Air Plan Approval; AK: Fine Particulate Matter Infrastructure Requirements, 60769-60773 [2018-25681]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.
(2) Although Aviation Partners, Inc.,
Falcon Service Bulletin SBF9–17–002,
Revision A, dated December 20, 2017,
specifies salvaging and returning a damaged
strap to Aviation Partners, Inc., this AD does
not include that requirement.
(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with
14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: 9ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov.
(2) Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector,
or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
(l) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Michael Bumbaugh, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle
ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–
3522; email: Michael.Bumbaugh@faa.gov.
(2) Service information identified in this
AD that is not incorporated by reference is
available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3) and (m)(4) of this AD.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
(IBR) of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
(2) You must use this service information
as applicable to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service
Bulletin SBF9–17–001, Revision B, dated
December 20, 2017.
(ii) Aviation Partners, Inc., Falcon Service
Bulletin SBF9–17–002, Revision A, dated
December 20, 2017.
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Aviation Partners, Inc., 7299
Perimeter Road South, Seattle, WA 98108–
3812; phone: 206–762–1171; email:
mwilliams@winglets.com; internet: https://
www.aviationpartners.com.
(4) You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195.
(5) You may view this service information
that is incorporated by reference at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
202–741–6030, or go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Nov 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on
November 15, 2018.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018–25661 Filed 11–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0597; FRL–9986–49–
Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; AK: Fine Particulate
Matter Infrastructure Requirements
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Whenever the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates a
new or revised National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS), the Clean
Air Act (CAA) requires each state to
make a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission establishing that the SIP
provides for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
new or revised NAAQS, commonly
referred to as infrastructure
requirements. The EPA is approving the
Alaska SIP as meeting specific
infrastructure requirements for the 1997,
2006, and 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective
December 27, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R10–OAR–2017–0597. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information the
disclosure of which 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 form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available at https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357 or
hall.kristin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60769
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
II. Response to Comments
A. Summary of Comments
B. EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background Information
On March 10, 2016, Alaska submitted
a SIP submission to address the
infrastructure SIP requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, in addition to
outstanding 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS infrastructure elements not
included in prior submissions. On
January 23, 2018, the EPA proposed to
approve the Alaska infrastructure SIP
submission as meeting the following
CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
elements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS:
(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We also
proposed to approve Alaska’s March
2016 infrastructure SIP submission as
meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997, 2006,
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (83 FR 3101).
The public comment period for our
proposed action ended on February 22,
2018.
II. Response to Comments
A. Summary of Comments
We received 13 adverse comments, all
of which appear to be from citizens
living in North Pole, Alaska, part of the
Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB)
nonattainment area.1 Commenters
expressed concerns about the local burn
curtailment program and how FNSB
implemented the program in the
nonattainment area this past winter. The
program was developed by FNSB,
submitted to the EPA by the Alaska
Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC), and approved by
the EPA into the Alaska SIP on
September 8, 2017, as part of the FNSB
Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
nonattainment plan (82 FR 42457).
Most of these commenters did not
provide details about how their
concerns warrant approval or
disapproval of specific infrastructure
SIP elements. The EPA does not
consider comments on the advisability
of FNSB control measures in the
existing SIP to be within the scope of
issues subject to public comment in this
infrastructure SIP action. The provisions
in question were previously approved
into the SIP as part of the FNSB
1 See 40 CFR 81.302. A portion of the FNSB is
designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The entire state of Alaska is
designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM
27NOR1
60770
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
nonattainment plan, and we are not in
this action (which approves the Alaska
SIP as meeting specific infrastructure
requirements for the 1997, 2006, and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS) revisiting our prior
decision. Likewise, comments on
potential future control measures that
have not been submitted to the EPA for
SIP approval are outside the scope of
this action.
One commenter did include detailed
information supporting their assertion
that the EPA should not approve certain
infrastructure SIP elements in this
action, and we have responded to the
commenter’s assertions below.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
B. EPA Responses
1. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission
Limits
One commenter stated that CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to
include enforceable emission limits, but
the ‘‘FNSB has set a standard for home
wood burning devices that is much
more strict than the EPA requires.’’ The
commenter included a link to the ADEC
web page comparing the EPA’s 2015
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) for Residential Wood Heaters to
Alaska regulations addressing solid fuelfired heating device emission standards,
specifically, regulations set forth in
Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) at 18
AAC 50.077 and 18 AAC 50.079.2 The
commenter alleged that the Alaska
standards are more stringent than the
EPA’s NSPS and concluded that the
Alaska standards are, therefore, an
unenforceable emission limit under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
The EPA disagrees with this comment
for a number of reasons. First, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to
include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques (including
economic incentives such as fees,
marketable permits, and auctions of
emissions rights), as well as schedules
and timetables for compliance, as may
be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of the CAA. In
the context of an infrastructure SIP
submission for a new or revised
NAAQS, however, the EPA is not
evaluating the substantive merit of
existing control measures in the SIP,
unlike the evaluation of such measures
in a nonattainment plan SIP submission.
For an infrastructure SIP submission,
the EPA interprets section 110(a)(2)(A)
to require states to make a submission
that identifies the existing measures in
their SIPs that are relevant to the
2 https://burnwise.alaska.gov/standards.htm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Nov 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
NAAQS at issue, as the first step in their
planning for implementation of a new or
revised NAAQS.3 These infrastructure
SIP submissions should identify
enforceable control measures as part of
the demonstration that the State has the
available tools and authority to develop
and implement plans to attain and
maintain the NAAQS.
The EPA’s longstanding position is
that infrastructure SIPs are statewide
planning SIPs to implement, maintain,
and enforce a NAAQS in general, and
are not detailed attainment and
maintenance plans for an individual
area of a state.4 Infrastructure SIPs are
due within three years of adoption or
revision of a particular NAAQS,
according to CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
(2). The separate nonattainment plan
SIP submissions to address the emission
limits and other control measures
needed to attain a particular NAAQS in
an area designated nonattainment are
due on a separate schedule, pursuant to
CAA section 172 and the various
pollutant-specific subparts 2 through 5
of part D.5
Second, the EPA disagrees because
the comment is not germane to this
action on the State’s infrastructure SIP
submission. The commenter’s assertions
focus on control measures already
established by the State in 18 AAC
50.077 and 18 AAC 50.079 to attain the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the
FNSB nonattainment area. On
September 8, 2017, the EPA approved
18 AAC 50.077 as an appropriate
control measure for the area and we are
not revisiting our prior decision.6 The
EPA already addressed the substance
and validity of the control measures,
and the need for such measures to help
reach attainment of the NAAQS in the
FNSB area in that prior action. We note
that the standards in 18 AAC 50.079
have not been submitted by Alaska to
the EPA and are therefore outside the
scope of this action.
Third, the EPA does not agree that it
is appropriate to compare the stringency
of an NSPS with the stringency of other
3 See August 14, 2015, final rule approving
Indiana and Ohio infrastructure SIPs (80 FR 48733
at pages 48737–48738).
4 See detailed discussion of the scope of
infrastructure SIP actions in the July 20, 2016,
proposed rule on the Alaska SIP with respect to
infrastructure requirements (81 FR 47103, at page
47104).
5 See 2013 infrastructure guidance: Stephen D.
Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’
Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors,
Regions 1–10, September 13, 2013.
6 See September 8, 2017, final rule (82 FR 42457)
and February 2, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 9035
at pages 9045–9046).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
forms of control measures that may be
necessary for a given source category.
The NSPS for woodstoves focuses on
emission reductions achievable through
redesign of new woodstoves to reduce
emissions. By contrast, potential SIP
control measures can, and may be
required to, achieve emission reductions
by other means such as requirements to
burn dry wood, opacity standards,
curtailment programs, or other
mechanism to reduce emissions from
both new and existing sources, perhaps
over and above what may result from
the NSPS alone. The commenter
incorrectly presumes that an NSPS is
necessarily the proper point of
comparison for the validity of SIP
provisions to address emissions from
woodstoves.
Fourth, the EPA disagrees with the
premise that states cannot regulate a
source category more stringently than
may be required in a Federal regulation.
In enacting section 110 of the CAA,
Congress gave states the lead in
developing plans to implement,
maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. The
EPA’s role is to review and approve
state choices if they meet the minimum
criteria of the CAA. See 42 U.S.C.
7410(k) and 40 CFR 52.02(a). There is
nothing in the CAA that prevents SIP
provisions from being more stringent
than Federal NSPS standards. To the
contrary, CAA section 116 explicitly
authorizes states to regulate sources
more stringently than the EPA does
through Federal regulations. More
importantly, states have the obligation
to regulate sources as necessary to meet
nonattainment area plan stringency
requirements, such as reasonably- and
best available control measures, and the
obligation to regulate sources as
necessary to attain the NAAQS in a
given nonattainment area. Thus, the fact
that 18 AAC 50.077 may be more
stringent than the NSPS for home
heating devices does not make it
unenforceable.
Finally, we note that Alaska’s
infrastructure SIP submission
established that the State has a program
for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
that covers a range of relevant sources
of emissions. As discussed in the
proposed action, Alaska regulates
emissions of PM2.5 and its precursors
through the SIP-approved major and
minor new source review (NSR)
permitting programs, most recently
updated on August 28, 2017 (82 FR
40712). In addition to permitting
requirements, Alaska’s SIP contains
other rules that limit particulate matter
emissions. These rules include
incinerator emission standards,
E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM
27NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
emission limits for specific industrial
processes and fuel burning equipment,
open burning restrictions, visible
emission limits on marine vessel
emissions, and requirements for
installing and operating solid fuel-fired
devices.
We continue to find that the Alaska
infrastructure SIP submission meets the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS and we are finalizing our
proposed approval. To the extent that
additional control measures are
necessary to meet other requirements,
such as control measures necessary to
reach attainment of the NAAQS in the
FNSB nonattainment area in a
nonattainment plan SIP submission,
Alaska and the EPA will address that in
subsequent actions.
2. CAA Sections 110(a)(2)(B) and (K)—
Monitoring and Modeling
The commenter asserted that the
regulatory monitor at Hurst Road in
North Pole, Alaska ‘‘routinely records
the highest levels of PM2.5 seen in the
nation, while devices nearby record
normal levels of PM2.5.’’ The commenter
concluded that ‘‘the FNSB is using
faulty air quality parameters’’ that are
being used to dictate the strategy for the
nonattainment area and that the State
has failed to meet CAA sections
110(a)(2)(B) and (K).
The EPA disagrees that the relative
levels of ambient PM2.5 at monitors in
the FNSB affects the approvability of the
infrastructure SIP submission. In the
context of an infrastructure SIP
submission, the EPA interprets CAA
section 110(a)(2)(B) to require states to
have SIP provisions to provide for the
establishment and operation of ambient
air quality monitors, collecting and
analyzing ambient air quality data, and
making these data available to the EPA
upon request. In our proposed action,
we stated that Alaska has a
comprehensive air quality monitoring
plan, originally approved by the EPA
into the Alaska SIP on April 15, 1981
(46 FR 21994). We also determined that
the plan includes statutory and
regulatory authority to establish and
operate an air quality monitoring
network, including PM2.5 monitoring
(January 23, 2018; 83 FR 3101, at page
3103). In practice, Alaska operates a
comprehensive PM2.5 monitoring
network, compiles and analyzes
collected data, and submits the data to
the EPA’s Air Quality System on a
quarterly basis.
With respect to monitor siting, Alaska
regularly assesses the adequacy of the
State monitoring network and submits
that assessment to the EPA for review.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Nov 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
The most recent Alaska network
assessment is available at https://
dec.alaska.gov/air/air-monitoring/
network-assessments. The fact that a
single monitor records ambient PM2.5
values higher than monitors in
surrounding areas does not establish
that the monitoring data is inaccurate.
The EPA’s network design criteria are
found in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58.
The fine particulate matter design
criteria for state and local air monitors,
at paragraph 4.7 of the Appendix,
directs states to appropriately monitor
the area of maximum concentration. We
continue to find that Alaska has met the
infrastructure SIP monitoring
requirement of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B)
for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and we are
finalizing our proposed approval with
respect to this requirement.
In the context of an infrastructure SIP
submission, the EPA interprets CAA
section 110(a)(2)(K) to require that SIPs
provide for the performance of air
quality modeling as may be prescribed
by the EPA, and the submission of that
modeling data by states to the EPA as
required or upon request. In our
proposed action, we stated that Alaska’s
SIP meets the infrastructure SIP
requirements for modeling because, as
stated in the submission, Alaska
incorporates the EPA’s Guideline on Air
Quality Models into the SIP at 18 AAC
50.040 and requires its use based on 18
AAC 50.215 Ambient Air Quality
Analysis Methods.
Beyond alleging that ‘‘the FNSB is
using faulty air quality parameters,’’ the
commenter did not specify why they felt
the Alaska SIP failed to meet CAA
section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. We continue to find that the
Alaska SIP provides the necessary
authority to perform required air quality
modeling and to submit that data to the
EPA.7 Therefore, we are finalizing our
proposed approval of the infrastructure
SIP submission with respect to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
3. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)—
Enforcement
The commenter alleged that the FNSB
cannot enforce wood burning
curtailment as a practical matter and
pointed to public statements that the
FNSB has found ‘‘very low compliance’’
but has issued ‘‘only one citation.’’ The
commenter concluded that the program
7 See 2013 infrastructure guidance at page 55:
Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. ‘‘Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2).’’ Memorandum to EPA Air Division
Directors, Regions 1–10, September 13, 2013.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
60771
is unenforceable and that the State has
failed to meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
with respect to enforcement.
In the context of an infrastructure SIP
submission, the EPA interprets CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) to require, among
other things, a program providing for
enforcement of all SIP measures. As
stated in the infrastructure SIP
submission, Alaska statute provides
ADEC authority to enforce air quality
regulations, permits, and orders
promulgated pursuant to AS 46.03 and
AS 46.14. ADEC staffs and maintains an
enforcement program to ensure
compliance with SIP requirements.
ADEC has emergency order authority
when there is an imminent or present
danger to health or welfare or potential
for irreversible or irreparable damage to
natural resources or the environment.
Enforcement cases may be referred to
the State Department of Law. Therefore,
we proposed to approve the Alaska SIP
as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) related to
enforcement for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The commenter asserted that the
FNSB burn curtailment program is
unenforceable and that the EPA should
therefore disapprove the infrastructure
SIP submission with respect to CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C). The EPA disagrees
that the amount or type of enforcement
of a SIP provision necessarily affects the
approvability of an infrastructure SIP
submission. In the context of evaluating
an infrastructure SIP submission, the
EPA is focused upon the facial
sufficiency of the State’s SIP and does
not evaluate issues related to the State’s
implementation of the SIP. The EPA has
other authority to take action, in the
event the State is actually failing to
implement its SIP, such as the issuance
of a finding of failure to implement or
a SIP call. In this instance, the comment
also relates to the State’s exercise of
enforcement discretion, rather than to
the facial sufficiency of the State’s SIP
with respect to enforcement authority.
As stated in our proposal, the SIP
contains the required statutory authority
to enforce air quality regulations,
permits, and orders.8 We continue to
find that the Alaska SIP meets the
infrastructure requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS and we are finalizing our
proposed approval.
4. CAA section 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency
Episodes
The commenter stated that ‘‘the
emergency episode plan for FNSB is not
sustainable’’ and specifically referred to
a voter initiative to remove wood
8 January
E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM
23, 2018; 83 FR 3101, pages 3103–3104.
27NOR1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
60772
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
burning from FNSB regulatory
oversight. The commenter also alleged
that the FNSB is using the SIP
emergency episode plan ‘‘as a surrogate
for its own desires to limit wood
burning.’’ The commenter therefore
argued that the State has failed to meet
110(a)(2)(G) infrastructure requirements.
In the context of an infrastructure SIP
submission, the EPA interprets CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) to require two
things: (1) States must have general
emergency authority to address
activities causing imminent and
substantial endangerment to public
health, and (2) if the area has high
ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the
past, a contingency plan in their SIPs to
achieve emission reductions in the
event of an emergency episode.
In the March 10, 2016, infrastructure
submission, with respect to general
emergency authority, Alaska cited to
Alaska Statute (AS) 46.03.820
Emergency powers, which provides
ADEC with emergency order authority
where there is an imminent or present
danger to the health or welfare of the
people of the state or would result in or
be likely to result in irreversible or
irreparable damage to the natural
resources or environment. In addition,
with respect to a contingency plan to
achieve emission reductions in the
event of an emergency episode, Alaska
referenced State-wide emergency
episode rules at 18 AAC 50.246 Air
Quality Episodes and Advisories for
PM2.5. These rules authorize ADEC to
declare an air alert, air warning, or air
advisory to notify the public and
prescribe and publicize curtailment
action, including imposition of
restrictions on open burning under 18
AAC 50.065 and limits on visible
emissions from solid fuel-fired heating
devices under 18 AAC 50.075. The
submission also noted that the FNSB
developed a local emergency episode
plan for PM2.5 applicable in the FNSB
area, and the State adopted the plan into
the Alaska SIP at 18 AAC 50.030.
On January 23, 2018, the EPA
proposed to find that AS 46.03.820
Emergency powers provides emergency
order authority comparable to CAA
section 303.9 We also proposed to find
that Alaska’s State-wide emergency
episode rules are consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51 subpart
H for PM2.5 (prevention of air pollution
emergency episodes, sections 51.150
through 51.153).10 These State-wide,
9 January
23, 2018; 83 FR 3101, page 3106.
AAC 50.246 Air Quality Episodes and
Advisories for PM2.5, in conjunction with 18 AAC
50.065 Open Burning and 18 AAC 50.075 Solid
Fuel-Fired Device Visible Emission Standards, most
10 18
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Nov 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
SIP-approved regulations and statute
continue to meet the CAA section
110(a)(2)(G) emergency episode
infrastructure requirements. Therefore,
we are finalizing our proposed approval
of the Alaska SIP as meeting CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997, 2006,
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
III. Final Action
We are approving the Alaska SIP as
meeting the following CAA section
110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (H), (J), (K), (L),
and (M). We are also approving the
Alaska SIP as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997, 2006, and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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 (Public Law 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
recently approved by the EPA on September 8, 2017
(82 FR 40712).
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by January 28, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM
27NOR1
60773
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
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, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 2, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
Subpart C—Alaska
2. In § 52.70, the table in paragraph (e)
is amended by:
■ a. Revising entry III.II.D.; and
■ b. Adding entries ‘‘Infrastructure
Requirements—2012 PM2.5 NAAQS’’
and ‘‘Infrastructure Requirements—
1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS’’
after entry ‘‘Interstate Transport
Requirements—2010 SO2 NAAQS’’.
The revision and additions read as
follows:
■
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as
follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
§ 52.70
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED ALASKA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
Applicable
geographic or nonattainment area
Name of SIP
provision
*
*
State
submittal
date
*
EPA approval
date
*
Explanations
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
State of Alaska Air Quality Control Plan: Volume III. Appendices
Section II State Air Quality Control Program
*
*
*
III.II.D. CAA Section 110 Infra- Statewide ...............................
structure Certification Documentation and Supporting
Documents.
*
*
*
3/10/2016
*
*
11/27/2018, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
*
Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
*
*
*
*
*
Infrastructure Requirements—
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Statewide ...............................
3/10/2016
11/27/2018, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
Infrastructure Requirements—
1997, 2006, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Statewide ...............................
3/10/2016
11/27/2018, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–25681 Filed 11–26–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
*
*
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
47 CFR Part 76
[MB Docket Nos. 17–105, 02–144; MM
Docket Nos. 92–266, 93–215; CS Docket
Nos. 94–28, 96–157; FCC 18–148]
Modernization of Media Regulation
Initiative: Revisions to Cable
Television Rate Regulations
Federal Communications
Commission
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Nov 26, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Approves SIP for purposes of
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii),
(E), (F), (H), (J), (K), (L),
and (M) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Approves SIP for purposes of
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(G)
for the 1997, 2006, and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
*
ACTION:
*
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) eliminate or revise
expired and outdated cable rate
regulation rules and close a related
dormant docket.
DATES: Effective date: December 27,
2018.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
additional information on this
proceeding, contact Katie Costello,
E:\FR\FM\27NOR1.SGM
27NOR1
For
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60769-60773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25681]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0597; FRL-9986-49-Region 10]
Air Plan Approval; AK: Fine Particulate Matter Infrastructure
Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Whenever the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgates
a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), the
Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to make a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submission establishing that the SIP provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised
NAAQS, commonly referred to as infrastructure requirements. The EPA is
approving the Alaska SIP as meeting specific infrastructure
requirements for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective December 27, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0597. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure
of which 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 form. Publicly available docket
materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
II. Response to Comments
A. Summary of Comments
B. EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background Information
On March 10, 2016, Alaska submitted a SIP submission to address the
infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, in
addition to outstanding 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure elements not included in prior submissions. On January
23, 2018, the EPA proposed to approve the Alaska infrastructure SIP
submission as meeting the following CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We
also proposed to approve Alaska's March 2016 infrastructure SIP
submission as meeting the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for
the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS (83 FR 3101). The
public comment period for our proposed action ended on February 22,
2018.
II. Response to Comments
A. Summary of Comments
We received 13 adverse comments, all of which appear to be from
citizens living in North Pole, Alaska, part of the Fairbanks North Star
Borough (FNSB) nonattainment area.\1\ Commenters expressed concerns
about the local burn curtailment program and how FNSB implemented the
program in the nonattainment area this past winter. The program was
developed by FNSB, submitted to the EPA by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC), and approved by the EPA into the
Alaska SIP on September 8, 2017, as part of the FNSB Moderate 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment plan (82 FR 42457).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 40 CFR 81.302. A portion of the FNSB is designated
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
entire state of Alaska is designated unclassifiable/attainment for
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of these commenters did not provide details about how their
concerns warrant approval or disapproval of specific infrastructure SIP
elements. The EPA does not consider comments on the advisability of
FNSB control measures in the existing SIP to be within the scope of
issues subject to public comment in this infrastructure SIP action. The
provisions in question were previously approved into the SIP as part of
the FNSB
[[Page 60770]]
Moderate 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment plan, and we
are not in this action (which approves the Alaska SIP as meeting
specific infrastructure requirements for the 1997, 2006, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS) revisiting our prior decision. Likewise,
comments on potential future control measures that have not been
submitted to the EPA for SIP approval are outside the scope of this
action.
One commenter did include detailed information supporting their
assertion that the EPA should not approve certain infrastructure SIP
elements in this action, and we have responded to the commenter's
assertions below.
B. EPA Responses
1. CAA Section 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission Limits
One commenter stated that CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to
include enforceable emission limits, but the ``FNSB has set a standard
for home wood burning devices that is much more strict than the EPA
requires.'' The commenter included a link to the ADEC web page
comparing the EPA's 2015 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for
Residential Wood Heaters to Alaska regulations addressing solid fuel-
fired heating device emission standards, specifically, regulations set
forth in Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) at 18 AAC 50.077 and 18 AAC
50.079.\2\ The commenter alleged that the Alaska standards are more
stringent than the EPA's NSPS and concluded that the Alaska standards
are, therefore, an unenforceable emission limit under CAA section
110(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://burnwise.alaska.gov/standards.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA disagrees with this comment for a number of reasons. First,
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including
economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of
emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance,
as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements
of the CAA. In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission for a
new or revised NAAQS, however, the EPA is not evaluating the
substantive merit of existing control measures in the SIP, unlike the
evaluation of such measures in a nonattainment plan SIP submission. For
an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA interprets section
110(a)(2)(A) to require states to make a submission that identifies the
existing measures in their SIPs that are relevant to the NAAQS at
issue, as the first step in their planning for implementation of a new
or revised NAAQS.\3\ These infrastructure SIP submissions should
identify enforceable control measures as part of the demonstration that
the State has the available tools and authority to develop and
implement plans to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See August 14, 2015, final rule approving Indiana and Ohio
infrastructure SIPs (80 FR 48733 at pages 48737-48738).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's longstanding position is that infrastructure SIPs are
statewide planning SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce a NAAQS in
general, and are not detailed attainment and maintenance plans for an
individual area of a state.\4\ Infrastructure SIPs are due within three
years of adoption or revision of a particular NAAQS, according to CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and (2). The separate nonattainment plan SIP
submissions to address the emission limits and other control measures
needed to attain a particular NAAQS in an area designated nonattainment
are due on a separate schedule, pursuant to CAA section 172 and the
various pollutant-specific subparts 2 through 5 of part D.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See detailed discussion of the scope of infrastructure SIP
actions in the July 20, 2016, proposed rule on the Alaska SIP with
respect to infrastructure requirements (81 FR 47103, at page 47104).
\5\ See 2013 infrastructure guidance: Stephen D. Page, Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' Memorandum to EPA Air
Division Directors, Regions 1-10, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the EPA disagrees because the comment is not germane to
this action on the State's infrastructure SIP submission. The
commenter's assertions focus on control measures already established by
the State in 18 AAC 50.077 and 18 AAC 50.079 to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in the FNSB nonattainment area. On September 8,
2017, the EPA approved 18 AAC 50.077 as an appropriate control measure
for the area and we are not revisiting our prior decision.\6\ The EPA
already addressed the substance and validity of the control measures,
and the need for such measures to help reach attainment of the NAAQS in
the FNSB area in that prior action. We note that the standards in 18
AAC 50.079 have not been submitted by Alaska to the EPA and are
therefore outside the scope of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See September 8, 2017, final rule (82 FR 42457) and February
2, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 9035 at pages 9045-9046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the EPA does not agree that it is appropriate to compare the
stringency of an NSPS with the stringency of other forms of control
measures that may be necessary for a given source category. The NSPS
for woodstoves focuses on emission reductions achievable through
redesign of new woodstoves to reduce emissions. By contrast, potential
SIP control measures can, and may be required to, achieve emission
reductions by other means such as requirements to burn dry wood,
opacity standards, curtailment programs, or other mechanism to reduce
emissions from both new and existing sources, perhaps over and above
what may result from the NSPS alone. The commenter incorrectly presumes
that an NSPS is necessarily the proper point of comparison for the
validity of SIP provisions to address emissions from woodstoves.
Fourth, the EPA disagrees with the premise that states cannot
regulate a source category more stringently than may be required in a
Federal regulation. In enacting section 110 of the CAA, Congress gave
states the lead in developing plans to implement, maintain, and enforce
the NAAQS. The EPA's role is to review and approve state choices if
they meet the minimum criteria of the CAA. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k) and 40
CFR 52.02(a). There is nothing in the CAA that prevents SIP provisions
from being more stringent than Federal NSPS standards. To the contrary,
CAA section 116 explicitly authorizes states to regulate sources more
stringently than the EPA does through Federal regulations. More
importantly, states have the obligation to regulate sources as
necessary to meet nonattainment area plan stringency requirements, such
as reasonably- and best available control measures, and the obligation
to regulate sources as necessary to attain the NAAQS in a given
nonattainment area. Thus, the fact that 18 AAC 50.077 may be more
stringent than the NSPS for home heating devices does not make it
unenforceable.
Finally, we note that Alaska's infrastructure SIP submission
established that the State has a program for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS that
covers a range of relevant sources of emissions. As discussed in the
proposed action, Alaska regulates emissions of PM2.5 and its
precursors through the SIP-approved major and minor new source review
(NSR) permitting programs, most recently updated on August 28, 2017 (82
FR 40712). In addition to permitting requirements, Alaska's SIP
contains other rules that limit particulate matter emissions. These
rules include incinerator emission standards,
[[Page 60771]]
emission limits for specific industrial processes and fuel burning
equipment, open burning restrictions, visible emission limits on marine
vessel emissions, and requirements for installing and operating solid
fuel-fired devices.
We continue to find that the Alaska infrastructure SIP submission
meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and we are finalizing our proposed
approval. To the extent that additional control measures are necessary
to meet other requirements, such as control measures necessary to reach
attainment of the NAAQS in the FNSB nonattainment area in a
nonattainment plan SIP submission, Alaska and the EPA will address that
in subsequent actions.
2. CAA Sections 110(a)(2)(B) and (K)--Monitoring and Modeling
The commenter asserted that the regulatory monitor at Hurst Road in
North Pole, Alaska ``routinely records the highest levels of
PM2.5 seen in the nation, while devices nearby record normal
levels of PM2.5.'' The commenter concluded that ``the FNSB
is using faulty air quality parameters'' that are being used to dictate
the strategy for the nonattainment area and that the State has failed
to meet CAA sections 110(a)(2)(B) and (K).
The EPA disagrees that the relative levels of ambient
PM2.5 at monitors in the FNSB affects the approvability of
the infrastructure SIP submission. In the context of an infrastructure
SIP submission, the EPA interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) to require
states to have SIP provisions to provide for the establishment and
operation of ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing
ambient air quality data, and making these data available to the EPA
upon request. In our proposed action, we stated that Alaska has a
comprehensive air quality monitoring plan, originally approved by the
EPA into the Alaska SIP on April 15, 1981 (46 FR 21994). We also
determined that the plan includes statutory and regulatory authority to
establish and operate an air quality monitoring network, including
PM2.5 monitoring (January 23, 2018; 83 FR 3101, at page
3103). In practice, Alaska operates a comprehensive PM2.5
monitoring network, compiles and analyzes collected data, and submits
the data to the EPA's Air Quality System on a quarterly basis.
With respect to monitor siting, Alaska regularly assesses the
adequacy of the State monitoring network and submits that assessment to
the EPA for review. The most recent Alaska network assessment is
available at https://dec.alaska.gov/air/air-monitoring/network-assessments. The fact that a single monitor records ambient
PM2.5 values higher than monitors in surrounding areas does
not establish that the monitoring data is inaccurate. The EPA's network
design criteria are found in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. The fine
particulate matter design criteria for state and local air monitors, at
paragraph 4.7 of the Appendix, directs states to appropriately monitor
the area of maximum concentration. We continue to find that Alaska has
met the infrastructure SIP monitoring requirement of CAA section
110(a)(2)(B) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and we are finalizing
our proposed approval with respect to this requirement.
In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA
interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) to require that SIPs provide for
the performance of air quality modeling as may be prescribed by the
EPA, and the submission of that modeling data by states to the EPA as
required or upon request. In our proposed action, we stated that
Alaska's SIP meets the infrastructure SIP requirements for modeling
because, as stated in the submission, Alaska incorporates the EPA's
Guideline on Air Quality Models into the SIP at 18 AAC 50.040 and
requires its use based on 18 AAC 50.215 Ambient Air Quality Analysis
Methods.
Beyond alleging that ``the FNSB is using faulty air quality
parameters,'' the commenter did not specify why they felt the Alaska
SIP failed to meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. We continue to find that the Alaska SIP
provides the necessary authority to perform required air quality
modeling and to submit that data to the EPA.\7\ Therefore, we are
finalizing our proposed approval of the infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 2013 infrastructure guidance at page 55: Stephen D.
Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).''
Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors, Regions 1-10, September
13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)--Enforcement
The commenter alleged that the FNSB cannot enforce wood burning
curtailment as a practical matter and pointed to public statements that
the FNSB has found ``very low compliance'' but has issued ``only one
citation.'' The commenter concluded that the program is unenforceable
and that the State has failed to meet CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) with
respect to enforcement.
In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA
interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) to require, among other things, a
program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures. As stated in the
infrastructure SIP submission, Alaska statute provides ADEC authority
to enforce air quality regulations, permits, and orders promulgated
pursuant to AS 46.03 and AS 46.14. ADEC staffs and maintains an
enforcement program to ensure compliance with SIP requirements. ADEC
has emergency order authority when there is an imminent or present
danger to health or welfare or potential for irreversible or
irreparable damage to natural resources or the environment. Enforcement
cases may be referred to the State Department of Law. Therefore, we
proposed to approve the Alaska SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(C) related to enforcement for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
The commenter asserted that the FNSB burn curtailment program is
unenforceable and that the EPA should therefore disapprove the
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to CAA section 110(a)(2)(C).
The EPA disagrees that the amount or type of enforcement of a SIP
provision necessarily affects the approvability of an infrastructure
SIP submission. In the context of evaluating an infrastructure SIP
submission, the EPA is focused upon the facial sufficiency of the
State's SIP and does not evaluate issues related to the State's
implementation of the SIP. The EPA has other authority to take action,
in the event the State is actually failing to implement its SIP, such
as the issuance of a finding of failure to implement or a SIP call. In
this instance, the comment also relates to the State's exercise of
enforcement discretion, rather than to the facial sufficiency of the
State's SIP with respect to enforcement authority.
As stated in our proposal, the SIP contains the required statutory
authority to enforce air quality regulations, permits, and orders.\8\
We continue to find that the Alaska SIP meets the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS and we are finalizing our proposed approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ January 23, 2018; 83 FR 3101, pages 3103-3104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. CAA section 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Episodes
The commenter stated that ``the emergency episode plan for FNSB is
not sustainable'' and specifically referred to a voter initiative to
remove wood
[[Page 60772]]
burning from FNSB regulatory oversight. The commenter also alleged that
the FNSB is using the SIP emergency episode plan ``as a surrogate for
its own desires to limit wood burning.'' The commenter therefore argued
that the State has failed to meet 110(a)(2)(G) infrastructure
requirements.
In the context of an infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA
interprets CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) to require two things: (1) States
must have general emergency authority to address activities causing
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, and (2) if the
area has high ambient PM2.5 concentrations in the past, a
contingency plan in their SIPs to achieve emission reductions in the
event of an emergency episode.
In the March 10, 2016, infrastructure submission, with respect to
general emergency authority, Alaska cited to Alaska Statute (AS)
46.03.820 Emergency powers, which provides ADEC with emergency order
authority where there is an imminent or present danger to the health or
welfare of the people of the state or would result in or be likely to
result in irreversible or irreparable damage to the natural resources
or environment. In addition, with respect to a contingency plan to
achieve emission reductions in the event of an emergency episode,
Alaska referenced State-wide emergency episode rules at 18 AAC 50.246
Air Quality Episodes and Advisories for PM2.5. These rules
authorize ADEC to declare an air alert, air warning, or air advisory to
notify the public and prescribe and publicize curtailment action,
including imposition of restrictions on open burning under 18 AAC
50.065 and limits on visible emissions from solid fuel-fired heating
devices under 18 AAC 50.075. The submission also noted that the FNSB
developed a local emergency episode plan for PM2.5
applicable in the FNSB area, and the State adopted the plan into the
Alaska SIP at 18 AAC 50.030.
On January 23, 2018, the EPA proposed to find that AS 46.03.820
Emergency powers provides emergency order authority comparable to CAA
section 303.\9\ We also proposed to find that Alaska's State-wide
emergency episode rules are consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR
part 51 subpart H for PM2.5 (prevention of air pollution
emergency episodes, sections 51.150 through 51.153).\10\ These State-
wide, SIP-approved regulations and statute continue to meet the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) emergency episode infrastructure requirements.
Therefore, we are finalizing our proposed approval of the Alaska SIP as
meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997, 2006, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ January 23, 2018; 83 FR 3101, page 3106.
\10\ 18 AAC 50.246 Air Quality Episodes and Advisories for
PM2.5, in conjunction with 18 AAC 50.065 Open Burning and
18 AAC 50.075 Solid Fuel-Fired Device Visible Emission Standards,
most recently approved by the EPA on September 8, 2017 (82 FR
40712).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
We are approving the Alaska SIP as meeting the following CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M). We are also approving the Alaska SIP as meeting CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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 (Public Law 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 28, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
[[Page 60773]]
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, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 2, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart C--Alaska
0
2. In Sec. 52.70, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by:
0
a. Revising entry III.II.D.; and
0
b. Adding entries ``Infrastructure Requirements--2012 PM2.5
NAAQS'' and ``Infrastructure Requirements--1997, 2006, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS'' after entry ``Interstate Transport
Requirements--2010 SO2 NAAQS''.
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.70 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Alaska Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State
Name of SIP provision geographic or non- submittal EPA approval date Explanations
attainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State of Alaska Air Quality Control Plan: Volume III. Appendices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section II State Air Quality Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
III.II.D. CAA Section 110 Statewide.......... 3/10/2016 11/27/2018, [Insert
Infrastructure Certification Federal Register
Documentation and Supporting citation].
Documents.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure Requirements--2012 Statewide.......... 3/10/2016 11/27/2018, [Insert Approves SIP for
PM2.5 NAAQS. Federal Register purposes of CAA
citation]. sections
110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), (E), (F),
(H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M) for
the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
Infrastructure Requirements-- Statewide.......... 3/10/2016 11/27/2018, [Insert Approves SIP for
1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Federal Register purposes of CAA
citation]. sections
110(a)(2)(G) for
the 1997, 2006,
and 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2018-25681 Filed 11-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
