (18 AAC 

50). The relevant regulations are listed 

below: 

• 18 AAC 50.010: Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

• 18 AAC 50.015: Air Quality 

Designations, Classifications, and 

Control Regions. 

• 18 AAC 50.040: Federal Standards 

Adopted by Reference. 

• 18 AAC 50.055: Industrial Processes 

and Fuel Burning Equipment. 

• 18 AAC 50.060: Pulp Mills. 

• 18 AAC 50.260: Guidelines for Best 

Available Retrofit Technology Under the 

Regional Haze Rule. 

• 18 AAC 50.302: Construction 

Permits. 

• 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Permits. 

• 18 AAC 50.345: Construction and 

Operating Permits: Standard Permit 

Conditions. 

• 18 AAC 50.508: Minor Permits 

Requested by the Owner or Operator. 

• 18 AAC 50.540: Minor Permit 

Application. 

• 18 AAC 50.542: Minor Permit 

Review and Issuance. 

• 18 AAC Chapter 53 Fuel 

Requirements for Motor Vehicles. 

EPA analysis: On September 19, 2014, 

the EPA approved numerous revisions 

to the Alaska SIP, including updates to 

18 AAC 50.010 Ambient Air Quality 

Standards to reflect revisions to the 

NAAQS, including the 2010 NO2 and 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (79 FR 56268). In 

addition, the EPA recently approved 

updates to a number of regulations in 18 

AAC 50 on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511). 

Alaska generally regulates emissions 

of NO2, and SO2 through its SIPapproved major and minor new source 

review (NSR) permitting programs, in 

addition to other rules described below. 

We note that there are no areas in 

Alaska currently designated 

nonattainment for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS or the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and 

that the EPA has not yet completed 

designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

However, the EPA does not consider SIP 

requirements triggered by the 

nonattainment area mandates in part D, 

title I of the CAA to be governed by the 

submission deadline of CAA section 

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

measures for purposes of attainment 

planning under part D, title I of the CAA 

are due on a different schedule than 

infrastructure SIPs. 

Alaska’s major NSR program for 

attainment and unclassifiable areas 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47108 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

16The EPA issued a final action titled ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for 

Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA’s SSM 

Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction: Final Rule.’’ 

This rulemaking responds to a petition for 

rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club that concerns 

SSM provisions in 39 states’ SIPs (June 12, 2015, 

80 FR 33840). 

generally incorporates certain Federal 

PSD program regulations by reference 

into the Alaska SIP. The EPA most 

recently approved revisions to Alaska’s 

PSD permitting program on May 19, 

2016 (81 FR 31511). The current Alaska 

SIP-approved PSD permitting program 

incorporates by reference specific 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR 

51.166 as of December 9, 2013. 

With respect to Alaska’s minor NSR 

permitting program, we have 

determined that the program regulates 

minor sources of NO2 and SO2. In 

addition, Alaska’s SIP contains rules 

that establish controls to limit 

combustion-generated pollutants. These 

controls include incinerator emission 

standards, emission limits for specific 

industrial processes and fuel burning 

equipment, emission limits for pulp 

mills, visible emission limits on marine 

vessel emissions, and fuel requirements 

for motor vehicles. Based on the 

foregoing, we are proposing to approve 

the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

In this action, we are not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

Alaska provisions with respect to excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, or 

malfunction (SSM) of operations at a 

facility. The EPA believes that a number 

of states may have SSM provisions that 

are contrary to the CAA and existing 

EPA guidance and the EPA is 

addressing such state regulations in a 

separate action.16 In the meantime, we 

encourage any state having a deficient 

SSM provision to take steps to correct 

it as soon as possible. 

In addition, we are not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

Alaska rules with respect to director’s 

discretion or variance provisions. The 

EPA believes that a number of states 

may have such provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (e.g., November 24, 1987, 52 

FR 45109), and the EPA plans to take 

action in the future to address such state 

regulations through appropriate 

statutory mechanisms. In the meantime, 

we encourage any state having a 

director’s discretion or variance 

provision that is contrary to the CAA 

and EPA guidance to take steps to 

correct the deficiency as soon as 

possible. 

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

Monitoring/Data System 

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

SIPs to include provisions to provide for 

the establishment and operation of 

ambient air quality monitors, collecting 

and analyzing ambient air quality data, 

and making these data available to the 

EPA upon request. 

State submission: The submission 

references Alaska statutory and 

regulatory authority to conduct ambient 

air monitoring investigations. AS 

46.03.020 Powers of the department 

paragraph (5) provides authority to 

undertake studies, inquiries, surveys, or 

analyses essential to the 

accomplishment of the purposes of 

ADEC. AS 46.14.180 Monitoring 

provides authority to require sources to 

monitor emissions and ambient air 

quality to demonstrate compliance with 

applicable permit program 

requirements. 18 AAC 50.201 Ambient 

Air Quality Investigation provides 

authority to require a source to do 

emissions testing, reduce emissions, and 

apply controls to sources. 

The submission references ADEC’s 

revised Quality Assurance Project Plan 

for the State of Alaska Air Monitoring 

and Quality Assurance Program as 

amended through February 23, 2010. 

This document is adopted by reference 

into the State Air Quality Control Plan 

at 18 AAC 50.030(4). Validated State & 

Local Air Monitoring Stations, and 

Special Purpose Monitoring ambient air 

quality monitoring data are verified, and 

then electronically reported to the EPA 

through the Air Quality System on a 

quarterly basis. 

The submission also references 18 

AAC 50.035 Documents, Procedures, 

and Methods Adopted by Reference 

which include the most current, Federal 

reference and interpretation methods for 

NO2 and SO2. These methods are used 

by ADEC in its ambient air quality 

monitoring program to determine 

compliance with the standards. The 

submission cites the regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring 

found at 18 AAC 50.201 Ambient Air 

Quality Investigation, 18 AAC 50.215 

Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods, 

and 18 AAC 50.220 Enforceable Test 

Methods. 

EPA analysis: A comprehensive air 

quality monitoring plan, intended to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 

was submitted by Alaska to the EPA on 

January 18, 1980 (40 CFR 52.70) and 

approved by the EPA on April 15, 1981. 

This air quality monitoring plan has 

been subsequently updated and 

approved by the EPA on October 28, 

2015. The plan includes the 

implementation of NO2 and SO2

monitoring as required in 40 CFR part 

58. We are proposing to approve the 

Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 2010 

NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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

of Control Measures 

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

states to include a program providing 

for enforcement of all SIP measures and 

the regulation of construction of new or 

modified stationary sources, including a 

program to meet PSD and 

nonattainment NSR requirements. 

State submission: The submission 

references ADEC’s statutory authority to 

regulate stationary sources via an air 

permitting program established in AS 

46.14 Air Quality Control, Article 01 

General Regulations and Classifications 

and Article 02 Emission Control Permit 

Program. The submission states that 

ADEC’s PSD/NSR programs were 

approved by the EPA on August 14, 

2007 (72 FR 45378). The submission 

references the following regulations: 

• 18 AAC 50.020: Baseline Dates and 

Maximum Allowable Increases. 

• 18 AAC 50.035: Documents, 

Procedures and Methods Adopted by 

Reference. 

• 18 AAC 50.040: Federal Standards 

Adopted by Reference. 

• 18 AAC 50.045: Prohibitions. 

• 18 AAC 50.110: Air Pollution 

Prohibited. 

• 18 AAC 50.215: Ambient Air 

Quality Analysis Methods. 

• 18 AAC 50.302: Construction 

Permits. 

• 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Permits. 

• 18 AAC 50.345: Construction and 

Operating Permits: Standard Permit 

Conditions. 

• 18 AAC 50.502: Minor Permits for 

Air Quality Protection. 

• 18 AAC 50.508: Minor Permits 

Requested by the Owner or Operator. 

The submission states that a violation 

of the prohibitions in the regulations 

above, or any permit condition, can 

result in civil actions (AS 46.03.760 

Civil action for pollution; damages), 

administrative penalties (AS 46.03.761 

Administrative penalties), or criminal 

penalties (AS 46.03.790 Criminal 

penalties). In addition, the submission 

refers to regulations pertaining to 

compliance orders and enforcement 

proceedings found at 18 AAC Chapter 

95 Administrative Enforcement. 

EPA analysis: With respect to the 

requirement to have a program 

providing for enforcement of all SIP 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47109 

measures, we are proposing to find that 

Alaska statute provides ADEC authority 

to enforce air quality regulations, 

permits, and orders promulgated 

pursuant to AS 46.03 and AS 46.14. 

ADEC staffs and maintains an 

enforcement program to ensure 

compliance with SIP requirements. 

ADEC has emergency order authority 

when there is an imminent or present 

danger to health or welfare or potential 

for irreversible or irreparable damage to 

natural resources or the environment. 

Enforcement cases may be referred to 

the State Department of Law. Therefore, 

we are proposing to approve the Alaska 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

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

enforcement for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

To generally meet the requirements of 

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

the regulation of construction of new or 

modified stationary sources, states are 

required to have PSD, nonattainment 

NSR, and minor NSR permitting 

programs adequate to implement the 

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As 

explained above, we are not evaluating 

nonattainment related provisions, such 

as the nonattainment NSR program 

required by part D, title I of the CAA. 

The EPA most recently approved 

revisions to Alaska’s PSD program on 

May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511). Alaska’s 

SIP-approved PSD program incorporates 

by reference certain Federal PSD 

program requirements at 40 CFR 52.21. 

In some cases, ADEC adopted 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.166 rather than 

the comparable provisions of 40 CFR 

52.21 because 40 CFR 51.166 was a 

better fit for a SIP-approved PSD 

program. The Alaska PSD program 

incorporates by reference Federal PSD 

requirements at 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 

CFR 51.166 revised as of December 9, 

2013. 

With respect to CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the EPA interprets 

the CAA to require each state to make 

an infrastructure SIP submission for a 

new or revised NAAQS that 

demonstrates that the state has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

meeting the current requirements for all 

regulated NSR pollutants. The 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied 

by demonstrating the state has a 

complete PSD permitting program 

correctly addressing all regulated NSR 

pollutants. Alaska has shown that it has 

a PSD program in place that covers all 

regulated NSR pollutants, including 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As 

discussed below, we are proposing to 

approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

respect to PSD. 

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals in the District of Columbia, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. 

EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir.), issued a 

judgment that remanded two of the 

EPA’s rules implementing the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, including the 

‘‘Implementation of New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

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

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

NSR Implementation Rule). The court 

ordered the EPA to ‘‘repromulgate these 

rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent 

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

4 of part D, title I of the CAA establishes 

additional provisions for particulate 

matter nonattainment areas. The 2008 

PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule 

addressed by the Court’s decision 

promulgated NSR requirements for 

implementation of PM2.5 in both 

nonattainment areas (nonattainment 

NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable 

areas (PSD). As the requirements of 

subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment 

areas, the EPA does not consider the 

portions of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule that address 

requirements for PM2.5 attainment and 

unclassifiable areas to be affected by the 

Court’s opinion. Moreover, the EPA 

does not anticipate the need to revise 

any PSD requirements promulgated in 

the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation 

Rule in order to comply with the Court’s 

decision. 

Accordingly, our proposed approval 

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

with respect to the PSD requirements 

does not conflict with the Court’s 

opinion. The EPA interprets the CAA 

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

submissions due three years after 

adoption or revision of a NAAQS to 

exclude nonattainment area 

requirements, including requirements 

associated with a nonattainment NSR 

program. Instead, these elements are 

typically referred to as nonattainment 

SIP or attainment plan elements, which 

are due by the dates statutorily 

prescribed under subparts 2 through 5 

under part D, extending as far as ten 

years following designations for some 

elements. 

In addition, on June 23, 2014, the 

United States Supreme Court issued a 

decision addressing the application of 

PSD permitting requirements to GHG 

emissions. Utility Air Regulatory Group 

v. Environmental Protection Agency, 

134 S. Ct. 2427. The Supreme Court said 

that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an 

air pollutant for purposes of 

determining whether a source is a major 

source required to obtain a PSD permit. 

The Court also said that the EPA could 

continue to require that PSD permits, 

otherwise required based on emissions 

of pollutants other than GHGs, contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT). 

In order to act consistently with its 

understanding of the Court’s decision 

pending further judicial action to 

effectuate the decision, the EPA is not 

continuing to apply the EPA regulations 

that would require that SIPs include 

permitting requirements that the 

Supreme Court found impermissible. 

Specifically, the EPA is not applying the 

requirement that a state’s SIP-approved 

PSD program require that sources obtain 

PSD permits when GHGs are the only 

pollutant (i) that the source emits or has 

the potential to emit above the major 

source thresholds, or (ii) for which there 

is a significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a modification (e.g., 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v)). 

The EPA recently revised federal PSD 

rules in light of the Supreme Court 

decision (May 7, 2015, 80 FR 26183). In 

addition, we anticipate that many states 

will revise their existing SIP-approved 

PSD programs in light of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. We do not expect that 

all states have revised their existing PSD 

program regulations yet, however, we 

are evaluating submitted PSD program 

revision to ensure that the state’s 

program correctly addresses GHGs, 

consistent with the Court’s decision. 

At present, the EPA has determined 

the Alaska SIP is sufficient to satisfy 

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

and (a)(2)(J) with respect to GHGs 

because the PSD permitting program 

previously-approved by the EPA into 

the SIP continues to require that PSD 

permits (otherwise required based on 

emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs) contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

BACT. 

The SIP contains the necessary PSD 

requirements at this time, and the 

application of those requirements is not 

impeded by the presence of other 

previously-approved provisions 

regarding the permitting of sources of 

GHGs that the EPA does not consider 

necessary at this time in light of the 

Supreme Court decision. Accordingly, 

the Supreme Court decision does not 

affect our proposed approval of the 

Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and (a)(2)(J) as those 

elements relate to a comprehensive PSD 

program. 

Turning to the minor NSR 

requirement, we have determined that 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47110 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

the Alaska Federally-approved minor 

NSR rules regulate minor sources for 

purposes of the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. Based on the foregoing, we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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

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

state SIPs to include provisions 

prohibiting any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

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

Further, this section requires state SIPs 

to include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from interfering 

with measures required to prevent 

significant deterioration (PSD) of air 

quality, or from interfering with 

measures required to protect visibility 

(i.e., measures to address regional haze) 

in any state (CAA section 

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

We note that Alaska’s May 12, 2015, 

submission does not address the 

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

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. ADEC 

has addressed these requirements in a 

separate submission, and we intend to 

evaluate them in a future action. In this 

action, we are proposing to approve the 

Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements 

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

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 NO2 and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

State submission: For purposes of 

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

submission references the Alaska SIPapproved PSD program and the Alaska 

Regional Haze Plan. 

EPA analysis: CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires state SIPs to 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions which will interfere with any 

other state’s required measures to 

prevent significant deterioration (PSD) 

of its air quality (prong 3), and adequate 

provisions prohibiting emissions which 

will interfere with any other state’s 

required measures to protect visibility 

(prong 4). 

To address whether emissions from 

sources in Alaska interfere with any 

other state’s required measures to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality, the submissions referenced the 

Alaska Federally-approved PSD 

program. As discussed above, Alaska’s 

SIP-approved PSD program last revised 

on May 19, 2016, currently incorporates 

by reference Federal PSD requirements 

as of December 9, 2013 (81 FR 31511). 

We are therefore proposing to approve 

the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

(prong 3) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

To address whether emissions from 

sources in Alaska interfere with any 

other state’s required measures to 

protect visibility, the submission 

references the Alaska Regional Haze 

SIP, which was submitted to the EPA on 

March 29, 2011. The Alaska Regional 

Haze SIP addresses visibility impacts 

across states within the region. On 

February 14, 2013, the EPA approved 

the Alaska Regional Haze SIP, including 

the requirements for best available 

retrofit technology (78 FR 10546). 

The EPA believes, as noted in the 

2013 guidance, that with respect to the 

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

sub-element, where a state’s regional 

haze SIP has been approved as meeting 

all current obligations, a state may rely 

upon those provisions in support of its 

demonstration that it satisfies the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

visibility. Because the Alaska Regional 

Haze SIP was found to meet Federal 

requirements, we are proposing to 

approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

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

visibility for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS (prong 4). 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and 

International Transport Provisions 

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

SIPs to include provisions ensuring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements of CAA sections 126 and 

115 (relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement). 

Specifically, CAA section 126(a) 

requires new or modified major sources 

to notify neighboring states of potential 

impacts from the source. 

State submission: The submission 

references Alaska’s Federally-approved 

PSD program and revisions to the SIP 

submitted by ADEC to update the 

Alaska PSD program. 

EPA analysis: At 18 AAC 50.306(b), 

Alaska’s PSD program incorporates by 

reference the general provisions of 40 

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

participation procedures for PSD 

permits, including requiring notice to 

states whose lands may be affected by 

the emissions of sources subject to PSD. 

As a result, Alaska’s PSD regulations 

provide for notice consistent with the 

requirements of the Federal PSD 

program. Alaska also has no pending 

obligations under section 115 or 126(b) 

of the CAA. Therefore, we are proposing 

to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2010 NO2 and 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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

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

each state to provide (i) necessary 

assurances that the state will have 

adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out 

the SIP (and is not prohibited by any 

provision of Federal or state law from 

carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), 

(ii) requirements that the state comply 

with the requirements respecting state 

boards under CAA section 128 and (iii) 

necessary assurances that, where the 

state has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any SIP 

provision, the state has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such SIP provision. 

State submission: The submission 

asserts that ADEC maintains adequate 

personnel, funding, and authority to 

implement the SIP. The submission 

refers to AS 46.14.030 State Air Quality 

Control Plan which provides ADEC 

statutory authority to act for the State 

and adopt regulations necessary to 

implement the State air plan. The 

submission also references 18 AAC 

50.030 State Air Quality Control Plan 

which provides regulatory authority to 

implement and enforce the SIP. 

With respect to CAA section 

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

that Alaska’s regulations on conflict of 

interest are found in Title 2 

Administration, Chapter 50 Alaska 

Public Offices Commission: Conflict of 

Interest, Campaign Disclosure, 

Legislative Financial Disclosure, and 

Regulations of Lobbying (2 AAC 50.010– 

2 AAC 50.920). Regulations concerning 

financial disclosure are found in Title 2, 

Chapter 50, Article 1—Public Official 

Financial Disclosure. There are no state 

air quality boards in Alaska. The ADEC 

commissioner, however, 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 respect to CAA section 

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

State has responsibility for ensuring 

adequate implementation of the plan 

where the State has relied on local or 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47111 

regional government agencies, the 

submission references statutory 

authority and requirements for 

establishing local air pollution control 

programs found at AS 46.14.400 Local 

air quality control programs. 

The submission also states that ADEC 

provides technical assistance and 

regulatory oversight to the Municipality 

of Anchorage (MOA), Fairbanks North 

Star Borough (FNSB) and other local 

jurisdictions to ensure that the State Air 

Quality Control Plan and SIP objectives 

are satisfactorily carried out. ADEC has 

a Memorandum of Understanding with 

the MOA and FNSB that allows them to 

operate air quality control programs in 

their respective jurisdictions. The South 

Central Clean Air Authority has been 

established to aid the MOA and the 

Matanuska-Susitna Borough in pursuing 

joint efforts to control emissions and 

improve air quality in the air-shed 

common to the two jurisdictions. In 

addition, ADEC indicates the 

department works closely with local 

agencies on nonattainment plans. 

EPA analysis: We are proposing to 

find that the Alaska SIP meets the 

adequate personnel, funding and 

authority requirements of CAA section 

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

103 and 105 grant funds from the EPA 

and provides matching funds necessary 

to carry out SIP requirements. For 

purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 

we previously approved Alaska’s 

conflict of interest disclosure and ethics 

regulations as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 128 on October 22, 2012 

(77 FR 64427). Finally, we are proposing 

to find that Alaska has provided 

necessary assurances that, where the 

State has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any SIP 

provision, the State has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of the SIP as required by CAA section 

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

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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

Monitoring System 

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

the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions-related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to the CAA, which 

reports shall be available at reasonable 

times for public inspection. 

State submission: The submission 

states that ADEC has general statutory 

authority in AS 46.14 Air Quality 

Control to regulate stationary sources 

via an air permitting program which 

includes permit reporting requirements, 

completeness determinations, 

administrative actions, and stack source 

monitoring requirements. The 

submission states ADEC has regulatory 

authority to determine compliance with 

these statutes via information requests 

(18 AAC 50.200) and ambient air quality 

investigations (18 AAC 50.201). 

Monitoring protocols and test methods 

for stationary sources are adopted by 

reference, including the Federal 

reference and interpretation methods for 

NO2 and SO2. The submission also 

references the SIP-approved Alaska PSD 

program. Ambient air quality and 

meteorological data that are collected 

for PSD purposes by stationary sources 

are reported to ADEC on a quarterly and 

annual basis. 

The submission refers to the following 

statutory and regulatory provisions 

which provide authority and 

requirements for source emissions 

monitoring, reporting, and correlation 

with emission limits or standards: 

• AS 46.14.140: Emission control 

permit program regulations. 

• AS 46.14.180: Monitoring. 

• 18 AAC 50.010: Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. 

• 18 AAC 50.030: State Air Quality 

Control Plan. 

• 18 AAC 50.035: Documents, 

Procedures, and Methods Adopted by 

Reference. 

• 18 AAC 50.040: Federal Standards 

Adopted by Reference. 

• 18 AAC 50.200: Information 

Requests. 

• 18 AAC 50.201: Ambient Air 

Quality Investigation. 

• 18 AAC 50.220: Enforceable Test 

Methods. 

• 18 AAC 50.306: Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Permits. 

• 18 AAC 50.544: Minor Permits: 

Content. 

EPA analysis: The Alaska SIP 

establishes compliance requirements for 

sources subject to major and minor 

source permitting to monitor emissions, 

keep and report records, and collect 

ambient air monitoring data. 18 AAC 

50.200 Information Requests provides 

ADEC authority to issue information 

requests to an owner, operator, or 

permittee for purposes of ascertaining 

compliance. 18 AAC 50.201 Ambient 

Air Quality Investigations provides 

authority to require an owner, operator, 

or permittee to evaluate the effect 

emissions from the source have on 

ambient air quality. In addition, 18 AAC 

50.306 Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Permits and 18 AAC 

50.544 Minor Permits: Content provide 

for establishing permit conditions to 

require the permittee to install, use and 

maintain monitoring equipment, sample 

emissions, provide source test reports, 

monitoring data, emissions data, and 

information from analysis, keep records 

and make periodic reports on process 

operations and emissions. This 

information is made available to the 

public through public processes 

outlined in these SIP-approved rules. 

Additionally, states are required to 

submit emissions data to the EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

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

central repository for air emissions data. 

The EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through the EPA’s 

online Emissions Inventory System. 

States report emissions data for the six 

criteria pollutants and their associated 

precursors—nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon 

monoxide, particulate matter, and 

volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. The EPA 

compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and 

releases it to the general public through 

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

chief/eiinformation.html. Based on the 

above analysis, we are proposing to 

approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(F) for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

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

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

states to provide for authority to address 

activities causing imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. 

State submission: The submission 

cites statutory authority including AS 

46.03.820 Emergency powers which 

provides ADEC with emergency order 

authority where there is an imminent or 

present danger to the health or welfare 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47112 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

of the people of the state or would result 

in or be likely to result in irreversible or 

irreparable damage to the natural 

resources or environment. The 

submission also refers to 18 AAC 50.245 

Air Episodes and Advisories which 

authorizes ADEC to declare an air alert, 

air warning, or air advisory to notify the 

public and prescribe and publicize 

curtailment action. 

EPA analysis: Section 303 of the CAA 

provides authority to the EPA 

Administrator to restrain any source 

from causing or contributing to 

emissions which present an ‘‘imminent 

and substantial endangerment to public 

health or welfare, or the environment.’’ 

The EPA finds that AS 46.03.820 

Emergency Powers provides emergency 

order authority comparable to CAA 

Section 303. We also find that Alaska’s 

emergency episode rule at 18 AAC 

50.245 Air Episodes and Advisories, 

most recently approved by the EPA on 

August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378), is 

consistent with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 51 subpart H for NO2 and SO2

(prevention of air pollution emergency 

episodes, §§ 51.150 through 51.153). 

Specifically, 40 CFR 51.150 through 

51.153 prescribes the requirements for 

emergency episode plans based on 

classification of regions in a state. As 

listed in 40 CFR 52.71 Classification of 

Regions, all regions in Alaska are 

classified Priority III for both NO2 and 

SO2. Areas classified Priority III do not 

need to develop episode plans under 40 

CFR 51.150 through 51.153. 

Based on the foregoing, we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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

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

SIPs provide for revision of such plan (i) 

from time to time as may be necessary 

to take account of revisions of such 

national primary or secondary ambient 

air quality standard or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standard, and (ii), 

except as provided in paragraph 

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

Administrator finds on the basis of 

information available to the 

Administrator that the SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS which it implements or to 

otherwise comply with any additional 

requirements under the CAA. 

State submission: The submission 

refers to statutory authority to adopt 

regulations in order to implement the 

CAA and the state air quality control 

program at AS 46.03.020(10)(A) Powers 

of the Department and AS 46.14.010(a) 

Emission Control Regulations. The 

submission also refers to regulatory 

authority to implement provisions of the 

CAA at 18 AAC 50.010 Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. The submission 

affirms that ADEC regularly updates the 

Alaska SIP as new NAAQS are 

promulgated by the EPA. 

EPA analysis: As cited above, the 

Alaska SIP provides for revisions, and 

in practice, Alaska regularly submits SIP 

revisions to the EPA to take into account 

revisions to the NAAQS and other 

Federal regulatory changes. We have 

approved revisions to the Alaska SIP on 

numerous occasions in the past, most 

recently on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511), 

March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14038), 

September 19, 2014 (79 FR 56268), 

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

2013 (78 FR 27071) and January 7, 2013 

(78 FR 900). We are proposing to 

approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

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

the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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

Revision Under Part D 

EPA analysis: There are two elements 

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

governed by the three-year submission 

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

because SIPs incorporating necessary 

local nonattainment area controls are 

not due within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, but are rather due at the time 

of the nonattainment area plan 

requirements pursuant to section 172 

and the various pollutant specific 

subparts 2–5 of part D. These 

requirements are: (i) Submissions 

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

the extent that subsection refers to a 

permit program as required in part D, 

title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions 

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

which pertain to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D, title I 

of the CAA. As a result, this action does 

not address infrastructure elements 

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

respect to nonattainment NSR or CAA 

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

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

Government Officials 

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

states to provide a process for 

consultation with local governments 

and Federal Land Managers with respect 

to NAAQS implementation 

requirements pursuant to section 121. 

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

states to notify the public if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly, 

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

to meet applicable requirements of part 

C, title I of the CAA related to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility protection. 

State submission: The submission 

refers to statutory authority to consult 

and cooperate with officials of local 

governments, state and Federal 

agencies, and non-profit groups found at 

AS 46.030.020 Powers of the 

department paragraphs (3) and (8). The 

submission states that municipalities 

and local air quality districts seeking 

approval for a local air quality control 

program shall enter into a cooperative 

agreement with ADEC according to AS 

46.14.400 Local air quality control 

programs, paragraph (d). ADEC can 

adopt new CAA regulations only after a 

public hearing as per AS 46.14.010 

Emission control regulations, paragraph 

(a). In addition, the submission states 

that public notice and public hearing 

regulations for SIP submission and air 

quality discharge permits are found at 

18 AAC 15.050 and 18 AAC 15.060. 

Finally, the submission also references 

the SIP-approved Alaska PSD program. 

EPA analysis: The EPA finds that the 

Alaska SIP, including the Alaska rules 

for major source permitting, contains 

provisions for consulting with 

government officials as specified in 

CAA section 121. Alaska’s PSD program 

provides opportunity and procedures 

for public comment and notice to 

appropriate Federal, state and local 

agencies. We most recently approved 

revisions to the Alaska PSD program on 

May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511). In 

addition, the EPA most recently 

approved the Alaska rules that define 

transportation conformity consultation 

on September 8, 2015 (80 FR 53735). 

Finally, on February 14, 2013, we 

approved the Alaska Regional Haze SIP 

(78 FR 10546). 

ADEC routinely coordinates with 

local governments, states, Federal land 

managers and other stakeholders on air 

quality issues including transportation 

conformity and regional haze, and 

provides notice to appropriate agencies 

related to permitting actions. Alaska 

regularly participates in regional 

planning processes including the 

Western Regional Air Partnership, 

which is a voluntary partnership of 

states, tribes, Federal land managers, 

local air agencies and the EPA, whose 

purpose is to understand current and 

evolving regional air quality issues in 

the West. Therefore, we are proposing to 

approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the 

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

for consultation with government 

officials for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 47113 

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

public be notified if NAAQS are 

exceeded in an area and to enhance 

public awareness of measures that can 

be taken to prevent exceedances. ADEC 

is a partner in the EPA’s AIRNOW and 

Enviroflash Air Quality Alert programs, 

which provide air quality information to 

the public for five major air pollutants 

regulated by the CAA: Ground-level 

ozone, particulate matter, carbon 

monoxide, SO2, and NO2. Alaska also 

provides real-time air monitoring 

information to the public on the ADEC 

air quality Web site at http://

dec.alaska.gov/applications/air/

envistaweb/, in addition to air advisory 

information. During the summer 

months, the Fairbanks North Star 

Borough prepares a weekly Air Quality 

forecast for the Fairbanks area at http:// 

co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/. We are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

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

notification for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

Turning to the requirement in CAA 

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

applicable requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA, we have evaluated this 

requirement in the context of CAA 

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

permitting. The EPA most recently 

approved revisions to Alaska’s PSD 

program on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31511). 

We are proposing to approve the Alaska 

SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(J) for PSD for the 2010 

NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. We note 

that our proposed approval of element 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to PSD is not 

affected by recent court vacaturs of the 

EPA’s PSD implementing regulations. 

Please see our discussion regarding 

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

With respect to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

the EPA recognizes that states are 

subject to visibility and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the CAA. In the event of the 

establishment of a new NAAQS, 

however, the visibility and regional 

haze program requirements under part C 

do not change. Thus we find that there 

is no new applicable requirement 

related to visibility triggered under CAA 

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

becomes effective. Based on the analysis 

above, we are proposing to approve the 

Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2010 

NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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

Data 

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

SIPs provide for (i) the performance of 

such air quality modeling as the 

Administrator may prescribe for the 

purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of any emissions of 

any air pollutant for which the 

Administrator has established a national 

ambient air quality standard, and (ii) the 

submission, upon request, of data 

related to such air quality modeling to 

the Administrator. 

State submission: The submission 

states that air quality modeling is 

regulated under 18 AAC 50.215(b) 

Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods. 

Estimates of ambient concentrations and 

visibility impairment must be based on 

applicable air quality models, databases, 

and other requirements specified in the 

EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality Models 

are adopted by reference in 18 AAC 

50.040 Federal Standards Adopted by 

Reference. Baseline dates and maximum 

allowable increases are found in Table 

2 and Table 3, respectively, at 18 AAC 

50.020 Baseline Dates and Maximum 

Allowable Increases. 

EPA analysis: On May 19, 2016, we 

approved revisions to 18 AAC 50.215 

Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods 

and 18 AAC 50.040 Federal Standards 

Adopted by Reference (81 FR 31511). 18 

AAC 50.040, at paragraph (f), 

incorporates by reference the EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 

W Guidelines on Air Quality Models 

revised as of July 1, 2013. 

Based on the foregoing, we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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

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

to require each major stationary source 

to pay permitting fees to cover the cost 

of reviewing, approving, implementing 

and enforcing a permit. 

State submission: The submission 

states that ADEC’s statutory authority to 

assess and collect permit fees is 

established in AS 46.14.240 Permit 

Administration Fees and AS 46.14.250 

Emission Fees. The permit fees for 

stationary sources are assessed and 

collected by the Air Permits Program 

according to 18 AAC 50, Article 4. 

ADEC is required to evaluate emission 

fee rates at least every four years and 

provide a written evaluation of the 

findings (AS 46.14.250(g); 18 AAC 

50.410). 

EPA analysis: The EPA fully approved 

Alaska’s title V program on July 26, 

2001 (66 FR 38940) with an effective 

data of September 24, 2001. While 

Alaska’s operating permit program is 

not formally approved into the SIP, it is 

a legal mechanism the state can use to 

ensure that ADEC has sufficient 

resources to support the air program, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

SIP. Before the EPA can grant full 

approval, a state must demonstrate the 

ability to collect adequate fees. The 

Alaska title V program included a 

demonstration the state will collect a fee 

from title V sources above the 

presumptive minimum in accordance 

with 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(i). 

In addition, Alaska regulations at 18 

AAC 50.306(d)(2) and 18 AAC 

50.311(d)(2) require fees for purposes of 

major new source permitting as 

specified in 18 AAC 50.400 through 18 

AAC 50.499. Therefore, we are 

proposing to conclude that Alaska has 

satisfied the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

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

by Affected Local Entities 

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

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. 

State submission: The submission 

states ADEC has authority to consult 

and cooperate with officials and 

representatives of any organization in 

the State; and persons, organization, and 

groups, public and private using, served 

by, interested in, or concerned with the 

environment of the state. The 

submission refers to AS 46.030.020 

Powers of the department paragraphs (3) 

and (8) which provide authority to 

ADEC to consult and cooperate with 

affected State and local entities. In 

addition, AS 46.14.400 Local air quality 

control programs paragraph (d) provides 

authority for local air quality control 

programs and requires cooperative 

agreements between ADEC and local air 

quality control programs that specify the 

respective duties, funding, enforcement 

responsibilities, and procedures. 

EPA analysis: The EPA finds that the 

Alaska provisions cited above provide 

for local and regional authorities to 

participate and consult in the SIP 

development process. Therefore, we are 

proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as 

meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 2010 NO2

and 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

Alaska SIP as meeting the following 

CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements for the 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

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

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

47114 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

it does not involve technical standards; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: June 21, 2016. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17056 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0854; FRL–9948–99– 

Region 10] 

Approval of Medford, Oregon; Carbon 

Monoxide Second 10-Year Limited 

Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

second 10-year carbon monoxide (CO) 

limited maintenance plan (LMP) for the 

Medford area, submitted by the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ) on December 11, 2015, along 

with a supplementary submittal on 

December 30, 2015, as a revision to its 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). In 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is 

approving this SIP revision because it 

demonstrates that the Medford area will 

continue to meet the CO National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for a second 10-year period 

beyond redesignation, through 2025. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 19, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0854 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Chi.John@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the ‘‘For 

Further Information Contact’’ section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and 

Waste (OAW–150), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 6th Avenue, 

Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: 

206–553–1185; email address: 

Chi.John@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

direct final action, of the same title, 

which is located in the Rules and 

Regulations section of this Federal 

Register. The EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial SIP 

revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the preamble to 

the direct final rule. If the EPA receives 

no adverse comments, the EPA will not 

take further action on this proposed 

rule. 

If the EPA receives adverse 

comments, the EPA will withdraw the 

direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. The EPA will address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if we receive adverse comment on 

an amendment, paragraph, or section of 

the rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

the EPA may adopt as final those 

provisions of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. 

Dated: June 30, 2016. 

Michelle L. Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17058 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS