40624 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1See, Comments of Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # EPA– 

R05–OAR–2007–1179 (adverse comments on 

proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes 

that these public comments on another proposal are 

not relevant to this rulemaking and do not have to 

be directly addressed in this rulemaking. EPA will 

respond to these comments in the appropriate 

rulemaking action to which they apply. 

EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI NONREGULATORY SIP PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(54) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Statewide ................... 02/27/2007 07/11/2011, [Insert citation of 

publication].

This action addresses the following CAA elements, as applicable: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), 

(K), (L), and (M). 

[FR Doc. 2011–17253 Filed 7–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0304; FRL–9434–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Kansas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

from the State of Kansas addressing the 

requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA or 

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

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 revisions to the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

ozone. The rationale for this action is 

explained in this notice and in more 

detail in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking for this action. EPA received 

no comments on the proposal. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective August 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–OAR–2011–0304. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(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 through 

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

copy at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 7, in the Air 

Planning and Development Branch of 

the Air and Waste Management 

Division, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that, 

if at all possible, you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection. The interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

office at least 24 hours in advance. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 8 

to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Elizabeth Kramer, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101; telephone number: 

(913) 551–7186; fax number: (913) 551– 

7844; e-mail address: 

kramer.elizabeth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. These sections provide additional 

information on this final action: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Relevant Submissions 

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 30, 2011 (76 FR 17599), 

EPA published a proposed rulemaking 

for the State of Kansas. This rulemaking 

proposed approval of Kansas’ submittals 

dated January 8, 2008 and July 20, 2009 

as meeting the relevant and applicable 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) necessary to implement, 

maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

II. Summary of Relevant Submissions 

The above referenced submittals 

address the infrastructure elements 

specified in CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2). These submittals refer to the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. The rationale supporting EPA’s 

proposed action is explained in the 

proposal and EPA incorporates by 

reference the rationale in the proposal, 

as supplemented by this notice, as its 

rationale for the final rule. No public 

comments were received on the 

proposed rulemaking. 

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 the infrastructure SIP 

submissions.1 The commenters 

specifically raised concerns involving 

provisions in existing SIPs and with 

EPA’s statements that it would address 

two issues separately and not as part of 

actions on the infrastructure SIP 

submissions: (i) existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); and (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that purport to 

permit revisions to SIP approved 

emissions limits with limited public 

process or without requiring further 

approval by EPA, that may be contrary 

to the CAA (‘‘director’s discretion’’). 

EPA notes that there are two other 

substantive issues for which EPA 

likewise stated that it would address the 

issues separately: (i) Existing provisions 

for minor source new source review 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs (‘‘minor source NSR’’); and (ii) 

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 40625 

2For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that 

states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a substantive program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must 

have both legal authority to address emergencies 

and substantive contingency plans in the event of 

such an emergency. 

3For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

EPA to be sure that each state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

other states. This provision contains numerous 

terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in 

order to determine such basic points as what 

constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g., ‘‘Rule 

To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 

Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the 

NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 

2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

4See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63–65 (May 12, 

2005) (explaining relationship between timing 

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

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

5EPA issued separate guidance to states with 

respect to SIP submissions to meet section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. See, ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Continued 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

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

now believes that its statements in 

various proposed actions on 

infrastructure SIPs with respect to these 

four individual issues should be 

explained in greater depth with respect 

to these issues. 

EPA intended the statements in the 

proposals concerning these four issues 

merely to be informational, and to 

provide general notice of the potential 

existence of provisions within the 

existing SIPs of some states that might 

require future corrective action. EPA did 

not want states, regulated entities, or 

members of the public to be under the 

misconception that the Agency’s 

approval of the infrastructure SIP 

submission of a given state should be 

interpreted as a reapproval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist 

buried in the larger existing SIP for such 

state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that 

some states may have existing SIP 

approved SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 

but that ‘‘in this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing State provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at facilities.’’ EPA further 

explained, for informational purposes, 

that ‘‘EPA plans to address such State 

regulations in the future.’’ EPA made 

similar statements, for similar reasons, 

with respect to the director’s discretion, 

minor source NSR, and NSR Reform 

issues. EPA’s objective was to make 

clear that approval of an infrastructure 

SIP for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit reapproval of any existing 

provisions that relate to these four 

substantive issues. 

Unfortunately, the commenters and 

others evidently interpreted these 

statements to mean that EPA considered 

action upon the SSM provisions and the 

other three substantive issues to be 

integral parts of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

therefore that EPA was merely 

postponing taking final action on the 

issue in the context of the infrastructure 

SIPs. This was not EPA’s intention. To 

the contrary, EPA only meant to convey 

its awareness of the potential for certain 

types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, 

and to prevent any misunderstanding 

that it was reapproving any such 

existing provisions. EPA’s intention was 

to convey its position that the statute 

does not require that infrastructure SIPs 

address these specific substantive issues 

in existing SIPs and that these issues 

may be dealt with separately, outside 

the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submission of a state. 

To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply 

that it was not taking a full final agency 

action on the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to any 

substantive issue that EPA considers to 

be a required part of acting on such 

submissions under section 110(k) or 

under section 110(c). Given the 

confusion evidently resulting from 

EPA’s statements, however, we want to 

explain more fully the Agency’s reasons 

for concluding that these four potential 

substantive issues in existing SIPs may 

be addressed separately. 

The requirement for the SIP 

submissions at issue arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). That provision 

requires that states must make a SIP 

submission ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof)’’ and 

that these SIPS are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section 

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

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must meet. EPA has 

historically referred to these particular 

submissions that states must make after 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This 

specific term does not appear in the 

statute, but EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission designed to address basic 

structural requirements of a SIP from 

other types of SIP submissions designed 

to address other different requirements, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ 

submissions required to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required to address the visibility 

protection requirements of CAA section 

169A, new source review permitting 

program submissions required to 

address the requirements of part D, and 

a host of other specific types of SIP 

submissions that address other specific 

matters. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, the list of required elements 

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

wide variety of disparate provisions, 

some of which pertain to required legal 

authority, some of which pertain to 

required substantive provisions, and 

some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive 

provisions.2 Some of the elements of 

section 110(a)(2) are relatively 

straightforward, but others clearly 

require interpretation by EPA through 

rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give 

specific meaning for a particular 

NAAQS.3

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) 

states that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission must 

meet the list of requirements therein, 

EPA has long noted that this literal 

reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent, insofar as section 

110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 

SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP 

submissions in section 110(a)(1).4 This 

illustrates that EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Similarly, EPA has previously decided 

that it could take action on different 

parts of the larger, general 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for a given NAAQS 

without concurrent action on all 

subsections, such as section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency 

bifurcated the action on these latter 

‘‘interstate transport’’ provisions within 

section 110(a)(2) and worked with states 

to address each of the four prongs of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive 

administrative actions proceeding on 

different tracks with different 

schedules.5 This illustrates that EPA 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
40626 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, 

Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006. 

6For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

7See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director, Air 

Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ‘‘2007 

Guidance’’). EPA issued comparable guidance for 

the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy 

Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, dated September 25, 2009 (the ‘‘2009 

Guidance’’). 

8 Id., at page 2. 

9 Id., at attachment A, page 1. 

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

by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to 

some substantive issues indicates that the statute is 

not so ‘‘self explanatory,’’ and indeed is sufficiently 

ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in order 

to explain why these substantive issues do not need 

to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs 

and may be addressed at other times and by other 

means. 

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 

plan. Finally, EPA notes that not every 

element of section 110(a)(2) would be 

relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in 

the same way, for each new or revised 

NAAQS and the attendant infrastructure 

SIP submission for that NAAQS. For 

example, the monitoring requirements 

that might be necessary for purposes of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS 

could be very different than what might 

be necessary for a different pollutant. 

Thus, the content of an infrastructure 

SIP submission to meet this element 

from a state might be very different for 

an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor 

revision to an existing NAAQS.6

Similarly, EPA notes that other types 

of SIP submissions required under the 

statute also must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), and this also 

demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP 

submissions. For example, 

nonattainment SIPs required by part D 

likewise have to meet the relevant 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, 

it is clear that nonattainment SIPs 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part 

C, i.e., the PSD requirement applicable 

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs 

required by part D also would not need 

to address the requirements of section 

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

episodes, as such requirements would 

not be limited to nonattainment areas. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

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

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of 

the statutory language of section 

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

appropriate for EPA to interpret that 

language in the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. 

Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 

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

EPA has adopted an approach in which 

it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 

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

other words, EPA assumes that Congress 

could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the 

NAAQS in question, would meet each 

of the requirements, or meet each of 

them in the same way. EPA elected to 

use guidance to make recommendations 

for infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued 

guidance making recommendations for 

the infrastructure SIP submissions for 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.7 Within this 

guidance document, EPA described the 

duty of states to make these submissions 

to meet what the Agency characterized 

as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements for 

SIPs, which it further described as the 

‘‘basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards.’’ 8 As 

further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, 

‘‘attachment A’’ to the guidance 

document included a short description 

of the various elements of section 

110(a)(2) and additional information 

about the types of issues that EPA 

considered germane in the context of 

such infrastructure SIPs. EPA 

emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment 

A was not intended ‘‘to constitute an 

interpretation of’’ the requirements, and 

was merely a ‘‘brief description of the 

required elements.’’ 9 EPA also stated its 

belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were ‘‘relatively self 

explanatory, and past experience with 

SIPs for other NAAQS should enable 

States to meet these requirements with 

assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 10 For the 

one exception to that general 

assumption, however, i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

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

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much 

more specific recommendations. But for 

other infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

for certain elements of the submittals for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed 

that each state would work with its 

corresponding EPA regional office to 

refine the scope of a State’s submittal 

based on an assessment of how the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) should 

reasonably apply to the basic structure 

of the State’s implementation plan for 

the NAAQS in question. 

Significantly, the 2007 Guidance did 

not explicitly refer to the SSM, 

director’s discretion, minor source NSR, 

or NSR Reform issues as among specific 

substantive issues EPA expected states 

to address in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give 

any more specific recommendations 

with respect to how states might address 

such issues even if they elected to do so. 

The SSM and director’s discretion 

issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and the minor source NSR and NSR 

Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance, 

however, EPA did not indicate to states 

that it intended to interpret these 

provisions as requiring a substantive 

submission to address these specific 

issues in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. 

Instead, EPA’s 2007 Guidance merely 

indicated its belief that the states should 

make submissions in which they 

established that they have the basic SIP 

structure necessary to implement, 

maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA 

believes that states can establish that 

they have the basic SIP structure, 

notwithstanding that there may be 

potential deficiencies within the 

existing SIP. Thus, EPA’s proposals 

mentioned these issues not because the 

Agency considers them issues that must 

be addressed in the context of an 

infrastructure SIP as required by section 

110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because 

EPA wanted to be clear that it considers 

these potential existing SIP problems as 

separate from the pending infrastructure 

SIP actions. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

infrastructure SIP requirement is 

reasonable, because it would not be 

feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 

review of each and every provision of an 

existing SIP merely for purposes of 

assuring that the state in question has 

the basic structural elements for a 

functioning SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by 

accretion over the decades as statutory 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 40627 

11EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a 

specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. 

See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 74 FR 21639 (April 

18, 2011). 

12EPA has recently utilized this authority to 

correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions 

related to PSD programs. See, ‘‘Limitation of 

Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) 

to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

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

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

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

13EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

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

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

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

14Subsequent to this prior approval, updated 

modeling in support of the proposed Transport Rule 

(75 FR 45210) has indicated that emissions from 

Kansas sources significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in downwind areas. 

Therefore, EPA believes that the previously 

approved Kansas SIP may no longer adequately 

address these emissions. Therefore, in a separate 

action, EPA has proposed to find that the SIP 

revision approved on March 9, 2007 is substantially 

inadequate pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If 

EPA finalizes this proposed finding with respect to 

Kansas, EPA also proposed that Kansas would be 

required to revise its SIP to correct these 

deficiencies. See 76 FR 763 (January 6, 2011) for 

more details. 

and regulatory requirements under the 

CAA have evolved, they may include 

some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts that, while not fully 

up to date, nevertheless may not pose a 

significant problem for the purposes of 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of a new or revised 

NAAQS when EPA considers the overall 

effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, 

EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP 

elements from section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a 

given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to 

need a specific SIP revision in light of 

the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for 

example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on 

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

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of 

the absence of underlying EPA 

regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach is a reasonable reading of 

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

statute provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow the 

Agency to take appropriate tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP Call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or otherwise to 

comply with the CAA.11 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.12

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on the infrastructure SIP is not 

the appropriate time and place to 

address all potential existing SIP 

problems does not preclude the 

Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

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

the basis for action at a later time. For 

example, although it may not be 

appropriate to require a state to 

eliminate all existing inappropriate 

director’s discretion provisions in the 

course of acting on the infrastructure 

SIP, EPA believes that section 

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

bases that the Agency cites in the course 

of addressing the issue in a subsequent 

action.13

IV. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

Kansas’ submittals that provide the 

basic program elements to meet the 

applicable requirements in CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D) (ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

As explained in the proposed 

rulemaking, this action does not address 

the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, because it has already been 

addressed in a prior rulemaking. See 72 

FR 10608.14 The scope of this action is 

further discussed in section III, above. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For those 

reasons, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
40628 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 132 / Monday, July 11, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Courtof Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 9, 2011. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review, nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone. 

Dated: June 28, 2011. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart R—Kansas 

■ 2. In § 52.870(e) the table is amended 

by adding an entry in numerical order 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.870 Identification of plan 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KANSAS NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

Applicable 

geographic area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(32) Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 01/08/2008 

07/20/2009 

07/11/2011 [Insert citation of publication].This action addresses the following CAA elements, as applicable: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), 

(L), and (M) 

[FR Doc. 2011–17190 Filed 7–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2010–0423; FRL–8879–2] 

Mevinphos; Data Call-in Order for 

Pesticide Tolerances 

Correction 

In rule document 2011–16355 

appearing on pages 38037–38040 in the 

issue of June 29, 2011, make the 

following correction: 

On page 38039, in the third column, 

in the first full paragraph, in the fifth 

and sixth lines, ‘‘June 29, 2011’’ should 

read ‘‘September 27, 2011’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2011–16355 Filed 7–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 0906261095–1339–03] 

RIN 0648–AX97 

Groundfish Fisheries of the EEZ Off 

Alaska; Pacific Halibut Fisheries; CDQ 

Program; Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands King and Tanner Crab 

Fisheries; Recordkeeping and 

Reporting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this rule to 

revise recordkeeping and reporting 

regulations and make other 

miscellaneous revisions. The revisions 

include adding a requirement that the 

Registered Crab Receiver record in 

eLandings the region in which the 

stationary floating processor is located 

at time of crab delivery; standardizing 

reporting time limits for recording 

discard, disposition, product, and other 

required information in the daily fishing 

logbook, daily cumulative production 

logbook, eLandings, or the electronic 

logbook so that the information 

corresponds with fishing and processing 

operations; incorporating miscellaneous 

edits and corrections to regulatory text 

and tables, including standardizing the 

use of the terms ‘‘recording,’’ 

‘‘submitting,’’ ‘‘landings,’’ and 

‘‘landing;’’ and reinstating regulations 

that were inadvertently removed in a 

previous final rule about locations 

where NMFS will conduct scale 

inspections. This action promotes the 

goals and objectives of the fishery 

management plans, the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, and other applicable 

laws. 

DATES: Effective August 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of this 

rule, the Regulatory Impact Review 

(RIR), and the categorical exclusion 

memorandum prepared for this action 

may be obtained from the Alaska Region 

Web site at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this rule may 

be submitted by mail to NMFS, Alaska 

Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802–1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, 

Records Officer; in person at NMFS, 

Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, 

Room 420A, Juneau, Alaska; and by email to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or by 

fax to 202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patsy A. Bearden, 907–586–7008. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES