[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 73074]
[DOCID:fr29no10-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2064-000]

Duke Energy Hanging Rock II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

November 18, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Duke Energy Hanging Rock II, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is December 7, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29838 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65554]
[FR Doc No: C1-2013-24712]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 34 and 45

[Docket No.: FAA-2012-1333; Amendment No. 34-5A]
RIN 2120-AK15

Exhaust Emission Standards for New Aircraft Turbine Engines and
Identification Plate for Aircraft Engines

Correction

    In rule document 2013-24712, appearing on pages 63015-63017 in the
issue of Wednesday, October 23, 2013, make the following correction:

Sec.  34.23  [Corrected]

0
On page 63017, in the Table titled ``Tier 6 Oxides of Nitrogen Emission
Standards for Subsonic Engines'', in the third column, in the last row,
the entry ``rO > 26.7'' is corrected to read ``rO = 26.7''.

[FR Doc. C1-2013-24712 Filed 10-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 181 (Monday, September 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 58027]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23913]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4017-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4017-DR), dated August 27,
2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of August 27, 2011.

    Fajardo, Gurabo, Las Piedras, Naguabo, Naranjito, R[iacute]o
Grande, San Lorenzo, Trujillo Alto, Vega Baja, Vieques, and Villalba
Municipalities for Individual Assistance (already designated for
Public Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Dated: September 12, 2011.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-23913 Filed 9-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 40284-40285]
[DOCID:fr11au09-149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2009-35]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking
relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this
notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in,
this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this
notice nor the inclusion or

omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal
status of any petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before August 31, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2009-
0709 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Docket: To read background documents or comments received,
go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor
at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We will post all comments we receive,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or
signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas<PHONE_NUMBER> or Ralen
Gao<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, 2009.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petitions for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2009-0709.
    Petitioner: Wings of Mercy, Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 61.113(c).
    Description of Relief Sought: Wings of Mercy, Inc., seeks relief
from Sec.  61.113(c) to allow for reimbursement of volunteer pilots for
fuel costs incurred in conducting charitable flights.

[FR Doc. E9-19111 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I have not smoked a cigarette in over a year because of vaping!

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16785-16795]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6923]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska:
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submittal from the State of Alaska to demonstrate that the SIP
meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997. EPA is proposing to find that
the Alaska SIP meets the following 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is proposing to concurrently approve a
number of revisions to the Alaska SIP as a necessary condition to
approving the 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for ozone.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve revisions submitted by Alaska
to update the SIP to include the ozone standard at an 8-hour averaging
period, the associated federal method for measuring and monitoring
ozone in ambient air, a general definition of ozone, federal Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program changes to regulate NOx as a
precursor to ozone, and provisions to satisfy CAA section 128 conflict
of interest disclosure requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2011-0883, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2011-0883. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at telephone number:
(206) 553-6357, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA,
Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. Information is organized as
follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for the action that EPA is proposing?
III. What infrastructure elements are required under CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
IV. What is the scope of action on infrastructure submittals?
V. What is EPA's analysis of Alaska's submittal?
VI. Scope of Proposed Action
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal from the State of Alaska to demonstrate that the SIP meets
the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) promulgated
for ozone on July 18, 1997. EPA is proposing to find that the Alaska
SIP meets the following 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J),
(K), (L), and (M).
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that each state, after a new
or revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIPs to ensure that they
meet the requirements of the ``infrastructure'' elements of section
110(a)(2). The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
submitted a SIP to EPA on March 2, 2012, certifying that Alaska's SIP
meets the infrastructure obligations for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2008 ozone NAAQS,
and 2008 lead NAAQS. The submittal included an attachment analyzing
Alaska's SIP as it relates to each section of the infrastructure
requirements. The state has requested parallel processing on the March
2, 2012 submittal. Under this procedure, the state submits the SIP
revision to EPA before final adoption by

the state. EPA reviews this proposed state action and prepares a notice
of proposed rulemaking. EPA publishes its notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register and solicits public comment in approximately
the same time frame during which the state is completing its rulemaking
action. ADEC provided a schedule to EPA for finalizing the March 2,
2012 SIP submittal, including public review, state adoption, and
submittal of the final SIP package to EPA. If changes are made to the
SIP submittal after this proposal, such changes will be described in
EPA's final rulemaking action and, if such changes are significant, EPA
may re-propose the action and provide an additional public comment
period.
    At this time, EPA is acting on the infrastructure SIP submittal for
the 110(a)(2) required elements as they relate to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. This action does not address infrastructure requirements with
respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, 2008 ozone NAAQS, and 2008 lead NAAQS which EPA intends to act
on at a later time. This action also does not address the requirements
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS which were
previously approved by EPA on October 15, 2008 (73 FR 60955).
    EPA is proposing to concurrently approve a number of revisions to
the Alaska SIP as a necessary condition to approving the 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for ozone. On April 9, 2010 ADEC submitted a
SIP revision to EPA which includes, among other things, revisions to
Alaska Administrative Code Chapter 50 ``Air Quality Control'' to
include recent changes to the NAAQS for PM2.5, ozone, and
lead; federal reference and interpretation methods for monitoring and
measuring PM2.5, ozone and lead in ambient air; and
definitions for PM2.5 and ozone. EPA is proposing to approve
the portions of this SIP revision which update the Alaska SIP to
include the ozone standard at an 8-hour averaging period, the
associated federal method for measuring and monitoring ozone in ambient
air, and a general definition of ozone. On November 19, 2010, ADEC
submitted a SIP revision which, among other things, contains updates to
Alaska's PSD program. EPA is proposing to concurrently approve the
Alaska PSD program revisions to regulate NOX as a precursor
to ozone. On March 2, 2012, ADEC submitted the above-described
infrastructure certification, in addition to state conflict of interest
and financial disclosure regulations for purposes of meeting the
requirements of CAA 128 and rule changes to meet federal requirements
related to nitrogen dioxide, fine particulate matter and lead. In this
action, EPA is proposing to approve the Alaska state conflict of
interest and financial disclosure regulations as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 128. EPA will act on the remainder of these
SIP revisions in future actions.

II. What is the background for the action that EPA is proposing?

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone. EPA
revised the ozone NAAQS to provide an 8-hour averaging period which
replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the
NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR
38856).
    The CAA requires SIPs meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) be submitted by states within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised standard. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the standards, so-called ''infrastructure''
requirements. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. However, intervening
litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone standard created uncertainty
about how to proceed, and many states did not provide the required
infrastructure SIP submissions for the newly promulgated standard.
    To help states meet this statutory requirement for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, EPA issued guidance to address infrastructure SIP elements under
section 110(a)(1) and (2).\1\ This guidance provides that to the extent
an existing SIP already meets the section 110(a)(2) requirements,
states need only to certify that fact via a letter to EPA. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's federally-approved SIP
already contains. In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states
typically have met the basic program elements required in section
110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous
ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-
hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions I-X,
October 2, 2007 (2007 Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What infrastructure elements are required under CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated.
Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for
``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a newly established or
revised NAAQS. These requirements include SIP infrastructure elements
such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
requirements, with their corresponding CAA subsection, are listed
below:
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    EPA's 2007 guidance clarified that two elements identified in
section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the 3 year submission deadline of
section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local
nonattainment area controls are not due within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time
the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to CAA
section 172. These requirements are: (i) Submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit
program as required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions
required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the

nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. As a
result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to
section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment new source review
(NSR) or 110(a)(2)(I).
    This action also does not address the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS which was approved by
EPA on October 15, 2008 (73 FR 60955). Furthermore, EPA interprets the
section 110(a)(2)(J) provision on visibility as not being triggered by
a new NAAQS because the visibility requirements in part C are not
changed by a new NAAQS.

IV. What is the scope of action on infrastructure submittals?

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country.
Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns
about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive
issues in the context of acting on those infrastructure SIP
submissions.\2\ The commenters specifically raised concerns involving
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in other
proposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part
of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing
provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA
and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); and (ii)
existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions
limits with limited public process or without requiring further
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (``director's
discretion''). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues
for which EPA likewise stated in other proposals that it would address
the issues separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source new
source review programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements
of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (``minor
source NSR''); and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR
80,186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32,526 (June 13, 2007)
(``NSR Reform''). In light of the comments, EPA believes that its
statements in various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs with
respect to these four individual issues should be explained in greater
depth. It is important to emphasize that EPA is taking the same
position with respect to these four substantive issues in this action
on the infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS submittal
from Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated
May 31, 2011. Docket EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that
these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this
rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this
rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate
rulemaking action to which they apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these
four issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice
of the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of
some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not
want states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under
the misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a reapproval of
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy,
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State provisions with regard to excess
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit
reapproval of any existing provisions that relate to these four
substantive issues. EPA is reiterating that position in this action on
the 1997 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP for Alaska.
    Unfortunately, the commenters and others evidently interpreted
these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM
provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts
of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA
was merely postponing taking final action on the issues in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the
contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for
certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any
misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions.
EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not
require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive
issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with
separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP
submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it
was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to
be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k)
or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from
EPA's statements in those other proposals, however, we want to explain
more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these four
potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed
separately from actions on infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and
that these SIPs are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, new source review
permitting program submissions required to address the requirements of
part D, and a host of other specific types of SIP

submissions that address other specific matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2)
provides more details concerning the required contents of these
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory
provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal
authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions,
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and
substantive provisions.\3\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2)
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must
provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under
state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a substantive program to address
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event
of such an emergency.
    \4\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic
points as what constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g.,
``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25,162
(May 12, 2005)(defining, among other things, the phrase ``contribute
significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that ``each'' SIP
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\5\ This illustrates that
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states
to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with
different schedules.\6\ This illustrates that EPA may conclude that
subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into
separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS
where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere
submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's SIP.
Finally, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be
relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or
revised NAAQS and the attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that
NAAQS. For example, the monitoring requirements that might be necessary
for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very
different than what might be necessary for a different pollutant. Thus,
the content of an infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element
from a state might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus
a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25,162, at 63-65 (May 12,
2005)(explaining relationship between timing requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \6\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, ``Guidance for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from
William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to
Regional Air Division Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \7\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required
the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels
of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2),
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by
part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section
110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear
that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D
also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)
with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be
limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type
of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2)
and not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for
infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA's 2007 Guidance provided recommendations for the infrastructure
SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Within this guidance document, EPA described
the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what the Agency
characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs, which it
further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the standards.'' \8\ As further identification of these
basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the guidance
document included a short description of the various elements of
section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of issues
that EPA considered germane in the context of such infrastructure SIPs.
EPA emphasized that the description of the basic requirements listed on
attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an interpretation of''
the requirements, and was merely a ``brief description of the required
elements.'' \9\ EPA also stated its belief that with one exception,
these requirements were ``relatively self explanatory, and past
experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should enable States to meet these
requirements with assistance from EPA Regions.'' \10\ For the

one exception to that general assumption, however, i.e., how states
should proceed with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific
recommendations. But for other infrastructure SIP submittals, and for
certain elements of the submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,
EPA assumed that each State would work with its corresponding EPA
regional office to refine the scope of a State's submittal based on an
assessment of how the requirements of section 110(a)(2) should
reasonably apply to the basic structure of the State's SIP for the
NAAQS in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id., at page 2.
    \9\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \10\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by
commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations
to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\11\ In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a
number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure
SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, e.g., the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had
bifurcated from the other infrastructure elements for those specific
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. Significantly, neither the 2007
Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM,
director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among
specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the
2009 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended
to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to
address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007
Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make
submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP
structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA
believes that states can establish that they have the basic SIP
structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies
within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals for other states
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions. The same holds
true for this action on the 1997 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP for
Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''
from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25,
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP
requirement is reasonable, because it would not be feasible to read
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern,
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS.
Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and
regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include
some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the
SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to
determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of
the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.\12\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\13\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the
appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP
problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a
later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require
a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion
provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a
subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 74 FR 21,639 (April 18, 2011).
    \13\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors
in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See,
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82,536 (Dec. 30, 2010).
EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38,664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34,641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67,062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57,051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \14\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado
on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section
110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42,342 at 42,344 (July
21,2010)(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions);
76 FR 4,540 (Jan. 26, 2011)(final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What is EPA's analysis of Alaska's submittal?

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

    Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission
limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for
compliance and other related matters. EPA notes that the specific
nonattainment area plan requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(I) are
subject to the timing requirement of Section 172, not the timing
requirement of Section 110(a)(1).
    Alaska's submittal: Alaska's SIP submittal cites an overview of the
Alaska environmental and air quality laws found at AS 46.03 and AS
46.14 and regulations found at AAC Title 18 Environmental Conservation,
Chapter

50 Air Quality Control. The regulations include statewide ambient air
quality standards, major and minor permits, transportation conformity
and fees, among others. A detailed discussion of the relevant laws and
regulations can be found in the technical support document (TSD) in the
docket for this action.
    EPA analysis: Alaska's SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, subject to the following
clarifications. First, this infrastructure element does not require the
submittal of regulations or emission limitations developed specifically
for attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, Alaska has no areas
designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As a result,
Alaska primarily regulates emissions of ozone and its precursors
through its SIP-approved major and minor source permitting programs.
    The current federally-approved Alaska ambient air quality standards
rule at 18 AAC 50.010 contains the previously promulgated one-hour
ozone standard, but not the 1997 ozone standard at an 8-hour averaging
period. Alaska submitted a SIP revision to EPA on April 9, 2010, which
includes a number of updates to incorporate recent federal ozone
regulatory changes. The SIP revision updates Alaska's ambient air
quality standards at 18 AAC 50.010 to include the 2008 ozone standard
of 0.075 ppm at an 8-hour averaging period. This revision inherently
satisfies the requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm is more stringent than the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS of 0.080 ppm. The SIP revision also adds a basic
definition of ozone at 18 AAC 50.990(129). In addition, the April 9,
2010, SIP revision revises the lead-in language of 18 AAC 50.010 to
reference analytical methods adopted by reference at 18 AAC 50.035. The
SIP revision then incorporates by reference these analytical methods
(40 CFR part 50, appendix P: Interpretation of the Primary and
Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone) at 18 AAC
50.035(b)(1) and adds a reference to 40 CFR part 50 appendix P at 18
AAC 50.215(a)(2). EPA is proposing to approve these portions of the
April 9, 2010, SIP revision in order to update Alaska's SIP to reflect
the most recent changes to the ozone NAAQS and related analytical
methods. EPA is also proposing to concurrently approve Alaska's SIP as
meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility.
EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM provisions that are
contrary to the Clean Air Act and existing EPA guidance \15\ and the
Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to
take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown.'' Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, August 11,
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance
provisions. EPA believes that a number of states may have such
provisions that are contrary to the Clean Air Act and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109), November 24, 1987, and the Agency plans to take
action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision that is contrary to the Clean Air Act and EPA
guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

    Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions to provide
for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors,
collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these
data available to EPA upon request.
    Alaska's submittal: Alaska's SIP submittal references Alaska
statutory and regulatory authority to conduct ambient air monitoring
investigations relevant to the ozone NAAQS. The submittal also
describes Memoranda of Understanding between ADEC and the Municipality
of Anchorage (MOA) and Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) to operate
air quality control programs in their respective jurisdictions. ADEC's
Air Non-Point Mobile Source Program and Air Monitoring & Quality
Assurance Program work with MOA and FNSB to prepare Alaska's annual
ambient air monitoring network plan, the most recent of which is the
2011 Alaska Air Monitoring Network Plan at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/index.htm. There are no nonattainment areas for 1997 8-hour
ozone standard in Alaska. ADEC has recently implemented monitoring for
ozone in the Anchorage area, as outlined in the above-referenced
monitoring network plan.
    Alaska's SIP submittal states that Alaska collects and validates
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations and Special Purpose Monitoring
ambient air quality monitoring data and reports the data to EPA through
the Air Quality System (AQS) on a quarterly basis. The submittal notes
that ADEC's revised ``Quality Assurance Project Plan for the State of
Alaska Air Monitoring and Quality Assurance Program'' can be found at
http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/doc/ADEC_AMQA_QAPP_23FEB10-final.pdf.
    EPA analysis: A comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, intended
to meet requirements of 40 CFR part 58 was submitted by Alaska to EPA
on January 18, 1980 (40 CFR 52.70) and approved by EPA on April 15,
1981. This air quality monitoring plan has been subsequently updated
and submitted to EPA. The most recent plan is dated July 1, 2011, and
was approved by EPA on October 5, 2011. This plan includes, among other
things, the locations for ozone monitoring. The plan is available for
public review at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/am/index.htm.
    As discussed above, Alaska submitted a SIP revision to EPA on April
9, 2010, which includes, among other things, the incorporation by
reference of 40 CFR part 50, appendix P: Interpretation of the Primary
and Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. EPA is
proposing to approve the incorporation by reference of these analytical
methods for ozone. Based on the foregoing, EPA is proposing to approve
the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B)
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to include a program providing
for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction
of new or modified stationary sources, including a program to meet PSD
and nonattainment NSR requirements.
    Alaska's submittal: Alaska's SIP submittal refers to ADEC's
statutory authority to regulate stationary sources via an air
permitting program established in AS 46.14 Air Quality Control, Article
01 General Regulations and Classifications and Article 02 Emission
Control Permit Program. In addition, Alaska's SIP submittal states that
a violation of these prohibitions or any permit condition can result in
civil actions, administrative penalties, or

criminal penalties. In addition, Alaska's SIP submittal refers to
regulations pertaining to compliance orders and enforcement proceedings
found in 18 AAC Chapter 95 Administrative Enforcement. Please see the
TSD in the docket for this action for a detailed description.
    EPA analysis: As discussed above, EPA is not evaluating
nonattainment related provisions in this action, such as the
nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the CAA. In addition,
Alaska has no nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA
believes the cited Alaska SIP-approved provisions provide ADEC with the
authority to enforce air quality regulations, permits, and orders
promulgated pursuant to AS 46.03 and AS 46.14. ADEC staffs and
maintains an enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP
requirements. ADEC has emergency order authority when there is an
imminent or present danger to health or welfare or potential for
irreversible or irreparable damage to natural resources or environment.
Enforcement cases may be referred to the State Department of Law.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) relating to enforcement for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    EPA believes Alaska's PSD program generally meets the requirements
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, with the exception discussed below.
EPA recently approved changes to Alaska's PSD program on February 9,
2011, to reflect changes to the federal PSD program relating to the
permitting of greenhouse gas emissions (76 FR 7116). Prior to that, EPA
approved revisions to Alaska's PSD program on August 14, 2007 (72 FR
45378). However, in order for Alaska's SIP-approved PSD program to
satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the program must also properly regulate nitrogen oxides as a
precursor to ozone. On November 29, 2005, EPA promulgated the phase 2
implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which includes
requirements for PSD programs to treat nitrogen oxides as a precursor
to ozone (72 FR 71612). The phase 2 implementation rule accordingly
updated the regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 to meet these
requirements, effective January 30, 2006. This effective date is after
the July 1, 2004 date of incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 51.166
and 40 CFR 52.21 by the current federally-approved Alaska SIP. In other
words, Alaska's current federally-approved PSD program does not meet
the requirements of the phase 2 ozone implementation rule.
    On November 19, 2010, Alaska submitted a SIP revision that
includes, among other things, updates to the state's incorporate by
reference dates of federal PSD regulations. Specifically, the SIP
revision updates the Alaska SIP to incorporate by reference revised
federal definitions of several terms referenced by the Alaska PSD
program including ``major stationary source,'' ``major modification,''
``significant'' and ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' As a result of this
updated incorporation by reference, Alaska's federally-approved PSD
program will meet the requirement to regulate NOx as a precursor to
ozone. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the portion of Alaska's
November 19, 2010, SIP revision that updates the incorporation by
reference dates for 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR part 52 as revised as of
August 2, 2010, at 18 AAC 50.040(h) for purposes of the four
definitions listed above. EPA is also proposing to approve the parts of
18 AAC 50.990 which also reference these federal definitions: 18 AAC
50.990(52) ``major stationary source,'' 18 AAC 50.990(53) ``major
modification,'' and 18 AAC 50.990(92) ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' As a
result, EPA is proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) as they relate to PSD for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, conditioned upon the approval of the SIP revisions
pertaining to the PSD definitions identified above.
    EPA is also proposing to approve Alaska's SIP for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the
modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to
assure that the NAAQS are achieved. In this action, EPA is not
proposing to approve or disapprove any state rules with regard to NSR
Reform requirements for major sources. EPA most recently approved
changes to Alaska's NSR program, including NSR Reform, on August 14,
2007 (72 FR 45378).
    Alaska's SIP-approved minor NSR program adopted pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulates ozone and its precursors. In this
action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the state's
existing minor NSR program itself to the extent that it is inconsistent
with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA believes that a
number of states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the
existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with
states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory
provisions for the program. The statutory requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing minor
NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be time to revisit the regulatory
requirements for this program to give the states an appropriate level
of flexibility to design a program that meets their particular air
quality concerns, while assuring reasonable consistency across the
country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor
sources. Based on the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve the
Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

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

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state, or from interfering with
measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality
or to protect visibility in another state. As noted above, this action
does not address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, which were approved by EPA on October 15, 2008 (73 FR
60955). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions
insuring compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126
and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement).
Specifically, section 126(a) requires new or modified major sources to
notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source.
    EPA analysis: EPA most recently approved changes to Alaska's PSD
program on February 9, 2011, to reflect changes to the federal PSD
program relating to the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions (76 FR
7116). Prior to that, EPA approved revisions to Alaska's PSD program on
August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378). In general, ADEC incorporates by
reference the federal PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21. In some cases, ADEC
adopted provisions of 40 CFR 51.166 rather than the comparable
provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 because 40 CFR 51.166 was a better fit for a
SIP-approved PSD program. At 18 AAC 50.306(b), Alaska's federally-
approved SIP incorporates by reference 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2), with
certain modifications, to describe the public participation procedures
for PSD permits, including requiring notice to states whose lands may
be affected by the emissions of sources subject to PSD.

As a result, Alaska's PSD regulations provide for notice consistent
with the requirements of the EPA PSD program. The state also has no
pending obligations under section 115 or 126(b) of the Act. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements
of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

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

    Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires states to provide (i) necessary
assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state law to carry out the SIP (and is not prohibited
by any provision of Federal or state law from carrying out the SIP or
portion thereof), (ii) requires that the state comply with the
requirements respecting state boards under section 128 and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation
of any SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of such SIP provision.
    Alaska's submittal: Alaska's SIP submittal certifies that ADEC
maintains adequate personnel, funding, and authority to implement the
SIP. Alaska refers to existing SIP provisions to address this
infrastructure element. Please see the TSD in this action for a
detailed description. Specifically, Alaska refers to AS 46.14.030
``State Air Quality Plan'' which provides ADEC the statutory authority
to act for the state in any negotiations related to the state air
quality control plan developed under the Clean Air Act and provides
authority for ADEC to adopt regulations necessary to implement the SIP.
18 AAC 50.030 ``State Air Quality Control Plan'' provides the
regulatory authority to implement and enforce the SIP.
    With regards to CAA section 128 requirements, Alaska's submittal
states that ADEC is submitting existing state regulations for approval
into the SIP for purposes of meeting CAA 128. Specifically, Alaska
submitted Title 2--Administration; Chapter 50--Alaska Public Offices
Commission: Conflict of Interest, Campaign Disclosure, Legislative
Financial Disclosure, and Regulations of Lobbying; Article 1--Public
Official Financial Disclosure (2 AAC 50.010--2 AAC 50.200) and Title
9--Law; Chapter 52--Executive Branch Code of Ethics (9 AAC 52.010--9
AAC 52.990). Copies of these regulations are included in the March 2,
2012 SIP revision and are being adopted into the Alaska SIP for
purposes of meeting CAA 128, through the parallel process previously
described. ADEC states it is submitting these regulations to meet CAA
110(a)(2)(E) and CAA 128 for this CAA Section 110(a)(1) and (2)
infrastructure certification and for all future infrastructure
certifications.
    There are no relevant air quality boards in Alaska, however, the
ADEC commissioner, as an appointed official and the head of an
executive agency, is required to file a financial disclosure statement
annually by March 15th of each year with the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC). These disclosures are publically available through
APOC's Anchorage office. Alaska's Public Officials Financial Disclosure
Forms and links to Alaska's financial disclosure regulations can be
found at the APOC Web site: http://doe.alaska.gov/apoc/home.html.
    With regard to assurances that the state has responsibility for
ensuring adequate implementation of the plan where the state has relied
on local or regional government agencies, Alaska states in its
submittal that ADEC insures local programs have adequate resources and
documents this in the appropriate SIP section. Statutory authority for
establishing local air pollution control programs is found at AS
46.14.400 ``Local Air Quality Control Programs.'' In addition, ADEC's
submittal states it provides technical assistance and regulatory
oversight to the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), Fairbanks North Star
Borough (FNSB) and other local jurisdictions to ensure that the State
Air Quality Control Plan and SIP objectives are satisfactorily carried
out. ADEC has a Memorandum of Understanding with the MOA and FNSB that
allows them to operate air quality control programs in their respective
jurisdictions. The South Central Clean Air Authority has been
established to aid the MOA and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in
pursuing joint efforts to control emissions and improve air quality in
the air-shed common to the two jurisdictions. In addition, ADEC
indicates the department works closely with local agencies on
nonattainment plans.
    EPA analysis: The above-listed laws and regulations provide Alaska
with adequate authority to carry out SIP obligations with respect to
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Alaska receives sections 103 and 105 grant
funds from EPA and provides state matching funds necessary to carry out
Alaska's SIP requirements. Alaska has no state boards responsible for
approving air permits or enforcement orders in Alaska. However, the
ADEC commissioner, as head of an executive agency that approves permits
and enforcement orders, must disclose potential conflicts of interest
as required by CAA section 128. In Alaska's March 2, 2012 SIP revision,
Alaska submitted conflict of interest disclosure and ethics regulations
(2 AAC 50.010-50.200 and 9 AAC 52.010--9 AAC 52.990) for purposes of
meeting the infrastructure requirement to comply with CAA section 128.
EPA has reviewed these regulations and is proposing to approve the
Alaska submittal as meeting the requirements of CAA section 128 and CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Finally, Alaska's March 2, 2012 submittal
provides assurances of adequate state authority when relying on local
agencies to implement certain provisions of the SIP. Therefore EPA is
proposing to find that Alaska's SIP meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

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

    Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires: (i) The installation, maintenance,
and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary
steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor
emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and
amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and
(iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission
limitations or standards established pursuant to the CAA, which reports
shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    Alaska's submittal: Alaska's SIP submittal asserts that ADEC has
general statutory authority to regulate stationary sources via an air
permitting program which includes permit reporting requirements,
completeness determinations, administrative actions, and stack source
monitoring requirements. Alaska's submittal states ADEC has regulatory
authority to determine compliance with these statutes via information
requests and ambient air quality investigations. Monitoring protocols
and test methods for stationary sources have been adopted by reference
including the federal reference and interpretation methods for ozone.
    Alaska's submittal states the Alaska PSD/NSR program was originally
approved on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943) and most recently approved
on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378). Ambient air quality and
meteorological data that are collected for PSD purposes by stationary
sources are reported to ADEC on a quarterly and annual basis. Alaska
refers to specific laws and regulations in the federally-approved SIP
which are

described in detail in the TSD in the docket for this action.
    EPA analysis: The provisions cited by Alaska provide for
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for sources
subject to major source permitting. EPA most recently approved changes
to Alaska's PSD program on February 9, 2011, to reflect changes to the
federal PSD program relating to the permitting of greenhouse gas
emissions (76 FR 7116). Prior to that, EPA approved revisions to
Alaska's PSD program on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378). As noted above,
EPA is proposing to concurrently approve portions of a SIP revision
submitted to EPA by ADEC on November 19, 2010, which update the Alaska
PSD program to regulate NOx as a precursor to ozone. Alaska also
requires minor sources subject to permitting under 18 AAC 50 Article 5
to install, use and maintain monitoring equipment, sample emissions
according to prescribed methods and procedures, provide source test
reports, monitoring data, and emissions data, keep data and make
periodic reports to ADEC. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
Alaska's SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(F)
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

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

    Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to provide for authority to
address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, including contingency plans to implement the emergency
episode provisions in their SIPs.
    Alaska's submittal: The Alaska submittal cites air quality laws and
regulations which provide authority to adopt air quality regulations to
control, prevent, and abate air pollution, including emission control
regulations and stationary source monitoring and reporting
requirements. Please refer to the TSD in this action for a detailed
discussion. The Alaska submittal also cites provisions which provide
ADEC with authority to act during air episodes and advisories. The
submittal also indicates that three major municipalities in Alaska
(Municipality of Anchorage, Fairbanks North Star Borough, and Juneau)
also have ordinances, codes, or regulations that enable them to declare
emergencies in the case of poor air quality. ADEC personnel remain in
close contact with each municipality when an air emergency is declared,
assisting with air monitoring and analysis, and implementing safety and
control measures, as needed.
    EPA analysis: Alaska's statute AS 46.03.820 ``Emergency Powers''
provides for emergency order authority consistent with CAA section 303.
As noted in EPA's 2007 Guidance, the significant harm level for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS shall remain unchanged at 0.60 ppm ozone, 2 hour
average, as indicated in 40 CFR 51.151. EPA believes that the existing
ozone-related provisions of 40 CFR part 51, subpart H remain
appropriate. Alaska's SIP-approved regulations at 18 AAC 50.245 are
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.151. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve Alaska's SIP as meeting the requirements of
110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

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

    Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs provide for revision of
such plan (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
attaining such standard, and (ii), except as provided in paragraph
110(a)(3)(C), whenever the Administrator finds on the basis of
information available to the Administrator that the SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to
otherwise comply with any additional requirements under the CAA.
    Alaska's submittal: Alaska's SIP submittal refers to statutory
authority to adopt regulations in order to implement the CAA and the
state air quality control program at AS 46.03.020(10)(A) and AS
46.14.010(a). Alaska's submittal also refers to regulatory authority to
implement provisions of the Clean Air Act at 18 AAC 50.010. ADEC states
the department strives to establish regulations and update Alaska's SIP
in a timely fashion as new NAAQS are promulgated by EPA. Please see the
TSD in the docket for this action for a detailed description.
    EPA analysis: EPA believes that the provision cited by Alaska
provide the state with the requisite authority to update the SIP, and
as a matter of practice, Alaska regularly updates the SIP to
incorporate changes to the NAAQS and other federal regulatory changes.
EPA approved numerous changes to Alaska's SIP on February 5, 2007 (72
FR 5232) which included adoption by reference of updated EPA rules. EPA
most recently approved changes to Alaska's SIP on February 9, 2011, to
update the state's PSD program to reflect changes to the federal PSD
program relating to the permitting of greenhouse gas emissions (76 FR
7116). Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's SIP as meeting
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(H) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment Area Plan Revision Under Part D

    There are two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) not governed
by the 3 year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs
incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due
within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather
due at the time of the nonattainment area plan requirements pursuant to
section 172. These requirements are: (i) Submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit
program as required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (ii) submissions
required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment
planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. As discussed
earlier, this action does not address infrastructure elements related
to section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to nonattainment NSR or section
110(a)(2)(I).

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

    Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers carrying
out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to Section 121 relating
to consultation. Section 110(a)(2)(J) further requires states to notify
the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public
awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. Lastly,
Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires states to meet applicable requirements of
Part C related to prevention of significant deterioration and
visibility protection.
    Alaska's submittal: Alaska's SIP submittal refers to statutory
authority to consult and cooperate with officials of local governments,
state and federal agencies, and non-profit groups found at AS
46.030.020(3), (8). Please see the TSD in the docket for this action
for a detailed description. Alaska's submittal states that
municipalities and local air quality districts seeking approval for a
local air quality control program shall enter into a cooperative
agreement with ADEC according to AS 46.14.400(d). ADEC can adopt new
CAA regulations only after a public hearing as per AS 46.14.010(a). In
addition, Alaska's submittal states that public notice and public
hearing regulations for SIP submittals and air quality discharge
permits are found at 18 AAC 15.050 and 18 AAC 15.060. Finally, Alaska's

submittal also includes reference to the state's PSD/NSR program
originally approved on February 16, 1995 (60 FR 8943), and most
recently approved on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378). The submittal
states that Alaska's PSD program implements the 1997 ozone NAAQS and
relevant requirements of the phase 2 ozone implementation rule. Alaska
submitted its Regional Haze SIP on April 4, 2011, to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.
    EPA analysis: EPA finds that Alaska's SIP contains provisions for
consulting with government officials as specified in CAA 121. ADEC
routinely coordinates with local governments, states, federal land
managers and other stakeholders on air quality issues and provides
notice to appropriate agencies related to permitting actions. Alaska
regularly participates in regional planning processes including the
Western Regional Air Partnership which is a voluntary partnership of
states, tribes, federal land managers, local air agencies and the U.S.
EPA whose purpose is to understand current and evolving regional air
quality issues in the West. EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) for consultation
with government officials for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    ADEC is a partner in EPA's AIRNOW and Enviroflash Air Quality Alert
programs. Alaska provides the daily air quality index to the public on
their Web site at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/aaqm/Default.htm and
provides air quality advisory information at https://myalaska.state.ak.us/dec/air/airtoolsweb/Advisories.aspx. ADEC also
provides guidelines on how to minimize air quality impacts from open
burning and how residents can protect themselves from the health
effects of wildfires. EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) for public
notification for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Turning to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP
meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, EPA
has evaluated this requirement in the context of section 110(a)(2)(C)
with respect to permitting. EPA most recently approved changes to
Alaska's PSD program on February 9, 2011, to reflect changes to the
federal PSD program relating to the permitting of greenhouse gas
emissions (76 FR 7116). EPA also approved revisions to Alaska's PSD
program on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45378). As described above, EPA is
proposing in this action to approve portions of a SIP revision
submitted by ADEC on November 19, 2010, which updates Alaska's
federally-approved SIP to regulate NOX as a precursor to
ozone. Alaska has no nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. EPA is also proposing to approve Alaska's SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) for PSD for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we
find that there is no new visibility obligation triggered under section
110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. As a result of the
above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's SIP as meeting the
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.

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

    Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires that SIPs provide for (i) the
performance of such air quality modeling as the Administrator may
prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for which the
Administrator has established a national ambient air quality standard,
and (ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air
quality modeling to the Administrator.
    Alaska's submittal: Alaska's SIP submittal states that air quality
modeling is conducted under 18 AAC 50.215(b), ambient air quality
analysis methods. Estimates of ambient concentrations and visibility
impairment must be based on applicable air quality models, databases,
and other requirements specified in the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality
Models are adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040(f). This regulation
allows some provisions to exclude concentrations attributable to
temporary construction activity for a new or modified source, or to new
sources outside the United States. Baseline dates and maximum allowable
increases are found in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively, at 18 AAC
50.020.
    EPA analysis: EPA previously approved Alaska's regulations on air
quality modeling into the SIP. We most recently approved 18 AAC 50.215
``Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods'' (except (a)(3)) and 18 AAC
50.040(f) which incorporates by reference EPA regulations at 40 CFR
part 51, appendix W (Guidelines on Air Quality Models) revised as of
July 1, 2004, on September 13, 2007 (72 FR 45378). While Alaska has no
nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone standard, Alaska has submitted
modeling data to EPA related to other pollutants. For example, Alaska
submitted the Fairbanks Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan to EPA on June
21, 2004, supported by air quality modeling. The maintenance plan and
supporting modeling was approved by EPA as a SIP revision on July 27,
2004 (69 FR 44605). Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's SIP
as meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.

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

    Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary
source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing,
approving, implementing and enforcing a permit, until such time as the
SIP fee requirement is superseded by EPA's approval of the state's
title V operating permit program.
    Alaska's submittal: Alaska's SIP submittal states that ADEC's
statutory authority to assess and collect permit fees is established in
AS 46.14.240 and AS 46.14.250. The permit fees for Title V stationary
sources are assessed and collected by the Air Permits Program according
to 18 AAC Article 4. The Air Permits Program is required to evaluate
emission fee rates at least every four years and provide a written
evaluation of the findings (AS 46.14.250(g); 18 AAC 50.410). The
submittal states that ADEC's most recent emission fee evaluation report
was completed in October 2010 and that the next emission fee review is
scheduled for 2014.
    EPA analysis: EPA fully approved Alaska's title V program on July
26, 2001 (66 FR 38940) with an effective data of September 24, 2001.
EPA regularly reviews ADEC's title V fee program to determine if the
fee structure is adequate to pay for the program and assure the funding
is only going toward title V implementation. While Alaska's operating
permit program is not formally approved into the state's SIP, it is a
legal mechanism the state can use to ensure that ADEC has sufficient
resources to support the air program, consistent with the requirements
of the SIP. Before EPA can grant full approval, a state must
demonstrate the ability to collect adequate fees. Alaska's title V
program included a demonstration the state will collect a fee from
title V sources above the presumptive minimum in accordance with 40 CFR

70.9(b)(2)(i). Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Alaska's SIP as
meeting the requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities

    Section 110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation
and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions
affected by the SIP.
    Alaska's submittal: Alaska's SIP submittal cities AS 46.03.020
``Powers of the Department'' which provides authority to ADEC to
consult with and cooperate with ``officials and representatives of any
nonprofit corporation or organization in the state'' and ``persons,
organizations, and groups, public and private, using, served by,
interested in, or concerned with the environment of the state.'' This
section also provides authority to ADEC to ``advise and cooperate with
municipal, regional, and other local agencies and officials in the
state, to carry out the purposes of this chapter.'' Please see the TSD
in the docket for this action for a detailed description.
    EPA analysis: AS 46.03.020 provides authority for local and
regional authorities to participate and consult in the SIP development
process. In addition, AS 46.14.400(d) provides authority for local air
quality control programs and requires cooperative agreements between
ADEC and local air quality control programs that specify the respective
duties, funding, enforcement responsibilities, and procedures.
Therefore EPA proposes to find that Alaska's SIP meets the requirements
of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

VI. Scope of Proposed Action

    The SIP approval does not extend to sources or activities located
in Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. EPA will continue to
implement the CAA in Indian Country in Alaska because ADEC has not
adequately demonstrated authority over sources and activities located
within the exterior boundaries of the Annette Island Reserve and other
areas of Indian Country in Alaska.

VII. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP submittal from the State of
Alaska to demonstrate that the SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the NAAQS promulgated for ozone on
July 18, 1997. EPA is proposing to approve in full the following
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for Alaska for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), (M).
EPA is taking no action on infrastructure elements (D)(i) and (I) for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to concurrently approve a number
of revisions to the Alaska SIP as a necessary condition to approving
the 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for ozone. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve revisions submitted by the state to revise the
Alaska SIP to include the ozone standard at an 8-hour averaging period,
the associated federal method for measuring and monitoring ozone in
ambient air, a general definition of ozone, federal Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program changes to regulate
NOX as a precursor to ozone, and regulations to meet CAA
section 128. This action is being taken under section 110 and part C of
the CAA.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the state's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
Alaska, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, and Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 9, 2012.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012-6923 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 22198]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08743]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4451-024]

Green Mountain Power Corporation; City of Somersworth, New
Hampshire; Notice of Waiver Period for Water Quality Certification
Application

    On April 6, 2021, Green Mountain Power Corporation and the City of
Somersworth, New Hampshire submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section
401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (New Hampshire DES), in
conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6,
we hereby notify the New Hampshire DES of the following:

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: April 6, 2021.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request:
One year.
    Date Waiver Occurs for Failure to Act: April 7, 2022.

    If New Hampshire DES fails or refuses to act on the water quality
certification request by the above waiver date, then the agency's
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: April 21, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-08743 Filed 4-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 66614]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24861]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice of Airport Improvement Program Property Release;
Orcas Island Airport, Eastsound, Washington

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release Airport Improvement Program
property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a request from the Port of Orcas,
Washington to waive the Airport Improvement Program property
requirements for approximately 1,120 square feet of airport property
located at Orcas Island Airport, in Eastsound, Washington. The subject
property is located in the east section of the airport. This release
will allow the Port to sell 1,120 feet of Parcel<PHONE_NUMBER>00 to East
Side Sewer District and construct a chain link fence for additional
water treatment. There will be proceeds generated from the proposed
release of this property for capital improvements at the airport. The
Port will receive not less than fair market value for the property and
the revenue generated from the sale will be used for airport purposes.
It has been determined through study that the subject partial parcel
will not be needed for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. Emailed comments can be
provided to Ms. Mandi M. Lesauis, Program Specialist, Seattle Airports
District Office, [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mandi M. Lesauis, Program Specialist,
Seattle Airports District Office, [email protected], (206) 231-
4140.
    Authority: Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c).

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on November 9, 2021.
Warren D. Ferrell,
Acting Manager, Seattle Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-24861 Filed 11-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 46759]
[DOCID:fr11se09-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

September 2, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers RP99-301-241.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits Rate Schedule FTS-1
negotiated rate service agreement between ANR and Madison Gas &
Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090901-0033.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers RP99-301-242.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits Rate Schedule FTS-1
service agreement with Nexen Marketing USA Inc, to be effective 11/1/
09.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090901-0034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 14, 2009.

    Docket Numbers RP99-301-243.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Company submits two amendments, fourth
and fifth to Rate Schedule ETS rate agreement between ANR and Wisconsin
Electric Power Company.
    Filed Date: 08/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090901-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 14, 2009.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21865 Filed 9-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P