Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6711 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions which do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves implementation of 

regulations within 33 CFR Part 100 

applicable to organized marine events 

on the navigable waters of the United 

States that could negatively impact the 

safety of waterway users and shore side 

activities in the event area. The category 

of water activities includes but is not 

limited to sail boat regattas, boat 

parades, power boat racing, swimming 

events, crew racing, canoe and sail 

board racing. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

2. Add a temporary section, 

§ 100.35T05–1176 to read as follows: 

§ 100.35T05–1176 Special Local 

Regulations for Marine Events; Potomac 

River, Charles County, MD. 

(a) Regulated area. The following 

location is a regulated area: All waters 

of the Potomac River, within lines 

connecting the following positions: from 

latitude 38°22′05′′ N, longitude 

076°59′03′′ W, thence to latitude 

38°21′50′′ N, longitude 077°00′54′′ W, 

and from latitude 38°21′29′′ N, longitude 

077°00′54′′ W to latitude 38°21′45′′ N, 

longitude 076°58′59′′ W. All coordinates 

reference Datum NAD 1983. 

(b) Definitions: (1) Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander means a commissioned, 

warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. 

Coast Guard who has been designated 

by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector 

Baltimore. 

(2) Official Patrol means any vessel 

assigned or approved by Commander, 

Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a 

commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 

on board and displaying a Coast Guard 

ensign. 

(c) Special local regulations: (1) The 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander may 

forbid and control the movement of all 

vessels and persons in the regulated 

area. When hailed or signaled by an 

official patrol vessel, a vessel or person 

in the regulated area shall immediately 

comply with the directions given. 

Failure to do so may result in expulsion 

from the area, citation for failure to 

comply, or both. 

(2) Persons desiring to transit the 

regulated area must first obtain 

authorization from the Captain of the 

Port Baltimore or his designated 

representative. To seek permission to 

transit the area, the Captain of the Port 

Baltimore and his designated 

representatives can be contacted at 

telephone number 410–576–2693 or on 

Marine Band Radio, VHF–FM channel 

16 (156.8 MHz). All Coast Guard vessels 

enforcing this regulated area can be 

contacted on marine band radio VHF– 

FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). 

(3) The Coast Guard will publish a 

notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District 

Local Notice to Mariners and issue a 

marine information broadcast on VHF– 

FM marine band radio announcing 

specific event date and times. 

(d) Enforcement period: This section 

will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 

12:30 p.m. on June 2, 2012. 

Dated: January 30, 2012. 

Mark P. O’Malley, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Baltimore. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2939 Filed 2–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2008–0633; FRL–9628–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arkansas; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport Requirements for the 1997 

Ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

submittals from the state of Arkansas 

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 the 1997 and 2006 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS 

or standards). We are proposing to find 

that the current Arkansas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) meets the 

following infrastructure elements for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (E), (F), (G), (H), (K), 

(L), (M), and portions of (C), (D)(ii) and 

(J). We are proposing to find that the 

current Arkansas SIP does not meet the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at 110(a)(2) for 

portions of (C), (D)(ii), and (J) because 

the EPA-approved SIP prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) program 

does not apply to greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emitting sources. We also are proposing 

to find that the current Arkansas SIP 

does not meet the infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS at 110(a)(2) for portions 

of (C), (D)(ii), and (J) because Arkansas 

has not submitted the PSD SIP revision 

required by EPA’s Implementation of 

the New Source Review (NSR) Program 

for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (73 FR 28321, May 16, 

2008). Further, we are proposing to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove the provisions of SIP 

submissions that emissions from 

sources in Arkansas do not interfere 

with measures required in the SIP of 

any other state under part C of the CAA 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality, with regard to the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. The partial disapprovals 

herein are because Arkansas cannot 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6712 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

issue permits for GHG emissions and 

because the State did not submit the 

required PM2.5 PSD SIP revision. 

Finally, for purposes of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, EPA is proposing to 

approve SIP revisions that modify the 

Arkansas PSD SIP to include nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) as an ozone precursor. 

This action is being taken under 

section 110 and part C of the Act. 

Finally, EPA is also proposing to make 

a correction to the attainment status 

table in 40 CFR 81.304 to accurately 

reflect the redesignation date of 

Crittenden County, Arkansas to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2008–0633, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/ 

r6comment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD 

(Multimedia)’’ and select ‘‘Air’’ before 

submitting comments. 

• Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by email to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number 214–665–7263. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, 

and not on legal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2008– 

0633. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically at 

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 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. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

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 75202. 

The State submittal is also available 

for public inspection during official 

business hours by appointment: 

Arkansas Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ), Planning and Air 

Quality Analysis Branch, 5301 

Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, 

Arkansas 72118. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–8542; fax number 

214–665–6762; email address 

riley.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What are the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards? 

B. What is a SIP? 

C. What is the background for this 

rulemaking? 

1. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

SIP Elements 

2. What elements are required under 

Section 110(a)(2)? 

3. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Interstate Transport SIP 

Elements 

4. Revisions to the Arkansas PSD SIP 

5. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Component of 

PSD Programs 

6. PM2.5 SIP Revisions 

II. What action is EPA proposing? 

III. How has Arkansas addressed the 

elements of Section 110(a)(2)? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What are the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards? 

Section 109 of the Act requires EPA 

to establish NAAQS for pollutants that 

‘‘may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health and welfare,’’ 

and to develop a primary and secondary 

standard for each NAAQS. The primary 

standard is designed to protect human 

health with an adequate margin of 

safety, and the secondary standard is 

designed to protect public welfare and 

the environment. EPA has set NAAQS 

for six common air pollutants, referred 

to as criteria pollutants: carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, 

ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur 

dioxide. These standards present state 

and local governments with the 

minimum air quality levels they must 

meet to comply with the Act. Also, 

these standards provide information to 

residents of the United States about the 

air quality in their communities. 

B. What is a SIP? 

The SIP is a set of air pollution 

regulations, control strategies, other 

means or techniques, and technical 

analyses developed by the state, to 

ensure that the state meets the NAAQS. 

The SIP is required by section 110 and 

other provisions of the Act. These SIPs 

can be extensive, containing state 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6713 

1Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the 3-year submission deadline of 

section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within 3 years after promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (i) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D Title I of the CAA and (ii) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D Title I of the CAA. Therefore, this action 

does not cover these specific SIP elements. 

2EPA issued a revised 8-hour ozone standard on 

March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436). This rulemaking 

does not address the 2008 ozone standard. 

3 In the March 27, 2008 action we found that 

Arkansas had not submitted a SIP revision that 

modified Arkansas’ Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to include NOX as an ozone precursor, 

which is necessary for approval of elements 

110(a)(2)(C) and the PSD and visibility portion of 

element 110(a)(2)(J). On February 17, 2010, 

Arkansas submitted the necessary PSD SIP revision. 

4This and any other guidance documents 

referenced in this action are in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

regulations or other enforceable 

documents and supporting information 

such as emissions inventories, 

monitoring networks, and modeling 

demonstrations. Each state must submit 

these regulations and control strategies 

to EPA for approval and incorporation 

into the federally-enforceable SIP. 

Another important aspect of the SIP is 

to ensure that emissions from within the 

state do not have certain prohibited 

impacts upon the ambient air in other 

states through interstate transport of 

pollutants. This SIP requirement is 

specified in section 110(a)(2)(D) of the 

CAA. Pursuant to that provision, each 

state’s SIP must contain provisions 

adequate to prevent, among other 

things, emissions that interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

SIP of any other state to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality in 

any other state. Each federally-approved 

SIP protects air quality primarily by 

addressing air pollution at its point of 

origin. 

C. What is the background for this 

rulemaking? 

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

Act, states are required to submit SIPs 

that provide for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement (the 

infrastructure) of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of the NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the 

specific infrastructure elements that 

must be incorporated into the SIPs, 

including for example, requirements for 

emission inventories, NSR, air pollution 

control measures, and monitoring that 

are designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Table 1, 

displayed in Section D of this 

rulemaking, lists all 14 infrastructure 

elements.1 EPA refers to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)– 

(C), (D)(ii), (E)–(H), and (J)–(M) as the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. Additionally, EPA 

refers to the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) as the ‘‘interstate 

transport’’ SIPs. EPA provided separate 

guidance to states on each type of SIP, 

infrastructure and interstate transport, 

and these actions are on separate tracks 

and timelines. 

1. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure SIP Elements 

On July 18, 1997, we published new 

and revised NAAQS for ozone (62 FR 

38856) and PM (62 FR 38652). For 

ozone, we set an 8-hour standard of 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) to replace the 1- 

hour standard of 0.12 ppm. For PM, we 

set a new annual and a new 24-hour 

NAAQS for particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (denoted 

PM2.5). The annual PM2.5 standard was 

set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter 

(mg/m3). The 24-hour PM2.5 standard 

was set at 65 mg/m3. On October 17, 

2006, we published revised standards 

for PM (71 FR 61144). For PM2.5 the 

annual standard of 15 mg/m3 was 

retained and the 24-hour standard was 

revised to 35 mg/m3. For PM10 the 

annual standard was revoked and the 

24-hour standard (150 mg/m3) was 

retained. For more information on these 

standards, please see the 1997 and 2006 

Federal Register notices (62 FR 38856, 

62 FR 38652, and 71 FR 61144). 

Thus, states were required to submit 

such SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 

2000.2 However, intervening litigation 

over the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS created uncertainty about how 

to proceed and many states did not 

provide the required ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

SIP submission for these newly 

promulgated NAAQS. 

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice 

submitted a notice of intent to sue 

related to EPA’s failure to issue findings 

of failure to submit related to the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

entered into a consent decree with 

Earthjustice which required EPA, among 

other things, to complete a Federal 

Register notice announcing EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to section 

110(k)(1)(B) of the Act as to whether 

each state had made complete 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007. 

Subsequently, EPA received an 

extension of the date to complete this 

Federal Register notice until March 17, 

2008, based upon agreement to make the 

findings with respect to submissions 

made by January 7, 2008. In accordance 

with the consent decree, EPA made 

completeness findings for each state 

based upon what the Agency received 

from each state as of January 7, 2008. 

With regard to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

EPA entered into a consent decree with 

Earthjustice which required EPA, among 

other things, to complete a Federal 

Register notice announcing EPA’s 

determinations pursuant to section 

110(k)(1)(B) of the Act as to whether 

each state had made complete 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS by October 5, 2008. 

On March 27, 2008, and October 22, 

2008, we published findings concerning 

whether states had made the 110(a)(2) 

submissions for the 1997 ozone (73 FR 

16205) and PM2.5 standards (73 FR 

62902). In the March 27, 2008 action, 

we found that Arkansas had made a 

submission that addressed some, but not 

all of the section 110(a)(2) requirements 

of the Act necessary to implement the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.3 In the 

October 22, 2008 action, we found that 

Arkansas had made a complete 

submission intended to provide for the 

basic program elements specified in 

section 110(a)(2) of the Act necessary to 

implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, we issued 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

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

1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ 

Memorandum from William T. Harnett, 

Director, Air Quality Policy Division, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (OAQPS).4 On September 25, 

2009, we issued ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(l) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour 

Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ 

Memorandum also from William T. 

Harnett, Director, AQPD, OAQPS. Each 

of these guidance memos addresses the 

SIP elements found in 110(a)(2). In each 

of these guidance memos, the guidance 

states that to the extent that existing 

SIPs for ozone and PM already meet the 

requirements, states need only certify 

that fact to us. 

On December 17, 2007, March 28, 

2008, and September 16, 2009, the State 

of Arkansas submitted letters certifying 

that Arkansas has addressed any 

potential infrastructure issues 

associated with ozone and PM2.5 and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6714 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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). 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. 

fulfilled its infrastructure SIP 

obligations. The letters provided 

information on how the current 

Arkansas SIP provisions meet the 

110(a)(2) requirements. These letters are 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

Additional 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 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 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 

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 is important to emphasize that 

EPA is taking the same position with 

respect to these four substantive issues 

in this action on the infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS submissions from Arkansas. 

EPA intended the statements in the 

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 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. EPA is reiterating 

that position in this action on these 

infrastructure SIP submittals for 

Arkansas. 

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. 

The requirement for the SIP 

submissions at issue arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). That provision 

requires that states must make a SIP 

submission ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof)’’ and 

that these SIPs are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must meet. EPA has 

historically referred to these particular 

submissions that states must make after 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This 

specific term does not appear in the 

statute, but EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission designed to address basic 

structural requirements of a SIP from 

other types of SIP submissions designed 

to address other different requirements, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ 

submissions required to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required to address the visibility 

protection requirements of CAA section 

169A, new source review permitting 

program submissions required to 

address the requirements of part D, and 

a host of other specific types of SIP 

submissions that address other specific 

matters. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements 

provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a 

wide variety of disparate provisions, 

some of which pertain to required legal 

authority, some of which pertain to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6715 

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 25162 (May 12, 

2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

8See, 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)). 

9EPA 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. 

10For 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. 

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. 

13d., 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 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. 

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. 

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.9 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.10

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6716 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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’’). 

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 21639 (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 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). 

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 42342 at 42344 

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

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

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, e.g., the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had 

bifurcated from the other infrastructure 

elements for those specific 1997 ozone 

and 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. Thus, EPA’s proposals for 

other states 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. 

The same holds true for this action on 

the infrastructure SIP submittals for 

Arkansas. 

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.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 

submittal 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

2. What elements are required under 

Section 110(a)(2)? 

Pursuant to the October 2, 2007 ‘‘EPA 

guidance for addressing the SIP 

infrastructure elements required under 

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

ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS,’’ there are 14 essential 

components that must be in the SIP. 

These are listed in Table 1 below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6717 

19Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of part D, 

Title I of the Act. This section is not governed by 

the 3-year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) 

because SIPs incorporating necessary local 

nonattainment area controls are not due within 

3 years after promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, but are due at the time the nonattainment 

area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 

172. Thus this action does not cover section 

110(a)(2)(I). 

20This is the same submittal that addresses the 

110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

21EPA published a finding on April 25, 2005 (70 

FR 21147) that all states had failed to submit SIPs 

addressing interstate transport for the 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 standards, as required by section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA proposed a FIP on August 2, 

2010 (75 FR 45210) to limit emissions of ozone 

precursors and PM that contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 

2006 PM NAAQS in other states and interfere with 

maintenance of these three NAAQS in other states. 

EPA finalized the FIP on July 6, 2011; known as the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, it requires that 

Arkansas (and 26 other states in the eastern half of 

the United States) must significantly improve air 

quality by reducing power plant emissions that 

cross state lines and contribute to ground-level 

ozone and fine particle pollution in other states. See 

76 FR 48208 (published August 8, 2011) and 

www.epa.gov/crossstaterule. On December 30, 2011, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit issued 

its ruling to stay the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 

pending judicial review. See http://www.epa.gov/ 

airtransport/pdfs/CourtDecision.pdf. 

22 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 

23 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

24 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

25Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ 

75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010). 

TABLE 1—SECTION 110(A)(2) ELEMENTS REQUIRED IN SIPS

Clean Air Act Citation Brief description 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) ............................................................. Enforceable 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. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) ............................................................. International and interstate transport. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) ............................................................. Adequate resources. 

Section 110(a)(2)(F) ............................................................. Stationary source monitoring system. 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) ............................................................. Emergency power. 

Section 110(a)(2)(H) ............................................................. Future SIP revisions. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) 19 .......................................................... Consultation with government officials. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) .............................................................. Public notification. 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) .............................................................. Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection. 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) ............................................................. Air quality modeling/data. 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) .............................................................. Permitting fees. 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) ............................................................. Consultation/participation by affected local entities. 

3. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Interstate Transport 

SIP Elements 

Section19 110(a)(2)(D)(i) pertains to 

interstate transport of certain emissions. 

On August 15, 2006, EPA issued its 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submission 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’’ (2006 Guidance). EPA 

developed the 2006 Guidance to make 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 

8-hour ozone standards and the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. As identified in the 

2006 Guidance, the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

require each state to submit a SIP that 

prohibits emissions that adversely affect 

another state in the ways contemplated 

in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

contains four distinct requirements 

related to the impacts of interstate 

transport. The SIP must prevent sources 

in the state from emitting pollutants in 

amounts that will: (1) Contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

other states; (3) interfere with provisions 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in other states; and (4) interfere 

with efforts to protect visibility in other 

states. 

On December 17, 2007, we received a 

certification from the State of Arkansas 

intended to address the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for both the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 standard. 

On March 28, 2008, we received a 

certification 20 from the State intended 

to address the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. In this rulemaking, for the 

1997 ozone and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, we 

are addressing only the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

requirement that pertains to preventing 

sources in Arkansas from emitting 

pollutants that will interfere with 

measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

states.21 In its submission, Arkansas 

indicated that its current PSD New 

Source Review (NSR) SIP is adequate to 

prevent such interference. 

4. Revisions to the Arkansas PSD SIP 

To meet the infrastructure 

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

the Act for the 1997 ozone standard, 

EPA believes the State must have 

updated its rules for PSD to treat NOX

as a precursor to ozone (70 FR 71612, 

November 29, 2005). PSD rules to treat 

NOX as a precursor to ozone are also 

required to meet the third 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

interstate transport prong, interference 

with provisions to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in other 

states. On February 17, 2010, Arkansas 

submitted revisions that provided for 

NOX to be treated as a precursor to 

ozone formation in its PSD program. We 

are proposing action on this revision to 

the PSD program that implements the 

provisions for NOX as a precursor 

because EPA believes that this is a 

necessary provision for implementation 

of the 1997 ozone standard. 

5. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Component of 

PSD Programs 

EPA has recently undertaken a series 

of actions pertaining to the regulation of 

GHGs that, although for the most part 

distinct from one another, establish the 

overall framework for today’s proposed 

action on the Arkansas infrastructure 

SIP. Four of these actions include, as 

they are commonly called, the 

‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ and ‘‘Cause or 

Contribute Finding,’’ which EPA issued 

in a single final action,22 the ‘‘Johnson 

Memo Reconsideration,’’ 23 the ‘‘LightDuty Vehicle Rule,’’ 24 and the 

‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ 25 Taken together and 

in conjunction with the CAA, these 

actions established regulatory 

requirements for GHGs emitted from 

new motor vehicles and new motor 

vehicle engines; determined that such 

regulations, when they took effect on 

January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6718 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

26See letter from Teresa Marks to Lisa P. Jackson, 

dated October 1, 2010, in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

27As noted in Section I.C.2 of this action, the 

December 17, 2007 submittal addresses the 1997 

ozone and PM2.5 standards; it does not address the 

2006 PM2.5 standard. The March 28, 2008 submittal 

addresses the 110(a)(2) infrastructure and interstate 

transport elements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

emitted from stationary sources to PSD 

requirements; and limited the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA 

took this last action in the Tailoring 

Rule, which, more specifically, 

established appropriate GHG emission 

thresholds for determining the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG-emitting sources. 

The approved Arkansas SIP contained 

errors that resulted in its failure to 

address, or provide adequate legal 

authority for, the implementation of a 

GHG PSD program in Arkansas. On this 

basis, on December 13, 2010, EPA 

issued a finding that Arkansas’ SIP was 

substantially inadequate to meet CAA 

requirements because it did not apply 

PSD requirements to GHG emitting 

sources (75 FR 77698). This rulemaking 

also issued a ‘‘SIP call’’ to Arkansas, 

requiring the state to revise its SIP as 

necessary to correct the inadequacies. 

The SIP call established a deadline of 

December 22, 2010 for Arkansas to 

submit its corrective SIP revision. In 

response to EPA’s proposal of the SIP 

call (75 FR 53892), the state declined 

the 12-month deadline for SIP revision 

following the finding of substantial 

inadequacy in order to ensure that PSD 

permitting authorities for newly 

constructed or modified sources remain 

in place.26 As required following the SIP 

call, EPA promulgated a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP), which 

established EPA as the permitting 

authority for GHG-emitting sources in 

Arkansas (75 FR 82246). EPA took these 

actions through final rulemaking, 

effective upon publication, to ensure the 

availability of a permitting authority— 

EPA—in Arkansas for GHG-emitting 

sources when they became subject to 

PSD on January 2, 2011. The FIP 

allowed those sources to proceed with 

plans to construct or expand. 

As we discuss further in this proposal 

and in the TSD, the current EPAapproved SIP PSD program does not 

apply to GHG-emitting sources that emit 

at or above the levels of emissions set 

in the Tailoring Rule, or at other 

appropriate levels. Thus, the Arkansas 

SIP does not satisfy portions of elements 

within the infrastructure and transport 

requirements as they pertain to GHGs. 

However, EPA’s disapproval of those 

elements does not engender an 

additional statutory obligation, because 

EPA has already promulgated a FIP for 

the Arkansas PSD program to address 

permitting GHGs at or above the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds. 

6. PM2.5 SIP Revisions 

To implement the PSD NSR 

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

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, 

states were required to submit the 

necessary SIP revisions to EPA by May 

16, 2011 under EPA’s Implementation of 

the New Source Review (NSR) Program 

for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (73 FR 28321, May 16, 

2008). At present, Arkansas has not 

submitted revisions to satisfy this 

requirement, and therefore the Arkansas 

federally-approved PSD NSR SIP does 

not fully implement the PSD NSR 

program for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Although the State has 

indicated that regulations are currently 

being developed to address section 

110(a)(2)(C) for the implementation of 

the NSR program for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards, the state-level 

rulemaking process is anticipated to 

proceed on a timeline that will prevent 

Arkansas from adopting these 

regulations before EPA is required to 

take final action on the State’s 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure SIP. Therefore, we are 

proposing to find that the current 

Arkansas PSD SIP does not meet the 

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

with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS because the State failed to 

submit the PSD SIP revision required by 

the May 16, 2008 rulemaking. 

II. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

EPA is proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove the Arkansas 

SIP submittals that identify where and 

how the 14 basic infrastructure elements 

are in the EPA-approved SIP as 

specified in CAA section 110(a)(2). The 

Arkansas submittals do not include 

revisions to the SIP, but do document 

how the current Arkansas SIP already 

includes the required infrastructure 

elements. In today’s action, we are 

proposing to find that the following 

infrastructure elements are contained in 

the current Arkansas SIP regarding 

implementation of the 1997 ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards: 

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, except 

for the portion that addresses GHGs and 

PM2.5 emissions (section 110(a)(2)(C)); 

international and interstate pollution 

abatement, except for the portion that 

addresses GHGs and PM2.5 emissions 

(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, except for the PSD portion 

that addresses GHGs and PM2.5

emissions (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)). 

As discussed in section I.C.6 of this 

proposal, we are proposing to find that 

the current Arkansas SIP does not meet 

the infrastructure requirements for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at 

110(a)(2) for portions of (C), (D)(ii), and 

(J) because Arkansas failed to submit the 

PSD SIP revision required by EPA’s 

Implementation of the New Source 

Review (NSR) Program for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (73 

FR 28321, May 16, 2008). We are also 

proposing to find that the current 

Arkansas SIP does not meet the 

infrastructure requirements for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at 110(a)(2) for 

portions of (C), (D)(ii), and (J) because 

the Arkansas SIP PSD program does not 

apply to GHG-emitting sources. 

We are proposing to approve 

severable portions of the December 17, 

2007 and the March 28, 2008 

submissions from Arkansas, 

demonstrating that Arkansas has 

adequately addressed one of the four 

required prongs of the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

interstate transport element, specifically 

the prong that requires that the SIP 

prohibit air emissions from sources 

within a state from interfering with 

measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in any other 

state.27 We are proposing to determine 

that emissions from sources in Arkansas 

do not interfere with measures to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in any other state for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS (CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)), except for the portion 

that addresses GHG emissions. We are 

proposing to disapprove the portion of 

the Arkansas interstate transport SIP 

element that prohibits GHG emissions 

from sources within Arkansas from 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in any other state (section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)). We are proposing to 

determine that PM2.5 emissions from 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6719 

28The remaining three prongs pertain to 

prohibiting air emissions within Arkansas from: (1) 

Significantly contributing to nonattainment in any 

other state, (2) interfering with maintenance of the 

relevant NAAQS in any other state, and (3) 

interfering with measures required to protect 

visibility in any other state. We proposed action on 

the visibility prong on October 17, 2011 at 76 FR 

64186. 

29The three elements refer to the infrastructure 

and interstate transport SIP elements discussed in 

section II above. 

30NOX and VOCs are precursors to ozone. PM can 

be emitted directly and secondarily formed; the 

latter is the result of NOX and SO2 precursors 

combining with ammonia to form ammonium 

nitrate and ammonium sulfate. 

sources in Arkansas do interfere with 

measures to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in any other 

state for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Therefore, we are proposing to 

disapprove the portion of the Arkansas 

interstate transport SIP element that 

prohibits PM2.5 emissions from sources 

within Arkansas from interfering with 

measures required to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality in any other 

state (section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)) for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are not 

addressing in this action the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS nor the three remaining prongs 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 28 for the 1997 

8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. We will take action on the 

three remaining prongs in separate 

rulemakings. 

In conjunction with our proposed 

finding that the Arkansas SIP meets the 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure 

SIP elements listed above, we are also 

proposing to fully approve four 

severable portions of a SIP revision 

submitted by the ADEQ to EPA on 

February 17, 2010. This submittal 

contains rule revisions by ADEQ to (1) 

Regulate NOX emissions in its PSD 

permit program as a precursor to ozone; 

(2) add NOX to the PSD definitions for 

Major Modification and Major 

Stationary Source; (3) under the PSD 

definition for Significant, add the 

emission rate for NOX, as a precursor to 

ozone, as 40 tpy; and (4) under the PSD 

requirements, allow for an exemption 

with respect to ambient air quality 

monitoring data for a source with a net 

emissions increase less than 100 tpy of 

NOX. The actions proposed herein are 

described in greater detail in Section III 

of this rulemaking and in the TSD. At 

this time, EPA is not taking action on 

other portions of the February 17, 2010 

SIP revision submitted by ADEQ; EPA 

intends to act on the other revisions at 

a later date. 

B. Why is EPA proposing a partial 

approval, partial disapproval? 

Section 110(k)(3) of the Act states that 

EPA may partially approve and partially 

disapprove a SIP submittal if it finds 

that only a portion of the submittal 

meets the requirements of the Act. We 

believe that the Arkansas SIP meets a 

majority of the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) of the Act and that specific 

portions of three elements of section 

110(a)(2) are not met.29 Because the 

portions proposed for disapproval are 

independent from those proposed for 

approval, we believe that the Arkansas 

Infrastructure SIP can be partially 

approved and partially disapproved. 

C. What are the implications of a partial 

approval, partial disapproval? 

Enforcement of a state regulation (or 

rule) before and after it is incorporated 

into the federally approved SIP is 

primarily a state responsibility. 

However, after the rule is federally 

approved, we are authorized to take 

enforcement action against violators. 

Citizens are also offered legal recourse 

to address violations as described in 

section 304 of the Act. If a state rule is 

disapproved, it is not incorporated into 

the federally approved SIP, and is not 

enforceable by EPA or by citizens under 

section 304. Disapproval of any of the 

Arkansas infrastructure SIP elements 

would not trigger sanctions under 

section 179 of the Act, because the 

submittals are not required by part D of 

Title I of the Act and are not required 

by a call for a SIP revision under section 

110(k)(5) of the Act. 

Under section 110(c) of the Act, 

disapproval of a SIP in whole or in part 

requires EPA to promulgate a Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) at any time 

within two years following final 

disapproval, unless the State submits a 

plan or plan revision that corrects the 

deficiency—and the EPA approves the 

plan or plan revision—before the EPA 

promulgates such FIP. This two-year 

period is commonly referred to as the 

‘‘FIP clock.’’ Here, based on Arkansas’s 

failure to submit the required PM2.5 PSD 

SIP revision, and because Arkansas 

cannot issue permits for GHG emissions, 

we are proposing to partially disapprove 

certain severable elements of the 

Arkansas infrastructure SIP. 

Accordingly, EPA is required by law to 

promulgate a FIP at any time within two 

years of the final rulemaking, unless 

Arkansas submits and we approve a 

new SIP or SIP revisions that correct the 

deficiencies, or unless EPA has already 

fulfilled its FIP obligation. 

III. How has Arkansas addressed the 

elements of Section 110(a)(2)? 

The Arkansas submittals address the 

elements of Section 110(a)(2) as 

described below. We provide a more 

detailed review and analysis of the 

Arkansas infrastructure and transport 

SIP elements in the TSD. 

Enforceable emission limits and other 

control measures, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(A): Section 110(a)(2)(A) 

requires that all measures and other 

elements in the SIP be enforceable. This 

provision does not require the submittal 

of regulations or emission limits 

developed specifically for attaining the 

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 standards. Those regulations are 

due later as part of attainment 

demonstrations. 

The Arkansas Water and Air Pollution 

Control Act (AWAPCA), found in Title 

8, Chapter 4 of the Arkansas Code 

Annotated (A.C.A.) names the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ADEQ) as the state’s air pollution 

control agency and provides 

enforcement authority to the ADEQ (37 

FR 10841, May 31, 1972). ADEQ was 

originally created by the Arkansas 

General Assembly as the Arkansas 

Water Pollution Control Commission by 

Act 472 of 1949. Act 183 of 1965 

changed the Commission’s name to the 

Arkansas Pollution Control Commission 

(APCC) and gave it the power to regulate 

air pollution. A reorganization of state 

government in 1971 renamed the APCC 

to the Arkansas Pollution Control and 

Ecology Commission (APCEC), and 

created the Department of Pollution 

Control and Ecology as a cabinet-level 

agency headed by a director appointed 

by the Commission. In 1996, the 

Arkansas General Assembly voted to 

rename the Department of Pollution 

Control and Ecology to the Arkansas 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

effective March 31, 1999. The 

Department is responsible for the dayto-day administration of the 

Commission’s regulations for a variety 

of environmental programs. 

The APCEC has promulgated rules to 

limit and control emissions of, among 

other things, particulate matter (PM), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs).30 These rules include emission 

limits, control measures, permits, fees, 

and compliance schedules and are 

found in APCEC Regulation 19, 

Regulation 26, and Regulation 31: 

Regulation 19, Chapters 1, 3–5, 7, 8, 10, 

13–15; Regulation 26, Chapters 1, 3 and 

7; and Regulation 31, Chapters 1, 3, 4 

and 8. 

In this proposed action, EPA has not 

reviewed and is not proposing to take 

any action to approve or disapprove any 

existing Arkansas SIP provisions with 

regard to excess emissions during 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6720 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

31 ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy 

Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown,’’ Memorandum from 

Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, dated September 20, 1999. 

32The section addressing exemptions and 

variances is found on p. 45109 of the 1987 

rulemaking. 

33The Air Quality System (AQS) is EPA’s 

repository of ambient air quality data. AQS stores 

data from over 10,000 monitors, 5,000 of which are 

currently active. State, Local and Tribal agencies 

collect the data and submit it to AQS on a periodic 

basis. 

34A copy of our approval letter is in the docket 

for this rulemaking. At the time of this writing, the 

review of the 2011 AAMNP has not been 

completed. 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction 

(SSM) of operations at a facility. EPA 

believes that a number of states have 

SSM SIP provisions that are contrary to 

the Act and inconsistent with existing 

EPA guidance,31 and the Agency plans 

to conduct a SIP call in the future to 

address such SIP regulations. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having an SSM SIP provision that is 

contrary to the Act and inconsistent 

with EPA guidance to take steps to 

correct the deficiency as soon as 

possible before a SIP call is 

implemented. Similarly, this proposed 

action does not include a review of, nor 

does it propose to, take any action to 

approve or disapprove any existing SIP 

rules with regard to director’s discretion 

or variance provisions. EPA believes 

that a number of SIPs have such 

provisions that are contrary to the Act 

and not consistent with existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45044, November 24, 

1987) 32 and the Agency plans to take 

action in the future to address such SIP 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision in its 

SIP that is contrary to the Act and 

inconsistent with EPA guidance to take 

steps to correct the deficiency as soon 

as possible. 

A detailed list of the applicable 

Regulation 19, Regulation 26, and 

Regulation 31 chapters discussed above 

are provided in the TSD. Arkansas’ SIP 

clearly contains enforceable emission 

limits and other control measures, 

which are in the federally enforceable 

SIP. EPA is proposing to find that the 

Arkansas SIP meets the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Ambient air quality monitoring/data 

analysis system, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(B): Section 110(a)(2)(B) 

requires SIPs to include provisions for 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, collecting and 

analyzing ambient air quality data, and 

making these data available to EPA 

upon request. EPA approved Regulation 

19, Chapter 3 into the SIP that makes 

ADEQ responsible for conducting 

ambient air monitoring in any area of 

the state that can be expected to be in 

excess of the NAAQS (65 FR 61103, 

October 16, 2000). The ADEQ operates 

and maintains a statewide network of 

air quality monitors—data are collected, 

results are quality assured, and the data 

are submitted to EPA’s Air Quality 

System 33 on a regular basis. Arkansas’ 

Statewide Air Quality Surveillance 

Network was approved by EPA on 

August 6, 1981 (46 FR 40005), and 

consists of stations that measure 

ambient concentrations of the six 

criteria pollutants, including ozone and 

PM2.5. The Air Quality Surveillance 

Network undergoes annual review by 

EPA. On June 29, 2010, ADEQ 

submitted its 2010 Annual Air 

Monitoring Network Plan (AAMNP) that 

included the plans for the 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA approved the 

AAMNP on January 20, 2011.34 The 

ADEQ Web site provides the ozone and 

PM2.5 monitor locations (http:// 

www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/ 

branch_planning/monitoring.htm), as 

well as current data including air 

quality indices and concentrations for 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 for the past 90 

days (http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ 

techsvs/dailyaqidata.asp#AQI). 

In summary, Arkansas meets the 

requirement to establish, operate, and 

maintain an ambient air monitoring 

network; collect and analyze the 

monitoring data; and make the data 

available to EPA upon request. EPA is 

proposing to find that the current 

Arkansas SIP meets the requirements of 

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

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that NAAQS are achieved, 

including a permit program, as required 

by Parts C and D, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(C). As discussed previously, 

the AWAPCA provides the ADEQ with 

authority to enforce the state’s 

environmental quality rules. The ADEQ 

established rules governing emissions of 

the NAAQS and their precursors 

throughout the state, and these rules are 

in the federally-enforceable SIP. The 

rules in Regulation 19, Chapters 1, 3–5, 

7–10, 13 and 14; Regulation 26, Chapter 

3; and Regulation 31, Chapters 1, 3, 4 

and 8 include allowable rates, 

compliance, control plan requirements, 

actual and allowable emissions, 

monitoring and testing requirements, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, and control schedules. 

These rules clarify the boundaries 

beyond which regulated entities in 

Arkansas can expect enforcement 

action. 

To meet the requirement for having a 

program for the regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved—including a 

permit program as required by Parts C 

and D—generally, the state is required 

to have SIP-approved PSD, 

Nonattainment, and Minor NSR 

permitting programs adequate to 

implement the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are 

not evaluating nonattainment-related 

provisions—such as the Nonattainment 

NSR program required by part D in 

110(a)(2)(C) and measures for 

attainment required by section 

110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure 

SIPs for these NAAQS—because these 

submittals are required beyond the date 

(3 years from NAAQS promulgation) 

that section 110 infrastructure 

submittals are required (see footnotes 1 

and 19). 

PSD programs apply in areas that are 

meeting the NAAQS, referred to as 

attainment areas, or in areas that are 

unclassifiable, referred to as 

unclassifiable/attainment areas. PSD 

applies to new major sources and major 

modifications at existing sources. EPA’s 

PSD permitting regulations are found at 

40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21. PSD 

requirements for SIPs are found in 40 

CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR part 51 

appendix W. Similar PSD requirements 

for SIPs incorporating EPA’s regulations 

by reference are found in 40 CFR 52.21. 

The Arkansas’ PSD program was 

initially approved into the SIP on 

January 14, 1982 (47 FR 02112). 

Subsequent revisions to Arkansas’ PSD 

program were approved into the SIP on 

February 10, 1986 (51 FR 04910), May 

2, 1991 (56 FR 20137), October 16, 2000 

(65 FR 61103), and April 12, 2007 (72 

FR 18394). To meet the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone 

standard, EPA believes the state must 

have updated its PSD rules to treat NOX

as a precursor for ozone (70 FR 71612, 

November 29, 2005). On February 17, 

2010, Arkansas submitted the 

provisions for NOX as a precursor 

consistent with EPA’s November 29, 

2005 Phase 2 rule for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (70 FR 71612) as part of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6721 

35 In a November 23, 2010 submission (received 

by EPA on December 1, 2010), Arkansas proposed 

revisions to its SIP that include, among other 

things, raising its emissions threshold for NOX from 

25 tpy to 40 tpy. It is important to note that EPA 

is not proposing action at this time on that 

proposed revision, nor on any other part of 

Arkansas’s November 23, 2010 submittal. We will 

take action on it in a separate rulemaking. 

its revisions to address NSR reform. 

EPA proposes to approve the following 

portions of the February 17, 2010 SIP 

revision to Regulation 19, Chapter 9: 1) 

the substantive change adding NOX to 

the definition of Major Modification 

through incorporation by reference of 40 

CFR 52.21(b) and 40 CFR 51.301 as of 

November 29, 2005; 2) the substantive 

change adding NOX to the definition of 

Major Stationary Source through 

incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 

52.21(b) and 40 CFR 51.301 as of 

November 29, 2005; 3) the substantive 

change adding NOX as a precursor to the 

table’s criteria and other pollutants 

listing for ozone through incorporation 

by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i); 

and 4) the substantive change allowing 

for an exemption with respect to ozone 

monitoring for a source with a net 

emissions increase less than 100 tpy of 

NOX through incorporation by reference 

of 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i). 

The February 17, 2010 revisions to the 

definitions in the Arkansas rules for 

‘‘major modification’’ and ‘‘major 

stationary source’’ meet the Federal 

definition in 40 CFR 52.21(b) to identify 

a major source of NOX as a major source 

for ozone. The February 17, 2010 

revisions to the Arkansas rules also 

meet the Federal definition in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i) for inclusion of NOX as 

an ozone precursor. The February 17, 

2010 revisions to the emissions rate for 

NOX under the definition for Significant 

in the Arkansas rules also meet the 

Federal requirements in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i), which establishes these 

emission thresholds as 40 tpy.35 The 

February 17, 2010 revisions allowing for 

an exemption for ozone monitoring for 

a source with a net emissions increase 

less than 100 tpy of NOX also meet the 

Federal requirement on monitoring 

exemptions under the footnote for 40 

CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i). Because of their 

consistency with 40 CFR 52.21, which 

provides the requirements for an 

approvable PSD program, EPA believes 

these revisions are consistent with 

110(l) and the revisions would not 

interfere with any applicable standard. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

these revisions as meeting the 

requirements of section 110 of the Act 

and 40 CFR 52.21 for establishing NOX

emissions as a precursor for ozone. 

The revisions to Regulation 19, 

Chapter 9, and EPA’s evaluation of these 

revisions are discussed in greater detail 

in the TSD. The provisions that address 

NOX as a precursor are severable from 

the remaining portions of the February 

17, 2010 submittal, and EPA is 

proposing to approve these revisions in 

today’s action. 

To implement section 110(a)(2)(C) for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards, 

states were required to submit SIP 

revisions for the implementation of the 

PSD and nonattainment NSR program 

for the PM2.5 standard by May 16, 2011 

(see 73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). 

Because the State has failed to adopt 

and submit the required PM2.5 PSD 

rules, we are proposing to find that the 

current Arkansas PSD SIP does not meet 

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

with respect to the implementation of 

the PSD NSR program for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) creates ‘‘a general 

duty on States to include a program in 

their SIP that regulates the modification 

and construction of any stationary 

source as necessary to assure that the 

NAAQS are achieved’’ (70 FR 71612, 

71677). This duty is often referred to as 

‘‘minor NSR.’’ EPA provides states with 

a ‘‘broad degree of discretion’’ in 

implementing their minor NSR 

programs (71 FR 48696, 48700). The 

‘‘considerably less detailed’’ regulations 

for minor NSR are provided in 40 CFR 

51.160 through 51.164. EPA has 

determined that Arkansas’ minor NSR 

program, adopted pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(C) of the Act, regulates 

emissions of ozone and its precursors 

and PM. Arkansas’ minor source 

permitting requirements are contained 

in Regulation 19, Chapter 4, and 

portions of Chapters 3 and 5, and were 

approved at 65 FR 61108. 

It is important to stress that EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

the state’s existing minor NSR program 

itself to the extent that it is inconsistent 

with EPA’s regulations governing this 

program. EPA believes that a number of 

states may have minor NSR provisions 

that are contrary to the existing EPA 

regulations for this program. EPA 

intends to work with states to reconcile 

state minor NSR programs with EPA’s 

regulatory provisions for the program. 

The statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and EPA believes it may be 

time to revisit the regulatory 

requirements for this program to give 

the states an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design a program that 

meets their particular air quality 

concerns, while assuring reasonable 

consistency across the country in 

protecting the NAAQS with respect to 

new and modified minor sources. 

As explained in section I.C.5 of this 

proposal, the current EPA-approved SIP 

PSD program does not apply to GHGemitting sources that emit at or above 

the levels of emissions set in the 

Tailoring Rule, or at other appropriate 

levels. Thus, the Arkansas SIP does not 

satisfy this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C). We are proposing to 

disapprove this portion of the Arkansas 

SIP for failing to meet the infrastructure 

requirements for the 1997 ozone and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to the GHG requirement of 

section 110(a)(2)(C). EPA’s disapproval 

here does not engender an additional 

statutory obligation, because EPA has 

already promulgated a FIP for the 

Arkansas PSD program to address 

permitting GHGs at or above the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds (75 FR 82246). 

Interstate transport, pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(D): Section 

110(a)(2)(D) has two components, 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to 

include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment, 

interfering with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in another state, or from 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or to protect visibility in another 

state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires 

SIPs to include provisions insuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act, relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

PSD and interstate transport, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): One 

of the four prongs in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires a SIP to contain 

adequate provisions prohibiting 

emissions that interfere with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of its air 

quality. This is the only element of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for which EPA is 

proposing action in this rulemaking. 

EPA’s 2006 Guidance made 

recommendations for SIP submissions 

to meet this requirement with respect to 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The 2006 Guidance states that the 

PSD permitting program is the primary 

measure that each state must include to 

prevent interference with any other 

state’s required measures to prevent 

significant deterioration of its air quality 

in accordance with section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). EPA believes that 

Arkansas’ December 17, 2007 and 

March 28, 2008 submissions, when 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6722 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

considered in conjunction with the 

State’s PSD program and other PSD 

program revisions that EPA is proposing 

to approve in this action address, in 

part, the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The submittal states 

that all major sources in Arkansas are 

subject to PSD and nonattainment NSR 

permitting programs. As discussed 

previously in our analysis of section 

110(a)(2)(C) and in the TSD, the State’s 

PSD program is in the SIP (47 FR 02112, 

51 FR 04910, 56 FR 20137, 65 FR 61103, 

and 72 FR 18394). We also note in our 

discussion of 110(a)(2)(C) that Arkansas 

does not have a PSD program to address 

permitting GHG emissions and Arkansas 

has not adopted necessary revisions to 

properly address permitting of PM2.5

emissions. Please see the attached TSD 

and refer to our discussion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) in this rulemaking for 

additional information. 

Consistent with EPA’s November 29, 

2005 rulemaking, ‘‘Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards—Phase 

2’’ (70 FR 71612), Arkansas submitted 

SIP revisions to modify its PSD 

provisions to address NOX as an ozone 

precursor. For the same reasons 

discussed in our analysis of section 

110(a)(2)(C) of this proposed action, 

EPA believes that the PSD revision for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS that 

makes NOX a precursor for ozone for 

PSD purposes, taken together with the 

PSD SIP and the interstate transport SIP, 

partially satisfies the requirements of 

the third prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, i.e., 

there will be no interference with any 

other state’s required PSD measures. 

Arkansas only partially satisfies the 

requirements because of the deficiencies 

in its ability to permit sources of GHG 

emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of the Arkansas SIP as it applies to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) under the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. EPA’s disapproval 

here for the GHG emissions does not 

engender an additional statutory 

obligation, because EPA has already 

promulgated a FIP for the Arkansas PSD 

program to address permitting GHGs at 

or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds 

(75 FR 82246). 

We are proposing to find that 

Arkansas does not meet the third prong 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the 

current Arkansas PSD SIP does not meet 

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

with respect to the implementation of 

the PSD NSR program for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS because the state has not 

submitted the required PSD SIP revision 

to fully implement the PSD NSR 

program for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Interstate and international pollution 

abatement, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii): 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act 

requires compliance with sections 115 

and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

Section 115 addresses endangerment of 

public health or welfare in foreign 

countries from pollution emitted in the 

United States. Pursuant to section 

115(a), the Administrator has neither 

received nor issued a formal notification 

that emissions from Arkansas are 

endangering public health or welfare in 

a foreign country. 

Section 126(a) of the Act requires new 

or modified sources to notify 

neighboring states of potential impacts 

from such sources. Regulation 26, 

Chapter 6 requires that each major 

proposed new or modified source 

provide such notification and is in the 

federally enforceable SIP (see 66 FR 

51312). The State also has no pending 

obligations under section 126 of the Act. 

For additional detail, please refer to the 

TSD. However, as previously noted in 

this rulemaking, Arkansas does not have 

a current EPA-approved SIP PSD 

program that applies to GHG-emitting 

sources that emit at or above the level 

of emissions set in the Tailoring Rule, 

or at other appropriate levels. Also, the 

State has failed to submit the required 

PSD NSR SIP revisions for the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is 

not proposing to approve Arkansas’ 

interstate pollution abatement 

provisions in full because Arkansas 

cannot require each major proposed or 

modified new source to notify 

neighboring states of potential impacts 

from PM2.5 and GHGs emitted by such 

sources. 

Adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(E): The duties, powers and 

structure of the ADEQ (described in 

A.C.A. section 8–1–202) provide that 

the director is empowered to administer 

all activities ‘‘including, but not limited 

to the employment and supervision of 

such technical, legal, and administrative 

staff, within approved appropriations, 

as is necessary to carry out the 

responsibilities vested within the 

department’’. The AWAPCA provides 

the ADEQ adequate authority with the 

powers and duties, in part, ‘‘to 

administer and enforce all laws and 

regulations relating to pollution of the 

air.’’ A.C.A. section 8–4–311(7). 

Furthermore, the ADEQ has the power 

and duty to ‘‘cooperate with and receive 

moneys from the Federal government or 

any other source for the study and 

control of air pollution.’’ A.C.A. section 

8–4–311(9)(A). 

There are Federal sources of funding 

for the implementation of the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, through, 

for example, CAA sections 103 and 105 

grant funds. The ADEQ receives Federal 

funds on an annual basis, under 

sections 103 and 105 of the Act, to 

support its air quality programs. Fees 

collected for the NSR permit programs, 

and other inspections, maintenance and 

renewals required of other air pollution 

sources also provide necessary funds to 

help implement the State’s air programs. 

More specific information on permitting 

fees is provided in the discussion of 

section 110(a)(2)(L) below and in the 

TSD. 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that 

the state comply with section 128. 

Section 128 requires: (1) that the 

majority of members of the state body 

that approves permits or enforcement 

orders do not derive any significant 

portion of their income from entities 

subject to permitting or enforcement 

orders under the CAA; and (2) any 

potential conflicts of interest by such 

body be adequately disclosed. In 1982, 

the EPA approved the state’s submittal 

to demonstrate compliance of the SIP 

with Section 128 of the CAA (47 FR 

19136). The submittal cited AWAPCA 

Section 82–1901 as demonstrating 

compliance with CAA Section 128(a)(1), 

and cited Arkansas Code of Ethics Law, 

Act 570 of 1979 as addressing CAA 

Section 128(a)(2). See Arkansas Code of 

Ethics Law, Act 570 of 1979, Section 3: 

Use of Public Office to Obtain Special 

Privilege Prohibited; Section 4: Use and 

Disclosure of Information Acquired by 

Reason of Office—Activities Requiring 

Disclosure; Section 5: Requirement to 

File Statement; and Section 6: 

Statements—Period Retained—Public 

Access—Signature Required. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

current Arkansas PSD SIP meets section 

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

8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Stationary source monitoring system, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(F): 

Regulation 19, chapters 2–4, 7–10, and 

13 require that stationary sources 

monitor for compliance, provide 

recordkeeping and reporting, and 

provide for enforcement of ozone 

standards, PM2.5 standards, and 

precursors to these pollutants (e.g., 

NOX, SO2, and VOCs). These source 

monitoring requirements also generate 

data for these pollutants. 

Under the Arkansas SIP, the ADEQ is 

required to analyze the emissions data 

from point, area, mobile, and biogenic 

(natural) sources. The ADEQ uses this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6723 

36The AirData Web site provides access to air 

pollution data for the entire United States and 

produces reports and maps of air pollution data 

based on criteria specified by the user. 

37The ozone and PM data are available through 

AQS. The AQS data for PM are provided in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

38Section 110(a)(2)(J) is divided into three 

segments: Consultation with government officials; 

public notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

39The ADEQ forecasts for 8-hour ozone are based 

on the 2008 ozone standard, which is 75 ppb. 

40The 2 forecast areas for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

are Little Rock and Springdale. See 

www.adeq.state.ar.us/techsvs/default.htm. 

41Ozone is a gas composed of three oxygen 

atoms. Ground level ozone is generally not emitted 

directly from a vehicle’s exhaust or an industrial 

smokestack, but is created by a chemical reaction 

between NOX and VOCs in the presence of sunlight 

and high ambient temperatures. Thus, ozone is 

known primarily as a summertime air pollutant. For 

Arkansas, the ozone season runs from March 1 

through November 31 (see 40 CFR 58, Appendix D, 

Table D–3). The Arkansas air quality control regions 

are defined at 45 FR 6571 (January 29, 1980). 

42For coordinating agencies, participating 

counties and other information, please see http:// 

www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/ozone/ozonedays.asp. 

data to track progress toward 

maintaining the NAAQS, develop 

control and maintenance strategies, 

identify sources and general emission 

levels, and determine compliance with 

Arkansas and EPA requirements. The 

State’s emissions data are available on 

the ADEQ Web site (http:// 

www.adeq.state.ar.us) and EPA’s 

AirData Web site (www.epa.gov/air/ 

data/index.html).36 These rules are in 

the federally-approved SIP. A list of the 

chapters and Federal Register citations 

is provided in the TSD. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Arkansas SIP meets the requirements of 

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

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Emergency power, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(G): Section 110(a)(2)(G) 

requires States to provide for authority 

to address activities causing imminent 

and substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. The AWAPCA, 

pursuant to A.C.A. sections 8–1– 

202(b)(2)(C) and 8–4–202(e)(1), provides 

the ADEQ with authority to address 

environmental emergencies, and the 

ADEQ has contingency plans to 

implement emergency episode 

provisions in the SIP. The ADEQ 

promulgated the ‘‘Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes,’’ which 

includes contingency measures, and 

these provisions were approved into the 

SIP on May 31, 1972 (37 FR 10850). The 

criteria for ozone are based on a 1-hour 

average ozone level. These episode 

criteria and contingency measures are 

adequate to address ozone emergency 

episodes and are in the federallyapproved SIP. 

The 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

for PM2.5 recommends that a state with 

at least one monitored 24-hour PM2.5

value exceeding 140.4 mg/m3 since 2006 

establishes an emergency episode plan 

and contingency measures to be 

implemented if such level is exceeded 

again. The 2006–2010 ambient air 

quality monitoring data 37 for Arkansas 

do not exceed 140.4 mg/m3. The PM2.5

levels have consistently remained below 

140.4 mg/m3. Furthermore, the State has 

appropriate general emergency powers 

to address PM2.5 related episodes to 

protect the environment and public 

health. Given the State’s low monitored 

PM2.5 levels, EPA is proposing the State 

is not required to submit an emergency 

episode plan and contingency measures 

at this time for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards. Additional detail is provided 

in the TSD. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Arkansas SIP meets the requirements of 

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

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Future SIP revisions, pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(H): The AWAPCA, 

Section 82–1935(1), empowers the 

APCEC to ‘‘formulate and promulgate, 

amend, repeal, and enforce rules and 

regulations implementing or 

effectuating the powers and duties of 

the Commission [* * *] to control air 

pollution’’. In addition, A.C.A. 8–4– 

202(d)(4)(A) authorizes the Commission 

to ‘‘refer to the CFR for regulations and 

standards identical to those sanctioned 

by EPA.’’ Thus, Arkansas has the 

authority to revise its SIP from time to 

time as may be necessary to take into 

account revisions of primary or 

secondary NAAQS, or the availability of 

improved or more expeditious methods 

of attaining such standards. 

Furthermore, Arkansas also has the 

authority under these AWAPCA 

provisions to revise its SIP in the event 

the EPA pursuant to the Act finds the 

SIP to be substantially inadequate to 

attain the NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Arkansas SIP meets the requirements of 

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

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Consultation with government 

officials, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(J): 38 The AWAPCA, as 

codified under A.C.A. section 8–1–203 

provides that the APCEC ‘‘shall meet 

regularly in publicly noticed open 

meetings to discuss and rule upon 

matters of environmental concern’’ prior 

to the adoption of any rule or regulation 

implementing the substantive statutes 

charged to the ADEQ for administration. 

In addition, A.C.A. section 8–4–311 

provides that the ADEQ or its successor 

shall have the power and duty ‘‘to 

advise, consult, and cooperate with 

other agencies of the state, political 

subdivisions, industries, other states, 

the Federal government, and with 

affected groups in the furtherance of the 

purposes of this chapter.’’ Further, 

Regulation 19.904(D) provides that 

ADEQ shall make determinations that a 

source may affect air quality or visibility 

in a mandatory Class I Federal area 

based on screening criteria agreed upon 

by the Department and the Federal Land 

Manager (see 72 FR 18394). These rules 

are in the federally approved SIP. EPA 

is proposing to find that the Arkansas 

SIP meets the requirements of this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Public notification if NAAQS are 

exceeded, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(J): Public notification begins 

with the air quality forecasts, which 

advise the public of conditions capable 

of exceeding the 8-hour ozone 39 and 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The air quality forecasts 

can be found on the ADEQ Web site: for 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5, the forecast 

includes 2 regions 40 in the State. Ozone 

forecasts are made daily during the 

ozone season for each of the forecast 

areas.41 The ozone forecasts are made, 

in most cases, a day in advance by 

2 p.m. local time and are valid for the 

next day. When the forecast indicates 

that ozone levels will be above the 

8-hour ozone standard, the ADEQ and 

the Arkansas Department of Health 

issue an Ozone Health Advisory. 

In addition, the State implements an 

Ozone Action Day (OAD) program 42

and will issue an ozone alert in the 

afternoon on the day before an elevated 

level of ozone is expected to occur. 

Announcements for an OAD will be 

broadcast through television and other 

news media, and to employers 

participating in the OAD program. The 

OAD program includes examples of 

actions that can be implemented by 

individuals and organizations to reduce 

ozone levels and exposure to ozone. 

Also through the Metroplan Web site, 

the public can subscribe to an electronic 

information system that provides air 

quality forecast and ozone alert 

information via email. Ozone data are 

posted on the ADEQ Web site; current, 

regional hourly and regional 8-hour 

ozone data are posted hourly (see 

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/techsvs/ 

ozonemonitors.asp). EPA is proposing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6724 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

43CAA Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires, among other 

things, that each implementation plan ‘‘meet[s] the 

applicable requirements of [110(a)(2)(C)]’’. 

44See the Economic Development Zone 

implementation for the Crittenden County 1997 

8-hour O3 nonattainment area, approved by EPA 

and adopted into the SIP on April 12, 2007 (72 FR 

18394), and the Crittenden County 1997 8-hour O3 

maintenance plan, approved by EPA and adopted 

into the SIP on March 24, 2010 (75 FR 14077). 

to find that the Arkansas SIP meets this 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

PSD and visibility protection, 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(J): This 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) in part 

requires that a state’s SIP meet the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) as relating to PSD programs. 

As discussed in our section 110(a)(2)(C) 

analysis and in the TSD, the State’s PSD 

program is in the SIP (47 FR 02112, 51 

FR 04910, 56 FR 20137, 65 FR 61103 

and 72 FR 18394) . In addition to the 

approved program and to meet the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone 

standard, EPA believes the State must 

have updated its PSD rules to treat NOX

as a precursor for ozone. Thus, we are 

proposing to approve portions of a SIP 

revision (submitted February 17, 2010) 

to implement NOX as a precursor to 

ozone. These revisions are proposed for 

APCEC Regulation 19, Chapter 9, as 

described above. 

For Arkansas to meet the 

requirements of the PSD portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(J), it must comply with 

section 110(a)(2)(C).43 To implement 

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

2006 PM2.5 standards, states were 

required to submit PSD NSR SIP 

revisions for the PM2.5 standards by May 

16, 2011 (73 FR 28321, May 16, 2008). 

At present, Arkansas has not submitted 

revisions to satisfy this requirement. 

Therefore, Arkansas fails to meet the 

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

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We 

are proposing to find that the current 

Arkansas PSD SIP does not meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Moreover, as stated in our discussion 

of the PSD program under section 

110(a)(2)(C), the current EPA-approved 

SIP PSD program does not apply to 

GHG-emitting sources that emit at or 

above the levels of emissions set in the 

Tailoring Rule, or at other appropriate 

levels. Thus, the Arkansas SIP does not 

satisfy the portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) 

that relates to permitting GHGs with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA’s 

disapproval here does not engender any 

additional statutory obligation, because 

EPA has already promulgated a FIP for 

the Arkansas PSD program related to 

permitting GHGs at or above the 

Tailoring Rule thresholds (75 FR 82246). 

EPA approved Arkansas’ Visibility 

Protection Plan (Protection of Visibility 

in Mandatory Class I Federal Areas) into 

the Arkansas SIP on February 10, 1986 

(51 FR 4910). EPA approved revisions to 

the Arkansas Visibility Protection Plan 

and approved a Long-Term Strategy for 

Visibility Protection into the Arkansas 

SIP on July 21, 1988 (53 FR 27514). The 

State’s most recent SIP revision of their 

Regional Haze program was submitted 

to EPA on July 29, 2008, and we will 

take action on it in a separate 

rulemaking. With regard to the 

applicable requirements for visibility 

protection, EPA recognizes that States 

are subject to visibility and regional 

haze program requirements under Part C 

of the Act (which includes sections 

169A and 169B). In the event of the 

establishment of a new NAAQS, 

however, the visibility and regional 

haze program requirements under part C 

do not change. Thus, we find that there 

is no new visibility obligation 

‘‘triggered’’ under section 110(a)(2)(J) 

when a new NAAQS becomes effective. 

This would be the case even in the 

event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for 

visibility is established, because this 

NAAQS would not affect visibility 

requirements under part C. EPA is 

therefore proposing to find that the 

Arkansas SIP meets this portion of 

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

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Arkansas SIP meets the requirements of 

this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS with the exception of section 

110(a)(2)(J) as it relates to the GHG 

component of the PSD program. EPA is 

proposing to find that the Arkansas SIP 

does not meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) as it relates to the 

GHG component of the PSD program 

with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to find 

that the Arkansas SIP does not meet the 

requirements of this portion of section 

110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS because the state 

has not submitted the required PSD SIP 

revision to fully implement the PSD 

NSR program for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Air quality modeling and submission 

of data, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(K): 

The AWAPCA prescribes at A.C.A. 

section 8–4–311(a)(1) that the ADEQ 

shall ‘‘[d]evelop and effectuate a 

comprehensive program for the 

prevention and control of all sources of 

pollution of the air of this state.’’ 

Arkansas has extensive modeling in 

numerous submitted SIP revisions. For 

example, Arkansas submitted modeling 

in SIP revisions for implementing an 

Economic Development Zone in 

Crittenden County, and demonstrating 

maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in Crittenden County. EPA 

approved the modeling as part of the 

Arkansas SIP.44

This section of the Act also requires 

that a SIP provides for the submission 

of data related to such air quality 

modeling to the EPA upon request. 

A.C.A. section 8–4–311 authorizes 

ADEQ to cooperate with the Federal 

government, allowing it to make this 

submission to the EPA. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Arkansas SIP meets the requirements of 

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

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Permitting fees, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(L): The AWAPCA, as codified 

in Regulation 9, Chapter 5 provides 

authority for the ADEQ to charge and 

collect fees for Title V and non-Title V 

permit applications, revisions, renewals, 

and inspections. The non-Title V rules 

that address permit fees found in 

APCEC Regulation 9, Chapter 5 are in 

the federally-approved SIP. A detailed 

list of the applicable chapters listed 

herein is provided in the TSD. EPA is 

proposing to find that the Arkansas SIP 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the 1997 8- 

hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

Consultation/participation by affected 

local entities, pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(M): As indicated above, the 

Arkansas statute under A.C.A. section 

8–1–203 provides that the APCEC ‘‘shall 

meet regularly in publicly noticed open 

meetings to discuss and rule upon 

matters of environmental concern’’ prior 

to the adoption of any rule or regulation 

implementing the substantive statutes 

charged to the ADEQ for administration. 

In addition, AWAPCA Section 82–1935 

empowers the APCEC to develop and 

put into effect a comprehensive program 

for the prevention and control of all 

sources of pollution in the air in the 

state. The State has the power to advise, 

consult and cooperate with other 

agencies of the State, political 

subdivisions, other states, the Federal 

government, and with affected groups. 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

Arkansas SIP meets the requirements of 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6725 

1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove the submittals 

provided by the State of Arkansas to 

demonstrate that the Arkansas SIP 

meets the requirements of Section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act for the 1997 

ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. For the 1997 ozone standard, 

we are proposing to find that the current 

Arkansas SIP meets the infrastructure 

elements listed below: 

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), 

except for the portion that addresses 

GHGs; 

Interstate Transport, pursuant to 

section (110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act), 

except for the portion that addresses 

GHGs; 

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), except for the portion that 

addresses GHGs; 

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). 

For the 1997 ozone standard, we are 

proposing to find that the current 

Arkansas SIP does not meet the 

infrastructure elements listed below: 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures (110(a)(2)(C) of the Act), only 

as it relates to GHGs; 

Interstate transport, pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act, only 

as it relates to GHGs; and 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

(110(a)(2)(J) of the Act), only as it relates 

to GHGs. 

We are also proposing to approve the 

Arkansas Interstate Transport SIP 

provisions that address the requirement 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that 

emissions from sources in Arkansas do 

not interfere with measures required in 

the SIP of any other state under part C 

of the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality, except as 

they relate to GHGs for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

We are proposing to disapprove the 

portion of the Arkansas Interstate 

Transport SIP provisions that address 

the requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), as it relates to GHGs, 

that emissions from sources in Arkansas 

do not interfere with measures required 

in the SIP of any other state under part 

C of the CAA to prevent significant 

deterioration of air quality, for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. 

For the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards, we are proposing to find that 

the current Arkansas SIP meets the 

infrastructure elements listed below: 

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); 

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); 

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). 

For the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

standards, we are proposing to find that 

the current Arkansas SIP does not 

address the 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

elements listed below: 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures (110(a)(2)(C) of the Act); 

Interstate Transport, pursuant to 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act; and 

Prevention of significant deterioration 

and visibility protection (110(a)(2)(J) of 

the Act). 

We are also proposing to disapprove 

the portion of the Arkansas Interstate 

Transport SIP that addresses the 

requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—that emissions from 

sources in Arkansas do not interfere 

with measures required in the SIP of 

any other state under part C of the CAA 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality—for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

following revisions to APCEC 

Regulation 19, Chapter 9, submitted by 

the State of Arkansas on February 17, 

2010: 

1. The substantive change adding 

NOX to the definition of Major 

Modification through incorporation by 

reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b) and 40 CFR 

51.301 as of November 29, 2005. 

2. The substantive change adding 

NOX to the definition of Major 

Stationary Source through incorporation 

by reference of 40 CFR 52.21(b) and 40 

CFR 51.301 as of November 29, 2005. 

3. The substantive change adding 

NOX as a precursor to the table’s criteria 

and other pollutants listing for ozone 

through incorporation by reference of 40 

CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i). 

4. The substantive change allowing 

for an exemption with respect to ozone 

monitoring for a source with a net 

emissions increase less than 100 tpy of 

NOX through incorporation by reference 

of 40 CFR 52.21(i)(5)(i). 

EPA is proposing these actions in 

accordance with section 110 and part C 

of the Act and EPA’s regulations and 

consistent with EPA guidance. We are 

also proposing to make ministerial 

corrections to the attainment status table 

in 40 CFR 81.304 to accurately reflect 

the redesignation date of Crittenden 

County, Arkansas to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. On March 

24, 2010, we redesignated the county 

with an effective date of April 23, 2010 

(75 FR 14077). 

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 act on state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

because this proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply disapproves certain 

State requirements for inclusion into the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

6726 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This proposed SIP disapproval 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself 

create any new requirements but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, 

it affords no opportunity for EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will flow from 

this disapproval does not mean that 

EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

action. Therefore, this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the action 

EPA is proposing neither imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

tribal governments, nor preempts tribal 

law. Therefore, the requirements of 

section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive 

Order do not apply to this rule. 

Consistent with EPA policy, EPA 

nonetheless is offering consultation to 

Tribes regarding this rulemaking action. 

EPA will respond to relevant comments 

in the final rulemaking action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP 

disapproval under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this proposed 

action is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Proposed Rules 6727 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to disapprove 

certain State requirements for inclusion 

into the SIP under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will 

not in-and-of itself create any new 

requirements. Accordingly, it 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. 

K. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by section 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

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. 

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

Dated: January 30, 2012. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2902 Filed 2–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0730; FRL–9629–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Wisconsin; Redesignation 

of the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan Areas to Attainment for 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

requests from the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) to redesignate the MilwaukeeRacine and Sheboygan areas to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, because the requests meet the 

statutory requirements for redesignation 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

The Milwaukee-Racine area includes 

Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, 

Washington, Waukesha, and Kenosha 

Counties. The Sheboygan area includes 

Sheboygan County. WDNR submitted 

these requests on September 11, 2009, 

and supplemented the submittal on 

November 16, 2011. This proposed 

approval also involves several related 

actions. EPA is proposing to approve, as 

revisions to the Wisconsin State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), the state’s 

plans for maintaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS or standard) through 

2022 in the above-mentioned areas. EPA 

is also proposing to approve the 2005 

comprehensive emissions inventories 

for the Milwaukee-Racine and 

Sheboygan areas as meeting the 

requirements of the CAA. Finally, EPA 

finds adequate and is proposing to 

approve the state’s 2015 and 2022 Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for 

the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan 

areas. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0730, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Aburano.Douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Doug Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand delivery: Doug Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 

60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009– 

0730. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I of this document, ‘‘What Should I 

Consider as I Prepare My Comments for 

EPA?’’ 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, at (312) 886–1767 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen D’Agostino, Environmental 

Engineer, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS