[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 23 (Monday, February 5, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5232-5239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1802]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2006-1013; FRL-8275-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; 
Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA invites public comment on its proposal to approve numerous 
revisions to the State of Alaska Implementation Plan. The Commissioner 
of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) submitted 
two requests to EPA dated May 6, 2005 and June 30, 2006 to revise 
certain sections of ADEC's air quality regulations. The revisions were 
submitted in accordance with the requirements of section 110 of the 
Clean Air Act (hereinafter the Act or CAA). Although EPA proposes to 
approve most of the submitted revisions, EPA proposes not to approve in 
this rulemaking a number of submitted rule provisions which are 
inappropriate for EPA approval.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 7, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R10-OAR-2006-1013, by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    B. E-Mail: [email protected].
    C. Mail: Roylene A. Cunningham, EPA, Office of Air, Waste, and 
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    D. Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Roylene A. Cunningham, 
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-
2006-1013. 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 e-mail. 
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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, 
your e-mail 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 electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 form. 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, Washington 
98101. Copies of the State submittal are also available at the State of 
Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, 410 Willoughby 
Avenue, Ste 303, Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roylene A. Cunningham, (206) 553-0513, 
or by e-mail at [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background of Submittal
II. Summary of Action
    A. Provisions Approved by EPA and Incorporated by Reference
    1. Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted by Reference
    2. Opacity Standards
    3. Nonroad Engines
    4. Ambient Analysis Methods
    5. Owner-Requested Limits
    6. Preapproved Emission Limits
    7. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permits
    8. Nonattainment Area Major Stationary Source Permits
    9. Source-Specific Minor Permits
    10. General Minor Permits
    11. Conclusion
    B. Provisions Approved by EPA into the SIP, But Not Incorporated 
by Reference
    C. Provisions Not Approved by EPA
    1. Provisions Not Related to Section 110 of the CAA
    2. Provisions Related to Clean Units and the Pollution Control 
Projects Exclusion
    3. Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods (18 AAC 50.215(a)(3))
    4. Enforceable Test Methods (18 AAC 50.220(c)(2))
    5. Excess Emissions (18 AAC 50.240)
    6. Source Test Deadline (18 AAC 50.345(l))
    7. Standard Operating Permit Condition II (18 AAC 50.346(a))
    8. Electronic Applications (18 AAC 50.542(b)(2))
    9. Revisions to Minor Permits (18 AAC 50.546(b))
III. Requested Sections to be Removed from the SIP
IV. Geographic Scope of SIP Approval
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background of Submittal

    On May 6, 2005, the Commissioner of ADEC submitted a request to EPA 
to revise the Alaska SIP to include a completely revised version of the 
State of Alaska's Air Quality Regulation in 18 AAC 50. These changes 
became effective as a matter of State law on January 29, 2005.
    On June 30, 2006 the Commissioner of ADEC submitted a request to 
EPA to revise the Alaska SIP to include additional revisions to 18 AAC 
50. The revised portions reflected in this submittal include adoption 
by reference of updated EPA rules and changes to the portable oil and 
gas drill rig regulations. These changes became effective as a matter 
of State law on December 3, 2005. Included in the submittal was a 
request that EPA exclude from consideration for SIP approval the 
portions of 18 AAC 50 affected by the June 24, 2005, United States 
Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit decision which vacated 
portions of EPA's new source review rules pertaining to clean units and 
pollution control projects.

[[Page 5233]]

II. Summary of Action

A. Provisions Approved by EPA and Incorporated by Reference

    The following discussion provides an overview of ADEC's revised 
rules which EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference into the SIP, 
including a discussion of the key changes from the current SIP and 
EPA's evaluation of the changes. Note that any specific provisions or 
subparagraphs of ADEC's submittals which EPA is proposing not to 
approve are discussed in Section II.C. below.
    The docket includes a technical support document which describes in 
more detail the substantive changes to ADEC's rules that have been 
submitted by Alaska as revisions to the SIP, EPA's evaluation of the 
changes, and the basis for EPA's action.
1. Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted by Reference
    ADEC revised 18 AAC 50.035(a) and (b) in order to update the dates 
of their adoption by reference of Federal law, as well as State and 
Federal guidance documents. Paragraph (c) is a new provision which 
allows ADEC to use a test method other than one listed in 18 AAC 
50.035(c) for a source-specific limit imposed in a permit. ADEC has 
clarified that this provision does not authorize ADEC to change a test 
method that is established in a SIP limit or a Federal standard. EPA is 
approving 18 AAC 50.035(c) with that understanding.
2. Opacity Standards
    ADEC revised the opacity standard for most sources from a three 
minute aggregate to a six minute average. See 18 AAC 50.050 and 50.055. 
The numeric value of the standard remains 20%. EPA has previously 
approved the use of a six minute average opacity standard for several 
source categories in Alaska in order to coincide with opacity limits in 
the Federal NSPS. In these latest revisions, ADEC has amended 18 AAC 
50.050(2) and 18 AAC 50.055 (1)-(3) to similarly adopt a six minute 
average for more source categories. As explained in more detail in the 
justification provided by ADEC, ADEC made this change in the form of 
the standard to address a defense to enforcement raised by industry 
with the three minute aggregate exception. ADEC further explained that, 
although there may be some limited situations in which the revised 
standard could be less stringent than the previous standard (when there 
is a plume that is both high in opacity and intermittent), in the large 
majority of cases, the new standard is more stringent. In the one 
circumstance where ADEC expects that the three minute aggregate could 
be more stringent than the six minute average--soot blowing at coal 
fired power plants--ADEC has retained the opacity limit as an aggregate 
standard. Based on the information provided by ADEC, EPA concludes that 
changing the 20% opacity limit from a three minute exception to a six 
minute average in 18 AAC 50.050(2) and 18 AAC 50.055 (1)-(3) will 
continue to provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and 
other CAA standards and is thus approvable.
3. Nonroad Engines
    ADEC added 18 AAC 50.100 in January 1997 to address a change in the 
1990 CAA by making clear that actual and potential emissions from 
nonroad engines are not considered when determining whether a 
stationary source is subject to construction or operating permit 
programs in Alaska.
4. Ambient Analysis Methods
    Section 50.215, renumbered from 18 AAC 50.510(a), sets forth 
requirements for air quality modeling and analysis. Paragraph (c) 
allows substitution or modification of an air quality model, provided 
the source performs and submits a comparative analysis using a protocol 
developed using a specified procedure, obtains ADEC approval of the 
comparative protocol, and, in the case of air quality analysis required 
by 18 AAC 50.306 (PSD), obtains EPA and ADEC approval of the 
substituted or modified model. Federal law, however, requires written 
approval from EPA for any substitution or modification of a model used 
for minor and major new source review, including major new source 
review in nonattainment areas (NNSR). See 40 CFR 51.160(f). ADEC has 
advised EPA that it erred in limiting the cross-reference in 18 AAC 
50.215(c)(3) to 18 AAC 50.306 (PSD) and that ADEC fully intended to 
require and intends to obtain EPA approval of a model substitution or 
modification for minor NSR (18 AAC 50.502-560) and major NNSR (18 AAC 
50.311). ADEC has provided written assurance that ADEC will not allow a 
model substitution or modification if an ambient air quality analysis 
is required by minor NSR (18 AAC 50.502-560) or major NNSR (18 AAC 
50.311) without prior written approval from EPA and that it will 
correct this error in their next rulemaking. EPA is approving this 
provision on that basis.
5. Owner-Requested Limits
    ADEC proposes to include 18 AAC 50.225 in the SIP as a mechanism to 
establish source-specific federally-enforceable limitations that 
restrict a source's allowable emissions or potential to emit air 
pollutants. EPA has issued criteria for determining when emission 
limits contained in non-title V operating permits and similar 
mechanisms are federally enforceable. See 54 FR 27274 (June 28, 1989). 
The criteria include approval of the State mechanism into the SIP, a 
legal obligation that the permittee adhere to the limits and other 
requirements, that the limits and other requirements be at least as 
stringent as any other applicable SIP or federally enforceable 
requirements, that the limits and other requirements be permanent, 
quantifiable, and otherwise enforceable as a practical matter, and that 
the limits and other requirements be issued subject to public 
participation.
    Owner-requested limits issued under 18 AAC 50.225 are issued only 
after notice and opportunity for public comment and are contained in a 
letter approval. Each approval issued to a source must include specific 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure 
compliance with the approved limitations and specifically requires a 
statement that the owner/operator agrees to be bound by the terms of 
the approval. The owner/operator can request that the limit be revoked 
but only after the owner/operator obtains any permits that were avoided 
by virtue of the owner-requested limit. EPA finds that 18 AAC 50.225 is 
consistent with EPA guidance regarding Federally-enforceable operating 
limits and proposes to approve this section.
6. Preapproved Emission Limits
    ADEC proposes to include 18 AAC 50.230 [except subparagraph (d)], 
an exclusionary rule that sets preapproved limits for NOX 
emissions from diesel engines. EPA has recognized that, for certain 
classes of sources, such as fuel burning equipment, it is possible for 
States to establish enforceable emission limits that serve to limit 
potential to emit through exclusionary rules that apply to certain 
source categories. See Memorandum from JD. Kent Berry, Acting Director, 
Air Quality Management Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (OAQPS) entitled ``Guidance for State Rules for Optional 
Federally-Enforceable Emissions Limits Based on Volatile Organic 
Compound Use,'' dated October 15, 1993; Memorandum from John Seitz, 
Director, OAQPS entitled ``Approaches to Creating Federally-Enforceable 
Emission Limits,'' dated November 3, 1993; Memorandum from John Seitz, 
Director, OAQPS, entitled

[[Page 5234]]

``Potential To Emit Guidance for Specific Source Categories,'' dated 
April 14, 1998. To be approvable, an exclusionary rule must be 
technically justified, require that the owner or operator specifically 
apply for coverage under the rule, require the applicant to comply with 
the limit in the rule, and provide that a violation of the rule is a 
violation of the SIP.
    The preapproved limit for NOX emissions from diesel 
engines in ADEC's exclusionary rule is based on the amount of diesel 
fuel used by a source during the year. ADEC has demonstrated that a 
facility that limits their diesel fuel consumption to below 330,900 
gallons per year limits their potential to emit NOX to below 
100 tons per year. To operate under the preapproved limit, a source 
must submit to ADEC a request to operate under a specific limit, and 
must provide the information required for that limit. After this 
notification, each source must follow specific monitoring, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with the 
limit. EPA has determined that 18 AAC 50.230 [except subparagraph (d)] 
is consistent with EPA guidance for exclusionary rules.
7. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permits
Overview of Major New Source Review Program
    Parts C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515, set forth 
preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to new and 
modified stationary sources of air pollutants regulated under the CAA, 
known as ``major New Source Review'' or ``major NSR.'' The major NSR 
programs of the CAA include a combination of air quality planning and 
air pollution control technology program requirements. States adopt 
major NSR programs as part of their SIP.
    Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the 
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration'' or ``PSD'' program, which 
applies in areas that meet the NAAQS--``attainment'' areas--as well as 
in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine 
whether the area meets the NAAQS--``unclassifiable'' areas. Part D of 
title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is called the ``Nonattainment 
New Source Review'' or the ``NNSR'' program, which applies in areas 
that are not in attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment areas.'' EPA 
regulations implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 
51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, appendix S.
    On December 31, 2002, EPA published final rule changes to the PSD 
and NNSR programs. 67 FR 80186. On November 7, 2003, EPA published a 
notice of final action on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002 
final rule changes. 68 FR 63021. In that November 7th final action, EPA 
added the definition of ``replacement unit,'' and clarified an issue 
regarding plantwide applicability limitations (PALs). The December 31, 
2002 and the November 7, 2003, final actions, are collectively referred 
to as the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.''
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR 
programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: (1) Provide a new method for 
determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-
projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major 
modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply 
with plant-wide applicability limits to avoid having a significant 
emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR 
program; (4) provide a new applicability provision for emissions units 
that are designated clean units; and (5) exclude pollution control 
projects from the definition of ``physical change or change in the 
method of operation.''
    After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March 
3, 2003), various petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 
NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 
5276, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the DC Circuit Court issued a 
decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. See New York 
v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). In summary, the DC Circuit 
Court vacated portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules pertaining to clean 
units and pollution control projects, remanded a portion of the rules 
regarding recordkeeping (40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6)), 
and either upheld or did not comment on the other provisions included 
as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. EPA has not yet responded to the 
Court's remand regarding the recordkeeping provisions.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that State agencies adopt and 
submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the 
minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than 
January 2, 2006.
Alaska's PSD Submittal
    Alaska's PSD program was originally approved into the SIP by EPA on 
July 5, 1983, and has been revised several times. Newly revised 18 AAC 
50.040(h) and 18 AAC 50.306 implement ADEC's current PSD program. ADEC 
revised their PSD rules to essentially incorporate by reference the PSD 
rules in 40 CFR 52.21, including the applicable provisions of the 2002 
NSR Reform Rules, with a few exceptions. In general, ADEC chose to 
incorporate by reference the Federal PSD rules in 40 CFR 52.21 rather 
than the comparable provisions in 40 CFR 51.166, which set forth what 
is required in a State's plan, because 40 CFR 52.21 is written to 
directly state the requirements of an owner or operator.
    In some cases, ADEC did adopt 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. For example, ADEC 
adopted 51.166(q)(2) to describe the public participation procedures 
for PSD permits. The comparable provision in 40 CFR 52.21 refers to a 
large set of Federal administrative procedures in 40 CFR 124, which 
applies to water and other permits, and would be very cumbersome to try 
to adopt for Alaska's purpose. ADEC also adopted 40 CFR 51.166(f), 
Exclusions from Increment Consumption, because these exclusions are not 
provided by 40 CFR 52.21, but they are allowed in a SIP-approved PSD 
program.
    ADEC also made regulatory changes to clarify how certain provisions 
of 40 CFR 52.21 would be implemented by ADEC. For example, ADEC added 
text to 18 AAC 50.306 to clarify the term ``administrator'' should be 
read to mean the department in certain instances. ADEC also added 
provisions for permit content with respect to monitoring, 
recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. The language is similar to 
that in ADEC's existing construction permit program and is intended to 
allow ADEC to put in conditions when they are necessary so that the 
applicant and ADEC can know whether operations comply with standards.
    EPA is approving 18 AAC 50.040(h) and 18 AAC 50.306 as meeting the 
requirements for SIP-approved PSD programs in 40 CFR 51.166. ADEC's 
revised rules address baseline actual emissions, actual-to-projected-
actual applicability tests, and PALs and other currently applicable 
provisions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. ADEC has not submitted for SIP 
approval portions of the PSD rules that were recently vacated by the DC 
Circuit Court, including the clean unit provisions and the pollution 
control projects exclusion. As noted earlier, EPA has not yet responded 
to the DC Circuit Court's remand of the recordkeeping provisions of 
EPA's 2002

[[Page 5235]]

NSR Reform Rules. Alaska's rule contains recordkeeping requirements 
that are essentially the same as the remanded Federal rule. While final 
action by EPA with regard to the remand may require EPA to take further 
action on this portion of Alaska's rules, at this time, the rules are 
the same as existing Federal law.
8. Nonattainment Area Major Stationary Source Permits
    Alaska's major NNSR program was originally approved into the SIP by 
EPA on July 5, 1983, and has been revised several times. Newly revised 
18 AAC 40.040(i) and 18 AAC 50.311 implement the major NNSR program in 
Alaska. ADEC revised their major NNSR program to essentially 
incorporate by reference the provisions set forth in 40 CFR 51.165, 
including the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were not vacated by the Court. 
Portions of 40 CFR 51.165 simply refers to relevant provisions in 
sections 172 and 173 of the CAA, including offsetting emissions and 
lowest achievable emission rates. Rather than adopting the language in 
the CAA statute by reference, 18 AAC 50.311 includes the text of the 
relevant statutory language.
    Similar to the PSD program in 18 AAC 50.306, ADEC also added 
provisions for permit content with respect to monitoring, 
recordkeeping, or reporting requirements. The language is similar to 
that in ADEC's existing construction permit program and is intended to 
allow ADEC to put in conditions when they are necessary so that the 
applicant and ADEC can know whether operations comply with standards.
    EPA is approving 18 AAC 40.040(i) and 18 AAC 50.311 as meeting the 
requirements for SIP-approved major NNSR programs in 40 CFR 51.165 and 
40 CFR part 51, appendix S. ADEC's revised rules address baseline 
actual emissions, actual-to-projected-actual applicability tests, and 
PALs and other currently applicable provisions of the 2002 NSR Reform 
Rules. ADEC specifically did not submit portions of the NNSR rules that 
were recently vacated by the DC Circuit Court, including the clean unit 
provisions and the pollution control projects exclusion. As noted 
earlier, EPA has not yet responded to the DC Circuit Court's remand of 
the recordkeeping provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. Alaska's 
rule contains recordkeeping requirements that are essentially the same 
as the remanded Federal rule. While final action by EPA with regard to 
the remand may require EPA to take further action on this portion of 
Alaska's rules, at this time the rules are the same as existing Federal 
law.
9. Source-Specific Minor Permits
    EPA regulations require all SIPs to contain legally enforceable 
procedures to ensure that construction or modification of a stationary 
source will not cause a violation of a NAAQS or any applicable portions 
of the control strategy. 40 CFR 51.160(a). For major stationary sources 
and major modifications to major stationary sources, the PSD and major 
NNSR programs satisfy this requirement. States are also required to 
have new source review programs for minor sources meeting the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.
    Alaska's minor NSR program was originally approved into the SIP by 
EPA on July 5, 1983, and has been revised several times. In the SIP 
submission before EPA, ADEC has substantially revised its minor NSR 
program. Under ADEC's revised program, ADEC has expanded the categories 
of minor sources that must obtain a permit prior to construction or 
modification. Section 50.502 specifies source categories and size 
thresholds that need a permit. Certain stationary sources--regardless 
of emission rate--must obtain a minor permit before construction or 
relocation and, if the source is not required to obtain a title V 
permit, before operation. In addition, a minor permit is required for 
construction of a new stationary source with a potential to emit 
greater than the following size thresholds: 15 TPY PM-10; 40 TPY of 
nitrogen oxides (NOX); 40 TPY of sulfur dioxides 
(SOX); 0.6 TPY of lead; 100 TPY of carbon monoxide (CO) 
within 10 kilometers of a nonattainment area. Other provisions govern 
when a source needs a minor permit for construction or relocation of a 
Portable Oil and Gas Operation or an emission unit with a rated 
capacity of 10 million BTU or more per hour in a sulfur dioxide special 
protection area.
    ADEC has also established thresholds for determining when a source 
needs a minor permit before a modification. A minor permit is required 
prior to a modification if (1) the stationary source already has a 
potential to emit more than the emission thresholds for construction of 
new minor sources requiring permits, and (2) the modification would 
cause an increase greater than 10 tpy of PM-10, 10 tpy of 
NOX, 10 tpy of SOX, or 100 tpy of CO. In applying 
the modification provisions, the owner or operator may choose either a 
potential emissions or actual emission test, with certain limitations. 
Finally, Section 50.508 allows ADEC to issue a minor permit if 
requested by the owner or operator under certain circumstances.
    Section 50.542 sets forth the procedures for permit review and 
issuance. ADEC now has two administrative procedures for issuing 
source-specific minor permits--a fast track procedure and a procedure 
that has a full 30-day public comment period. For both procedures, 
ADEC's revised rules change the method of public notice. Instead of 
publishing the notice in a newspaper, ADEC now posts the notice on the 
State ``Online Public Notice System'' website. ADEC still sends the 
notice by mail or e-mail to anyone who requests to be on the State's 
distribution list. EPA regulations require that public notice of minor 
NSR permits be given by prominent advertisement in the area affected by 
the source, and do not require that public notice be given in a 
newspaper. See 40 CFR 51.161(b)(3).
    Under the fast track procedures of 18 AAC 50.542(b), ADEC gives the 
public 15 days to request a 30-day public comment period for certain 
types of permits (i.e., 18 AAC 50.502) that meet specific requirements 
as defined in the rule. The department issues the permit within 30 days 
of receiving a complete application unless someone requests a public 
comment period or ADEC determines the project would be predicted to 
violate an ambient air quality standard. Other types of permits 
specified in the rule have a 30-day public comment period, even if no 
one requests one.
    Section 50.542 also contains criteria for approval and denial of 
minor permits. Importantly, ADEC is required to deny an application for 
a minor permit if ADEC determines construction or operation of the 
source would violate an emission limit in ADEC's rules or a NAAQS. The 
rule contains additional criteria for approval and denial of minor 
permits for sources in certain locations (e.g., Port of Anchorage) and 
certain types of minor permits (e.g., PAL permit, owner requested 
limit).
    Section 50.544 sets forth the content requirements for minor 
permits, including identifying information, conditions necessary to 
ensure compliance with any requirement in Alaska's statute or 
regulations for stationary sources classified under 18 AAC 50.502, and 
conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the NAAQS and certain 
other sections for stationary sources requiring minor permits due to 
the amount of their emissions. This section also requires an owner or 
operator to provide a periodic affirmation as to whether their original 
application and minor permit accurately

[[Page 5236]]

describe their stationary source and whether any changes may have been 
made that would trigger the requirement for a new permit.
    EPA has reviewed 18 AAC 50.502 to 50.546, ADEC's provisions for the 
issuance of minor permits, and finds them to be consistent with the 
requirements for minor NSR permits in 40 CFR 50.160-50.164.
10. General Minor Permits
    18 AAC 50.560 authorizes ADEC to issue general minor permits to 
allow the construction or operation of a category of stationary sources 
that involve the same or similar types of operation, involve the same 
type of emissions, and are subject to similar air quality control 
requirements. In issuing a general minor permit, ADEC will evaluate 
what permit conditions are necessary to assure compliance with each 
ambient standard or control strategy for that category of stationary 
source. An owner or operator would then have the choice of obtaining a 
source-specific permit or applying for coverage under the general minor 
permit. See 18 AAC 50.502(d). A general minor permit is subject to 
public notice and comment when initially issued by ADEC, but not when 
an individual source applies for coverage. The rule authorizes ADEC to 
issue general minor permits that require a source applying for coverage 
to receive specific approval from ADEC before being authorized to 
construct or operate under the general permit, as well as general minor 
permits that authorize a source to construct or operate upon ADEC's 
receipt of an application for coverage. The general minor permit will 
specify whether the source must wait for ADEC approval before 
constructing or operating under the general minor permit.
    ADEC will issue an application or notification form with each 
general minor permit, which will specify the information an applicant 
must provide to be covered under the general minor permit. This 
information must include identifying information, information necessary 
to show the stationary source qualifies for coverage under the general 
permit, identification of all equipment covered by the general minor 
permit, and a certification by the applicant that the stationary source 
is capable of complying with all permit requirements.
    The rule also specifies the content of general minor permits. 
Importantly, general minor permits must meet the same permit content 
requirements of minor permits under 18 AAC 50.544, including terms and 
conditions to ensure that stationary sources constructing and operating 
under the general minor permit will not cause or contribute to a 
violation of the NAAQS. General minor permits can accommodate portable 
sources, but permittees must notify ADEC of any change to a location 
not identified in the permit application.
    EPA has reviewed 18 AAC 50.560, ADEC's provision for the issuance 
of general minor permits, and finds it to be consistent with the 
requirements for minor NSR permits in 40 CFR 50.160-50.164.
11. Conclusion
    As described in more detail above and in the technical support 
document, EPA has determined that the following sections of Alaska's 
regulations are consistent with the requirements of title I of the CAA 
and proposes to approve them as part of the SIP and incorporate them by 
reference into Federal law:
    18 AAC 50.080 Ice Fog Standards; State effective January 18, 1997;
    18 AAC 50.025 Visibility and Other Special Protection Areas; 18 AAC 
50.070 Marine Vessel Visible Emission Standards, State effective June 
21, 1998;
    18 AAC 50.050 Incinerator Emission Standards, State effective May 
3, 2002;
    18 AAC 50.005 Purpose of Chapter; 18 AAC 50.010 Ambient Air Quality 
Standards [except (7) and (8)]; 18 AAC 50.015 Air Quality Designations, 
Classifications, and Control Regions; 18 AAC 50.020 Baseline Dates and 
Maximum Allowable Increases, 18 AAC 50.045 Prohibitions; 18 AAC 50.055 
Industrial Processes and Fuel-Burning Equipment [except (d)(2)(B)]; 18 
AAC 50.100 Nonroad Engines; 18 AAC 50.200 Information Requests; 18 AAC 
50.201 Ambient Air Quality Investigation; 18 AAC 50.205 Certification; 
18 AAC 50.215 Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods [except (a)(3)]; 18 
AAC 50.220 Enforceable Test Methods [except (c)(2)]; 18 AAC 50.245 Air 
Episodes and Advisories; 18 AAC 50.250 Procedures and Criteria for 
Revising Air Quality Classifications; 18 AAC 50.301 Permit Continuity; 
18 AAC 50.302 Construction Permits; 18 AAC 50.306 Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permits [except (b)(2) and (b)(3)]; 18 
AAC 50.311 Nonattainment Area Major Stationary Source Permits; 18 AAC 
50.345 Construction and Operating Permits: Standard Permit Conditions 
[except (b), (c)(3), and (l)]; 18 AAC 50.508 Minor Permits Requested by 
the Owner or Operator [except (1) and (2)]; 18 AAC 50.546 Minor 
Permits: Revisions [except (b)]; 18 AAC 50.560 General Minor Permits; 
18 AAC 50.900 Small Business, State effective October 1, 2004;
    18 AAC 50.542 Minor Permit: Review and Issuance [except (b)(2), 
(f)(4), (f)(5), and (g)(1) but only with respect to clean units and 
pollution control projects], State effective December 1, 2004;
    18 AAC 50.225 Owner-Requested Limits; 18 AAC 50.230 Preapproved 
Emission Limits [except (d)]; 18 AAC 50.544 Minor Permits: Content 
[except (e)], State effective January 29, 2005;
    18 AAC 50.035 Documents, Procedures, and Methods Adopted By 
Reference [except (b)(4)]; 18 AAC 50.040 Federal Standards Adopted by 
Reference [except (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h)(17), (h)(18), 
(h)(19), (i)(7), (i)(8), (i)(9), and (j)]; 18 AAC 50.502 Minor Permits 
for Air Quality Protection [except (g)(1) and (g)(2)]; 18 AAC 50.540 
Minor Permit: Application [except (f) and (g)];18 AAC 50.990 
Definitions [except (21), and (77)], State effective December 3, 2005.

B. Provisions Approved by EPA Into the SIP, But Not Incorporated by 
Reference

    EPA is proposing to approve the following section as part of the 
SIP, but not to incorporate it by reference into Federal law: 18 AAC 
50.030 State Air Quality Control Plan, State effective October 1, 2004. 
This provision does not regulate air emissions, but rather, describes 
general authorities such as procedural and enforcement authorities. 
Incorporation by reference of such provisions into Federal law is 
unnecessary and could potentially conflict with EPA's independent 
authorities. Therefore, EPA is proposing to not incorporate by 
reference 18 AAC 50.030 into the SIP and to remove the previous version 
of this regulation from Alaska's incorporation by reference section of 
the Alaska SIP, as follows: 18 AAC 50.030 State Air Quality Control 
Plan, State effective September 21, 2001.

C. Provisions Not Approved by EPA

    EPA is proposing not to approve certain provisions of ADEC's 
regulations, either because EPA believes such provisions are 
inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA or because ADEC has 
requested EPA not to approve such provisions into the SIP.
1. Provisions Not Related to Section 110 of the CAA
    EPA is not approving the following provisions because they are not 
related to the criteria pollutants regulated under section 110 of the 
CAA: 18 AAC 50.010(7) and (8); 18 AAC 50.035(b)(4); 18 AAC 50.040(a), 
(b), (c), (d), (e), (g), and (j); 18 AAC 50.055(d)(2)(B); 18 AAC 
50.316; and 18 AAC 50.345(b) and (c)(3).

[[Page 5237]]

2. Provisions Related to Clean Units and the Pollution Control Projects 
Exclusion
    At ADEC's request, we are not incorporating or approving into the 
SIP portions of the Federal 2002 Major NSR Reform Rules that were 
recently vacated by the DC Circuit Court relating to the clean unit 
provisions and the pollution control projects exclusion. These 
provisions include: 18 AAC 50.040(h)(17), (h)(18), (h)(19), (i)(7), 
(i)(8), and (i)(9); 18 AAC 50.306 (b)(2) and (b)(3); 18 AAC 
50.502(g)(1) and (g)(2); 18 AAC 50.508(1) and (2); 18 AAC 50.509; 18 
AAC 50.540(f) and (g); 18 AAC 50.542(f)(4), (f)(5), and, with respect 
to the reference to clean units and pollution control projects only, 
(g)(1); and 18 AAC 50.544(e); and 18 AAC 50.990(21) and (77).
3. Ambient Air Quality Analysis Methods (18 AAC 50.215(a)(3))
    18 AAC 50.215 sets forth requirements for air quality monitoring 
and analysis. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) specify the procedures for 
obtaining air monitoring data, but paragraph (a)(3) authorizes ADEC to 
approve any alternative method that ADEC determines is 
``representative, accurate, verifiable, capable of replication.'' In 
essence, this paragraph allows ADEC to modify requirements relied on to 
attain and maintain the NAAQS without going through a SIP revision. As 
such, it is not approvable.
    Section 110(i) of the CAA specifically precludes States from 
changing the requirements of the SIP except through SIP revisions 
approved by EPA. SIP revisions will be approved by EPA only if they 
meet all requirements of section 110 of the CAA and the implementing 
regulations at 40 CFR part 51. See CAA section 110(l); 40 CFR 51.104. 
Section 51.104(d) specifically states that in order for a variance to 
be considered for approval as a SIP revision, the State must submit it 
in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.104, which includes 
the public notice, comment and hearing provisions of 40 CFR 51.102.
    The SIP revision requirements may be satisfied if the director's 
discretion is constrained by sufficiently specific, objective, and 
replicable criteria to determine if the alternative method will, in 
fact, be at least as effective as the required methods in terms of 
emission rates and ambient impacts. In this case, although the rule 
states that the alternative must be ``representative, accurate, 
verifiable, capable of replication,'' the rule does not contain 
procedures for ensuring that is the case. Therefore, it is not 
appropriate for EPA to approve this provision into the SIP.
4. Enforceable Test Methods (18 AAC 50.220(c)(2))
    Paragraph 50.220(c)(1) specifies reference test methods to be used 
in source tests to determine compliance with applicable requirements. 
Paragraph (c)(2) authorizes ADEC to approve the use of an alternative 
method using the procedure specified in 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, 
method 301. In essence, paragraph (c)(2) authorizes ADEC to issue 
variances from regulatory requirements, including SIP, NSPS, and NESHAP 
requirements. EPA approved this provision into the SIP on November 18, 
1998 [63 FR 63983]. ADEC made minor changes to 18 AAC 50.220 and has 
submitted the entire provision for inclusion in the SIP.
    EPA believes that it erred when it approved this subparagraph as 
part of the SIP. As an initial matter, ADEC does not have authority to 
approve alternatives to NSPS and NESHAP standards except to the extent 
EPA has delegated that authority to ADEC. EPA does not delegate to 
States authority to approve ``major changes'' to test methods for NSPS 
and NESHAP standards. In addition, as discussed above, section 110(i) 
of the CAA specifically precludes States from changing the requirements 
of the SIP except through SIP revisions approved by EPA, and SIP 
revisions will be approved by EPA only if they meet all requirements of 
section 110 of the CAA and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 
51. See CAA section 110(l); 40 CFR 51.104. Section 51.104(d) 
specifically states that in order for a variance to be considered for 
approval as a SIP revision, the State must submit it in accordance with 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.104, which includes the public notice, 
comment and hearing provisions of 40 CFR 51.102.
    Paragraph (c)(2) does not meet all of the requirements of section 
110 of the CAA, such as ensuring attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS. As discussed above, SIP revision requirements may be satisfied 
if the director's discretion is constrained by sufficiently specific, 
objective, and replicable criteria to determine if the alternative 
method will, in fact, be at least as effective as the required methods 
in terms of emission rates and ambient impacts. In this case, although 
paragraph (c)(2) requires that ADEC use the procedure in 40 CFR part 
63, appendix A, method 301 in evaluating whether to approve an 
alternative method, EPA does not believe that the procedures in method 
301 are sufficiently replicable so as to adequately constrain ADEC's 
discretion. In addition, there is nothing in this provision that would 
require alternatives to test methods required in a permit to be 
approved through appropriate revision procedures. For these reasons, it 
is not appropriate for EPA to approve this provision into the SIP.
    Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA authorizes EPA, upon a determination 
that EPA's action approving, disapproving or promulgating any State 
implementation plan or plan revision (or any part thereof) was in 
error, to revise such action as appropriate in the same manner as the 
approval, disapproval or promulgation. In making such a correction, EPA 
must provide such determination and the basis therefore to the State 
and the public. EPA is by this proposal notifying ADEC and the public 
that EPA is removing 18 AAC 50.220(c)(2) from the SIP and from 
incorporation by reference into Federal law. It is important to 
emphasize that if ADEC approves the use of alternative methods in 
reliance on 18 AAC 50.220(c)(2) as an alternative to an ADEC regulation 
or permit that has been approved as part of the SIP, EPA is not 
precluded from enforcing the Federally-approved SIP limit against the 
source. The granting of an alternative method of compliance by ADEC to 
a SIP requirement does not change the Federally-enforceable SIP 
requirement for that source unless and until the alternative has been 
approved by EPA.
5. Excess Emissions (18 AAC 50.240)
    EPA's interpretation of the CAA for State excess emission 
provisions is set forth in, among other documents, Memorandum from 
Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and 
Compliance Monitoring, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, to the Regional Administrators, entitled ``State 
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999) (1999 Excess 
Emissions Policy). That policy indicates that because excess emissions 
might aggravate air quality so as to prevent attainment and maintenance 
of the NAAQS or jeopardize the PSD increments, all periods of excess 
emissions are considered violations of applicable emission limitations. 
However, the 1999 Excess Emission Policy recognizes that in certain 
circumstances, States and EPA have enforcement discretion to refrain 
from taking enforcement action for excess emissions. In addition, the 
policy also indicates that States can

[[Page 5238]]

include in their SIPs provisions that would, in the context of an 
enforcement action for excess emissions, excuse a source from penalties 
(but not injunctive relief) if the source can demonstrate it meets 
certain objective criteria. This is in essence a limited affirmative 
defense to a penalty action. Finally, the Policy states that EPA does 
not intend to approve SIP revisions that would recognize a State 
director's decision to bar EPA's or citizen's ability to enforce 
applicable requirements.
    Although ADEC has made only minor changes to 18 AAC 50.240 since it 
was approved by EPA in 1998, approval of the minor changes could be 
interpreted to imply that EPA believed 18 AAC 50.240 was consistent 
with the requirements of the CAA. EPA has reviewed 18 AAC 50.240, 
however, and does not believe it is consistent with EPA's 
interpretation of the CAA regarding the types of affirmative defense 
provisions we can approve into SIPS for several reasons. First, an 
affirmative defense to a penalty action is not appropriate where a 
single source or small group of sources has the potential to cause an 
exceedance of the NAAQS or PSD increments. See 1999 Excess Emissions 
Policy, pp. 2-3, Attachment pp. 3 and 5. The Alaska regulation does not 
contain provisions to address this criterion. Second, an affirmative 
defense for excess emissions due to certain unavoidable events cannot 
extend to State law provisions that derive from Federally promulgated 
performance standards or emission limits, such as NSPS or NESHAP 
standards and does not extend to PSD permits unless the excess 
emissions were accounted for in the modeling and in the BACT 
determination. Alaska's excess emission rule does not appear to be so 
limited in scope. Third, Alaska's excess emissions rule does not 
sufficiently address all of the criteria for ensuring that excess 
emissions due to startup, shutdown, and malfunction are truly 
unavoidable and limited to the maximum extent possible in duration and 
impact on air quality. See 1999 Excess Emissions Policy, Attachment pp. 
3-6. Although a State need not adopt the precise language of the 1999 
Excess Emissions Policy, State excess emission provisions must address 
the essential elements of the criteria in the policy to be consistent 
with the CAA. Fourth, 18 AAC 50.240(e) provides an affirmative defense 
for excess emissions due to scheduled maintenance provided certain 
criteria are met. This is inappropriate under the CAA because sources 
should be able to schedule maintenance that might otherwise lead to 
excess emissions to coincide with maintenance of production equipment 
or other facility shutdowns. In this regard, it is important to note 
that the 1999 Excess Emissions Policy does not discuss allowing an 
affirmative defense for excess emissions during maintenance activities. 
This omission was intentional and based on EPA's interpretation of the 
CAA that any excess emissions during maintenance activities should be 
addressed only through the exercise of enforcement discretion and not 
through the provision of an affirmative defense to penalties. Finally, 
18 AAC 50.240 does not make clear that ADEC's decision that the 
criteria for obtaining the affirmative defense from penalty are met is 
not binding on EPA or citizens. See 1999 Excess Emission Policy, p. 3, 
Attachment p. 2. In summary, although ADEC has made only minor changes 
to 18 AAC 50.240, EPA is not approving the changes because to do so 
would imply that EPA believes that 18 AAC 50.240 meets CAA requirements 
for SIP excess emission provisions.
6. Source Test Deadline (18 AAC 50.345(l))
    Paragraph (l) is a standard permit condition that gives ADEC 
discretion to approve a request from the permittee to delay a source 
test deadline established by ADEC. Importantly, this provision does not 
give ADEC authority to extend source test deadlines established in 
requirements promulgated by EPA, such as NSPS or NESHAPS. In addition, 
EPA is not aware of any Alaska SIP provisions that impose a requirement 
to conduct a source test within a specified period of time so this 
provision appears to be limited to source test deadlines established in 
permits issued by ADEC. EPA does not believe it can approve this 
provision, however, because it would give ADEC unbounded discretion to 
change the source testing requirements of a federally-enforceable 
permit without revising the permit
7. Standard Operating Permit Condition II (18 AAC 50.346(a))
    This paragraph incorporates Standard Operating Permit Condition II, 
which contains standard monitoring conditions for 18 AAC 50.110 Air 
Pollution Prohibited, a rule prohibiting emissions detrimental to human 
health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or which would 
unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property. EPA does 
not believe it is appropriate to approve 18 AAC 50.346(a) into the SIP 
because it only requires corrective action after the permittee or ADEC 
determines a violation has occurred. EPA does not believe requiring 
corrective action after a violation has occurred can be construed as 
monitoring that reasonably assures compliance with the underlying 
applicable requirement. To the extent a SIP requirement includes 
monitoring, the monitoring must be sufficient to reasonably assure 
compliance with the requirement.
8. Electronic Applications (18 AAC 50.542(b)(2))
    This subparagraph allows ADEC to require the owner/operator to 
submit their permit applications online. ADEC did not submit the 
appropriate documentation for us to evaluate the approvability of 
Alaska's Online System with respect to EPA's Cross-Media Electronic 
Reporting Rule (CROMERR). See 70 FR 59848 (October 13, 2005). 
Therefore, EPA is not approving paragraph (b)(2) to allow for 
electronic submissions.
9. Revisions to Minor Permits (18 AAC 50.546(b))
    This subparagraph authorizes ADEC to revise ``non-substantive 
elements of a minor permit without further administrative procedures.'' 
The regulation, however, does not describe what type of changes will be 
considered ``non-substantive.'' Although it may be appropriate to allow 
some class of permit changes to be made administratively, this 
provision does not adequately describe the class of changes. Therefore, 
EPA does not believe this provision is sufficiently enforceable to meet 
the basic enforceability requirements for SIPs.

III. Requested Sections to be Removed from the SIP

    Alaska has requested that EPA remove certain provisions from the 
SIP because they have been previously repealed by ADEC or because they 
are not required elements of a SIP under title I of the CAA.
    The following sections have been repealed by ADEC and the 
substantive requirements of these sections have been included in new 
and revised sections, which EPA is proposing to approve: 18 AAC 50.090 
Ice Fog Limitations, State effective May 26, 1972; 18 AAC 50.300 Permit 
to Operate and 18 AAC 50.400 Application Review & Issuance of Permit to 
Operate, State effective July 21, 1991 and April 23, 1994; 18 AAC 
50.520 Emissions and Ambient Monitoring, State effective July 21, 1991; 
18 AAC 50.530 Circumvention, State effective June 7, 1987; 18 AAC 
50.310 Revocation or Suspension of Permit, State effective May 4, 1980; 
18 AAC 50.600

[[Page 5239]]

Reclassification Procedures & Criteria, State effective November 1, 
1982; 18 AAC 50.620 State Air Quality Control Plan, State effective 
January 4, 1995; and 18 AAC 50.900 Definitions, State effective July 
21, 1991 and January 4, 1995.
    Removal of these now-repealed sections from the SIP does not make 
the SIP less stringent because the substantive provisions of these 
sections are included elsewhere in ADEC's regulations and are being 
submitted for inclusion into the SIP. Therefore, EPA is approving 
removal of these sections from the SIP.
    ADEC has also requested that EPA remove the following fee-related 
provisions from the SIP: 18 AAC 50.400 Permit Administration Fees, 18 
AAC 50.420 Billing Procedures, and 18 AAC 50.430 Appeal Procedures, 
State effective January 18, 1997. These provisions establish fees for 
issuance of permits and permit-related actions. State fee provisions 
that are not economic incentive programs and are not designed to 
replace or relax a SIP emission limit are generally not appropriate for 
inclusion into the SIP. While it is appropriate for States to implement 
fee provisions, for example, to recover costs for issuing permits, it 
is generally not appropriate to make State fee collection federally 
enforceable. Therefore, EPA is removing from the SIP 18 AAC 50.400 
Permit Administration Fees, 18 AAC 50.420 Billing Procedures, and 18 
AAC 50.430 Appeal Procedures.

IV. Geographic Scope of SIP Approval

    EPA's approval of the SIP 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.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
State law, it 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).
    The rule also does not have Tribal implications because it will not 
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian Tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a State rule 
implementing a Federal Requirement, and does not alter the relationship 
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the 
CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve submissions 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in 
the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use 
voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove 
a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent 
with applicable law for EPA to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus the 
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule 
does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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.

    Dated: January 26, 2007.
Julie Hagensen,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
 [FR Doc. E7-1802 Filed 2-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P