Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21913 

ensuring that requirements for RFP and 

attainment of the NAAQS are met, and 

the submitted SIP revision is more 

stringent than the rule previously 

approved into the SIP. We also propose 

to determine that our approval of the 

submittal would comply with CAA 

section 193, to the extent it applies, 

because the SIP revision would insure 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions of ozone precursors 

compared to the SIP-approved rule. Our 

TSD contains a more detailed 

discussion of our evaluation. 

III. EPA’s Proposed Action 

Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air 

Act, EPA is proposing to approve the 

SIP revision submitted by ADEQ on 

August 15, 1994, as meeting all 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

this proposal and will accept comments 

until the date noted in the DATES section 

above. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does not 

have tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 29, 2012. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8837 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0228; FRL–9657–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Hawaii; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Hawaii 

pursuant to the requirements of Section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 

NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5). Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires that each State adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. On 

December 14, 2011, the Hawaii 

Department of Health (HDOH) 

submitted a revision to Hawaii’s SIP, 

which describes the State’s provisions 

for implementing, maintaining, and 

enforcing standards listed above. We are 

taking comments on this proposal and 

plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0228, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: richmond.dawn@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579. 

4. Mail or deliver: Dawn Richmond, 

Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

anonymous access system, and EPA will 

not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

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

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1The 8-hour averaging period replaced the 

previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per 

million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). 

2The annual PM2.5 standard was set at 15 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), based on the 

3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5

concentrations from single or multiple communityoriented monitors and the 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 mg/m3, based on the 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations 

at each population-oriented monitor within an area 

(62 FR 38652). 

3The final rule revising the 24-hour NAAQS for 

PM2.5 from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3 was published in 

the Federal Register on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144). 

4 In the September 2011 notice, EPA specifically 

found that Hawaii failed to submit for section 

110(a)(2)(A)–(C), (D)(i)(II) (PSD prong only), (E)–(H) 

and (J)–(M). EPA had already determined on June 

10, 2011 that Hawaii had failed to submit a 

complete SIP to address the attainment and 

maintenance requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (75 FR 32673). 

5See, 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). 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dawn Richmond, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3207, 

richmond.dawn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Framework 

B. Regulatory History 

C. Scope of the Infrastructure SIP 

Evaluation 

D. Proposed Interpretation of CAA Section 

128 

II. The State’s Submittal and Related Actions 

by EPA 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Framework 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to 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),’’ that provides 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. Many of the 

section 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to 

the general information and authorities 

that constitute the ‘‘infrastructure’’ of a 

state’s air quality management program 

and SIP submittals that address these 

requirements are referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ These 

infrastructure SIP elements include: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate 

pollution transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local 

governments and regional agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary 

source monitoring and reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation 

with government officials, public 

notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These elements 

relate to part D of title I of the CAA, and 

submissions to satisfy them are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the same time nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due under section 

172. The two elements are: (i) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs required under part D 

(nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR)), and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), 

pertaining to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D. As a 

result, this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to the 

nonattainment NSR portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). 

B. Regulatory History 

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for ozone 1 and a new 

NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5).2 EPA subsequently revised the 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on September 

21, 2006.3 Each of these actions 

triggered a requirement for States to 

submit an infrastructure SIP to address 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) within three years of issuance 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into 

a Consent Decree with Earthjustice that 

obligated EPA to make official findings 

in accordance with section 110(k)(1) of 

the CAA as to whether States had made 

required complete SIP submissions, 

pursuant to sections 110(a)(1) and (2), 

by December 15, 2007 for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS and by October 5, 

2008 for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

made such findings for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008 (73 

FR 16205) and on October 22, 2008 (73 

FR 62902) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In each case, EPA found that Hawaii 

had failed to make a complete submittal 

to satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) for the relevant pollutant. On 

September 8, 2011, EPA made a similar 

finding of failure to submit for Hawaii 

in relation to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS (76 FR 55577).4

C. Scope of the Infrastructure SIP 

Evaluation 

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 those infrastructure SIP 

submissions.5 Those commenters 

specifically raised concerns involving 

provisions in existing SIPs and with 

EPA’s statements in other proposals 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 in other proposals 

that it would address the issues 

separately: (i) Existing provisions for 

minor source new source review 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21915 

6For 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. 

7For 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 25,162 (May 12, 

2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

8See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25,162, at 63–65 (May 12, 

2005) (explaining relationship between timing 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 

110(a)(2)(I)). 

9For example, EPA issued separate guidance to 

states with respect to SIP submissions to meet 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour 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. In addition, 

EPA bifurcated the action on these ‘‘interstate 

transport’’ provisions within section 110(a)(2) and 

in most instances, substantive administrative 

actions occurred on different tracks with different 

schedules. 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

Continued 

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 80,186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32,526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). In light of the comments, EPA 

believes that its statements in various 

proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs 

with respect to these four individual 

issues should be explained in greater 

depth. It should be noted, however, that, 

unlike other States, Hawaii has 

submitted revisions to its minor NSR 

program as part of its Infrastructure SIP 

submittal. EPA is taking action on these 

revisions in a separate notice-andcomment rulemaking. Thus, the 

discussion below pertaining to ‘‘existing 

provisions’’ is not relevant to Hawaii’s 

revised minor NSR rules. 

EPA intended the statements in other 

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 SIPapproved 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 NAAQS should not be 

construed as explicit or implicit 

reapproval of any existing provisions 

that relate to these four substantive 

issues. 

Unfortunately, the commenters and 

others evidently interpreted these 

statements to mean that EPA considered 

action upon the SSM provisions and the 

other three substantive issues to be 

integral parts of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

therefore that EPA was merely 

postponing taking final action on the 

issues 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 in those other 

proposals, 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 from actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions. 

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.6 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.7

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) 

provides 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).8 This 

illustrates that EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. Likewise, 

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.9 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.10

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21916 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

11See, ‘‘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’’). 

12 Id. at page 2. 

13 Id. at attachment A, page 1. 

14 Id. at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised 

by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to 

some substantive issues indicate 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. 

15See, ‘‘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’’). 

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 requirements applicable 

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs 

required by part D also would not need 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency 

episodes, as such requirements would 

not be limited to nonattainment areas. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of 

the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that 

language in the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. 

Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 

list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), 

EPA has adopted an approach in which 

it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 

this list of elements ‘‘as applicable.’’ In 

other words, EPA assumes that Congress 

could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the 

NAAQS in question, would meet each 

of the requirements, or meet each of 

them in the same way. EPA elected to 

use guidance to make recommendations 

for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone 

and PM2.5 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.11 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.’’ 12 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.’’ 13 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.’’ 14 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. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.15 In the 

2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 

number of additional issues that were 

not germane to the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to 

these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. Significantly, neither the 

2007 Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance 

explicitly referred 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 and the 2009 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 existing SIP provisions 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. 

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 comprehensive 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21917 

16EPA 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,’’ 76 FR 21,639 

(April 18, 2011). 17EPA 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 82,536 (December 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 38,664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34,641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67,062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57,051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

18EPA 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 42,342 at 

42,344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of 

director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4,540 

(January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such 

provisions). 

19 If EPA finalizes this action, the proposed 

interpretations will supersede (to the extent that 

they are inconsistent with) interpretations 

suggested in the 1978 guidance, at least for Hawaii’s 

SIP. 

20Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy 

General Counsel, to Regional Air Directors, 

Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest 

Requirements of Section 128 (Mar. 2, 1978). 

21H.R. Rep. 95–564 (1977), reprinted in 3 

Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977 526–27 (1978). 

22For the same two reasons, we distinguish the 

language of section 128(a)(1) from the language of 

the analogous provision in the Clean Water Act 

(CWA), governing composition of a state board or 

body that approves National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit applications. 

In relevant part, the CWA provision states, ‘‘no 

board or body which approves permit applications 

or portions thereof shall include, as a member, any 

person who receives, or has during the previous 

two years received, a significant portion of his 

income directly or indirectly from permit holders 

or applicants for a permit.’’ CWA section 304(i)(D), 

33 U.S.C. 1314(i)(D). The CWA provision does not 

refer to a majority of members in the plural, and the 

CWA provision does not have a separate section 

explicitly including heads of executive agencies. 

Thus, the bases for our interpretation of subsection 

128(a)(1) do not exist in the CWA. 

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.16 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.17

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.18

D. Proposed Interpretation of CAA 

Section 128 

As noted above, EPA is currently 

acting upon infrastructure SIPs for 

various states across the country. 

Among the elements that EPA is 

evaluating as part of these actions is the 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) that SIPs, ‘‘provide 

* * * requirements that the State 

comply with the requirements 

respecting State boards under section 

128’’ of the CAA. In contrast with, for 

example, the SSM issue discussed 

above, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

unambiguously mandates that each SIP 

must satisfy the requirements of section 

128. Accordingly, as part of our 

infrastructure SIP actions, EPA is 

reviewing SIPs in relation to the 

requirements of CAA section 128. In 

this action, EPA finds it appropriate to 

propose certain interpretations of 

section 128 and invite comment on 

these interpretations.19

Congress added section 128 of the 

CAA in the 1977 amendments as the 

result of a conference agreement. Titled 

‘‘State boards,’’ section 128 provides in 

relevant part: 

(a) Not later than the date one year after 

August 7, 1977, each applicable 

implementation plan shall contain 

requirements that— 

(1) Any board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders under [this 

Act] shall have at least a majority of members 

who represent the public interest and do not 

derive any significant portion of their income 

from persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders under [this Act], and 

(2) Any potential conflicts of interest by 

members of such board or body or the head 

of an executive agency with similar powers 

be adequately disclosed. 

In 1978, we issued a guidance 

memorandum recommending ways 

States could meet the requirements of 

section 128, including suggested 

interpretations of certain terms in 

section 128.20

We first note that, in the conference 

report, the committee stated: ‘‘It is the 

responsibility of each State to determine 

the specific requirements to meet the 

general requirements of [section 

128].’’ 21 We think that this legislative 

history indicates that Congress intended 

states to have some latitude in the 

specifics of implementing section 128, 

so long as the implementation is 

consistent with the plain text of the 

section. We also note that Congress 

explicitly provided in section 128 that 

States could adopt more stringent 

requirements. As a result, we propose 

four important considerations for 

implementing section 128. 

First, section 128 must be 

implemented through SIP-approved, 

federally enforceable provisions. 

Section 128 explicitly mandates that 

each SIP ‘‘shall contain requirements’’ 

that satisfy subsections 128(a)(1) and 

128(a)(2). A mere narrative description 

of state statutes or rules, or of a state’s 

current or past practice in constituting 

a board or body and in disclosing 

potential conflicts of interest, is not a 

requirement contained in the SIP and 

therefore does not satisfy the plain text 

of section 128. 

Second, subsection 128(a)(1) applies 

only to states that have a board or body 

that is composed of multiple 

individuals and that, among its duties, 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA. It does not apply in 

states that have no such multi-member 

board or body, and where instead a 

single head of an agency approves 

permits or enforcement orders under the 

CAA. This flows from the text of section 

128 itself, for two reasons. First, as 

section 128(a)(1) refers to a majority of 

members in the plural, we think it 

reasonable to read section 128(a)(1) as 

not creating any requirements for an 

individual with sole authority for 

approving a permit or enforcement 

order under the CAA. Second, 

subsection 128(a)(2) explicitly applies to 

the head of an executive agency with 

‘‘similar powers’’ to a board or body that 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA, while subsection 

128(a)(1) omits any reference to heads of 

executive agencies.22 We infer that 

subsection 128(a)(1) should not apply to 

heads of executive agencies who 

approve permits or enforcement orders. 

Third, subsection 128(a)(2) applies to 

all states, regardless of whether the state 

has a multi-member board or body that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21918 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

23A copy of the complete 2011 Hawaii 

Infrastructure SIP submittal has been placed in the 

docket for this action and is available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0228. 

24A list of these statutory provisions and their 

complete text are found in Attachment 1 and 

Appendix A of the 2011 Hawaii Infrastructure SIP, 

respectively. These documents have been placed in 

the docket for this action and are available online 

at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2012–0228. 

25See 40 CFR 52.632. 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA. Although the title of 

section 128 is ‘‘State boards,’’ the 

language of section 128(a)(2) explicitly 

applies where the head of an executive 

agency, rather than a board or body, 

approves permits or enforcement orders. 

In instances where the head of an 

executive agency delegates his or her 

power to approve permits or 

enforcement orders, or where statutory 

authority to approve permits or 

enforcement orders is nominally vested 

in another state official, the requirement 

to disclose adequately potential 

conflicts of interest still applies. In other 

words, EPA thinks that SIPs for all 

states, regardless of whether a state 

board or body approves permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA, 

must contain adequate provisions for 

disclosure of potential conflicts of 

interest. We note that many states have 

general disclosure provisions, 

applicable to all state employees, that 

may be adequate, if submitted for 

adoption into the SIP, to satisfy the 

requirements of subsection 128(a)(2). 

Finally, a state may satisfy the 

requirements of section 128 by 

submitting for adoption into the SIP a 

provision of state law that closely tracks 

or mirrors the language of the applicable 

provisions of section 128. A state may 

do so in two ways. First, the state may 

adopt the language of subsections 

128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2) verbatim. Under 

this approach, the state will be able to 

meet the continuing requirements of 

section 128 without any additional, 

future SIP revisions, even if the state 

adds or removes authority, either at the 

state level or local level, to individuals 

or to boards or bodies to approve 

permits or enforcement orders under the 

CAA. Second, the state may modify the 

language of subsections 128(a)(1) (if 

applicable) and 128(a)(2) to name the 

particular board, body, or individual 

official with approval authority. In this 

case, if the state subsequently modifies 

that authority, the state may have to 

submit a corresponding SIP revision to 

meet the continuing requirements of 

section 128. While either approach 

would meet the minimum requirements 

of section 128, we note that the statute 

explicitly permits states to adopt more 

stringent requirements, for example 

through providing more detailed 

definitions of the terms in subsections 

128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2), such as those 

suggested in the 1978 guidance 

memorandum. This approach gives 

states flexibility in implementing 

section 128, while still ensuring 

consistency with the statute. 

II. The State’s Submittal and Related 

Actions by EPA 

On December 14, 2011, the Hawaii 

Department of Health (HDOH) 

submitted revisions to the Hawaii SIP to 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(2) (‘‘2011 Hawaii 

Infrastructure SIP’’). This submittal 

included (1) provisions of the Hawaii 

Administrative Rules (HAR) to be 

included in the Hawaii SIP as regulatory 

materials; (2) provisions of the Hawaii 

Revised Statutes (HRS) to be included in 

the SIP as non-regulatory materials; and 

(3) an ‘‘Infrastructure SIP Certification 

of Adequacy.’’ The Certification sets 

forth HDOH’s analysis of how the 

Hawaii SIP, with the submitted 

revisions, would satisfy the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (collectively ‘‘the 

relevant NAAQS’’).23 The 2011 Hawaii 

Infrastructure SIP also included 

supporting materials for each of the 

components of the SIP revision. 

On February 1, 2012, EPA’s Region 9 

Regional Administrator signed a 

proposed rule and a direct final rule to 

approve into the Hawaii SIP a number 

of the regulatory provisions that were 

included in the 2011 Hawaii 

Infrastructure SIP. On March 20, 2012, 

the Regional Administrator signed a 

proposed rule and a direct final rule to 

approve into the SIP the remaining 

regulatory provisions submitted for 

inclusion in the SIP. These latter rules 

update and replace the minor NSR rules 

in the existing Hawaii SIP. Prepublication versions of these rules and 

the accompanying TSDs have been 

placed in the docket for this action. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

EPA has evaluated the 2011 Hawaii 

Infrastructure SIP and the existing 

provisions of the Hawaii SIP in relation 

to the infrastructure SIP requirements 

for the relevant NAAQS. The Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for this action, 

which is available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, docket number 

EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0228, includes a 

summary of our evaluation for each 

element. 

Based upon this analysis, EPA 

proposes to approve the 2011 Hawaii 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the 

following requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new 

stationary sources (minor NSR program 

only). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): Interstate 

transport (significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local 

governments and regional agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary 

source monitoring and reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Public 

notification. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

In addition, we are proposing to 

approve into the SIP as non-regulatory 

materials the statutory provisions that 

HDOH included as part of the 2011 

Hawaii Infrastructure SIP.24

We are proposing to disapprove the 

2011 Hawaii Infrastructure SIP with 

respect to the following infrastructure 

SIP requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new 

stationary sources (permit program as 

required in part C of title I of the Act). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): Interstate 

transport—prevention of significant 

deterioration and visibility protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate 

pollution abatement and international 

air pollution. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): 

Consultation with government officials 

and PSD. 

As explained in the TSD, our proposed 

disapproval of these elements and subelements is compelled by the absence of 

an approvable SIP revision from Hawaii 

that meets the PSD requirements of 

sections 160 through 165 of the CAA.25

In addition, our proposed disapproval of 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is compelled 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 71 / Thursday, April 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 21919 

26See 40 CFR 52.633 (reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment) and 74 FR 2392 (Jan. 15, 

2009) (regional haze). 

27We have placed a copy of the proposed consent 

decree in the docket for this action. 

by the lack of approvable SIP revisions 

to address reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (RAVI) and 

regional haze affecting mandatory Class 

I areas.26 Under section 179(a) of the 

CAA, final disapproval of a submittal 

that addresses a requirement of part D, 

title I of the CAA (CAA sections 171– 

193) or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP 

Call) starts a sanctions clock. The 2011 

Hawaii Infrastructure SIP was not 

submitted to meet either of these 

requirements. Therefore, any action we 

take to finalize the described 

disapproval will not trigger sanctions. 

In addition, these deficiencies have 

previously been addressed through 

promulgation of a PSD FIP (43 FR 

26410, June 19, 1978, as amended at 45 

FR 52741, Aug. 7, 1980; 68 FR 11322, 

Mar. 10, 2003; 68 FR 74488, Dec. 24, 

2003) and a FIP addressing RAVI (50 FR 

28553, July 12, 1985, as amended at 52 

FR 45137, Nov. 24, 1987). The 

requirement to address regional haze 

will be addressed through final action 

on a regional haze SIP and/or FIP for 

Hawaii, which must be signed by 

September 15, 2012, under the terms of 

a proposed consent decree.27 Therefore, 

this disapproval, if finalized, would not 

trigger any new FIP obligations. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations 

(42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 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 proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting Federal requirements and 

disapproves other state law because it 

does not meet Federal requirements; 

this proposed action does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 27, 2012. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8848 Filed 4–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–9657–6] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the A & F Material Reclaiming, Inc. 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the A & F 

Material Reclaiming, Inc. Superfund 

Site (Site) located in Greenup, Illinois 

from the National Priorities List (NPL) 

and requests public comments on this 

proposed action. The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to Section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the 

State of Illinois, through the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(IEPA), have determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

May 14, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1983–0002, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Gladys Beard, NPL Deletion 

Process Manager, at 

beard.gladys@epa.gov or Janet Pope, 

Community Involvement Coordinator, at 

pope.janet@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Gladys Beard, NPL Deletion 

Process Manager, at (312) 697–2077. 

• Mail: Gladys Beard, NPL Deletion 

Process Manager, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (SR–6J), 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, 

(312) 886–7253; or Janet Pope, 

Community Involvement Coordinator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(SI–7J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353–0628 or 

(800) 621–8431. 

• Hand delivery: Janet Pope, 

Community Involvement Coordinator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS