[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
[email protected].
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