35870 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1See, e.g., Whitman v. American Trucking 

Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001). 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP Provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date 

*******

12. [Reserved]. 

*******

[FR Doc. 2012–14595 Filed 6–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2007–1179; FRL–9685–7] 

Approval of Air Quality Implementation 

Plans; Wisconsin; Partial Disapproval 

of ‘‘Infrastructure’’ State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is 

taking final action to disapprove two 

narrow portions of submissions made by 

the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) to address the 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements of 

the CAA, often referred to as the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). Specifically, we are 

finalizing the disapproval of portions of 

WDNR’s submissions intended to meet 

certain requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 

8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 1997 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Among other 

conditions, section 110(a)(2)(C) of the 

CAA requires states to correctly address 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor 

to ozone in their respective prevention 

of significant deterioration (PSD) 

programs. EPA is finalizing disapproval 

of a portion of Wisconsin’s submissions 

intended to satisfy this requirement. 

EPA is also finalizing disapproval of a 

portion of Wisconsin’s submissions 

because the SIP currently contains a 

new source review (NSR) exemption for 

fuel changes as major modifications 

where the source was capable of 

accommodating the change before 

January 6, 1975. The proposed rule 

associated with this final action was 

published on April 20, 2012. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2007–1179. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly-available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and 

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This 

facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. We recommend that 

you telephone Andy Chang at (312) 

886–0258 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258, 

chang.andy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, and implementing EPA guidance, 

states were required to submit either 

revisions to their existing EPA approved 

SIPs necessary to provide for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, or 

certifications that their existing SIPs for 

ozone and particulate matter already 

met those basic requirements. The 

statute requires that states make these 

submissions within 3 years after the 

promulgation of new or revised 

NAAQS. However, intervening litigation 

over the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS created uncertainty 

about how states were to proceed.1

Accordingly, both EPA and the states 

were delayed in addressing these basic 

SIP requirements. 

In a consent decree with Earth Justice, 

EPA agreed to make completeness 

findings with respect to these SIP 

submissions. Pursuant to this consent 

decree, EPA published completeness 

findings for all states for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008, 

and for all states for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS on October 22, 2008. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued a 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 

making recommendations to states 

concerning these SIP submissions (the 

2007 Guidance). Within the 2007 

Guidance, EPA gave general guidance 

relevant to matters such as the timing 

and content of the submissions. 

Wisconsin made its infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS on December 12, 2007. 

The State provided supplemental 

submissions to EPA on January 24, 

2011, and March 28, 2011. 

On April 28, 2011, EPA published its 

proposed action on the Region 5 states’ 

submissions (see 76 FR 23757). Notably, 

we proposed to find that Wisconsin had 

met the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) concerning state PSD 

programs generally, and in particular 

the requirement to include NOX as a 

precursor to ozone (see 76 FR 23757 at 

23760–23761), thereby satisfying the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 35871 

2EPA noted that each state’s PSD program must 

meet certain basic program requirements, e.g., if a 

state lacks specific required provisions needed to 

address NOX as a precursor to ozone, the provisions 

of section 110(a)(2)(C) requiring an adequate 

permitting program must be considered not to be 

met, irrespective of the pollutant being addressed 

in the infrastructure SIP submission. 

3Although the evaluation of states’ definitions of 

‘‘major modification’’ related to fuel changes was 

not a criterion outlined in EPA’s April 28, 2011 

proposed rulemaking, this issue is intrinsically 

linked to states’ PSD regulations, covered under 

section 110(a)(2)(C). 

requirement that the State has an 

adequate PSD program pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(C) for both the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.2

During the comment period for the 

April 28, 2011, proposed rulemaking, 

EPA received three sets of comments. 

Two of the commenters observed that 

although we had proposed to approve 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP as 

meeting the correct requirements for 

NOX as a precursor to ozone in the 

State’s PSD program, Wisconsin’s PSD 

SIP does not contain the most recent 

PSD program revisions required by EPA 

for this purpose. One of the commenters 

also noted that Wisconsin’s existing SIP 

does not meet current EPA requirements 

with respect to NSR because Wisconsin 

has not included fuel changes as ‘‘major 

modifications’’ in its NSR program for 

certain sources under certain 

conditions. A detailed discussion of 

these comments as they relate to 

Wisconsin’s SIP was included in the 

April 20, 2012, proposed rulemaking 

(see 77 FR 23647), which is the basis for 

this final action. 

As a result of the comments received 

in response to our April 28, 2011, 

proposed rulemaking, we did not 

promulgate final action on those two 

limited aspects of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP in our July 13, 2011, 

final rulemaking (see 76 FR 41075). We 

did, however, promulgate final action 

on all other applicable elements of 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP. In the 

July 13, 2011, rulemaking, we 

committed to address the issues raised 

in the comments concerning NOX as a 

precursor to ozone and the definition of 

‘‘major modification’’ related to fuel 

changes for certain sources in 

Wisconsin in a separate action; our 

April 20, 2012, proposed rulemaking 

and this final rulemaking serve as that 

action. 

On April 20, 2012, we proposed to 

disapprove the State’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to two narrow 

issues related to section 110(a)(2)(C). 

During the comment period on the April 

20, 2012, proposed rulemaking, EPA 

received two comment letters. EPA 

addresses the significant and relevant 

comments in this final action, 

specifically in the following section. 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

The public comment period for EPA’s 

proposal to disapprove the narrow 

portions of the submittals from 

Wisconsin addressing the current 

regulatory requirements for NOX as a 

precursor to ozone in PSD permitting 

and the definition of ‘‘major 

modification’’ related to fuel changes for 

certain sources 3 closed on May 21, 

2012. EPA received two comment 

letters, one of which was not relevant to 

this rulemaking. A synopsis of the 

significant individual comments 

contained in the other letter, as well as 

EPA’s response to each comment, is 

discussed below: 

Comment 1: WDNR submitted a 

comment letter that states that although 

Wisconsin’s SIP does not explicitly 

include all portions of the regulatory 

language EPA required states to adopt in 

the ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8- 

Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule 

to Implement Certain Aspects of the 

1990 Amendments Relating to New 

Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration as They Apply 

in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter, 

and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

(see 70 FR 71612), WDNR does in fact 

consider NOX as a precursor of ozone in 

its permitting decisions. WDNR also 

states that it has consistently treated 

NOX as a precursor to ozone, and 

existing language in Wisconsin 

Administrative Code section NR 

405.02(25i) clearly gives WDNR the 

authority to regulate NOX as a precursor 

for ozone, as it has been identified as 

such by EPA. WDNR further states that 

it is not aware of any situation where it 

has not consistently used this existing 

authority in its major NSR program. 

Lastly, WDNR states that in response to 

EPA’s and the public’s concern over this 

issue, it currently has under 

development a revision to Wisconsin 

Administrative Code section NR 

405.02(25i) to ensure that the language 

is wholly consistent with Federal 

language contained in 40 CFR 51.166, as 

required by the Phase 2 Rule. Upon 

revision and final adoption at the state 

level, WDNR has committed to submit 

the revisions to EPA for approval and 

incorporation into the SIP. 

Response 1: EPA recognizes that 

Wisconsin currently has some authority 

to treat NOX as a precursor to ozone in 

permitting decisions, and EPA 

appreciates the State’s efforts to ensure 

that NOX is correctly evaluated as a 

precursor to ozone in fact. However, the 

Phase 2 Rule obligates states to make 

explicit regulatory changes in order to 

clarify and remove any ambiguity 

concerning the requirement that NOX be 

treated as a precursor to ozone in 

permitting contexts in specific ways. 

The Phase 2 Rule requires states to 

submit SIP revisions incorporating the 

requirements of the rule, including 

these specific NOX as a precursor to 

ozone provisions, by June 15, 2007 (see 

70 FR 71612 at 71683). As explained in 

our April 20, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking, states that had not 

incorporated the necessary changes 

specific to NOX as a precursor to ozone 

as required by the Phase 2 Rule were 

included in EPA’s March 27, 2008, 

‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 

110(a) State Implementation Plans for 

the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS’’ and 

received a finding of failure to submit 

related to section 110(a)(2)(C) for this 

reason (see 73 FR 16205). 

As a result of EPA’s own regulations, 

submission deadlines, and actions 

germane to the explicit identification of 

NOX as a precursor to ozone in 

Federally approved PSD programs, EPA 

is finalizing the disapproval of portions 

of Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to the NOX as 

a precursor to ozone provision 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA appreciates Wisconsin’s efforts to 

develop SIP revisions that will be 

wholly consistent with the Federal 

language contained in 40 CFR 51.166. 

EPA will work actively with the State to 

ensure that the necessary SIP revisions 

are completed as expeditiously as 

possible. In the interim, we will work 

actively with the State to ensure that 

NOX is correctly treated as a precursor 

to ozone in a manner consistent with 

the requirements of the Phase 2 Rule. 

Comment 2: In the same comment 

letter, WDNR recognizes that its 

definition of ‘‘major modification’’ as 

found in Wisconsin Administrative 

Code section NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. does 

not include language that recognizes 

prohibitions on fuel use exemptions that 

may have been contained in Federallyissued PSD permits issued prior to 

EPA’s approval of Wisconsin’s PSD SIP. 

However, WDNR does not agree with 

the notion that the omission in fact 

allows more exemptions than what is 

allowed by Federal rules. 

WDNR states that under its title V 

operating permit program, all applicable 

requirements to a source are included in 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
35872 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

its operation permit. As a result, WDNR 

states that it clearly recognizes that 

requirements contained in a Federallyissued PSD permit would be an 

applicable requirement to the source 

and that it would be included in the 

source’s title V operating permit, 

therefore making the requirement fully 

enforceable under State and Federal 

law. 

WDNR states that this issue is a very 

narrow one, and that it is not aware of 

a single situation where an omission has 

occurred in practice. Further, WDNR 

believes that the omission in its 

definition of ‘‘major modification’’ was 

an oversight that occurred during rule 

writing, and cites a previous 

commitment to EPA to make a 

correction. Lastly, WDNR states that a 

correction to the definition in question 

has begun, and will be part of the same 

rulemaking effort that will address the 

NOX as a precursor to ozone provision. 

Response 2: EPA agrees that this issue 

is a very narrow one, and that an 

omission in practice is perhaps 

nonexistent. Nonetheless, as explained 

in EPA’s April 20, 2012, proposed 

rulemaking, this is an issue that has 

previously arisen, and that the State has 

acknowledged and agreed to address. 

WDNR’s previous commitment to 

address the issue, dated June 1, 2011, 

did not include a date certain by which 

it would complete the requested 

revision of the State’s regulation. As a 

result, EPA could not promulgate an 

approval or conditional approval of the 

section 110(a)(2)(C) portion of 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP for the 

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to this narrow issue. 

EPA recognizes that in practice, 

WDNR has the authority and means to 

ensure adherence to the prohibitions on 

fuel use exemptions in certain 

instances, consistent with our own 

definition of ‘‘major modification.’’ 

However, our regulations along with a 

previous request to the State to make 

appropriate revisions to the SIP 

necessary to address this issue result in 

finalizing the disapproval of 

Wisconsin’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. This narrow disapproval 

pertains to the NSR exemption for fuel 

changes as ‘‘major modifications’’ where 

the source was capable of 

accommodating the change before 

January 6, 1975. Once again, we note 

that this disapproval is a narrow one, 

and limited to the specific state 

regulatory language concerning the 

exemption. 

EPA appreciates WDNR’s efforts to 

correct the definition of ‘‘major 

modification’’ and will actively work 

with the State to ensure that alignment 

of the State and Federal definition for 

‘‘major modification’’ occurs as 

expeditiously as possible. In addition, 

we will work actively with the State as 

needed to ensure adherence to the 

prohibitions on fuel use exemptions in 

Federally-issued permits. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

For the reasons discussed in the 

proposed rulemaking, EPA is taking 

final action to disapprove two narrow 

portions of Wisconsin’s infrastructure 

SIP submissions for the 1997 ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(C). Specifically, we are 

finalizing disapproval of portions of 

Wisconsin’s submissions because the 

current SIP does not satisfy the 

requirements of the Phase 2 Rule for 

explicit identification of NOx as a 

precursor to ozone in PSD permitting. 

We are also finalizing disapproval of 

portions of Wisconsin’s submissions 

because the current SIP contains an 

impermissible NSR exemption for fuel 

changes as ‘‘major modifications’’ where 

the source was capable of 

accommodating the change before 

January 6, 1975. These grounds for 

disapproval are narrow, and pertain 

only to these specific deficiencies in 

Wisconsin’s SIP. The State has begun 

the process for rectifying these two 

issues, and we will work with the State 

to rectify these issues promptly. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submission that 

addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan 

(section 171–section 193 of the CAA), or 

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

section 110(k)(5) starts a sanction clock. 

The provisions in the submissions we 

are disapproving were not submitted by 

Wisconsin to meet either of those 

requirements. Therefore, no sanctions 

under section 179 will be triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a SIP 

revision triggers the requirement under 

section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no 

later than 2 years from the date of the 

disapproval unless the State corrects the 

deficiency, and the Administrator 

approves the plan or plan revision 

before the Administrator promulgates 

such FIP. As previously mentioned, 

Wisconsin has begun the process to 

rectify each of these deficiencies. 

Further, EPA anticipates acting on 

WDNR’s submissions to address these 

two issues within the 2-year time frame 

prior to our FIP obligation on these very 

narrow issues. In the interim, EPA 

expects WDNR to address NOx as a 

precursor to ozone correctly for PSD 

permitting consistent with the 

requirements of the Phase 2 Rule, and 

to ensure adherence to the prohibitions 

on fuel use exemptions in Federallyissued permits. The State has indicated 

that it will be addressing both issues 

correctly in permitting decisions in the 

interim, so EPA anticipates that the 

practical implications of these 

disapprovals should be minimal. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action merely disapproves state 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule disapproves preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 35873 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

disapproves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it disapproves 

a state rule implementing a Federal 

Standard. 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Congressional Review Act 

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 rule 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. section 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 August 14, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule 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, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 30, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

Therefore, 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 52.2591 by adding 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving 

the portions of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS with respect to two narrow 

issues that relate to section 110(a)(2)(C): 

(1) The requirement for consideration 

of NOx as a precursor to ozone; and 

(2) The definition of ‘‘major 

modification’’ related to fuel changes for 

certain sources. 

(d) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving 

the portions of Wisconsin’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS with respect to two narrow 

issues that relate to section 110(a)(2)(C): 

(1) The requirement for consideration 

of NOx as a precursor to ozone; and 

(2) The definition of ‘‘major 

modification’’ related to fuel changes for 

certain sources. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14417 Filed 6–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0719; FRL–9683–1] 

Approval, Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plan; Utah; 

Maintenance Plan for the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard for Salt Lake and Davis 

Counties 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving 

and partially disapproving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Governor of Utah on 

February 22, 1999. These revisions 

updated the State of Utah’s maintenance 

plan for the 1-hour ozone standard for 

Salt Lake County and Davis County. As 

part of this action, EPA is also 

addressing certain actions it took in 

2003 concerning such maintenance 

plan. This action is being taken under 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This action is effective on July 

16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0719. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., 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 EPA Region 8, Air Quality 

Planning Unit (8P–AR), 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado 80202. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody 

Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode 8P– 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES