1

Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the Supplemental Proposal to the Transport Rule

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

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

Proposed Rule TSD

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

July 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 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) state implementation plan (SIP) for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS for Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. 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 

proposed in this SNPR. 

Iowa

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. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, 

following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina (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), this CAIR SIP which was approved by EPA on August 6, 2007 (72 FR 43539), 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 action signed by the Administrator on July 6, 

2011, EPA corrects and narrows its approval of that SIP submittal. Based on these facts, the 

provisions of section CAA 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.

Kansas

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 the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This SIP approval was not directly affected by the 

decision of the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA. In 2010, EPA conducted modeling for the 

proposed Federal Implementation Plan to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter 

and Ozone (Transport Rule). (See 75 FR 45210, August 2, 2010.) This modeling demonstrated 

that emissions from Kansas interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another 

State. Therefore, EPA proposed to determine that the Kansas SIP is substantially inadequate to 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act 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 conducted modeling for the final 

Transport Rule (signed by the Administrator on July 6, 2011) which demonstrated that emissions 
3

from Kansas interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another state. If finalized

as proposed, the SIP Call would require Kansas to either submit a SIP within 18 months or notify 

EPA that the state would prefer to be subject to the FIP addressing the requirements of 

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

Michigan

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 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 section CAA 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.

Missouri

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. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, 

following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina, this CAIR SIP which was approved by 

EPA on December 14, 2007 (72 FR 71073), 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 action signed by the Administrator on July 6, 2011, EPA is corrects and narrows 

its approval of that SIP submittal. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 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.

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. Based on 

this fact, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall 

promulgate a FIP for the state of Oklahoma addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
4

Wisconsin

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 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 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 section CAA 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.