Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 42549 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T01–0536 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T01–0536 Regulated Navigation 

Area; Chelsea Street Bridge Construction, 

Chelsea, MA. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

regulated navigation area: All navigable 

waters of the Chelsea River in Chelsea, 

MA, from surface to bottom, within the 

following points (NAD 83): from 

42°23.10′ N, 071°01.26′ W; thence to 

42°23.15′ N, 071°01.20′ W; thence to 

42°23.10′ N, 071°01.17′ W; thence to 

42°23.07′ N, 071°01.24′ W; thence back 

to the first point. 

(b) Regulations. (1) The general 

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.10, 

165.11, and 165.13 apply. 

(2) In accordance with the general 

regulations, entering into, transiting 

through, mooring or anchoring within 

this regulated area is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

(COTP) Boston. 

(3) All persons and vessels must 

comply with the Coast Guard Captain of 

the Port or the designated on-scene 

patrol personnel. 

(4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast 

Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing 

light or other means, the operator of the 

vessel must proceed as directed. 

(5) Vessels may request permission to 

enter the zone during periods of 

enforcement on VHF–16 or via phone at 

617–223–5757. 

(6) All other relevant regulations, 

including but not limited to the Rules of 

the Road (33 CFR part 84—Subchapter 

E, Inland Navigational Rules) remain in 

effect within the regulated area and 

should be strictly followed at all times. 

(c) Effective Period. This rule is 

effective from July 8, 2011 to 11:59 p.m. 

on May 31, 2012. 

(d) Enforcement Period. (1) This 

regulated navigation area is enforceable 

24 hours a day from July 8, 2011 until 

May 31, 2012. 

(2) Notice of suspension of 

enforcement. If enforcement is 

suspended, the COTP will cause a 

notice of the suspension of enforcement 

by all appropriate means to affect the 

widest publicity among the affected 

segments of the public. Such means of 

notification may also include, but are 

not limited to, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. 

Such notification will include the date 

and time that enforcement is suspended 

as well as the date and time that 

enforcement will resume. 

(3) Notice of waterway closure. In the 

event of a complete waterway closure, 

the COTP will make advance notice of 

the closure by all means available to 

affect the widest public distribution 

including, but not limited to, Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to 

Mariners. Such notification will include 

the date and time of the closure as well 

as the date and time that normal vessel 

traffic can resume. 

(4) Violations of this regulated 

navigation area may be reported to the 

COTP Sector Boston, at 617–223–5757 

or on VHF–Channel 16. 

Dated: July 7, 2011. 

J.B. McPherson, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Commander, First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18044 Filed 7–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0595] 

Columbia Unlimited Hydroplane 

Races; Kennewick, WA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce 

the Special Local Regulation for the 

Columbia Unlimited Hydroplane Races. 

This regulation which restricts 

navigation and anchorage on the 

Columbia River for six days at the end 

of July. This action is necessary to 

ensure the safety of the vessels involved 

in the Annual Kennewick, Washington, 

Columbia Unlimited Hydroplane Races 

(Water Follies). During the enforcement 

period, no person or vessel may operate 

their vessels in this area without 

permission from the on scene Patrol 

Commander. 

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

100.1303 will be enforced from 

Tuesday, July 26, through Sunday, July 

31, 2011 from 8:30 a.m. until the last 

race is completed each day at 

approximately 7:30 p.m., unless sooner 

terminated by the Patrol Commander. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, call 

or e-mail BM1 Silvestre Suga III, Coast 

Guard Marine Safety Unit Portland; 

telephone 503–240–9327, e-mail 

Silvestre.G.Suga@USCG.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast 

Guard will enforce the regulations 

found in 33 CFR 100.1303 restricting 

regular navigation and anchoring 

activities on the Columbia River during 

the periods specified in the DATES

section. 

Under the provisions of 33 CFR 

100.1303, no person or vessel may enter 

or remain in the area without 

permission of the Captain of the Port, 

Columbia River or his designated onscene Patrol Commander. Persons or 

vessels wishing to enter the area may 

request permission to do so from the onscene Captain of the Port representative 

via VHF Channel 16 or 13. The Coast 

Guard may be assisted by other Federal, 

State, or local enforcement agencies in 

enforcing this regulation. 

This notice is issued under authority 

of 33 CFR 165.1318 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). 

In addition to this notice in the Federal 

Register , the Coast Guard will provide 

the maritime community with 

notification of these enforcement 

periods via the Local Notice to 

Mariners. 

Dated: July 5, 2011. 

L.R. Tumabarello, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain 

of the Port, Sector Columbia River. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18045 Filed 7–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
42550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1See, 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. 

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 

214–665–7253 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 214–665–6521; fax number 

214–665–6762; e-mail address 

paige.carrie@epa.gov. 

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. 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 42551 

2For 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. 

3For 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’’). 

4See, 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)). 

5EPA 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. 

6For 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. 

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

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

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
42552 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

7See, ‘‘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. 

11EPA 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). 

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. 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 42553 

12EPA 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 EmittingSources 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). 

13EPA 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). 

14Region 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. 

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

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. 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
42554 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

15See Supplemental TSD for the LDEQ 2010 Air 

Program End-of-Year Report, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 16Per communication with Bryan Johnston, 

LDEQ, dated June 27, 2011; see the Supplemental 

TSD. 

17See 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. 

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. 

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). 

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. 

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 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 42555 

18The 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). 19Response to Comment 1. 

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

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 EPAdetermined 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 EPAapproved 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. 

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); 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
42556 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart T—Louisiana 

■ 2. Section 52.970 is amended: 

■ a. In paragraph (c) by revising the 

entry for Section 509 under ‘‘Chapter 5 

Permit Procedures’’. 

■ 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 QuasiRegulatory Measures’’. 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 52.970 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA APPROVED LOUISIANA REGULATIONS IN THE LOUISIANA SIP 

State citation Title/subject State approval date EPA approval date Comments 

* * * * * * * 

Section 509 ......... Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration.

2/20/1995 10/15/1996, 

61 FR 53639 

The following revisions approved by the 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) * * * 

* * * * * 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 138 / Tuesday, July 19, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 42557 

EPA APPROVED LOUISIANA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

Infrastructure for the 1997 

Ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS.

Statewide ......................... 12/11/2007 

1/7/2008 

3/24/2011 

7/19/2011, [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

Approval for CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A), (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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0289; FRL–9440–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the 

Delaware Regional Haze Plan, a revision 

to the Delaware State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) addressing Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requirements and EPA’s rules for 

states to prevent and remedy future and 

existing anthropogenic impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

through a regional haze program. EPA is 

also approving this revision since it 

meets the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 

1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on August 18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0289. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the electronic 

docket, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (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 through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy for public inspection during 

normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 

1401, Dover, Delaware 19903. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Lewis, (215) 814–2037, or by 

e-mail at lewis.jacqueline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. On May 13, 2011, (76 FR 27973) 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Delaware. The NPR proposed approval 

of Delaware’s regional haze plan for the 

first implementation period, through 

2018. EPA proposed to approve this 

revision since it assures reasonable 

progress toward the national goal of 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

in Class I areas for the first 

implementation period. This revision 

also meets the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and PM2.5 NAAQS. An explanation 

of the CAA’s visibility requirements and 

EPA regional haze rule as they apply to 

Delaware and EPA’s rationale for 

approving this SIP revision was 

provided in the NPR and will not be 

restated here. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The revision includes a long term 

strategy with enforceable measures 

ensuring reasonable progress towards 

meeting the reasonable progress goals 

for the first planning period, through 

2018. Delaware’s Regional Haze Plan 

contains the emission reductions 

needed to achieve Delaware’s share of 

emission reductions agreed upon 

through the regional planning process. 

Other specific requirements of the CAA 

and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule and the 

rationale for EPA’s proposed action are 

explained in the NPR and will not be 

restated here. No public comments were 

received on the NPR. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving a revision to the 

Delaware State Implementation Plan 

submitted by the State of Delaware, 

through the Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control, on September 25, 2008, that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period. EPA is making 

a determination that the Delaware 

Regional Haze SIP contains the emission 

reductions needed to achieve 

Delaware’s share of emission reductions 

agreed upon through the regional 

planning process. Furthermore, 

Delaware’s Regional Haze Plan ensures 

that emissions from the State will not 

interfere with the reasonable progress 

goals for neighboring states’ Class I 

areas. In addition, EPA is approving this 

revision because it meets the applicable 

visibility related requirements of the 

CAA section 110(a)(2) including, but not 

limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility 

protection for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

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); 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1