41698 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Compensation for Service-Connected 

Disability, and 64.110, Veterans 

Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation for Service-Connected 

Death. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. John 

R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department 

of Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on July 6, 2011, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Health care, Veterans, Vietnam. 

Dated: July 12, 2011. 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Director, Regulation Policy and Management, 

Office of the General Counsel, Department 

of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 3 as 

follows: 

PART 3—ADJUDICATION 

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, 

and Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3, 

subpart A continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 3.317 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B)(3) and adding a 

note to paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B)(3) to read 

as follows: 

§ 3.317 Compensation for certain 

disabilities due to undiagnosed illnesses. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(3) Functional gastrointestinal 

disorders (excluding structural 

gastrointestinal diseases). 

Note to paragraph (a)(2)(i)(B)(3): 

Functional gastrointestinal disorders are a 

group of conditions characterized by chronic 

or recurrent symptoms that are unexplained 

by any structural, endoscopic, laboratory, or 

other objective signs of injury or disease and 

may be related to any part of the 

gastrointestinal tract. Specific functional 

gastrointestinal disorders include, but are not 

limited to, irritable bowel syndrome, 

functional dyspepsia, functional vomiting, 

functional constipation, functional bloating, 

functional abdominal pain syndrome, and 

functional dysphagia. These disorders are 

commonly characterized by symptoms 

including abdominal pain, substernal 

burning or pain, nausea, vomiting, altered 

bowel habits (including diarrhea, 

constipation), indigestion, bloating, 

postprandial fullness, and painful or difficult 

swallowing. Diagnosis of specific functional 

gastrointestinal disorders is made in 

accordance with established medical 

principles, which generally require symptom 

onset at least 6 months prior to diagnosis and 

the presence of symptoms sufficient to 

diagnose the specific disorder at least 3 

months prior to diagnosis. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–17814 Filed 7–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0647; FRL–9438–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New 

Mexico; 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 New Mexico 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 New Mexico State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the 

following infrastructure elements which 

were subject to EPA’s completeness 

findings pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(1) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS dated March 27, 2008, and the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS dated October 22, 

2008: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), 

(F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA 

is also approving a November 2, 2006, 

SIP revision to regulation 20.2.3 of the 

New Mexico Administrative Code 

(NMAC) (Ambient Air Quality 

Standards), to remove the state ambient 

air quality standards from being an 

applicable requirement under the State’s 

Title V permitting program, found at 

20.2.70 NMAC (Operating Permits). EPA 

is also converting our February 27, 

1987, conditional approval of New 

Mexico’s PSD program (52 FR 5964) to 

a full approval based on the November 

2, 1988, approval of New Mexico’s stack 

height regulations (53 FR 44191). Lastly, 

EPA is making a number of U.S. Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

codification technical corrections to 

amend the description of the approved 

New Mexico SIP. This action is being 

taken under section 110 and part C of 

the Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA–R06–OAR–2009–0647. 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. 

Dayana Medina, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–7241; fax number 

214–665–6762; e-mail address 

medina.dayana@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. Final Action 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 41699 

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. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The background for today’s actions is 

discussed in detail in our May 2, 2011, 

proposal to approve submittals from the 

State of New Mexico pursuant to the 

CAA 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) NAAQS (76 FR 24421). In it, we 

proposed to find that the current New 

Mexico 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 a revision to regulation 

20.2.3 NMAC (Ambient Air Quality 

Standards) into the New Mexico SIP, to 

remove the state ambient air quality 

standards from being an applicable 

requirement under the State’s Title V 

permitting program. EPA also proposed 

to correct an administrative oversight by 

converting our February 27, 1987, 

conditional approval of New Mexico’s 

PSD program (52 FR 5964) to a full 

approval based on the November 2, 

1988, approval of New Mexico’s stack 

height regulations (53 FR 44191), at 

which point New Mexico fully met the 

condition in the conditional approval. 

Lastly, EPA proposed to make several 

CFR codification technical corrections 

to amend the description of the 

approved New Mexico SIP. 

Our May 2, 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 June 1, 2011, and we did not receive 

any comments. For more information, 

please see our proposed rulemaking, at 

76 FR 24421, the Technical Support 

Document, and other supporting 

documentation available in the 

electronic docket for this action at 

http://www.regulations.gov (Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R06–OAR– 

2009–0647). 

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 New Mexico proposal 

(76 FR 24421), 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

41700 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 

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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 41701 

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). 

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 (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 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 

Continued 

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 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

41702 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the New Mexico SIP 

submittals dated December 10, 2007, 

and March 3, 2008, 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 New Mexico 

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 New Mexico SIP 

meets the section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

infrastructure SIP elements listed above, 

we are also approving a severable 

portion of a SIP revision submitted by 

NMED to EPA on November 2, 2006. 

This portion of the submittal contains a 

revision to 20.2.3 NMAC (Ambient Air 

Quality Standards), adding a new 

subpart 9 to 20.2.3 NMAC, including 

language to ensure that sources being 

issued a permit under the State’s minor 

source permitting program, found at 

20.2.72 NMAC (Construction Permits), 

are required to continue to address the 

State’s ambient air quality standards in 

their application. The revision also 

includes language in 20.2.3.9 NMAC 

that removes the state ambient air 

quality standards from being an 

applicable requirement under the State’s 

Title V permitting program, found at 

20.2.70 NMAC (Operating Permits). 

Because New Mexico’s Title V 

permitting program is outside the scope 

of the New Mexico SIP, and has not 

been approved by EPA into the New 

Mexico SIP, approval of the revision to 

20.2.3 NMAC is appropriate and will 

not constitute a relaxation of the current 

New Mexico SIP. EPA is approving the 

portion of the November 2, 2006 

submittal that revises 20.2.3 NMAC, as 

indicated above, because it clarifies the 

permitting requirements under the New 

Mexico SIP. The revision to 20.2.3 

NMAC we are approving into the SIP is 

severable from the other portions of the 

November 2, 2006 SIP submittal. At this 

time, EPA is not taking action on other 

portions of the November 2, 2006 SIP 

revision submitted by NMED; EPA 

intends to act on the other revisions at 

a later time. 

EPA is also correcting an 

administrative oversight by now 

converting our February 27, 1987, 

conditional approval of New Mexico’s 

PSD program (52 FR 5964), to a full 

approval based on our November 2, 

1988, approval of New Mexico’s stack 

height regulations (53 FR 44191). Upon 

our approval of New Mexico’s stack 

height regulations on November 2, 1988, 

New Mexico had fully met all the 

conditions of EPA’s February 27, 1987, 

conditional approval of the State’s PSD 

program. However, due to an 

administrative oversight, EPA failed to 

convert the conditional approval of New 

Mexico’s PSD program into a full 

approval at that time. The fact that EPA 

had not formally converted the 

conditional approval to a full approval 

until now had no impact on the State’s 

authority to implement the PSD 

program in the interim. 

Lastly, EPA is making four CFR 

codification technical corrections to 

amend the following: (1) the table titled 

‘‘EPA Approved New Mexico 

Regulations,’’ found under 40 CFR 

52.1620(c), by (i) deleting entries for 

part 70 (Operating Permits) and part 71 

(Operating Permit Emission Fees) of 

20.2 NMAC, and (ii) changing the EPA 

approval date for the recodification of 

New Mexico’s air quality regulations in 

the SIP from the currently listed 

November 25, 1997 date to the correct 

date of September 26, 1997; (2) the table 

titled ‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory 

Provisions And Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures In The New Mexico SIP,’’ 

found under 40 CFR 52.1620(e), by 

including an entry for New Mexico’s Air 

Pollution Episode Contingency Plan 

approved by EPA into the SIP on August 

21, 1990; (3) 40 CFR 52.1634(a), by 

amending the paragraph such that it 

identifies that New Mexico has fully 

met all conditions of our February 27, 

1987 conditional approval of New 

Mexico’s PSD program such that our 

conditional approval is converted to a 

full approval; and (4) 40 CFR 

52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B), by amending the 

paragraph such that it correctly 

identifies the State regulations 

submitted by the State and approved by 

EPA into the New Mexico SIP. We are 

making the above CFR corrections to 

make clear which New Mexico air 

quality regulations are currently 

approved into the New Mexico SIP and 

the EPA approval date of these 

regulations into the SIP. 

IV. Final Action 

We are approving the submittals 

provided by the State of New Mexico to 

demonstrate that the New Mexico 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 a severable 

revision to regulation 20.2.3 NMAC 

(Ambient Air Quality Standards), which 

was submitted by New Mexico on 

November 2, 2006. The revision to 

20.2.3 NMAC removes the state ambient 

air quality standards from being an 

applicable requirement under the State’s 

Title V permitting program, found at 

20.2.70 NMAC (Operating Permits). The 

revision also adds language to ensure 

that sources being issued a permit under 

the State’s minor source permitting 

program, found at 20.2.72 NMAC 

(Operating Permits), are required to 

continue to address the State’s ambient 

air quality standards in their 

application. 

EPA is also formally converting our 

February 27, 1987, conditional approval 

of New Mexico’s PSD program (52 FR 

5964), to a full approval based on the 

November 2, 1988, approval of New 

Mexico’s stack height regulations (53 FR 

44191), at which point New Mexico 

fully met the condition in the 

conditional approval. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 41703 

Lastly, EPA is making CFR 

codification technical corrections to 

amend the following: 

1. The table titled ‘‘EPA Approved 

New Mexico Regulations,’’ found under 

40 CFR 52.1620(c), by (i) deleting 

entries for part 70 (Operating Permits) 

and part 71 (Operating Permit Emission 

Fees) of 20.2 NMAC and (ii) changing 

the EPA approval date for the 

recodification of New Mexico’s air 

quality regulations in the SIP from the 

currently listed November 25, 1997 date 

to the correct date of September 26, 

1997. 

2. The table titled ‘‘EPA Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions And QuasiRegulatory Measures In The New 

Mexico SIP,’’ found under 40 CFR 

52.1620(e), by including an entry for 

New Mexico’s Air Pollution Episode 

Contingency Plan approved by EPA into 

the SIP on August 21, 1990. 

3. 40 CFR 52.1634(a), by amending 

the paragraph such that it identifies that 

New Mexico has fully met all conditions 

of our February 27, 1987 conditional 

approval of New Mexico’s PSD program 

such that our conditional approval is 

converted to a full approval. 

4. 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B), by 

amending the paragraph such that it 

correctly identifies the State regulations 

submitted by the State and approved by 

EPA into the New Mexico SIP. 

EPA is approving these actions in 

accordance with section 110 of the Act 

and EPA’s regulations and consistent 

with EPA guidance. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 13, 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 GG—New Mexico 

■ 2. Section 52.1620 is amended: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), under the first 

table entitled ‘‘New Mexico 

Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20— 

Environmental Protection Chapter 2— 

Air Quality,’’ by removing the entries 

for Part 70 and Part 71 and by revising 

the entries for Part 2, Part 3, Part 5, Part 

8, Part 10, Part 11 through Part 22, Part 

30 through Part 34, Part 40, Part 41, Part 

60, Part 61, Part 72, Part 75, and Part 80; 

■ b. In paragraph (e), under the second 

table entitled ‘‘EPA Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures In The New 

Mexico SIP,’’ by adding to the end of the 

table a new entry for ‘‘Air Pollution 

Episode Contingency Plan for New 

Mexico’’ followed by a new entry for 

‘‘Infrastructure for the 1997 Ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS’’. 

The amendments and additions read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1620 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

41704 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED NEW MEXICO REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/effective date EPA approval date Comments 

New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20—Environmental Protection Chapter 2—Air Quality 

*******

Part 2 ........................................... Definitions .................................... 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 3 ........................................... Ambient Air Quality Standards .... 9/6/2006 7/15/11, .............................

[Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

Part 5 ........................................... Source Surveillance ..................... 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

* * * * * * * 

Part 8 ........................................... Emissions Leaving New Mexico .. 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 10 ......................................... Woodwaste Burners .................... 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 11 ......................................... Asphalt Process Equipment ........ 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 12 ......................................... Cement Kilns ............................... 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 13 ......................................... Gypsum Processing Plants ......... 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 14 ......................................... Particulate Emissions From Coal 

Burning Equipment.

11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 15 ......................................... Pumice, Mica and Perlite Process Equipment.11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 16 ......................................... Nonferrous Smelters (New and 

Existing)-Particulate Matter.

11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 17 ......................................... Nonferrous Smelters (Existing)- 

Particulate Matter.

11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 18 ......................................... Oil Burning Equipment-Particulate Matter.11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 19 ......................................... Potash, Salt, or Sodium Sulfate 

Processing Equipment-Particulate Matter.

11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 20 ......................................... Lime Manufacturing Plants-Particulate Matter.11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 21 ......................................... Fugitive Particulate Matter Emissions from Nonferrous Smelters.11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 22 ......................................... Fugitive Particulate Matter Emissions from Roads within the 

Town of Hurley.

11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 30 ......................................... Kraft Mills ..................................... 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 31 ......................................... Coal Burning Equipment-Sulfur 

Dioxide.

11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 32 ......................................... Coal Burning Equipment-Nitrogen 

Dioxide.

11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 33 ......................................... Gas Burning Equipment-Nitrogen 

Dioxide.

11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 34 ......................................... Oil Burning Equipment-Nitrogen 

Dioxide.

11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 40 ......................................... Sulfuric Acid Production UnitsSulfur Dioxide, Acid Mist and 

Visible Emissions.

11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 41 ......................................... Nonferrous Smelters-Sulfur ......... 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 60 ......................................... Open Burning .............................. 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 61 ......................................... Smoke and Visible Emissions ..... 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

Part 72 ......................................... Construction Permits ................... 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 .. Subparts I, II, III, and V in 

SIP. 

*******

Part 75 ......................................... Construction Permit Fees ............ 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

*******

Part 80 ......................................... Stack Heights .............................. 11/30/1995 9/26/1997, 62 FR 50514 ..

*******

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 41705 

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE NEW MEXICO SIP 

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal date/effective date EPA approval date Explanation 

******

Air Pollution Episode Contingency 

Plan for New Mexico.

Statewide ............... 7/7/1988 ............................ 8/21/1990, 55 FR 34013 ..

Infrastructure for the 1997 Ozone 

and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide ............... 12/10/2007 ........................

3/3/2008 ............................

7/15/11, [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

Approval for 110(a)(2)(A), 

(B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), 

(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), 

and (M). 

■ 3. Section 52.1634 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1634 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

(a) The plan submitted by the 

Governor of New Mexico on February 

21, 1984 (as adopted by the New Mexico 

Environmental Improvement Board 

(NMEIB) on January 13, 1984), August 

19, 1988 (as revised and adopted by the 

NMEIB on July 8, 1988), and July 16, 

1990 (as revised and adopted by the 

NMEID on March 9, 1990), Air Quality 

Control Regulation 707—Permits, 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and its Supplemental document, 

is approved as meeting the requirements 

of part C, Clean Air Act for preventing 

significant deterioration of air quality. 

Additionally, on November 2, 1988, 

EPA approved New Mexico’s stack 

height regulation into the SIP (53 FR 

44191), thereby satisfying the conditions 

of EPA’s conditional approval of the 

State’s PSD program on February 27, 

1987 (52 FR 5964). Therefore, the 

conditional approval was converted to a 

full approval on July 15, 2011. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 52.1640 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(66)(i)(B) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1640 Original identification of plan 

section. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(66) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) New Mexico Administrative Code, 

Title 20, Chapter 2, Parts 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 

22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 41, 60, 61, 72 

(Subparts I, II and III; Subpart V, 

Sections 501 and 502), 73, 75, 79, and 

80; adopted by the New Mexico 

Environmental Improvement Board on 

October 20, 1995, and filed with the 

State Records and Archives Center on 

October 30, 1995. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–17786 Filed 7–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–2011–NY1, FRL–9430–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New York; 

Revised Format of Materials Being 

Incorporated by Reference 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; Administrative 

change. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is revising the format of 

materials submitted by the State of New 

York that have been incorporated by 

reference (IBR) into its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

regulations and other materials affected 

by this format change have all been 

previously submitted by New York and 

approved by EPA as SIP revisions. 

This format revision will primarily 

affect the ‘‘Identification of plan’’ 

section of regulation, as well as the 

format of the SIP materials that will be 

available for public inspection at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA), the Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center located at EPA Headquarters in 

Washington, DC, and the EPA Region 2 

Office. EPA is also adding a table in the 

‘‘Identification of plan’’ section, which 

summarizes the approval actions that 

EPA has taken on the regulatory and 

non-regulatory portions of the New York 

SIP. The sections of regulation 

pertaining to provisions promulgated by 

EPA, and state-submitted materials not 

subject to IBR review, remain 

unchanged. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on July 15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are 

incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 

part 52 are available for inspection at 

the following locations: Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air 

Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866; the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, EPA Headquarters 

Library, Infoterra Room (Room Number 

3334), EPA West Building, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, and the National Archives 

and Records Administration. If you 

wish to obtain materials from a docket 

in the EPA Headquarters Library, please 

call the Office of Air and Radiation 

(OAR) Docket/Telephone number: (202) 

566–1742. For information on the 

availability of this material at NARA, 

call (202) 741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk 

J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–4249. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Description of a SIP 

B. How EPA Enforces SIPs 

C. How the State and EPA Update the SIP 

D. How EPA Compiles the SIP 

E. How EPA Organizes the SIP Compilation 

F. Where You Can Find a Copy of the SIP 

Compilation 

G. The Format of the New Identification of 

Plan Section 

H. When a SIP Revision Becomes Part of 

the SIP and Federally Enforceable 

I. The Historical Record of SIP Revision 

Approvals 

II. What is EPA doing in this action? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES