47062 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, 

and effective September 15, 2010, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designations 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

The Rule 

This amendment to Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 

amends Class E surface airspace to 

support new standard instrument 

approach procedures developed at 

Lakeland Linder Regional Airport, 

Lakeland, FL. Airspace reconfiguration 

is necessary due to the 

decommissioning of the Plant City NDB 

and cancellation of the NDB approach, 

and for continued safety and 

management of IFR operations at the 

airport. This action also updates the 

geographic coordinates of Lake Linder 

Regional, Plant City Municipal, and 

Winter Haven’s Gilbert Airports to 

coincide with the FAA’s aeronautical 

database. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current, is non-controversial and 

unlikely to result in adverse or negative 

comments. It, therefore, (1) Is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. 

Under that section, the FAA is charged 

with prescribing regulations to assign 

the use of airspace necessary to ensure 

the safety of aircraft and the efficient 

use of airspace. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority as it 

amends Class E airspace at Lakeland, 

FL. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9U, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective 

September 15, 2010, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL E5 Lakeland, FL [Amended] 

Lakeland Linder Regional Airport, FL 

(Lat. 27°59′20′′ N., long. 82°01′07′′ W.) 

Bartow Municipal Airport 

(Lat. 27°56′36′′ N., long. 81°47′00′′ W.) 

Plant City Municipal Airport 

(Lat. 28°00′01′′ N., long. 82°09′48′′ W. 

Winter Haven’s Gilbert Airport 

(Lat. 28°03′47′′ N., long. 81°45′12′′ W.) 

Lakeland VORTAC 

(Lat. 27°59′10′′ N., long. 82°00′50′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius 

of Lakeland Linder Regional Airport, and 

within a 6.7-mile radius of Bartow Municipal 

Airport, and within a 6.6-mile radius of Plant 

City Municipal Airport, and within 3.5 miles 

each side of the 266° bearing from the Plant 

City Airport extending from the 6.6-mile 

radius to 7.5 miles west of the airport, and 

within a 6.5-mile radius of Winter Haven’s 

Gilbert Airport, and within 2.5 miles each 

side of the Lakeland VORTAC 071° radial, 

extending from the 7-mile radius to Winter 

Haven’s Gilbert Airport 6.5-mile radius. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 19, 

2011. 

Mark D. Ward, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2011–19166 Filed 8–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0157; FRL–9447–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving submittals 

from the State of West Virginia pursuant 

to the Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 

110(k)(2) and (3). These submittals 

address the infrastructure elements 

specified in the CAA section 110(a)(2), 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This final 

rule is limited to the following 

infrastructure elements which were 

subject to EPA’s completeness findings 

pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1) for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS dated 

March 27, 2008 and the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS dated October 22, 2008: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions 

thereof. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on September 6, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0157. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the electronic 

docket, 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 for public inspection during 

normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47063 

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 did 

receive specific adverse comments in this action 

that are discussed in more detail in section IV. 

57th Street SE, Charleston, West 

Virginia 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

e-mail at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. 

I. Background 

On May 17, 2010 (75 FR 27510), EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West 

Virginia. The NPR proposed approval of 

West Virginia’s submittals that provide 

the basic program elements specified in 

the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

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

(M), or portions thereof, necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The formal 

submittals by the State of West Virginia 

on December 3, 2007, May 21, 2008, and 

October 1, 2009 addressed the section 

110(a)(2) requirements for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS; the submittals 

dated April 3, 2008, May 21, 2008, 

October 1, 2009, and March 18, 2010 

addressed the section 110(a)(2) 

requirements for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS; and the submittals dated 

October 1, 2009 and March 18, 2010 

addressed the section 110(a)(2) 

requirements for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

II. Scope of Action on Infrastructure 

Submissions 

EPA is currently acting upon State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

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.1 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. EPA notes that 

there are two other substantive issues 

for which EPA likewise stated in other 

proposals that it would address the 

issues separately: (i) Existing provisions 

for minor source new source review 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

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

existing provisions for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration programs that 

may be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ (67 FR 80186, 

December 31, 2002), as amended by the 

NSR Reform Rule (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. 

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 EPA’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 we 

believe 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 in those proposals, 

however, we want to explain more fully 

EPA’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’’ 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
47064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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

states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

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

that states must have a substantive program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of the 

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

have both legal authority to address emergencies 

and substantive contingency plans in the event of 

such an emergency. 

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

EPA to be sure that each state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

other states. This provision contains numerous 

terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in 

order to determine such basic points as what 

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

To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 

Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the 

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

2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

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

2005) (explaining relationship between timing 

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

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

5EPA issued separate guidance to states with 

respect to SIP submissions to meet section 

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

NAAQS. See, ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

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

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, 

Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006. 

6For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

7See, ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

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

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

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

Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 

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

Guidance’’). 

8 Id., at page 2. 

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 EPA bifurcated 

the action on these latter ‘‘interstate 

transport’’ provisions within section 

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

address each of the four prongs of 

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

administrative actions proceeding on 

different tracks with different 

schedules.5 This illustrates that EPA 

may conclude that subdividing the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may 

sometimes be appropriate for a given 

NAAQS where a specific substantive 

action is necessitated, beyond a mere 

submission addressing basic structural 

aspects of the state’s SIP. Finally, EPA 

notes that not every element of section 

110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as 

relevant, or relevant in the same way, 

for each new or revised NAAQS and the 

attendant infrastructure SIP submission 

for that NAAQS. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that might be 

necessary for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be 

very different than what might be 

necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, 

the content of an infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element from a 

state might be very different for an 

entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor 

revision to an existing NAAQS.6

Similarly, EPA notes that other types 

of SIP submissions required under the 

statute also must meet the requirements 

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

demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP 

submissions. For example, 

nonattainment SIPs required by part D 

likewise have to meet the relevant 

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

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

it is clear that nonattainment SIPs 

would not need to meet the portion of 

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

C, i.e., the PSD 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 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 EPA 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 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47065 

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. 

11See, ‘‘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’’). 

12EPA 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). 

13EPA 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-Emitting 

Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

(75 FR 82536, Dec. 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove 

numerous other SIP provisions that EPA 

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). 

14EPA 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 42342–42344, 

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

discretion provisions); (76 FR 4540, Jan. 26, 2011) 

(final disapproval of such provisions). 

required elements.’’ 9 EPA also stated its 

belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were ‘‘relatively self 

explanatory, and past experience with 

SIPs for other NAAQS should enable 

states to meet these requirements with 

assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 10 For the 

one exception to that general 

assumption, however, i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

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

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA gave much 

more specific recommendations. But for 

other infrastructure SIP submittals, and 

for certain elements of the submittals for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed 

that each state would work with its 

corresponding EPA regional office to 

refine the scope of a state’s submittal 

based on an assessment of how the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) should 

reasonably apply to the basic structure 

of the state’s SIP for the NAAQS in 

question. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.11 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, 

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 other 

proposals mentioned these issues not 

because EPA considers them issues that 

must be addressed in the context of an 

infrastructure SIP as required by section 

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

EPA wanted to be clear that it considers 

these potential existing SIP problems as 

separate from the pending infrastructure 

SIP actions. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

infrastructure SIP requirement is 

reasonable, because it would not be 

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

to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 

review of each and every provision of an 

existing SIP merely for purposes of 

assuring that the state in question has 

the basic structural elements for a 

functioning SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by 

accretion over the decades as statutory 

and regulatory requirements under the 

CAA have evolved, they may include 

some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts that, while not fully 

up to date, nevertheless may not pose a 

significant problem for the purposes of 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of a new or revised 

NAAQS when EPA considers the overall 

effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, 

EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP 

elements from section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a 

given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to 

need a specific SIP revision in light of 

the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for 

example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on 

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

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of 

the absence of underlying EPA 

regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach is a reasonable reading of 

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

statute provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow EPA 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 EPA 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.12

Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to 

correct errors in past actions, such as 

past approvals of SIP submissions.13

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 EPA’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 EPA cites in the 

course of addressing the issue in a 

subsequent action.14

EPA’s proposed approval of the 

infrastructure SIP submissions from 

West Virginia predated the actions on 

the submissions of other states and thus 

occurred before EPA decided to provide 

the informational statements concerning 

the SSM, director’s discretion, minor 

source NSR, and NSR Reform issues as 

specific substantive issues that EPA was 

not addressing in this context. However, 

EPA determined that these four issues 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
47066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

should be addressed, as appropriate, 

separately from the action on the 

infrastructure SIPs for this state for the 

same reasons. Given this determination, 

EPA did not address these substantive 

issues in the prior proposals. 

Accordingly, EPA emphasizes that 

today’s action should not be construed 

as a reapproval of any potential 

problematic provisions related to these 

substantive issues that may be buried 

within the existing SIP of this state. To 

the extent that there is any such existing 

problematic provision that EPA 

determines should be addressed, EPA 

plans to address such provisions in the 

future. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state that may have a 

deficient provision related to these 

issues to take steps to correct it as soon 

as possible. 

III. Summary of SIP Revision 

The submittals referenced in the 

Background section above address the 

infrastructure elements specified in the 

CAA section 110(a)(2). These submittals 

refer to the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

1997 8-hour ozone, the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The rationale supporting EPA’s 

proposed action is explained in the NPR 

and the technical support document 

(TSD) and will not be restated here. EPA 

is also revising the portion of the TSD 

relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) in 

order to provide a more accurate and 

detailed explanation of the rationale 

supporting EPA’s approval. The TSD is 

available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0157. Finally, on 

June 16, 2010, EPA received comments 

on its May 17, 2010 NPR. A summary 

of the comments submitted and EPA’s 

responses are provided in Section IV of 

this document. 

IV. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: The commenter objected 

generally to EPA’s proposed approval of 

the infrastructure SIP submissions on 

the grounds that the existing West 

Virginia SIP contains provisions 

addressing excess emissions during 

periods of SSM that do not meet the 

requirements of the CAA. The 

commenter argued that even though the 

SIP revision that EPA proposed to 

approve in this action did not contain 

the provisions to which the commenter 

objects, the presence of existing startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction provisions 

in West Virginia’s SIP that are contrary 

to the CAA compromise the State’s 

ability to ensure compliance with the 

PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS. The 

commenter specifically objected to 

EPA’s proposed approval because of 

existing provisions of the West Virginia 

SIP that pertain to opacity limits 

applicable to certain indirect heat 

exchanger sources. According to the 

commenter, these provisions allow 

exceedences of the otherwise applicable 

opacity standards during SSM events. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s view that if a state’s 

existing SIP contains any arguably 

illegal existing SSM provision, then 

EPA cannot approve the infrastructure 

SIP submission of that state. As 

discussed in more detail in section II of 

this final rulemaking, EPA does not 

agree that an action upon the 

infrastructure SIP required by section 

110(a)(1) and (2) requires that EPA 

address any existing SSM provisions. 

EPA shares the commenter’s concerns 

that certain existing SSM provisions 

may be contrary to the CAA and existing 

EPA guidance, and that such provisions 

can have an adverse impact on air 

quality control efforts in a given state. 

EPA plans to address such provisions in 

the future, as appropriate, and in the 

meantime encourages any state having a 

deficient SSM provision to take steps to 

correct it as soon as possible. EPA is not 

evaluating the merits of the 

commenter’s claims with respect to the 

particular provisions identified in the 

comments in this action because EPA 

considers these to be beyond the scope 

of this action. 

Comment: The commenter also 

objected to EPA’s proposed approval of 

the infrastructure SIP submission 

because of existing provisions of the 

West Virginia SIP that pertain to opacity 

standards applicable to hot mix asphalt 

sources. According to the commenter, 

these provisions enable the sources to 

have higher opacity during SSM events 

and that such provisions do not meet 

EPA guidance with respect to such 

higher limits in order to minimize 

excess emissions. The commenter 

argued that because the emissions limits 

at issue are part of the existing SIP, the 

state should be required to remove the 

provisions unless they meet certain 

criteria. 

Response: As stated in the previous 

response, EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s view that if a state’s 

existing SIP contains any arguably 

illegal existing SSM provision, then 

EPA cannot approve the infrastructure 

SIP submission of that state. As 

discussed in more detail in section II of 

this final rulemaking, EPA does not 

agree that an action upon the 

infrastructure SIP required by section 

110(a)(1) and (2) requires that EPA 

address any existing SSM provisions. 

EPA is not evaluating the merits of the 

commenter’s claims with respect to the 

particular provisions identified in the 

comments in this action because EPA 

considers these to be beyond the scope 

of this action. 

Comment: The commenter asserted 

that the existing West Virginia SIP 

needs to be strengthened with respect to 

specific ‘‘affirmative defense’’ 

provisions applicable to indirect heat 

exchanger sources during malfunctions. 

The commenter stated that the 

provisions in question conform to EPA 

guidance ‘‘in some respects,’’ but argued 

that the provisions do not meet all of the 

recommendations of EPA guidance and 

provided its views as to how the 

provisions should be revised. The 

commenter argued that such provisions 

are necessary to ‘‘ensure compliance 

with the PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s view that if a state’s 

existing SIP contains any arguably 

illegal existing SSM provision, 

including a provision that includes an 

‘‘affirmative defense’’ during 

malfunctions that may not fully comply 

with EPA’s policy for such defenses, 

then EPA cannot approve the 

infrastructure SIP submission of that 

state. As discussed in more detail in 

section IV of this final rulemaking, EPA 

does not agree that an action upon the 

infrastructure SIP required by section 

110(a)(1) and (2) requires that EPA 

address any existing SSM provisions. 

This would include reviewing any 

affirmative defense provisions that 

relate to excess emissions during SSM 

events. EPA is not evaluating the merits 

of the commenter’s claims with respect 

to the particular provisions identified in 

the comments in this action because 

EPA considers these to be beyond the 

scope of this action. 

Comment: In addition to more general 

concerns about the impacts of excess 

emissions during SSM events, the 

commenter specifically expressed 

concern that such emissions could have 

impacts contrary to the CAA ‘‘whether 

in the State of West Virginia, or 

elsewhere downwind.’’ Thus, the 

commenter argued that such provisions 

would be contrary to both section 

‘‘110(a)(2)(A) and (D).’’ EPA presumes 

that the commenter’s reference to ‘‘D’’ 

was intended to be a reference to the 

interstate transport provisions of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), given the context of 

the statements about impacts of 

emissions on attainment of the NAAQS 

in other states. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter’s assertion. First, as was 

explained in the proposed action, EPA 

is not addressing the requirement of 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 47067 

section 110(a)(D)(i) in these actions. 

Therefore, the comment is not germane 

to this action. Second, the commenter 

did not provide support for the 

contention that excess emissions during 

such events do have the impacts on 

other states prohibited by section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). At this time, EPA does 

not have information indicating that 

such excess emissions could have such 

impacts on any areas. Absent 

information indicating such impacts, 

EPA believes that there is no factual 

basis for the commenter’s contention. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is approving the State of West 

Virginia’s submittals that provide the 

basic program elements specified in the 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

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

(M), or portions thereof, necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to West 

Virginia’s SIP. 

EPA made completeness findings for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on 

March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205) and on 

October 22, 2008 (73 FR 62902) for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These findings 

pertained only to whether the 

submissions were complete, pursuant to 

section 110(k)(1)(A), and did not 

constitute EPA approval or disapproval 

of such submissions. The March 27, 

2008 (73 FR 16205) action made a 

completeness finding that the West 

Virginia submittals of December 3, 2007 

and April 3, 2008 addressed some but 

not all of the 110(a)(2) requirements. 

Specifically, EPA found that West 

Virginia failed to address sections 

110(a)(2)(B), (E)(i), (G) (with respect to 

authority comparable to section 303), 

(H) and (J) (relating to public 

notification under section 127), (M), and 

Part C PSD permit program required by 

the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612, 

page 71699) final rule that made 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) a precursor for 

ozone in the Part C regulations found in 

40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21. The 

May 21, 2008 West Virginia submittal, 

described above and in the technical 

support document, addressed these 

findings, with the exception of the Part 

C PSD. 

EPA has taken separate action on the 

portions of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as 

they relate to West Virginia’s PSD 

permit program. With respect to this 

permit program, on November 29, 2005 

(70 FR 71612), EPA promulgated a 

change that made NOX a precursor for 

ozone in the Part C regulations at 40 

CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21. In the 

March 27, 2008 completeness findings, 

EPA determined that while West 

Virginia had an approved PSD program 

in its SIP codified at 40 CFR 52.2520, 

West Virginia’s regulation, 45CSR14, 

did not fully incorporate NOX as a 

precursor for ozone. On July 20, 2009, 

West Virginia submitted revisions to 

45CSR14 to include NOX as a precursor 

for ozone. EPA has approved this PSD 

SIP revision and element 110(a)(2)(C) as 

it pertains to the PSD permit program 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was 

addressed in this separate action. A 

notice of proposed rulemaking was 

published on December 17, 2010 (75 FR 

78949) and a final rulemaking notice 

was published on May 27, 2011 (76 FR 

30832). 

Two 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 are due at the time 

the nonattainment area plan 

requirements are due pursuant to 

section 172. These elements are: (i) 

Submissions required by section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection 

pertains to a permit program in Part D 

Title I of the CAA; and (ii) any 

submissions required by section 

110(a)(2)(I), which pertain to the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

Part D Title I of the CAA. This action 

does not cover these specific elements. 

This action also does not address the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. A 

portion of these 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

requirements have been addressed by 

separate findings issued by EPA (see (70 

FR 21147, April 25, 2005); (75 FR 

32673, June 9, 2010); and (75 FR 45210, 

August 2, 2010)). A portion of these 

requirements are addressed through 

110(a)(2) SIP submittals, which EPA 

will be addressing through separate 

action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
47068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by October 3, 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 

pertaining to West Virginia’s section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: July 22, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

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 XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding entries at the 

end of the table for Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, Section 

110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and Section 

110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

amendments read as follows: 

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

Applicable 

geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 12/3/07, 5/21/08 8/4/11 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the following CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), 

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

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

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 4/3/08, 5/21/08, 

7/9/08, 3/18/10 

8/4/11 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the following CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), 

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

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

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 10/1/09, 3/18/10 8/4/11 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

This action addresses the following CAA elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), 

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

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

[FR Doc. 2011–19692 Filed 8–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0158; FRL–9447–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Delaware; Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 

2006 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving submittals 

from the State of Delaware pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 

110(k)(2) and (3). These submittals 

address the infrastructure elements 

specified in the CAA section 110(a)(2), 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. This final 

rule is limited to the following 

infrastructure elements which were 

subject to EPA’s completeness findings 

pursuant to CAA section (k)(1) for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS dated March 

27, 2008 and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

dated October 22, 2008: 110(a)(2)(A), 

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

(L), and (M), or portions thereof. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on September 6, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0158. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

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://regulations.gov or in hard copy 

for public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Delaware Department of 

Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 

1401, Dover, Delaware 19903. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814–2034, or by 

e-mail at wentworth.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES