Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0133-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alaska; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and  2010 Sulfur Dioxide Standards
Posted Date: 2016-07-20T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47103-47114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17056]

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

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

[[Page 47104]]

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 so-called 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards. ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, 
September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On 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

[[Page 47105]]

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

    \2\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states 
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for the 
EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 
requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given 
new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 
110(a)(2) requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of 
requirements therein, while the EPA has long noted that this literal 
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a 
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the 
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions 
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; 
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \4\ The EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) 
is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set 
specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., 
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of 
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific 
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of 
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single 
SIP submission, and whether the EPA must act upon such SIP submission 
in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit 
``a plan'' to meet these requirements, the EPA interprets the CAA to 
allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing 
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make 
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP 
requirements, the EPA can elect to act on such submissions either 
individually or in a larger combined action.\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 sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR 
4339 (January 22, 2013) (the EPA's final action approving the 
structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State 
separately to meet the requirements of the EPA's 2008 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).
    \6\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to the EPA demonstrating that the State meets the 
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The EPA proposed action 
for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 
FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On 
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), the 
EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for 
different NAAQS. Thus, the EPA notes that not every element of section 
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same 
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant 
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be 
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might 
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of 
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, 
for example, because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure 
SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an 
entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 47106]]

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

    \8\ The EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires the 
EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for 
infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states 
and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 
regardless of whether or not the EPA provides guidance or 
regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such 
guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.
    \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.
    \10\ The EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions 
regarding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of 
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this 
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, 
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement 
orders, and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, the 
EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's 
SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains the EPA's 
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can 
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, 
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or 
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are 
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). 
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements 
of section 128 are necessarily included in the EPA's evaluation of 
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 
128.
    As another example, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP 
submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 
110(a)(2)(C), (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 SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public 
process or not requiring further approval by the EPA; and (iii) 
existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with 
current requirements of the EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 
80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007). 
Thus, the EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission 
without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such 
potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if 
it is aware of such existing provisions.\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

[[Page 47107]]

re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that 
relate to the three specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Subsequent 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.
    \12\ By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were to include 
a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a 
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \13\ For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \14\ The EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past 
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). The EPA has 
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \15\ See, e.g., the EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. 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 SIP-approved 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

[[Page 47108]]

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

    \16\ The 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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

[[Page 47110]]

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 SIP-approved 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 47112]]

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, Sec. Sec.  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.

[[Page 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).

[[Page 47114]]

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