1

Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the Transport Rule Supplemental Notice of Final Rulemaking

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491

Status of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs

Supplemental Rule TSD

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

December 2011
2

Status of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs

This document describes, for the states of Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma and 

Wisconsin, the status of each Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) state 

implementation plan (SIP) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. It describes any findings of failure 

to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs for the 1997 ozone NAAQS made by EPA for these states, 

and any actions taken by EPA with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS received from these states. The facts presented in this TSD support 

EPA’s conclusion that it has a legal obligation to promulgate each of the FIPs promulgated

in this rule. Note that EPA is not promulgating a FIP for Kansas. Nonetheless, for 

completeness, this document includes an explanation of the status of the Kansas 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS (70 FR 

21147) and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP revision to 

correct the deficiency. On August 15, 2006, Iowa submitted a SIP revision to, among other 

things, replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in Iowa. This SIP revision 

incorporated the CAIR trading program for ozone-season NOX into the Iowa SIP and was 

approved by EPA on August 6, 2007 (72 FR 43539). On March 8, 2007 (72 FR 10380), EPA 

took action to approve Iowa’s actions to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) which 

included reliance solely on CAIR trading programs to satisfy 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As noted in 

the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina 

(

Iowa 

North Carolina v. EPA), 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on rehearing, North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008), these actions by Iowa cannot be said 

to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure 

to submit. In addition, in the final Transport Rule (76 FR 48208), EPA corrected its prior 

approvals of CAIR related SIP submissions and CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions 

from Iowa to rescind any statements that the SIP submissions either satisfy or relieve the 

state of the obligation to submit a SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS or any statements that EPA’s 

approval of the SIP submissions either relieve EPA of the obligation to promulgate a FIP or 

remove EPA’s authority to promulgate a FIP. Based on these facts, the provisions of CAA 

section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of 

Iowa addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. (See 

70 FR 21147.) Subsequent to that date, Kansas submitted and EPA approved a SIP revision 

(72 FR 10608) to correct the deficiency. This SIP revision did not rely on participation in 

any CAIR trading programs or compliance with any budgets established in CAIR to satisfy 

Kansas 
3

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Neither the provisions of the Kansas SIP, 

nor EPA’s conclusion that the SIP provisions satisfied the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were directly affected by the decision of the D.C. Circuit in North 

Carolina v. EPA. In 2011, EPA proposed to find that the approved Kansas SIP is 

substantially inadequate to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the 

CAA with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, on January 6, 2011, EPA proposed 

a SIP Call for Kansas, pursuant to section 110(k)(5) of the Act (76 FR 763). EPA intends to 

take final action on the proposed SIP Call for Kansas concurrent with this action or shortly 

thereafter. 

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS (70 FR 

21147) and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP revision to 

correct the deficiency. On July 16, 2007, Michigan submitted an abbreviated CAIR SIP 

revision to, among other things, modify the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS; on June 

10, 2009, Michigan submitted a revised abbreviated SIP revision. EPA approved these 

abbreviated SIP revisions on December 20, 2007 (72 FR 72256) and August 18, 2009 (74 

FR 41637). As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, the abbreviated SIPs approved 

by EPA modified but did not replace the CAIR FIPs promulgated by EPA. Following 

approval of the abbreviated CAIR SIP, the CAIR FIP remained the legal vehicle for 

implementation of the CAIR requirements in Michigan. The CAIR FIPs were all found 

unlawful and remanded to EPA to be replaced by rules consistent with the D.C. Circuit 

decision in 

Michigan 

North Carolina. EPA’s approval of an abbreviated CAIR SIP thus has no impact 

on EPA’s authority and obligation to promulgate a FIP to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

deficiency identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. Based on these facts, 

the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a 

FIP for the state of Michigan addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS (70 FR 

21147) and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP revision to 

correct the deficiency. On May 18, 2007, Missouri submitted a SIP revision to, among other 

things, replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in Missouri. This SIP revision 

incorporated the CAIR trading program for ozone-season NOX into the Missouri SIP, and 

was approved by EPA on December 14, 2007 (72 FR 71073). On May 8, 2007 (72 FR 

25975), EPA took action to approve Missouri’s actions to address requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), which included reliance solely on the CAIR trading programs to satisfy 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following the D.C. 

Circuit decision in 

Missouri 

North Carolina, these actions by Missouri cannot be said to correct the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In 

addition, in the final Transport Rule (76 FR 48208), EPA corrected its prior approvals of 

CAIR related SIP submissions and CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions from Missouri to 

rescind any statements that the SIP submissions either satisfy or relieve the state of the 
4

obligation to submit a SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with 

respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS or any statements that EPA’s approval of the SIP 

submissions either relieve EPA of the obligation to promulgate a FIP or remove EPA’s 

authority to promulgate a FIP. Based on these facts, the provisions of CAA section 

110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Missouri 

addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. (See 

70 FR 21147.) Subsequent to that date, Oklahoma submitted SIP revisions to address the 

requirements of this section. EPA proposed action on these SIP revisions on October 17, 

2011 (76 FR 64065). Specifically, with respect to the 1997 NAAQS EPA proposed to 

disapprove or in the alternative approve the portion of the submittal asserting that 

Oklahoma emissions do not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state and 

to approve the portions of the submittal asserting that Oklahoma emissions do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state. This notice made 

it clear that EPA had not determined that the portion of the SIP submittal asserting that 

Oklahoma did not interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state met the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. To date, EPA has not taken any action to approve a SIP 

revision from Oklahoma addressing the requirement in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that emissions 

from Oklahoma that interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another state 

be prohibited. Based on these facts, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that 

the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Oklahoma addressing the interfere 

with maintenance requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Oklahoma 

On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the 

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS (70 FR 

21147) and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP revision to 

correct the deficiency. On June 19, 2007, Wisconsin submitted an abbreviated CAIR SIP 

revision to, among other things, modify the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which EPA 

approved on October 16, 2007 (72 FR 58542). As noted in the preamble to the Transport 

Rule, the abbreviated SIPs approved by EPA modified but did not replace the CAIR FIPs 

promulgated by EPA. Following approval of the abbreviated CAIR SIP, the CAIR FIP 

remained the legal vehicle for implementation of the CAIR requirements in Wisconsin. The 

CAIR FIPs were all found unlawful and remanded to EPA to be replaced by rules consistent 

with the D.C. Circuit decision in 

Wisconsin 

North Carolina. EPA’s approval of an abbreviated CAIR SIP 

thus has no impact on EPA’s authority and obligation to promulgate a FIP to correct the 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. 

Based on these facts, the provisions of CAA section 110(c)(1) establish that the 

Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Wisconsin addressing the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.