[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73316-73320]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29535]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0732; FRL-9739-5]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Eastern
Kern, Imperial, Placer, and Yolo-Solano; Prevention of Significant
Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action on revisions to the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
EPA is approving four permitting rules submitted for the Eastern Kern
Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD), Imperial County Air Pollution
Control District (ICAPCD), Placer County Air Pollution Control District
(PCAPCD), and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD)
portions of the California SIP. The State of California is required
under part C of title I of the Act to adopt and implement a SIP-
approved Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program.
We are revising the SIP to incorporate EKAPCD Rule 210.4--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, ICAPCD Rule 904--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program, PCAPCD Rule 518--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program, and YSAQMD Rule 3.24--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The approval of these rules
will establish a PSD permit program in each District for pre-
construction review of certain new and modified major stationary
sources in attainment or unclassifiable areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 8, 2013, and the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 8,
2013, unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 9, 2013. If
adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that this rule, or the
relevant provisions of the rule, will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0732, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Beckham, Permits Office (AIR-3),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation
    A. How is EPA evaluating these rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Significant Impact Levels for PM2.5.
    D. Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD Permits
    E. What action is EPA finalizing?
    F. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules on which we are taking action along with
the dates on which they were adopted or amended by the applicable local
agency and

submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency            Rule No.                  Rule title                    Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EKAPCD.........................      210.4  Prevention of Significant Deterioration...    1/12/2012    4/25/2012
ICAPCD.........................        904  Prevention of Significant Deterioration      12/20/2011    2/23/2012
                                             (PSD) Permit Program.
PCAPCD.........................        518  Prevention of Significant Deterioration       2/10/2011    6/21/2011
                                             (PSD) Permit Program.
YSAQMD.........................       3.24  Prevention of Significant Deterioration...    6/13/2012     7/3/2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in
40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of these rules in the SIP. However,
EKAPCD originally adopted EKAPCD Rule 210.4 on September 9, 1984 and
amended it on November 18, 1985, and September 2, 1999. We are only
taking action on the currently submitted version of each rule as listed
in Table 1.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to adopt and submit
regulations for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the
primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Specifically, sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and
110(a)(2)(J) require such state plans to meet the applicable
requirements of section 165 relating to a pre-construction permit
program for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality
and visibility protection. The purpose of the rule submittals that are
addressed in this action is to establish and implement a pre-
construction PSD permit program as required by section 165 of the CAA
for certain new and modified major stationary sources located in
attainment areas. Because the State of California does not currently
have a SIP-approved PSD program within EKAPCD, ICAPCD, PCAPCD, and
YSAQMD (referred to hereinafter as the ``Districts''), EPA is currently
the PSD permitting authority for each District. Inclusion of these
rules into the SIP transfers PSD permitting authority from EPA to the
Districts. EPA will assume the role of overseeing the PSD permitting
program within each District.

II. EPA's Evaluation

A. How is EPA evaluating these rules?

    The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the submitted
rules include CAA sections 110(a), 110(l), and 165 and part 51, section
166 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 51.166).
Section 110(a) requires, among other things, that SIP rules be
enforceable, while section 110(l) precludes EPA approval of SIP
revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. Section 165 of
the CAA requires states to adopt a pre-construction permitting program
for certain new and modified major stationary sources located in
attainment or unclassifiable areas. 40 CFR 51.166 establishes the
specific requirements for SIP-approved PSD permit programs that must be
met to satisfy the requirements of section 165 of the CAA.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    With some exclusions and revisions, EKAPCD Rule 210.4, ICAPCD Rule
904, PCAPCD Rule 518, and YSAQMD Rule 3.24 incorporate by reference
EPA's PSD permit program at 40 CFR 52.21, as of January 12, 2012,
December 20, 2011, February 10, 2011, and July 12, 2012, respectively.
We generally consider EPA's PSD permit program to be consistent with
the criteria in 40 CFR 51.166. However, we conducted a review of each
rule to ensure that all requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 were met. Our
evaluations are available as an attachment to the technical support
document (TSD) for this rulemaking. We also reviewed the revisions the
Districts made to the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21 that were incorporated
by reference into each rule, such as revising certain terms and
definitions to reflect the fact that the Districts, rather than the
EPA, will be the PSD permitting authority. Based on our evaluation we
have concluded each rule meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 for a
PSD program.
    Specifically, EKAPCD Rule 210.4 makes significant revisions to the
applicability procedures and definitions for major modification, actual
emissions, baseline actual emission, and net emissions increase as
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2) and (b). EKAPCD Rule
210.4 also excludes the Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs)
provisions contained in 40 CFR 52.21(aa). These revisions are intended
to implement a PSD program that does not contain the 2002 NSR Reform
provisions (see generally 67 FR 80,185 (Dec. 31, 2002)). Based on our
evaluation of Rule 210.4 and the EKAPCD's Staff Report, we have
concluded that Rule 210.4 is at least as stringent, in all respects, as
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 for a PSD program. A more detailed
discussion of those revisions and our analysis are in the TSD for this
rulemaking.
    We note that three of the District rules under consideration in
this action also rely on existing SIP-approved permit application
processing requirements, which are found in EKAPCD Rule 210.1, ICAPCD
Rule 206, and PCAPCD Rule 502, for meeting some of the PSD program
requirements.
    We also reviewed clarifying information provided by the Districts
in letters dated July 19, 2012 (EKAPCD), July 10, 2012 (ICAPCD), July
6, 2012 (PCAPCD), and August 7, 2012 (YSAQMD). Based on our review of
the Districts' rules as well as these clarification letters, we have
determined that the Districts' PSD SIP rules are acceptable under CAA
sections 110(a), 110(l) and 165 and 40 CFR 51.166. EPA's TSD for this
rulemaking has more information about these rules, including our
evaluation and recommendation to approve them into the SIP.

C. Significant Impact Levels for PM2.5

    Eastern Kern Rule 210.4, Imperial Rule 904, and Placer Rule 518
incorporate by reference the PM2.5 significant impact levels
(SILs) found in 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). Yolo-Solano Rule 3.24 does not
incorporate these PM2.5 SILs, by reference or otherwise.
Consistent with 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2), these PM2.5 SILs are an
optional portion of the PSD permitting program. However, EPA's
authority to implement the PM2.5 SILs for PSD purposes is
currently subject to litigation, Sierra Club v. EPA, Case No. 10-1413
(D.C. Circuit). As a result, EPA has come to recognize that the
regulatory text it adopted in 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40

CFR 52.21(k)(2) does not accurately reflect EPA's intent, because the
text does not afford permitting authorities sufficient discretion to
deny sources use of the SILs where their use would lead to a new
violation of the NAAQS or increment. In our response brief to the Court
in this litigation, EPA requested that the Court remand and vacate 40
CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2) so that we may initiate a
rulemaking to make revisions to the regulatory text.
    Paragraph (k)(1) of 40 CFR section 52.21 requires that sources
applying for a new PSD permit demonstrate that any allowable emission
increases from the proposed source or modification, in conjunction with
all other applicable emissions increases or reductions, will not cause
or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or any applicable increment.
In the preamble to the 2010 final rule adding the (k)(2) provision to
section 52.21, EPA advised that, ``notwithstanding the existence of a
SIL, permitting authorities should determine when it may be appropriate
to conclude that even a de minimis impact will `cause or contribute' to
an air quality problem and to seek remedial action from the proposed
new source or modification.'' Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC), 75 FR 64,864, 64,892 (Oct.
20, 2010). In another passage of the preamble to the 2010 final rule,
EPA also observed that ``the use of a SIL may not be appropriate when a
substantial portion of any NAAQS or increment is known to be
consumed.'' Id. at 64,894.
    We requested clarification from EKAPCD, PCAPCD, and ICAPCD
concerning their interpretation of their respective rules that
incorporate by reference 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). Consistent with the
statements by EPA in the preamble to the 2010 final rule, EKAPCD,
PCAPCD, and ICAPCD confirmed that they do not interpret section
52.21(k)(2) to preclude them from exercising the discretion to
determine when it may be appropriate to conclude that even a de minimis
impact on air quality (an impact below the PM2.5 SIL values)
will cause or contribute to an air quality problem and to seek remedial
action from the proposed new source or modification. See clarification
letters from EKAPCD dated August 21, 2012, from ICAPCD dated August 21,
2012, and from PCAPCD dated August 20, 2012. Based on this
interpretation, each of these Districts has clarified that it will not
read section 52.21(k)(2) as an absolute ``safe harbor,'' but will
exercise discretion to determine whether a particular application of
the PM2.5 SILs is appropriate when a substantial portion of
the PM2.5 NAAQS or increment is known to be consumed. These
Districts have also clarified that they retain the discretion to
require additional information from a permit applicant as needed to
assure that the source will not cause or contribute to a violation of
any NAAQS or applicable increment pursuant to section 52.21(k)(1).
    Based on these clarifications provided by EKAPCD, PCAPCD, and
ICAPCD, we find that these Districts' PSD rules are approvable and
consistent with the Act and the requirements for a PSD program.

D. Transfer of Existing EPA-Issued PSD Permits

    The Districts have also requested approval to exercise their
authority, as applicable, to administer the PSD program with respect to
those sources located in the Districts that have existing PSD permits
issued by EPA. This would include authority to conduct general
administration of these existing permits, authority to process and
issue any and all subsequent PSD permit actions relating to such
permits (e.g., modifications, amendments, or revisions of any nature),
and authority to enforce such permits. Pursuant to the criteria under
section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA, we have determined that these
districts have the authority, personnel, and funding to implement the
PSD program within each District for existing EPA-issued permits. Upon
the effective date of our approval of the Districts' PSD programs into
the SIP, the EPA-issued PSD permits will be transferred to each
District, as applicable. A list of these EPA-issued permits is provided
as an attachment to the TSD for this action. In addition, any PSD
permit applications submitted to EPA for which EPA has not yet proposed
a permit decision upon the effective date of this action will also be
transferred to the applicable District upon the effective date of this
rule.

E. What action is EPA finalizing?

    EPA is finalizing a SIP revision for the Eastern Kern, Imperial
County, Placer County, and Yolo-Solano portions of the California SIP.
This SIP revision will be codified in 40 CFR 52.220 by incorporating by
reference the District PSD rules listed in Table 1. In addition, the
letters from the Districts to EPA described elsewhere in this preamble
that provide certain clarifications concerning the Districts' rules
will be included as additional material in 40 CFR 52.220. The
regulatory text addressing this action also makes it clear that EPA is
relying, in part, on the clarifications provided in the Districts'
clarification letters in taking this final approval action. As such,
the Districts' implementation of the PSD program in a manner consistent
with these clarifications is a pre-condition of today's final approval
of this PSD SIP revision. This SIP revision provides a federally
approved and enforceable mechanism for the District to issue pre-
construction PSD permits for certain new and modified major stationary
sources subject to PSD review within the Districts. The regulatory text
at 40 CFR 52.270 will also be revised so that these Districts are no
longer a part of California's Federal Implementation Plan for the PSD
program.

F. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. As discussed above, this approval action will
transfer PSD permitting program responsibility and authority from EPA
to the Districts, which will generally continue to implement the PSD
program consistent with 40 CFR section 52.21 as incorporated by
reference into the Districts' rules. However, in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a
separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve this SIP
revision should relevant adverse comments be filed on this direct final
rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
    This rule will be effective February 8, 2013 without further notice
unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by January 9,
2013. If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. All public comments received
would then be addressed in any subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on a
distinct provision of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. In such
case, EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register indicating which provisions we are withdrawing. The
provisions that are not withdrawn will become effective on the date set
out above, notwithstanding adverse comment on any other provision.

III. EPA's Final Action

    EPA is approving the following CARB submittals into the California
SIP to establish a PSD permit program for pre-construction review of
certain new and modified major stationary sources in attainment or
unclassifiable areas: CARB's 4/25/2012 submittal of EKAPCD Rule 210.4--
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; CARB's 2/23/2012 submittal of
ICAPCD Rule 904--Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit
Program; CARB's 6/21/2011 submittal of PCAPCD Rule 518--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program; and CARB's 7/3/2012
submittal of YSAQMD Rule 3.24--Prevention of Significant Deterioration.

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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State of California and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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. 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 February 8, 2013. 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 CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, 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: September 25, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text of paragraphs (c)(391) and
(c)(411).
0
b. By adding new paragraphs (c)(391)(i)(C), (c)(391)(ii),
(c)(411)(i)(E), (c)(411)(ii), (c)(419), and (c)(420).

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (391) New and amended regulations were submitted on June 21, 2011
by the Governor's designee. Final approval of these regulations is
based, in part, on the clarifications contained in letters dated July
6, 2012 and August 20, 2012 from the Placer County Air Pollution
Control District regarding specific implementation of parts of the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
    (i) * * *
    (C) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 518, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Permit Program,'' adopted on February 10, 2011.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD).
    (1) Letter dated July 6, 2012 from Thomas J. Christofk, PCAPCD, to
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9,
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 518 and 40 CFR 51.166.
    (2) Letter dated August 20, 2012 from Thomas Christofk, PCAPCD, to
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9,
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 518 and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2).
* * * * *
    (411) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were
submitted on February 23, 2012. Final approval of these regulations is
based, in part, on the clarifications contained in letters

dated July 10, 2012 and August 21, 2012 from the Imperial County Air
Pollution Control District regarding specific implementation of parts
of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
    (i) * * *
    (E) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 904, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Permit Program,'' revised on December 20, 2011.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD).
    (1) Letter dated July 10, 2012 from Brad Poiriez, ICAPCD, to
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9,
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 904 and 40 CFR 51.166.
    (2) Letter dated August 21, 2012 from Brad Poiriez, ICAPCD, to
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9,
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 904 and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2).
* * * * *
    (419) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were
submitted on April 25, 2012. Final approval of these regulations is
based, in part, on the clarifications contained in letters dated July
19, 2012 and August 21, 2012 from the Eastern Kern Air Pollution
Control District regarding specific implementation of parts of the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 210.4, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,''
adopted on January 12, 2012.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD).
    (1) Letter dated July 19, 2012 from David L. Jones, EKAPCD, to
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9,
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 40 CFR 51.166.
    (2) Letter dated August 21, 2012 from David L. Jones, EKAPCD, to
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9,
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2).
    (420) A new regulation for the following APCD was submitted on July
3, 2012. Final approval of this regulation is based, in part, on the
clarifications contained in a letter dated August 7, 2012 from the
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District regarding specific
implementation of parts of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
program.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 3.24, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' adopted
on June 13, 2012.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD).
    (1) Letter dated August 7, 2012 from Mat Ehrhardt, YSAQMD, to
Gerardo Rios, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9,
regarding Clarifications of District Rule 210.4 and 40 CFR 51.166.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.270 is amended by adding new paragraphs (b)(6), (b)(7),
(b)(8), and (b)(9) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.270  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) The PSD program for the Placer County Air Pollution Control
District (PCAPCD), as incorporated by reference in Sec.
52.220(c)(391), is approved under part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air
Act. For PSD permits previously issued by EPA pursuant to Sec.  52.21
to sources located in the PCAPCD, this approval includes the authority
for the PCAPCD to conduct general administration of these existing
permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent permit
actions relating to such permits, and authority to enforce such
permits.
    (7) The PSD program for the Imperial County Air Pollution Control
District, as incorporated by reference in Sec.  52.220(c)(411), is
approved under part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act.
    (8) The PSD program for the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control
District (EKAPCD), as incorporated by reference in Sec.
52.220(c)(419), is approved under part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air
Act. For PSD permits previously issued by EPA pursuant to Sec.  52.21
to sources located in the EKAPCD, this approval includes the authority
for the EKAPCD to conduct general administration of these existing
permits, authority to process and issue any and all subsequent permit
actions relating to such permits, and authority to enforce such
permits.
    (9) The PSD program for the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management
District, as incorporated by reference in Sec.  52.220(c)(420), is
approved under part C, Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2012-29535 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42549-42557]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18061]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0635; FRL-9437-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 8-
Hour Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving submittals from the state of Louisiana
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) that address the
infrastructure elements specified in the CAA section 110(a)(2),
necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and
1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS or standards). We are determining that the
current Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the following
infrastructure elements which were subject to EPA's completeness
findings pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1) for the 1997 8-hour ozone

NAAQS dated March 27, 2008, and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS dated
October 22, 2008: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is also approving SIP revisions that modify
Louisiana's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) SIP for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to include nitrogen oxides (NOX) as
an ozone precursor. This action is being taken under section 110 and
part C of the Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0635. All documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information 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
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and
4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill
Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an appointment. Please make the
appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There
is a fee of 15 cents per page for making photocopies of documents. On
the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception
area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number
214-665-6762; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Additional Background Information
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Comments
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The background for today's actions is discussed in detail in our
April 18, 2011 proposal to approve revisions to the Louisiana SIP (76
FR 21682). In that action, we proposed to find the current Louisiana
SIP meets the provisions of the CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
(i.e., 110(a)(2)(A)-(C), (D)(ii), (E)-(H), and (J)-(M)) for the 1997
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. We also proposed to approve four
revisions to the Louisiana PSD SIP that address NOX as a
precursor to ozone.
    Our April 18, 2011 proposal provides a detailed description of the
revisions and the rationale for EPA's proposed actions, together with a
discussion of the opportunity to comment. The public comment period for
these actions closed on May 18, 2011. See the Technical Support
Document (TSD) and our proposed rulemaking at 76 FR 21682 for more
information.

II. Additional Background Information

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country.
Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns
about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive
issues in the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP
submissions.\1\ The commenters specifically raised concerns involving
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements that it would
address two issues separately and not as part of actions on the
infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing provisions related to
excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction
at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies
addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); and (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions
limits with limited public process or without requiring further
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (``director's
discretion''). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues
for which EPA likewise stated that it would address the issues
separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source new source review
programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (``minor source NSR'');
and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). In light of the comments, EPA now believes that its
statements in various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs with
respect to these four individual issues should be explained in greater
depth with respect to these issues. EPA notes that we did not receive
comments on these issues in response to our Louisiana proposal (76 FR
21682), but because of the concern raised in the context of action on
other state infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA feels it important to
further clarify our proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated
May 31, 2011. Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that
these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this
rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this
rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate
rulemaking action to which they apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intended the statements in the proposals concerning these four
issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice of the
potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of some
states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not want
states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under the
misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a reapproval of
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy,
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State provisions with regard to excess
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit
reapproval of any existing provisions that relate to these four
substantive issues.
    Unfortunately, the commenters and others evidently interpreted
these

statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM provisions
and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA was merely
postponing taking final action on the issue in the context of the
infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the contrary, EPA
only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for certain types
of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any misunderstanding
that it was reapproving any such existing provisions. EPA's intention
was to convey its position that the statute does not require that
infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive issues in
existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with separately,
outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP submission of a
state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it was not taking a
full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP submission with
respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to be a required
part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k) or under
section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from EPA's
statements, however, we want to explain more fully the Agency's reasons
for concluding that these four potential substantive issues in existing
SIPs may be addressed separately.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and
that these SIPS are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, new source review
permitting program submissions required to address the requirements of
part D, and a host of other specific types of SIP submissions that
address other specific matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2)
provides more details concerning the required contents of these
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory
provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal
authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions,
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and
substantive provisions.\2\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2)
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must
provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under
state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a substantive program to address
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event
of such an emergency.
    \3\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic
points as what constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g.,
``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162
(May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) states that ``each'' SIP
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\4\ This illustrates that
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states
to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with
different schedules.\5\ This illustrates that EPA may conclude that
subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into
separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS
where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere
submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's SIP.
Finally, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be
relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or
revised NAAQS and the attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that
NAAQS. For example, the monitoring requirements that might be necessary
for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very
different than what might be necessary for a different pollutant. Thus,
the content of an infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element
from a state might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus
a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005)
(explaining relationship between timing requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \5\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, ``Guidance for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from
William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to
Regional Air Division Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2),
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by
part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section
110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear
that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirement
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D
also would not need

to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to
emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be limited to
nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP
submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not
others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for
infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\7\ Within this guidance document,
EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what
the Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs,
which it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards.'' \8\ As further identification of
these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the
guidance document included a short description of the various elements
of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of
issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such
infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic
requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an
interpretation of'' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief
description of the required elements.'' \9\ EPA also stated its belief
that with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self
explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA
Regions.'' \10\ For the one exception to that general assumption,
however, i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each
State would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine
the scope of a State's submittal based on an assessment of how the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic
structure of the State's SIP for the NAAQS in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance''). EPA
issued comparable guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''
from William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25,
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
    \8\ Id., at page 2.
    \9\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \10\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by
commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significantly, the 2007 Guidance did not explicitly refer to the
SSM, director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as
among specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance, however,
EPA did not indicate to states that it intended to interpret these
provisions as requiring a substantive submission to address these
specific issues in the context of the infrastructure SIPs for these
NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007 Guidance merely indicated its belief that
the states should make submissions in which they established that they
have the basic SIP structure necessary to implement, maintain, and
enforce the NAAQS. EPA believes that states can establish that they
have the basic SIP structure, notwithstanding that there may be
potential deficiencies within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions.
    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP
requirement is reasonable, because it would not be feasible to read
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern,
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS.
Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and
regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include
some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the
SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to
determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of
the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.\11\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct

errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\12\
Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on the infrastructure
SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential
existing SIP problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent
reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for
action at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate
to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's
discretion provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure
SIP, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory
bases that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a
subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \12\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors
in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See,
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (Dec. 30, 2010). EPA
has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \13\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado
on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section
110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010)
(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR
4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What action is EPA taking?

    The EPA is approving the Louisiana SIP submittals that identify
where and how the 14 basic infrastructure elements are in the EPA-
approved SIP as specified in section 110(a)(2) of the Act. We are
determining that the following section 110(a)(2) elements are contained
in the current Louisiana SIP: emission limits and other control
measures (section 110(a)(2)(A)); ambient air quality monitoring/data
system (section 110(a)(2)(B)); program for enforcement of control
measures (section 110(a)(2)(C)); international and interstate pollution
abatement (section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii); adequate resources (section
110(a)(2)(E)); stationary source monitoring system (section
110(a)(2)(F)); emergency power (section 110(a)(2)(G)); future SIP
revisions (section 110(a)(2)(H)); consultation with government
officials (section 110(a)(2)(J)); public notification (section
110(a)(2)(J)); PSD and visibility protection (section 110(a)(2)(J));
air quality modeling/data (section 110(a)(2)(K)); permitting fees
(section 110(a)(2)(L)); and consultation/participation by affected
local entities (section 110(a)(2)(M)).
    In conjunction with our determination that the Louisiana SIP meets
the section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP elements listed above,
we are also approving four severable portions of two SIP revisions
submitted by the LDEQ to EPA on December 20, 2005 and November 9, 2007.
These portions contain rule revisions by LDEQ to (1) regulate
NOX emissions in its PSD permit program as a precursor to
ozone; (2) add NOX to the PSD definitions for Major
Modification and Major Stationary Source; 3) under the PSD definition
for Significant, add the emission rate for NOX, as a
precursor to ozone, as 40 tons per year (tpy); and 4) under the PSD
requirements, allow for an exemption with respect to ambient air
quality monitoring data for a source with a net emissions increase less
than 100 tpy of NOX. At this time, EPA is not taking action
on other portions of the December 20, 2005 and November 9, 2007 SIP
revisions submitted by LDEQ; EPA intends to act on the other revisions
at a later time.

IV. Comments

    We received one comment letter on the proposed rulemaking. The
comment letter is available for review in the docket for this
rulemaking. The comment letter came from the Tulane Environmental Law
Clinic, on behalf of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN,
hereinafter referred to as ``the commenter'').
    Generally, the commenter's concerns relate to whether EPA's
approval of Louisiana's infrastructure SIP submissions are in
compliance with section 110(a)(2)(E) and 110(a)(2)(L) of the CAA, and
whether EPA's approval is arbitrary and capricious in finding the State
has provided necessary assurances in compliance with the CAA's adequate
funding and personnel requirements. To the extent comments 1 through 4
address adequate funding for Louisiana's Title V program with respect
to elements 110(a)(2)(C), D(ii), (E), and (L), the commenter addresses
issues that are subject to statutory and regulatory evaluation beyond
the statutory scope of this rulemaking. Section 110(a)(2) falls under
Title I of the CAA and governs the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS, in this instance 1997 ozone and 1997
PM2.5, through the federally approved SIP. Section 110 and
40 CFR part 51 also provide mechanisms for programmatic remedies with
respect to the SIP. Furthermore, Title I addresses Minor and Major New
Source Review SIP preconstruction permits. The Title V program, by
contrast, governs operating permits and is addressed by CAA sections
502 through 507. Any evaluation of the Title V program and any
consequent programmatic remedies must be done pursuant to CAA section
502 and 40 CFR part 70. The scope of this action is limited to
determining whether the Louisiana SIP meets certain infrastructure
requirements of CAA 110(a)(2) with respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\14\ A summary of the comments and EPA's
responses are provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Region 6 intends to evaluate Louisiana's Title V program in
fiscal year 2012, pursuant to the statutory and regulatory procedure
in CAA section 502 and 40 CFR part 70 that are separate from the
procedures in CAA section 110 and 40 CFR part 51. This evaluation
would be outside the programmatic scope of section 110 and 40 CFR
part 51 evaluated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1: The commenter states that because the record contains no
evidence of adequate funding, EPA cannot approve Louisiana's
infrastructure SIP. The commenter also states that EPA's approval of
various Title I and Title V revisions to Louisiana's permit fee system
is more than 15 years out of date and therefore cannot support a
finding that Louisiana has adequate personnel and funding to carry out
its program today. The commenter also states that Louisiana's fee
average is less than the presumptive minimum set out by Title V of the
CAA under section 502(b)(3)(B)(i) and (v). The commenter further states
that it would be unlawful for EPA to approve Louisiana's infrastructure
SIP submissions without specifically considering LDEQ's annual reviews
of their Fee Schedule as required by the Louisiana Administrative Code.
The commenter also states that EPA cannot lawfully conclude Louisiana
can adequately implement its program for less than half of EPA's
presumptive fee based on the record which does not include Louisiana's
annual reviews of their fees.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter's statement that the
record contains no evidence of adequate funding. Our TSD was posted in
the docket for this rulemaking on April 18, 2011, which is the date the
rulemaking was published in the Federal Register. The TSD evaluates
where and how the Louisiana SIP addresses each of the section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements, including 110(a)(2)(E), which begins on page
12 of the TSD. Within the TSD section evaluating 110(a)(2)(E), we
include the various funds the state

receives to support the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that the state provide necessary
assurances that it will have adequate funding under state law to carry
out the SIP. As cited in our TSD, to address adequate funding,
Louisiana statute charges the LDEQ with preparing and developing the
SIP, and provides the secretary of the LDEQ with the powers and duties
to `` * * * receive and budget duly appropriated monies and to accept,
receive, and administer grants or other funds or gifts from public and
private agencies, including the federal government, to carry out the
provisions and purposes of this Subtitle'' (LA RS 30:2011.D.10). As
cited in our TSD, these state statute-assured funds are supplemented by
federal funds, including CAA section 103 and section 105 grants.
Consequently, there are additional monetary sources, including
Louisiana's Environmental Trust Fund monies provided for under LA RS
30:2015, which contribute to Louisiana's ability to provide adequate
personnel and funding to implement the SIP for the 1997 ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Funding necessary to implement the SIP, as discussed prior in this
Response and in the TSD, is provided for pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(E) by Louisiana state statute and various sources of funding.
While Louisiana's various permitting fee system and revisions were
approved into the SIP over a decade ago, the rules approved into the
Louisiana SIP continue today to mandate Major and Minor NSR SIP
preconstruction permitting application and annual maintenance fees
pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E) and (L). EPA's previous SIP approvals,
as contained within the record and cited to by the commenter, include
required fees as described by 110(a)(2)(E) and (L).
    The presumptive $25.00 fee minimum under CAA section 502(b)(3) the
commenter refers to is part of Title V, which as previously stated in
Section IV, second paragraph, is subject to evaluation under different
statutory and regulatory mechanisms provided for outside the SIP
parameters for evaluation and remedies under CAA section 110 and 40 CFR
part 51.
    Section 110(a)(2) does not require a specific quantitative metric
or methodology for determining adequate resources. The commenter also
did not point to specific program deficiencies or implementation issues
due to the perceived lack of resources. As described in our proposal,
TSD, and previously in this response, EPA's evaluation and approval of
Louisiana's fee system and resources is based, in part, upon various
sources of funding, state statutes and rules pursuant to section
110(a)(2), and LDEQ's fulfillment of grant obligations. As explained in
the TSD, section 105 grants provide monies to help support the
foundation of the State's air quality program, including air
monitoring, enforcement and SIP development. States are required to
provide matching monies to receive their grant and EPA evaluates the
performance of the State each year. In fiscal year 2010, Louisiana
successfully completed all of their air program obligations as called
for under the section 105 grant with some minor exceptions.\15\ EPA
noted no significant deficiencies thus indicating that LDEQ has
sufficient resources to implement its SIP. For example, as described in
our proposal and TSD, apart from the grant review, Louisiana's
statewide air quality surveillance network as required by section
110(a)(2)(B) undergoes annual review and EPA's most recent approval of
this monitoring network dates January 12, 2011. Therefore, we disagree
that the record does not support a finding of adequate resources. The
fact that the fee requirement that provides the basis for some of these
resources was approved by EPA some time ago does not change this
conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Supplemental TSD for the LDEQ 2010 Air Program End-of-
Year Report, in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, we disagree with the commenter's statement that the
record does not support a finding of adequate resources solely because
the annual fee review is absent from the record. In response to the
commenter's concerns, LDEQ explained their fee review process and
stated that the fee review is conducted as part of the budget process
and essentially insures that sufficient fees are collected to pay for
the staff associated with new source review permitting.\16\ Though
evaluation of the annual fee review was not part of the proposal for
this action, EPA's evaluation and approval of Louisiana's fee system
and resources under sections 110(a)(2)(L) and 110(a)(2)(E) is based, in
part, upon various sources of funding, state statutes and rules
pursuant to section 110(a)(2), and LDEQ's fulfillment of grant
obligations as described in the proposal, TSD, the supplemental TSD,
and this response. In addition, on September 9, 2010, the EPA
determined that the Baton Rouge moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area (BRNA) had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (75 FR 54778). On
August 31, 2010, the state submitted a request to EPA to redesignate
the BRNA to attainment and EPA is reviewing that submission in a
separate action. This submission was not statutorily required under the
Act and was resource intensive for the LDEQ. This exercise provides
additional support that the state has adequate resources to comply with
the enforceable emission limitations and other control measures
requirement of 110(a)(2)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Per communication with Bryan Johnston, LDEQ, dated June 27,
2011; see the Supplemental TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, the record does support a finding of adequate resources. As
discussed in the record for this action, the State has the statutory
authority to receive monies. The State does, in fact, collect various
fees, revenues and federal grants. Section 110 does not provide a
specific methodology for determining the adequacy of resources. The
commenter does not specify deficiencies or implementation problems. Our
reasons for finding that the Louisiana SIP meets section 110(a)(2)(E)
for adequate resources for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS are reiterated in our response above, and described in the
proposed rulemaking (76 FR 21682) and the TSD. The fact that the fee
requirement that provides for some of these resources was approved some
time ago does not change this conclusion.\17\ Insofar as the commenter
states EPA cannot lawfully conclude LDEQ can adequately implement its
program for less than half of EPA's presumptive fee, the presumptive
fee the commenter is referring to is the Title V presumptive fee.
Evaluation of this presumptive fee minimum must be conducted under
different statutory and regulatory mechanisms provided for outside the
SIP parameters for evaluation and remedies under CAA section 110 and 40
CFR part 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Supplemental TSD for revisions to the Fee System of the
Louisiana Air Quality Control Programs submitted by Bryan Johnston,
LDEQ. These revisions were not submitted to EPA for approval into
the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: Inflation alone shows that EPA cannot rely on its 1995
approval.
    Response: The 1995 approval the commenter refers to is found at 60
FR 47296, and was approved pursuant to section 502(b)(3) of the Act and
40 CFR 70.9, the regulations implementing Title V. Title V is not part
of the federally approved SIP, and as previously explained in this
rulemaking, the mechanism for evaluating the Title V program is legally
outside the scope of this rulemaking. The scope of this action is
limited to determining whether the existing Louisiana SIP meets certain

infrastructure requirements of CAA 110(a)(2) with respect to the 1997
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Comment 3: Louisiana's program will need increased resources to
achieve attainment in expanded sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
NOX non-attainment areas.
    Response: The scope of this action is limited to determining
whether the Louisiana SIP meets the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2) with
respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in attainment
areas. We will evaluate whether or not the Louisiana SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) with respect to the SO2
and NO2 standards in one or more separate rulemaking
actions.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The commenter incorrectly refers to a ``NOX
standard.'' EPA assumes the commenter is referring to the
NO2 standard announced on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: EPA's proposed approval ignores a 2002 audit report by
the EPA's Inspector General, which concluded that Louisiana's average
fee of $19.00 per ton is well below the EPA-determined presumptive
minimum amount of $35.00 to adequately run a state Title V program.
    Response: The audit report referred to by the commenter wholly
addresses the Louisiana Title V program and thus is outside the legal
parameters of evaluating the Louisiana SIP in meeting the requirements
of section 110(a)(2) of the Act with respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Any evaluation of the Title V program must be
done pursuant to the procedural mechanisms in CAA section 502 and 40
CFR part 70.
    Comment 5: The commenter states Louisiana's March 24, 2011
(supplemental) certification letter does not list permitting fees as an
area of compliance. EPA must evaluate the adequacy of LDEQ's plan, and
there is nothing in the record to support a finding that LDEQ's
resources are sufficient to run its program.
    Response: The March 24, 2011 letter from LDEQ was not intended to
replace the December 11, 2007 and January 7, 2008 certification
letters, and the March 2011 letter states that it clarifies and amends
the prior two certifications. In its January 7, 2008 certification
submitted to EPA, Louisiana listed permitting fees as an area of
compliance. We therefore disagree with the commenter that the State did
not certify Major and Minor NSR SIP preconstruction permitting fees as
an area of compliance. EPA evaluated the Louisiana SIP in the April 18,
2011 proposal and TSD, and this evaluation is based on the two
certification letters submitted by the state, dated December 11, 2007
and January 7, 2008, and the supplemental certification letter dated
March 24, 2011.
    Major and Minor NSR SIP preconstruction permitting application and
annual maintenance fees and adequate resources sufficient to implement
the Louisiana SIP pursuant to sections 110(a)(2)(E) and 110(a)(2)(L)
are provided for under the EPA-approved SIP, state statute, and
augmented by other sources of funding as described in EPA's Response to
Comment 1 of this final action and in the TSD.
    The commenter does not specify where Louisiana might be failing to
implement any portions of the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS SIP, thus we have no specific basis of evaluation or point of
reference to evince support of the commenter's allegations of
inadequate resources with regards to Louisiana's SIP. Our reasons for
finding that the Louisiana SIP meets section 110(a)(2)(E) for adequate
resources for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS are
reiterated in our response above,\19\ and described in the proposed
rulemaking (76 FR 21682) and the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Response to Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Action

    We are approving the submittals provided by the State of Louisiana
to demonstrate that the Louisiana SIP meets the following requirements
of Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act:
    Emission limits and other control measures (110(a)(2)(A) of the
Act);
    Ambient air quality monitoring/data system (110(a)(2)(B) of the
Act);
    Program for enforcement of control measures (110(a)(2)(C) of the
Act);
    Interstate Transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act);
    Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E) of the Act);
    Stationary source monitoring system (110(a)(2)(F) of the Act);
    Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G) of the Act);
    Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H) of the Act);
    Consultation with government officials (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act);
    Public notification (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act);
    Prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection
(110(a)(2)(J) of the Act);
    Air quality modeling data (110(a)(2)(K) of the Act);
    Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L) of the Act); and
    Consultation/participation by affected local entities (110(a)(2)(M)
of the Act).
    EPA is also approving the following revisions to 33 LAC 5-509,
submitted by LDEQ on December 20, 2005 and November 9, 2007:
    1. The 2005 non-substantive recodification of the definition for
Major Modification subsection 2 to subsection b, and the 2007
substantive change adding NOX to the definition of Major
Modification.
    2. The 2005 non-substantive recodification at of the definition for
Major Stationary Source at subsection 4 to subsection d, and the 2007
substantive change adding NOX to the definition of Major
Stationary Source.
    3. The 2005 non-substantive recodification of the first paragraph
of the definition for Significant at subsection 1 to subsection a, and
the 2007 substantive change adding NOX as a precursor to the
table's criteria and other pollutants listing for ozone.
    4. The 2005 non-substantive recodification of the first paragraph
of subsection I.8 to subsection I.5, and the 2007 substantive change
allowing for an exemption with respect to ozone monitoring for a source
with a net emissions increase less than 100 tpy of NOX.

EPA is approving these actions in accordance with section 110 of the
Act and EPA's regulations and consistent with EPA guidance.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition,
this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not
approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes
that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments
or preempt tribal law.
    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. 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 September 19, 2011. 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: June 30, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. Section 52.970 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (c) by revising the entry for Section 509 under
``Chapter 5 Permit Procedures''.
0
b. In paragraph (e) by adding a new entry for ``Infrastructure for the
1997 Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS'' at the end of the second
table in paragraph (e) entitled ``EPA Approved Louisiana Nonregulatory
Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures''.
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                 EPA Approved Louisiana Regulations in the Louisiana SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         State approval
             State citation                      Title/subject                date          EPA approval date                   Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 509.............................  Prevention of Significant             2/20/1995         10/15/1996,  The following revisions approved by the
                                           Deterioration.                                         61 FR 53639   State on 12/20/2005 and 9/20/2006 are
                                                                                EPA approved on 7/19/2011, [Insert FR
                                                                                page number where document begins]:
                                                                                (a) Section 509(B)--Only the revisions to
                                                                                recodify and add NOX to the definitions
                                                                                of Major Modification and Major
                                                                                Stationary Source; and only the
                                                                                revisions to recodify and add NOX as a
                                                                                precursor to the definition of
                                                                                Significant;
                                                                                (b) Section 509(I)--Only the revisions to
                                                                                the table under I.5(a).

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
* * * * *

                  EPA Approved Louisiana Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable       State submittal
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or      date/effective    EPA approval date       Explanation
                                   nonattainment area        date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Infrastructure for the 1997       Statewide..........        12/11/2007  7/19/2011, [Insert   Approval for CAA
 Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                   1/7/2008   FR page number       sections
                                                              3/24/2011   where document       110(a)(2)(A),
                                                                          begins].             (B), (C),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H),
                                                                                (J), (K), (L),
                                                                                and (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-18061 Filed 7-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P