31242 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

implementation of the amended PSD 

program and was ending its June 30, 

1982, agreement with EPA to assume 

responsibility for implementing the 

Federal PSD regulations. The letter from 

the MassDEP explained that the 

MassDEP would no longer implement 

the Federal PSD program as of March 3, 

2003. Consequently, as of March 3, 

2003, sources of air pollution located in 

Massachusetts and subject to the 

Federal PSD program were required to 

apply for and receive a PSD permit from 

EPA New England before beginning 

actual construction. 

On June 17, 2003, EPA published a 

Federal Register announcing the 

MassDEP’s decision to end its 

delegation agreement with the EPA and 

explaining the consequences of this 

decision for owners and operators of 

sources that have PSD permits or that 

will need such permits in the future (68 

FR 35881). 

On April 4, 2011, the Commissioner 

of the MassDEP signed a delegation 

agreement under which EPA would 

again delegate responsibility for 

conducting source review under the 

Federal PSD regulations to the 

MassDEP. 

II. Final Action: On April 11, 2011, 

the Regional Administrator of EPA 

Region 1 signed the delegation 

agreement, which is entitled 

‘‘Agreement for Delegation of the 

Federal Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program by the United 

States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 1 to the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental 

Protection,’’ and which sets forth the 

terms and conditions according to 

which the MassDEP agrees to 

implement and enforce the Federal PSD 

program. The Regional Administrator’s 

signature on the delegation agreement 

grants full delegation of the Federal PSD 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 to the 

MassDEP pursuant to the terms and 

conditions of the delegation agreement, 

40 CFR 52.21(u), and the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act. 

Effective on April 11, 2011, all permit 

applications for new or modified major 

sources and all other information 

pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 for sources in 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

and all inquiries regarding the 

implementation of 40 CFR 52.21 in the 

Commonwealth, should be sent directly 

to the MassDEP at the following 

address: Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, One Winter 

Street, Boston, MA, 02108. In addition, 

the MassDEP will assume responsibility 

to administer and enforce all PSD 

permits issued in Massachusetts, 

including those PSD permits already 

issued by EPA. EPA retains authority to 

issue and administer permits in certain 

limited areas of federal jurisdiction 

defined in the delegation agreement, 

and also retains authority to issue a PSD 

permit to Pioneer Valley Energy Center 

(PVEC) in Westfield, Massachusetts. 

Finally, EPA retains certain oversight 

roles regarding federal requirements, 

which are set forth in detail in the 

delegation agreement. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 13, 2011. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12950 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0418; FRL–9249–3] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Santa Barbara 

County Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the Santa Barbara County 

Air Pollution Control District 

(SBCAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on August 2, 2010 and 

concerns oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 

emissions from boilers, steam generators 

and process heaters with a rated heat 

input rate greater than 2 million BTU/ 

hr and less than 5 million BTU/hr and 

internal combustion engines with a 

rated brake horse power of 50 or greater. 

Under authority of the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this 

action simultaneously approves local 

rules that regulates these emission 

sources and directs California to correct 

rule deficiencies. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on June 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0418 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available in 

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

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 942– 

3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45082), 

EPA proposed a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the following 

rules that were submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SBCAPCD ................................................ 361 Small Boilers, Steam Generators and Process 

Heaters.

01/17/08 07/18/08 

SBCAPCD ................................................ 333 Control of Emissions from Reciprocating Internal 

Combustion Engines.

06/19/08 10/20/08 

We proposed a limited approval 

because we determined that these rules 

improve the SIP and are largely 

consistent with the relevant CAA 

requirements. We simultaneously 

proposed a limited disapproval because 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31243 

some rule provisions conflict with 

section 110 and part D of the Act. These 

provisions include the following: 

The following provisions in Rule 361 

conflict with section 110(a) the Act and 

prevent full approval of the SIP 

revision. 

1. Section F.3 defines the length of the 

startup and shutdown intervals as ‘‘not 

last[ing] longer than is necessary to 

reach stable temperatures and 

conditions.’’ This leads to enforceability 

concerns due to the lack of specificity 

of the duration of these periods. The 

duration of these periods should be 

further specified. 

2. Section G.4 states that 

documentation of fuel sulfur content 

must be kept as a record. The type of 

documentation required should be 

specified in the rule. 

The following provisions in Rule 333 

conflict with section 110(a) the Act and 

prevent full approval of the SIP 

revision. 

1. Rule 333 includes various 

provisions allowing for APCO discretion 

without having explicit and replicable 

procedures that define how the 

discretion will be exercised to assure 

emission reductions. 

2. Section F.3 indicates that portable 

analyzer reading in excess of the 

emission limits triggers another reading 

in 15 days and monthly readings for 3 

months. These high portable analyzers 

readings should instead trigger a source 

test within 60 days of the excess 

emission reading. 

3. Section I.1 indicates that source 

tests shall be performed at the engine’s 

maximum load or under the engines’ 

typical duty cycle as demonstrated by 

historical operation data. This should be 

constrained to the engine’s maximum 

load or conditions specified in the 

Permit to Operate. The option for testing 

at the engine’s typical duty cycle should 

be further defined and justified. 

EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rules but that are not the basis for 

disapproval at this time. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rules as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in sections 

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 

finalizing a limited approval of the 

submitted rules. This action 

incorporates the submitted rules into 

the California SIP, including those 

provisions identified as deficient. As 

authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA 

is simultaneously finalizing a limited 

disapproval of the rule. If this 

disapproval is finalized, no sanctions 

will be imposed under section 179 of 

the Act because SBCAPCD is not 

required to have these rules in the 

applicable SIP. A final disapproval 

would also not trigger the 2-year clock 

for the federal implementation plan 

(FIP) requirement under section 110(c). 

Note that the submitted rules have been 

adopted by the SBCAPCD, and EPA’s 

final limited disapproval does not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals and 

limited approvals/limited disapprovals 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act do not create any 

new requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because this 

limited approval/limited disapproval 

action does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the limited 

approval/limited disapproval action 

promulgated 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 

Federal action approves 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 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
31244 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule 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 approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

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 rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (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 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

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 

rulemaking. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

will be effective on June 30, 2011. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by August 1, 2011. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 14, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(359)(i)(E) and 

(361)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(359) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) Santa Barbara County Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 361, ‘‘Small Boilers, Steam 

Generators and Process Heaters,’’ 

adopted on January 17, 2008. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(361) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 31245 

(2) Rule 333, ‘‘Control of Emissions 

from Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines,’’ adopted on June 19, 2008. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–13273 Filed 5–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0504–201052; FRL– 

9312–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Extension of 

Attainment Date for the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Moderate Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve requests from the State of North 

Carolina, through the North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (NC DENR), and the State of 

South Carolina, through the South 

Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC), to 

grant a one-year extension of the 

attainment date for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North CarolinaSouth Carolina Area (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte Area’’ or 

‘‘Metrolina Area’’). These requests were 

sent to EPA via letter from NC DENR on 

April 28, 2010, and from SC DHEC on 

May 6, 2010. The bi-state Charlotte Area 

consists of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, 

Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a 

portion of Iredell County (Davidson and 

Coddle Creek Townships), North 

Carolina; and a portion of York County, 

South Carolina. EPA is finalizing a 

determination that North Carolina and 

South Carolina have met the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) requirements to obtain 

a one-year extension to their attainment 

date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for the bi-state Charlotte Area. As a 

result, EPA is approving a one-year 

extension of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

moderate attainment date for the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. Specifically, EPA 

(through this final action) is extending 

the bi-state Charlotte Area’s attainment 

date from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 

2011. EPA is also addressing adverse 

comments received on EPA’s proposal 

to grant the one-year extension for the 

bi-state Charlotte 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective June 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0504. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 

Business Information or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

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: For 

information regarding the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, contact Ms. Jane Spann, 

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 for Ms. Spann is 

(404) 562–9029. Ms. Spann can also be 

reached via electronic mail at 

spann.jane@epa.gov. For information 

regarding the North Carolina or South 

Carolina SIPs, contact Mr. Zuri 

Farngalo, Regulatory Development 

Section, at the same address above. The 

telephone number for Mr. Farngalo is 

(404) 562–9152. Mr. Farngalo can also 

be reached via electronic mail at 

farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. This Action 

III. Comments and Responses 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Detailed background information and 

rationale for this final action can be 

found in EPA’s proposed rule entitled 

‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Extension of 

Attainment Date for the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North CarolinaSouth Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Moderate Nonattainment Area,’’ 75 FR 

46881 (August 4, 2010). The comment 

period for EPA’s proposed action closed 

on September 3, 2010. EPA received 

three sets of comments on the August 4, 

2010, proposed rulemaking which are 

discussed later in this rulemaking. This 

section includes a brief summary of the 

information and rationale for EPA’s 

proposed approval of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area’s one-year extension. 

Section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the 

Administrator, within six months of the 

attainment date, to determine whether 

an ozone nonattainment area attained 

the NAAQS. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) 

states that, for areas classified as 

marginal, moderate, or serious, if the 

Administrator determines that the area 

did not attain the standard by its 

attainment date, the area must be 

reclassified to the next classification. 

However, CAA section 181(a)(5) 

provides an exemption from these 

reclassification requirements. Under 

this provision, EPA may grant up to two 

one-year extensions of the attainment 

date under specified conditions. 

Specifically, in relevant part, section 

181(a)(5) states: 

Upon application by any State, the 

Administrator may extend for 1 

additional year (hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Extension Year’’) the date 

specified in table 1 of paragraph (1) of 

this subsection if— 

(A) The State has complied with all 

requirements and commitments 

pertaining to the area in the applicable 

implementation plan, and 

(B) no more than 1 exceedance of the 

national ambient air quality standard 

level for ozone has occurred in the area 

in the year preceding the Extension 

Year. 

With regard to the first element, 

‘‘applicable implementation plan’’ is 

defined in section 302(q) of the CAA as, 

the portion (or portions) of the 

implementation plan, or most recent 

revision thereof, which has been 

approved under section 110, or 

promulgated under section 110(c), or 

promulgated or approved pursuant to 

regulations promulgated under section 

301(d) and which implements the 

relevant requirements of the CAA. 

The language in section 181(a)(5)(B) 

reflects the form of the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, which is exceedance based and 

does not reflect the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, which is concentration based. 

Because section 181(a)(5)(B) does not 

reflect the form of the 8-hour NAAQS, 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES