46352 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. 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 that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves establishing a safety zone. 

This rule is categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph 34(g) of 

Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting is available in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. 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 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREA AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for Part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.T01–0571 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T01–0571 Safety Zones; DeStefano 

Wedding Fireworks Display, Patchogue 

Bay, Patchogue, NY. 

(a) Location. The following area is a 

safety zone: All waters of Patchogue Bay 

within a 1,000-foot radius of the 

fireworks barge located off Patchogue, 

NY in approximate position 

40°44′44.47′′ N, 073°00′41.25′′ W North 

American Datum 1983. 

(b) Notification. Coast Guard Sector 

Long Island Sound will cause 

notifications to be made to the local 

maritime community through all 

appropriate means such as Local Notice 

to Mariners or Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners well in advance of the event. 

(c) Enforcement Period. This rule will 

be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 10:30 

p.m. on November 3, 2012. If the event 

is postponed due to inclement weather, 

then this rule will be enforced from 8:30 

p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on November 4, 

2012. 

(d) Regulations. The general 

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23 

apply. During the enforcement period, 

entering into, transiting through, 

remaining, mooring or anchoring within 

this safety zone is prohibited unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

(COTP) or the designated 

representatives. 

1. Definitions. The following 

definitions apply to this section: 

i. Designated Representative. A 

‘‘designated representative’’ is any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has 

been designated by the COTP, Sector 

Long Island Sound, to act on his or her 

behalf. The designated representative 

may be on an official patrol vessel or 

may be on shore and will communicate 

with vessels via VHF–FM radio or 

loudhailer. In addition, members of the 

Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to 

inform vessel operators of this 

regulation. 

ii. Official Patrol Vessels. Official 

patrol vessels may consist of any Coast 

Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or 

local law enforcement vessels assigned 

or approved by the COTP Sector Long 

Island Sound. 

iii. Spectators. All persons and 

vessels not registered with the event 

sponsor as participants or official patrol 

vessels. 

2. Vessel operators desiring to enter or 

operate within the regulated area should 

contact the COTP Sector Long Island 

Sound at 203–468–4401 (Sector LIS 

command center) or the designated 

representative via VHF channel 16 to 

obtain permission to do so. 

3. Spectators or other vessels shall not 

anchor, block, loiter, or impede the 

transit of event participants or official 

patrol vessels in the regulated area 

during the effective dates and times, or 

dates and times as modified through the 

Local Notice to Mariners, unless 

authorized by COTP Sector Long Island 

Sound or designated representative. 

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

Guard vessel or the designated 

representative, by siren, radio, flashing 

light or other means, the operator of the 

vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure 

to comply with a lawful direction may 

result in expulsion from the area, 

citation for failure to comply, or both. 

5. The COTP Sector Long Island 

Sound or designated representative may 

delay or terminate any marine event in 

this subpart at any time it is deemed 

necessary to ensure the safety of life or 

property. 

6. Fireworks barges used in this 

location will have a sign on their port 

and starboard side labeled 

‘‘FIREWORKS—STAY AWAY’’. This 

sign will consist of 10 inch high by 1.5 

inch wide red lettering on a white 

background. 

Dated: July 20, 2012. 

H.L. Najarian, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19003 Filed 8–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1014; FRL–9708–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 

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

Requirements for the 1997 Annual and 

2006 24-hour Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

in part, and conditionally approve in 

part, the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revisions, submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky through 

the Kentucky Energy and Environment 

Cabinet, Division for Air Quality (DAQ), 

as demonstrating that the 

Commonwealth meets the requirements 

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

Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

Kentucky certified that the Kentucky 

SIP contains provisions that ensure the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Kentucky (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘infrastructure 

submission’’). EPA is now taking three 

related actions on Kentucky DAQ’s 

infrastructure submissions for the 

Commonwealth. First, EPA is proposing 

to determine that Kentucky DAQ’s 

infrastructure submissions, provided to 

EPA on August 26, 2008, and July 17, 

2012, satisfy certain required 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46353 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

several Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 

into the SIP to address element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), that relates to state 

board requirements. Third, with respect 

to sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J) 

as they relate to PSD requirements, EPA 

is proposing to conditionally approve 

the SIP submissions as meeting these 

requirements. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 4, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2010–1014, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

1014,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

1014. 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 through www.regulations.gov 

or email, information that you consider 

to be CBI or otherwise protected. 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 

electronic docket are listed in the www.

regulations.gov index. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.

gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What elements are required under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how Kentucky 

addressed the elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3) based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, 

EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS 

of 65 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.7. On 

October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and promulgated a new 24-hour 

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting 

the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) are to be submitted by states 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) require states to 

address basic SIP requirements, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. States were required to submit 

such SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, no 

later than October 2009 for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 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 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 

10, 2005, 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) 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. In accordance with the 

consent decree, EPA made completeness 

findings for each state based upon what 

the Agency received from each state for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 

2008. 

On October 22, 2008, EPA published 

a final rulemaking entitled 

‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 

110(a) State Implementation Plans 

Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS’’ making a finding that 

each state had submitted or failed to 

submit a complete SIP that provided the 

basic program elements of section 

110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (see 73 FR 62902). 

For those states that did receive 

findings, the findings of failure to 

submit for all or a portion of a state’s 

implementation plan established a 24- 

month deadline for EPA to promulgate 

a federal implementation plan to 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46354 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1On July 17, 2012, Kentucky withdrew its 

September 8, 2009, 110(a)(1)–(2) infrastructure 

submission addressing the 8-hour ozone, PM2.5 and 

Lead NAAQS. Kentucky replaced its September 8, 

2009, 110(a)(1)–(2) infrastructure submission with a 

submission provided on July 17, 2012. 

2As discussed below in Section IV of this 

proposed rule, EPA’s proposed action to approve 

infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J) 

respecting PSD requirements, is contingent upon 

final approval of Kentucky’s PM2.5 NSR program. 

3Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

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 (2) 

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

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) but does 

provide detail on how Kentucky’s SIP addresses 

110(a)(2)(C). 

4This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 5Today’s proposed rule does not address element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Interstate transport 

requirements were formerly addressed by Kentucky 

consistent with the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). On December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded 

by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, without 

vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 

531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). Prior to this remand, 

EPA took final action to approve Kentucky SIP 

revision, which was submitted to comply with 

CAIR. See 72 FR 56623 (October 4, 2007). In so 

doing, Kentucky CAIR SIP revision addressed the 

interstate transport provisions in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

response to the remand of CAIR, EPA has recently 

finalized a new rule to address the interstate 

transport of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides in the 

eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011) (Transport Rule). That rule was recently 

stayed by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. EPA’s 

action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be addressed 

in a separate action. 

6This requirement was inadvertently omitted 

from EPA’s October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘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,’’ and the September 25, 2009, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards,’’ but as mentioned above is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

address the outstanding SIP elements 

unless, prior to that time, the affected 

states submitted, and EPA approved, the 

required SIPs. The findings that all or 

portions of a state’s submission are 

complete established a 12-month 

deadline for EPA to take action upon the 

complete SIP elements in accordance 

with section 110(k). 

Kentucky’s infrastructure submissions 

were received by EPA on August 26, 

2008, for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, and on July 17, 2012,1 for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

August 26, 2008, submission was 

determined to be complete on February 

26, 2009. Kentucky was among other 

states that did not receive findings of 

failure to submit because it had 

provided a complete submission to EPA 

to address the infrastructure elements 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 

3, 2008. 

On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians 

and Sierra Club filed an amended 

complaint related to EPA’s failure to 

take action on the SIP revision related 

to the ‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On 

October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a 

consent decree with WildEarth 

Guardians and Sierra Club which 

required EPA, among other things, to 

complete a Federal Register notice of 

the Agency’s final action either 

approving, disapproving, or approving 

in part and disapproving in part the 

Kentucky 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure SIP revision addressing 

the applicable requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(A)–(H), (J)–(M), except for 

section 110(a)(2)(C) the nonattainment 

area requirements and section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) visibility 

requirements, by September 30, 2012. 

On July 20, 2011, EPA published a final 

rulemaking disapproving the interstate 

transport requirements for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS for Kentucky. See 76 FR 

43136. 

Today’s proposal addresses three 

related actions. First, EPA is proposing 

to determine that, as described in its 

infrastructure submissions, Kentucky’s 

SIP meets the section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure requirements for both the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS with the exception of elements 

110(a)(2)(C) respecting nonattainment 

area and PSD requirements, 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) respecting interstate 

transport, and 110(a)(2)(J) respecting 

PSD requirements. For the infrastructure 

elements except for 110(a)(2)(C), 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(J), as noted 

above, EPA is proposing to determine 

that Kentucky’s already approved SIP 

meets certain CAA requirements. 

Second, EPA is proposing to approve 

Kentucky’s July 17, 2012, submission 

requesting approval of KRS Chapters 

11A.020, 11A.030, 11A.040 224.10–020 

and 224.10–100 into the SIP to address 

element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Third, with 

respect to elements 110(a)(2)(C) and 

110(a)(2)(J) as they both relate to PSD 

requirements, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve these subelements.2

II. What elements are required under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. In the 

case of the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, some states may 

need to adopt language specific to the 

PM2.5 NAAQS to ensure that they have 

adequate SIP provisions to implement 

the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific 

elements that states must meet for 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements 

related to a newly established or revised 

NAAQS. As mentioned above, these 

requirements include SIP infrastructure 

elements such as modeling, monitoring, 

and emissions inventories that are 

designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

requirements that are the subject of this 

proposed rulemaking are listed below 3

and in EPA’s October 2, 2007, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘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’’ and September 25, 

2009, memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 

24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards.’’ 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures.4

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.5

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. 

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

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and meet the applicable 

requirements of part D.6

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46355 

7See 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. 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs 

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.7 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 (SSM) at 

sources, that may be contrary to the 

CAA and EPA’s policies addressing 

such excess emissions; 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 separately: (i) Existing 

provisions for minor source NSR 

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 PSD 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 SIPs for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS from 

Kentucky. 

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 re-approval 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 re-approval of any existing 

provisions that relate to these four 

substantive issues. EPA is reiterating 

that position in this action on the 

infrastructure SIP for Kentucky. 

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, NSR permitting program 

submissions required to address the 

requirements of part D, and a host of 

other specific types of SIP submissions 

that address other specific matters. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements 

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

wide variety of disparate provisions, 

some of which pertain to required legal 

authority, some of which pertain to 

required substantive provisions, and 

some of which pertain to requirements 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46356 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8For 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. 

9For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

EPA to be sure that each state’s implementation 

plan 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 ‘‘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’’). 

10See 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)). 

11EPA 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. 

12For 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. 

13See ‘‘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’’). 

14 Id., at page 2. 

15 Id., at attachment A, page 1. 

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

by the 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. 

for both authority and substantive 

provisions.8 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.9

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).10 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.11 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 implementation 

plans. 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.12

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.13 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.’’ 14 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.’’ 15 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.’’ 16

However, for the one exception to that 

general assumption (i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

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

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA gave 

much more specific recommendations. 

But for other infrastructure SIP 

submittals, and for certain elements of 

the submittals for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA assumed that each state 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46357 

17See ‘‘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’’). 

18EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a 

specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. 

See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 74 FR 21639 (April 

18, 2011). 

19EPA 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 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). 

20EPA 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 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 

21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

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 

implementation plans 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.17 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 SIPs for Kentucky. 

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.18 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.19

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on the infrastructure SIP is not 

the appropriate time and place to 

address all potential existing SIP 

problems does not preclude the 

Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on the infrastructure 

SIP, EPA believes that section 

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 

bases that the Agency cites in the course 

of addressing the issue in a subsequent 

action.20

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Kentucky addressed the elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

Kentucky’s infrastructure submissions 

address the provisions of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) as described below. 

1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures: Kentucky’s 

infrastructure submissions provide an 

overview of the provisions of the 

Kentucky Air Regulations relevant to air 

quality control regulations. Chapter 

50—General Administrative Procedures, 

of the Kentucky Air Regulations 

generally authorizes the Kentucky 

Environmental and Public Protection 

Cabinet to adopt rules for the control of 

air pollution, including those necessary 

to obtain EPA approval under section 

110 of the CAA and details the authority 

and means with which DAQ can require 

testing and emissions verification. 

Chapter 51—Attainment and 

Maintenance of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, also includes 

references to rules adopted by Kentucky 

to control air pollution. Chapter 53— 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46358 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Ambient Air Quality Standards, serves 

to establish the requirements for the 

prevention, abatement and control of air 

pollution. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

provisions contained in these 

regulations and Kentucky’s practices are 

adequate to protect the PM2.5 annual 

and 24-hour NAAQS in Kentucky. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during SSM of operations at 

a facility. EPA believes that a number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and 

the Agency plans to address such state 

regulations in the future. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having deficient SSM provisions to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

Additionally, in this action, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. EPA believes that a number 

of states have such provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 

1987)), and the Agency plans to take 

action in the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision which 

is contrary to the CAA and EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 

2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system: Chapter 50— 

General Administrative Procedures, and 

Chapter 53—Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, along with the 

Commonwealth’s Network Description 

and Ambient Air Monitoring Network 

Plan, provide for an ambient air quality 

monitoring system in the State. 

Annually, EPA approves the ambient air 

monitoring network plan for the state 

agencies. On July 1, 2011, the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted 

its plan to EPA. On October 20, 2011, 

EPA approved Kentucky’s monitoring 

network plan. Kentucky’s approved 

monitoring network plan can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

1014. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for the ambient 

air quality monitoring and data systems 

related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for 

enforcement of control measures 

including review of proposed new 

sources: Chapter 51—Attainment and 

Maintenance of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, describes the 

permit requirements for new major 

sources or major modifications of 

existing sources in areas classified as 

attainment or unclassifiable under 

section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the 

CAA. This ensures that sources in areas 

attaining the NAAQS at the time of 

designations prevent any significant 

deterioration in air quality. Chapter 51 

also sets the permitting requirements for 

areas in or around nonattainment areas. 

On July 3, 2012, Kentucky submitted a 

letter to EPA to provide the schedule to 

address outstanding requirements 

promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule 

related to the PM2.5 standard for their 

PSD program and committing to 

providing the necessary SIP revision to 

address these NSR PM2.5 Rule 

requirements. 

Based on Kentucky’s commitment, 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve Kentucky’s 110(a)(2)(C) 

infrastructure SIP consistent with 

section 110(k)(4) of the Act. EPA 

intends to move forward with finalizing 

the conditional approval consistent with 

section 110(k)(4) of the Act. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to the general requirement in 

section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a 

program in the SIP that regulates the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source as necessary to assure 

that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

the Commonwealth’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. 

EPA is proposing to conditionally 

approve element 110(a)(2)(C) based on 

the commitment of the Commonwealth 

to submit SIP revisions to address the 

PM2.5 NSR requirements. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and 

International transport provisions: In 

Chapter 51:017—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of air quality, 

Kentucky outlines how it will notify 

neighboring states of potential impacts 

from new or modified sources. 

Kentucky does not have any pending 

obligation under sections 115 and 126 of 

the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for insuring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: 

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

implementation plan provide (i) 

necessary assurances that the State will 

have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out its 

implementation plan, (ii) that the State 

comply with the requirements 

respecting State Boards pursuant to 

section 128 of the Act, and (iii) 

necessary assurances that, where the 

State has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any plan 

provision, the State has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such plan provisions. EPA is 

proposing to approve Kentucky’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of subelements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii). 

In support of EPA’s proposal to 

approve elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 

(iii), Kentucky DAQ’s infrastructure 

submissions demonstrate that it is 

responsible for promulgating rules and 

regulations for the NAAQS, emissions 

standards general policies, a system of 

permits, fee schedules for the review of 

plans, and other planning needs. As 

evidence of the adequacy of Kentucky 

DAQ’s resources with respect to subelements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a 

letter to Kentucky on March 14, 2012, 

outlining 105 grant commitments and 

current status of these commitments for 

fiscal year 2011. The letter EPA 

submitted to Kentucky can be accessed 

at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010–1014. 

Annually, states update these grant 

commitments based on current SIP 

requirements, air quality planning, and 

applicable requirements related to the 

NAAQS. There were no outstanding 

issues in relation to the SIP for fiscal 

year 2011, therefore, Kentucky’s grants 

were finalized and closed out. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky has adequate resources 

for implementation of the 1997 annual 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46359 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

addition, the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when 

EPA performs a completeness 

determination for each SIP submittal. 

This determination ensures that each 

submittal provides evidence that 

adequate personnel, funding, and legal 

authority under State Law has been 

used to carry out the state’s 

implementation plan and related issues. 

Kentucky’s authority is included in all 

prehearings and final SIP submittal 

packages for approval by EPA. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky has adequate resources 

for implementation of the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

the Commonwealth comply with section 

128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires 

that: (1) The majority of members of the 

state board or body which approves 

permits or enforcement orders represent 

the public interest and do not derive 

any significant portion of their income 

from persons subject to permitting or 

enforcement orders under the CAA; and 

(2) any potential conflicts of interest by 

such board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar, powers 

be adequately disclosed. Kentucky’s 

July 17, 2012, submission adequately 

demonstrated that Kentucky’s SIP meets 

the applicable section 128 requirements 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). For 

purposes of section 128(a)(1), Kentucky 

has no boards or bodies with authority 

over air pollution permits or 

enforcement actions. Such matters are 

instead handled by the Director of 

Division for Air Quality. As such, a 

‘‘board or body’’ is not responsible for 

approving permits or enforcement 

orders in Kentucky, and the 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) are not 

applicable. Regarding section 128(a)(2) 

(also applicable to the infrastructure SIP 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)), EPA 

is, through this notice, proposing to 

approve Kentucky’s July 17, 2012, SIP 

revision requesting incorporation of 

KRS Chapters 11A.020, 11A.030, 

11A.040 and Chapters 224.10–020 and 

224.10–100 into the SIP to address subelement 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). KRS Chapters: 

11A.020. Public servant prohibited from 

certain conduct—Exception—Disclosure 

of personal or private interest; 

11A.030. Considerations in determination to 

abstain from action on official 

decision—Advisory opinion, 

11A.030. Acts prohibited for public servant 

or officer—exception; 

224.10–020. Department within the cabinet— 

Offices and divisions within the 

departments-Appointments, and 

224.10–100. Powers and duties of cabinet, 

require adequate disclosure of any 

potential conflicts of interest and meets 

the requirements of section 128(a)(2) of 

the Act. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that, following final 

approval of these chapters in the SIP, 

Kentucky will have adequate resources 

for implementation of the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source 

monitoring system: Chapter 50—General 

Administrative Procedures of the 

Kentucky Air Regulations describes how 

the major source and minor source 

emission inventory programs collect 

emission data throughout the 

Commonwealth and ensure the quality 

of such data. Additionally, Kentucky is 

required to submit emissions data to 

EPA for purposes of the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is 

EPA’s central repository for air 

emissions data. EPA published the Air 

Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on 

December 5, 2008, which modified the 

requirements for collecting and 

reporting air emissions data (73 FR 

76539). The AERR shortened the time 

states had to report emissions data from 

17 to 12 months, giving states one 

calendar year to submit emissions data. 

All states are required to submit a 

comprehensive emissions inventory 

every three years and report emissions 

for certain larger sources annually 

through EPA’s online Emissions 

Inventory System. States report 

emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and the precursors that form 

them—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, 

ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, 

particulate matter, and volatile organic 

compounds. Many states also 

voluntarily report emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants. Kentucky 

made its latest update to the NEI on 

March 14, 2012. EPA compiles the 

emissions data, supplementing it where 

necessary, and releases it to the general 

public through the Web site http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ 

eiinformation.html. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Kentucky’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems related to the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: 

Chapter 55—Emergency Episodes 

contains provisions for the 

identification of air pollution emergency 

episodes. Episode criteria and emissions 

reduction plans are also covered in this 

regulation. These criteria have 

previously been approved by EPA. On 

September 25, 2009, EPA released the 

guidance entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24–Hour 

Fine Particulate (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS).’’ This guidance clarified that 

‘‘to address the section 110(a)(2)(G) 

element, states with air quality control 

regions identified as either Priority I, IA, 

or Priority II by the ‘Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes’ rule at 

40 CFR 51.150, must develop emergency 

episode contingency plans.’’ EPA’s 

September 25, 2009, guidance also 

states that ‘‘until the Agency finalized 

changes to the emergency episode 

regulation to establish for PM2.5 specific 

levels for classifying areas as Priority I, 

IA, or II for PM2.5, and to establish a 

significant harm level (SHL) * * *,’’ it 

recommends that states with a 24-Hour 

PM2.5 concentration above 140 mg/m3

(using the most recent three years of 

data) develop an emergency episode 

plan. For states where this level has not 

been exceeded, the state can certify that 

it has appropriate general emergency 

powers to address PM2.5 related 

episodes, and that no specific 

emergency episode plans are needed at 

this time. On September 19, 2008, 

KYDAQ submitted a letter to EPA 

verifying that it is a Class III Priority 

Area and is exempt from adopting 

emergency episode plan for PM2.5

NAAQS. Kentucky had not previously 

public noticed its certification 

submissions (including the September 

19, 2008, letter) with regard to 

110(a)(2)(G) for the PM2.5 NAAQS. In 

May 2012, Kentucky public noticed its 

certification, and on July 17, 2012, 

submitted the public-noticed 

certification as a supplement to its 

original certification for element 

110(a)(2)(G) for the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for emergency powers related 

to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: 

As previously discussed, DAQ is 

responsible for adopting air quality 

rules and revising SIPs as needed to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS. 

Kentucky has the ability and authority 

to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and 

has provided a number of SIP revisions 

over the years for implementation of the 

PM NAAQS. Specific to the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

Kentucky’s submissions have included: 

• December 3, 2008, Louisville, 

Huntington-Ashland and Cincinnati 

PM2.5 Attainment Demonstrations; 

• February 8, 2012, HuntingtonAshland 1997 Annual PM2.5

Redesignation Request and Maintenance 

Plan; 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
46360 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

• March 5, 2012, Louisville 1997 

Annual PM2.5 Redesignation Request 

and Maintenance Plan; and, 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate a 

commitment to provide future SIP 

revisions related to the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when 

necessary. 

9. 110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) 

Consultation with government officials: 

Kentucky Air Regulations Chapter 50— 

General Administrative Procedures of 

the Kentucky Air Regulations and 

Chapter 51—Attainment and 

Maintenance of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards are responsible 

for consultation with government 

officials whose jurisdictions might be 

affected by SIP development activities. 

More specifically, Kentucky adopted 

state-wide consultation procedures for 

the implementation of transportation 

conformity which includes the 

consideration of the development of 

mobile inventories for SIP development. 

Required partners covered by 

Kentucky’s consultation procedures 

include federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials. EPA approved Kentucky’s 

consultation procedures on September 

15, 2010 (75 FR 55988). Additionally, 

DAQ submitted a regional haze plan 

which outlines its consultation practices 

with Federal Land Managers. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate consultation 

with government officials related to the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS when necessary. 

10. 110(a)(2)(J) (127 public 

notification) Public notification: The 

Commonwealth’s emergency episode 

provisions provide for notification to 

the public when the NAAQS, including 

the PM NAAQS, are exceeded. 

Additionally, the Commonwealth 

reports daily air quality information on 

its state Web site at: http://air.ky.gov/ 

Pages/AirQualityIndexMonitoring.aspx 

to inform the public on the existing air 

quality within the Commonwealth. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the 

Commonwealth’s ability to provide 

public notification related to the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

when necessary. 

11. 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD)PSD and 

visibility protection: Kentucky 

demonstrates its authority to regulate 

new and modified sources of PM to 

assist in the protection of air quality in 

Kentucky. Chapter 51—Attainment and 

Maintenance of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, describes the 

permit requirements for new major 

sources or major modifications of 

existing sources in areas classified as 

attainment or unclassifiable under 

section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the 

CAA. This ensures that sources in areas 

attaining the NAAQS at the time of 

designations prevent any significant 

deterioration in air quality. Chapter 51 

also sets the permitting requirements for 

areas in or around nonattainment areas. 

As with infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(C), infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(J) Kentucky’s SIP does not 

include provisions to meet all the 

requirements for NSR/PSD related to the 

PM2.5 standard. As noted above on July 

3, 2012, Kentucky submitted a letter to 

EPA providing a schedule to address 

outstanding requirements promulgated 

in the NSR PM2.5 Rule related to the 

PM2.5 standard for their PSD program 

and committing to providing the 

necessary SIP revision to address its 

NSR PM2.5 Rule SIP deficiencies. As a 

result, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve Kentucky’s 

infrastructure SIP with respect to 

element 110(a)(2)(J) in accordance with 

section 110(k)(4) of the Act. EPA 

intends to move forward with finalizing 

the conditional approval consistent with 

section 110(k)(4) of the Act. 

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, EPA finds 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 has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

Commonwealth’s ability to implement 

PSD programs and to provide for 

visibility protection related to the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

when necessary. 

12. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and 

modeling/data: Kentucky Air 

Regulations Chapter 50—General 

Administrative Procedures, provides 

Kentucky with the authority to conduct 

air quality modeling and report the 

results of such modeling to EPA. This 

regulation demonstrates that Kentucky 

has the authority to provide relevant 

data for the purpose of predicting the 

effect on ambient air quality of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

Commonwealth’s ability to provide for 

air quality and modeling, along with 

analysis of the associated data, related 

to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. 

13. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: 

Kentucky addresses the review of 

construction permits as previously 

discussed in 110(a)(2)(C) above. 

Permitting fees are collected through the 

Commonwealth’s title V fees program, 

which has been federally approved. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices 

adequately provide for permitting fees 

related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. 

14. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities: 

DAQ coordinates with local 

governments affected by the SIP. 

Kentucky’s SIP also includes a 

description of the public participation 

process for SIP development. Kentucky 

has consulted with local entities for the 

development of transportation 

conformity and has worked with the 

Federal Land Managers as a requirement 

of its regional haze rule. More 

specifically, Kentucky adopted Statewide consultation procedures for the 

implementation of transportation 

conformity which includes the 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIP development and the requirements 

that link transportation planning and air 

quality planning in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. The state and local 

transportation agency officials are most 

directly impacted by transportation 

conformity requirements and have a 

requirement to have public involvement 

for their activities including the analysis 

which shows how they meet 

transportation conformity requirements. 

EPA approved Kentucky’s consultation 

procedures in Chapter 50:066— 

Conformity of transportation plans, 

programs, and projects (Amendment), 

on April 21, 2010 (75 FR 20180). EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Kentucky’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate consultation 

with affected local entities related to the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

As described above, DAQ has 

addressed the elements of the CAA 

110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements 

pursuant to EPA’s October 2, 2007, and 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 46361 

September 25, 2009, guidance to ensure 

that the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in Kentucky. 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

Kentucky’s infrastructure submissions, 

provided to EPA on August 26, 2008, 

and on July 17, 2012, addressed the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS with the exceptions of elements 

(C) and (J) (as related to the PSD 

requirements of this element). 

With respect to element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is today proposing 

to determine that Kentucky’s SIP 

satisfies this infrastructure element 

contingent upon EPA taking final action 

to approve Kentucky’s July 17, 2012, 

submission requesting approval of KRS 

Chapters 11A.020, 11A.030, 11A.040, 

224.10–020 and 224.10–100 into the SIP 

to address sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

Today’s action is also proposing 

approval of KRS Chapters 11A.020, 

11A.030, 11A.040, 224.10–020 and 

224.10–100 into the SIP. 

With respect to elements 110(a)(2)(C) 

and 110(a)(2)(J) relating to the PSD 

requirements, EPA is proposing to 

conditionally approve these 

requirements based upon the 

commitment made by Kentucky to 

submit the requisite SIP revision to 

address the Commonwealth’s current 

NSR PM2.5 Rule SIP deficiencies. 

Consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the 

CAA, if the Commonwealth fails to 

comply with its commitment, this 

proposed condition approval would 

automatically be treated as a 

disapproval of these elements. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the Commonwealth, and EPA 

notes that it will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: July 20, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19017 Filed 8–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0047; FRL–9707–3] 

Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone 

and Fine Particulate Matter 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Nevada to 

address the requirements of section 

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

Act (CAA) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) and the 1997 and 2006 

NAAQS for fine particulate matter 

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

requires that each State adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. On 

February 1, 2008, February 26, 2008, 

September 15, 2009, and December 4, 

2009 the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) 

submitted revisions to Nevada’s SIP, 

which describe the State’s provisions for 

implementing, maintaining, and 

enforcing the standards listed above. On 

July 5, 2012, NDEP submitted a 

supplement to these SIP revisions, 

including certain statutory and 

regulatory provisions. We encourage the 

State to submit a revised SIP to address 

the deficiencies identified in this 

proposal, and we stand ready to work 

with the State to develop a revised plan. 

We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 4, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2011–0047, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: r9_airplanning@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579. 

4. Mail or deliver: Rory Mays (AIR–2), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS