1680 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0863; FRL–9250–01– 

OAR] 

Findings of Failure To Submit State 

Implementation Plan Revisions in 

Response to the 2015 Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Calls 

To Amend Provisions Applying To 

Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final action. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

find that 12 States and local air 

pollution control agencies failed to 

submit State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions required by the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) in a timely manner to address 

EPA’s 2015 findings of substantial 

inadequacy and ‘‘SIP calls’’ for 

provisions applying to excess emissions 

during periods of startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction (SSM). This action 

triggers certain CAA deadlines for the 

EPA to impose sanctions if a State does 

not submit a complete SIP revision 

addressing the outstanding 

requirements and to promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if the 

EPA does not approve the State’s 

submission as a SIP revision. 

DATES: This action is effective February 

11, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General questions concerning this 

notice should be addressed to, Erin 

Lowder, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Air Quality Policy 

Division, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; by 

telephone (919) 541–5421; or by email 

at lowder.erin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. How is the preamble organized? 

The information presented in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. How is the preamble organized? 

B. Notice and Comment Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

C. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

D. Where do I go if I have specific air 

agency questions? 

II. Background 

III. Consequences of Findings of Failure To 

Submit 

IV. Findings of Failure To Submit for Air 

Agencies That Failed To Make a SIP 

Submittal To Address EPA’s 2015 SIP 

Calls for Provisions Applying To Excess 

Emissions During SSM Periods 

V. Environmental Justice Considerations 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Executive Order 13563: 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low Income Populations 

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

M. Judicial Review 

B. Notice and Comment Under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when 

an agency for good cause finds that 

notice and public procedures are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, the agency may 

issue a rule without providing notice 

and an opportunity for public comment. 

The EPA has determined that there is 

good cause for making this final agency 

action without prior proposal and 

opportunity for comment because no 

significant EPA judgment is involved in 

making findings of failure to submit 

SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by 

the Clean Air Act (CAA), where states 

have made no submissions to meet the 

requirement. As is discussed in further 

detail later, pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(1)(B), the EPA ‘‘shall determine’’ 

no later than 6 months after the date by 

which a state is required to submit a SIP 

whether a state has made a submission 

that meets the minimum completeness 

criteria established pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(1)(A). EPA exercises no 

significant judgment in making a 

determination that a state failed to make 

a submission and subsequently issuing 

a finding of failure to submit. Thus, 

notice and public procedures are 

unnecessary to take this action. The 

EPA finds that this constitutes good 

cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). 

C. How can I get copies of this 

document and other related 

information? 

The EPA has established a docket for 

this action under Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2021–0863. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, 

William Jefferson Clinton Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC. Out of an 

abundance of caution for members of 

the public and our staff, the EPA Docket 

Center and Reading Room are closed to 

the public, with limited exceptions, to 

reduce the risk of transmitting COVID– 

19. Our Docket Center staff will 

continue to provide remote customer 

service via email, phone, and webform. 

The telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744 and 

the telephone number for the Office of 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center is (202) 566–1742. 

For further information on EPA Docket 

Center services and the current status, 

please visit us online at https://

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

D. Where do I go if I have specific air 

agency questions? 

For questions related to specific air 

agencies mentioned in this notice, 

please contact the appropriate EPA 

Regional Office: 

Regional offices Air agencies 

EPA Region 1: Mr. John Rogan, Chief, Air Program Branch, EPA Region 1, 5 

Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109. rogan.john@epa.gov.

Rhode Island. 

EPA Region 3: Mr. Mike Gordon, Chief, Planning and Implementation Branch, 

EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. gordon.mike@

epa.gov.

District of Columbia. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 1681 

1State Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of 

EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of 

Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend 

Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During 

Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction, 80 

FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). 

2For convenience, the EPA refers to ‘‘air 

agencies’’ in this action collectively when meaning 

to refer in general to states, the District of Columbia, 

and local air permitting authorities that are 

currently administering, or may in the future 

administer, EPA-approved implementation plans. 

3Environ. Comm. Fl. Elec. Power v. EPA, et al., 

No. 15–1239 (D.C. Cir.) (and consolidated cases). 

4Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 20–1115 

(D.C. Cir. Apr. 7, 2020); Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, 

et al., No. 20–1229 (D.C. Cir. June 29, 2020); Sierra 

Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 21–1022 (D.C. Cir. 

January 2021). 

Regional offices Air agencies 

EPA Region 4: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303. benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.

Alabama; North Carolina—Forsyth; Tennessee—Shelby 

(Memphis). 

EPA Region 5: Mr. Doug Aburano, Manager, Air Program Branch, EPA Region 5, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. aburano.douglas@epa.gov.

Illinois; Ohio. 

EPA Region 6: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Program Branch, EPA Region 6, 

1201 Elm Street, Dallas, TX 75270. donaldson.guy@epa.gov.

Arkansas. 

EPA Region 8: Mr. Scott Jackson, Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD–QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202. jackson.scott@epa.gov.South Dakota. 

EPA Region 9: Ms. Doris Lo, Manager, Rules Office, Air and Radiation Division, 

EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. lo.doris@

epa.gov.

California—San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

(APCD). 

EPA Region 10: Ms. Debra Suzuki, Chief, Air Program Branch, EPA Region 10, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. suzuki.debra@epa.gov.

Washington—Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 

(EFSEC); Washington—Southwest Clean Air Agency 

(SWCAA). 

II. Background 

On June 12, 2015, the EPA finalized 

an action (2015 SSM SIP Action), which 

clarified, restated, and updated EPA’s 

national policy regarding SSM 

provisions in SIPs (2015 Policy).1 The 

2015 Policy explained the EPA’s 

interpretation of certain CAA 

requirements, affirming that SSM 

exemption provisions (e.g., automatic 

exemptions, discretionary exemptions, 

and overly broad enforcement discretion 

provisions) and affirmative defense SIP 

provisions are generally viewed as 

inconsistent with CAA requirements. At 

the same time, pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(5), the EPA issued findings of 

substantial inadequacy for SIP 

provisions applying to excess emissions 

during SSM periods for 36 states that 

were applicable in 45 statewide and 

local jurisdictions (air agencies).2 As 

part of the 2015 SSM SIP Action, the 

EPA also issued a ‘‘SIP call’’ (2015 SIP 

Call) to each of those 45 air agencies. 

The 2015 SIP Call required air agencies 

to adopt and submit revisions to the 

EPA to correct identified SSM-related 

deficiencies in their SIPs by November 

22, 2016. The 2015 SSM SIP Action also 

responded to a petition for rulemaking 

alleging specific deficiencies related to 

SSM provisions in existing SIPs. On 

July 27, 2015, the 2015 SSM SIP Action 

was challenged in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit.3

In 2017, the EPA requested that the 

pending litigation on the final 2015 

SSM SIP Action be held in abeyance to 

allow the new administration time to 

review the action. In 2020, Regions 4, 6, 

and 7 took final actions that were 

inconsistent with the 2015 Policy and 

the EPA withdrew the corresponding 

SIP calls previously issued to Texas, 

North Carolina, and Iowa. These statespecific actions are the subject of 

pending litigation.4 Moreover, in 

alignment with the SIP call withdrawals 

for Texas, North Carolina, and Iowa, the 

EPA issued a Memorandum in October 

2020 (2020 Memorandum), which 

established a new national policy that 

permitted the inclusion of certain 

provisions governing SSM periods in 

SIPs, including those related to 

exemptions and affirmative defenses. 

Importantly, the 2020 Memorandum 

was not a regulatory action and did not 

alter or withdraw the 2015 SIP Call for 

any of the 45 air agencies identified in 

the 2015 SSM SIP Action. The 2020 

Memorandum did, however, indicate 

the EPA’s intent at the time to review 

the remaining SIP calls that were issued 

in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to 

determine whether the EPA should 

maintain, modify, or withdraw 

particular SIP calls through future 

agency actions. 

On September 30, 2021, the EPA 

issued a Memorandum (2021 

Memorandum) that announced a 

withdrawal of the 2020 Memorandum 

and EPA’s intent to return to the 2015 

Policy and implement it fully. As 

previously articulated in the 2015 

Policy, the 2021 Memorandum states 

that SSM exemption provisions and 

affirmative defense provisions included 

in SIPs will generally be viewed as 

inconsistent with CAA requirements. 

As part of the reinstatement of the 

2015 Policy, the EPA intends to 

implement the pending SIP calls, which 

remain in place from the 2015 SSM SIP 

Action. Pursuant to CAA section 

110(k)(1)(B), the EPA must determine no 

later than 6 months after the date by 

which a state is required to submit a SIP 

whether a state has made a submission 

that meets the minimum completeness 

criteria established pursuant to CAA 

section 110(k)(1)(A). These criteria are 

set forth at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 

The EPA refers to the determination that 

a state has not submitted a SIP 

submission that meets the minimum 

completeness criteria, or has not 

submitted a SIP at all, as a ‘‘finding of 

failure to submit.’’ 

For the 2015 SIP Call, as previously 

discussed, SIP submissions were due by 

November 22, 2016. The EPA’s 

determinations of whether air agencies 

made submittals were therefore due on 

May 22, 2017. The EPA has neither 

made such determinations nor issued 

findings of failure to submit. 

Accordingly, the EPA is now issuing 

findings of failure to submit to the 12 air 

agencies that, as of the date of this 

action, had not submitted SIPs 

responding to the SIP call: Alabama, 

Arkansas, California—San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

(APCD), District of Columbia, Illinois, 

Ohio, North Carolina—Forsyth County, 

Rhode Island, South Dakota, 

Tennessee—Shelby County, 

Washington—Energy Facility Site 

Evaluation Council (EFSEC), and 

Washington—Southwest Clean Air 

Agency (SWCAA). The EPA also notes 

that on September 8, 2021, a group of 

non-governmental organizations filed 

suit in the Northern District of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
1682 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

5Sierra Club et al. v. Regan et al., No. 4:21–cv– 

06956 (N.D. Cal. Sept 8, 2021). 

6C.A.A. 110(k)(5). 

7Such highway sanctions would only apply in 

nonattainment areas. If a state jurisdictional area 

does not contain any nonattainment areas, then the 

highway sanctions would not apply in that state. 

California alleging that the EPA is in 

violation of its mandatory duty to issue 

findings of failure to submit for those 

states that have not yet responded to the 

2015 SIP Call.5

III. Consequences of Findings of Failure 

To Submit 

If the EPA finds that a state has failed 

to make the required SIP submittal or 

that a submitted SIP is incomplete, then 

CAA section 179(a) establishes specific 

consequences, after a period of time, 

including the imposition of mandatory 

sanctions under CAA section 179(b) for 

the affected areas or states. The two 

applicable sanctions enumerated in 

CAA section 179(b) are: (1) The 2-to-1 

emission offset requirement for all new 

and modified major sources subject to 

the nonattainment NSR program, and (2) 

restrictions on highway funding. 

Additionally, a finding that a state has 

failed to submit a complete SIP triggers 

an obligation under CAA section 110(c) 

for the EPA to promulgate a FIP no later 

than 2 years after issuance of the finding 

of failure to submit if the affected state 

has not submitted, and the EPA has not 

approved, the required SIP submittal. 

With respect to mandatory sanctions, 

if the EPA has not affirmatively 

determined that a state has made the 

required complete SIP submittal within 

18 months 6 of the effective date of this 

final action, then, pursuant to CAA 

section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, 

the offset sanction identified in CAA 

section 179(b)(2) will apply in the 

affected nonattainment area or state. If 

the EPA has not affirmatively 

determined that the state has made the 

required complete SIP submittal within 

6 months after the offset sanction is 

imposed, then the highway funding 

sanction will apply in the affected 

nonattainment area(s), in accordance 

with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 

52.31.7 The sanctions will not take 

effect if, within 18 months after the 

effective date of these findings, the EPA 

affirmatively determines that the state 

has made a complete SIP submittal 

addressing the deficiency for which the 

finding was made. Additionally, if the 

state makes the required SIP submittal 

and the EPA takes final action to 

approve the submittal within 2 years of 

the effective date of these findings, the 

EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP. 

IV. Findings of Failure To Submit for 

Air Agencies That Failed To Make a 

SIP Submittal in Response to EPA’s 

2015 SIP Call for Provisions Applying 

to Excess Emissions During SSM 

Periods 

Based on a review of SIP submittals 

received and deemed complete as of the 

date of signature of this action, the EPA 

finds that 12 air agencies have failed to 

submit SIP revisions in response to the 

2015 SSM SIP Call that were statutorily 

due no later than November 22, 2016. 

These affected air agencies are Alabama, 

Arkansas, California—San Joaquin 

Valley APCD, District of Columbia, 

Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina—Forsyth 

County, Rhode Island, South Dakota, 

Tennessee—Shelby County, 

Washington—EFSEC, and Washington— 

SWCAA. 

V. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

The purpose of this action is to make 

findings that the named air agencies 

failed to provide the identified SIP 

submissions to the EPA that are 

required under the CAA. As such, this 

action, in and of itself, does not 

adversely affect the level of protection 

provided for human health or the 

environment. Moreover, it is intended 

that the actions and deadlines resulting 

from this notice will promote greater 

protection for U.S. citizens, including 

minority, low-income, or indigenous 

populations, by ensuring that air 

agencies meet their statutory obligation 

to develop and submit SIPs to ensure 

that areas make progress toward 

reducing excess emissions during 

periods of SSM. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Executive Order 13563: 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was, therefore, not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not an Executive Order 

13771 regulatory action because this 

action is not significant under Executive 

Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the PRA. This final action 

does not establish any new information 

collection requirement apart from what 

is already required by law. This action 

relates to the requirement in the CAA 

for states to submit SIPs in response to 

findings of substantial inadequacy 

under section 110(k)(5). 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. The action is a finding that the 

named air agencies have not made the 

necessary SIP submission in response to 

findings of substantial inadequacy 

under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments, or the private sector. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action finds that 

several air agencies have failed to 

submit SIP revisions in response to 

findings of substantial inadequacy 

under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA. No 

tribe is subject to the requirement to 

submit an implementation plan under 

the findings of inadequacy relevant to 

this action. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern health or 

safety risks that the EPA has reason to 

believe may disproportionately affect 

children, per the definition of ‘‘covered 

regulatory action’’ in section 2–202 of 

the Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is a finding that several air 

agencies failed to submit SIP revisions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 1683 

8 In deciding whether to invoke the exception by 

making and publishing a finding that this final 

action is based on a determination of nationwide 

scope or effect, the Administrator has also taken 

into account a number of policy considerations, 

including his judgment balancing the benefit of 

obtaining the D.C. Circuit’s authoritative centralized 

review versus allowing development of the issue in 

other contexts and the best use of Agency resources. 

9 In the report on the 1977 Amendments that 

revised section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress 

noted that the Administrator’s determination that 

the ‘‘nationwide scope or effect’’ exception applies 

would be appropriate for any action that has a 

scope or effect beyond a single judicial circuit. See 

H.R. Rep. No. 95–294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402–03. 

in response to findings of substantial 

inadequacy under section 110(k)(5) of 

the CAA and does not directly or 

disproportionately affect children. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This final action does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes this action will not 

have potential disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, lowincome, or indigenous populations. In 

finding that several air agencies have 

failed to submit SIP revisions in 

response to findings of substantial 

inadequacy under section 110(k)(5) of 

the CAA, this action does not directly 

affect the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. 

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

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

M. Judicial Review 

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA governs 

judicial review of final actions by the 

EPA. This section provides, in part, that 

petitions for review must be filed in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When 

the agency action consists of ‘‘nationally 

applicable regulations promulgated, or 

final actions taken, by the 

Administrator,’’ or (ii) when such action 

is locally or regionally applicable, but 

‘‘such action is based on a 

determination of nationwide scope or 

effect and if in taking such action the 

Administrator finds and publishes that 

such action is based on such a 

determination.’’ For locally or regionally 

applicable final actions, the CAA 

reserves the EPA complete discretion 

whether to invoke the exception in (ii). 

This final action is ‘‘nationally 

applicable’’ within the meaning of CAA 

section 307(b)(1). In the alternative, to 

the extent a court finds this final action 

to be locally or regionally applicable, 

the Administrator is exercising the 

complete discretion afforded to him 

under the CAA to make and publish a 

finding that this action is based on a 

determination of ‘‘nationwide scope or 

effect’’ within the meaning of CAA 

section 307(b)(1).8 This final action 

consists of findings of failure to submit 

required SIPs from areas within 10 

states and the District of Columbia, 

located in 8 of the 10 EPA regions, and 

in 8 different federal judicial circuits.9

This final action is also based on a 

common core of factual findings 

concerning the receipt and 

completeness of the relevant SIP 

submittals. For these reasons, this final 

action is nationally applicable or, 

alternatively, the Administrator is 

exercising the complete discretion 

afforded to him by the CAA and hereby 

finds that this final action is based on 

a determination of nationwide scope or 

effect for purposes of CAA section 

307(b)(1) and is hereby publishing that 

finding in the Federal Register. 

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 District of 

Columbia Circuit within 60 days from 

the date this final action is published in 

the Federal Register. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final action does not affect the 

finality of the action for the purposes of 

judicial review, nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review must be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. 

Janet G. McCabe, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00138 Filed 1–11–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0438; FRL–8773–02– 

R9] 

Limited Approval and Limited 

Disapproval of California Air Quality 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Amador Air District; Stationary Source 

Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

revision to the Amador Air District’s 

(AAD or ‘‘District’’) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). This revision governs the 

District’s issuance of permits for 

stationary sources, and focuses on the 

preconstruction review and permitting 

of major sources and major 

modifications under part D of title I of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘Act’’). 

Under the authority of the CAA, this 

action simultaneously approves a local 

rule that regulates these emission 

sources and directs the District to 

correct rule deficiencies. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

11, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket No. 

EPA–R09–OAR–2021–0438. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., 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 through https://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. If 

you need assistance in a language other 

than English or if you are a person with 

disabilities who needs a reasonable 

accommodation at no cost to you, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amber Batchelder, EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 

94105; by phone: (415) 947–4174, or by 

email to batchelder.amber@epa.gov. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1