1 Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the Transport Rule

Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2009

- 0491



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

Final Rule TSD

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation July 20112 

### Statu s of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs

Final Rule TSD

This document describes, for each state subject to a Federal implementation plan (FIP) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and/or the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS under the Transport Rule, the status of each Clean Air Act (CAA) 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) state implementation plan (SIP) for the relevant NAAQS

. It describes, for these states, any findings of failure to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs made by EPA for the relevant NAAQS and any actions taken by EP A with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions for the relevant 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 in this final rule.

Alabama

O n 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 and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approve d SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. On March 7, 2007

, Alabama submitted a SIP revision to replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the CAIR FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in Alabama. This SIP revision incorporated the CAIR trading progra ms for annual

NO X , annual SO 2 , and ozone

- season NO X into the Alabama 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) , th is CAIR SIP which was approved by EPA on October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55659), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to subm it. In th is action

, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. In addition, on June 28, 2011, the Administrator for EPA Region 4 signed a notice disapprov ing a SIP revision submitted by the state of Alabama to address the

re quirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP that corrects that deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Admini strator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Alabama addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Arkansas 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 10, 2007

, Arkansas submitted a S IP revision to replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in Arkansas. This SIP revision incorporated the CAIR trading program for ozone

season NO X into the Arkansas SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following

the D.C. Circuit deci sion in North Carolina , the CAIR SIP which was approved by EPA on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54556), 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 this action, EPA also is corr ecting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. Based on these facts , the provisions of section3

CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the s tate of Arkansas addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Florida 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 March 16, 2007

, Florida submitted a SIP revision to , among other things, replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in Florida. This SIP revision incorp orated the CAIR trading

program for ozone

- season NO X into the Florida 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 October 12, 2007 (72 FR 58016), 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 this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing 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 Florida addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Georgia 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 PM 2

. 5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP revision to correct the deficiency. On March 28, 2007

, Georgia submitted a SIP revision to replace the CAI R FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in Georgia. This SIP revision incorporated the CAIR trading programs for annual NO X and annual SO 2 into the Georgia SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, following

the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina

, the CAIR SIP which was approved by EPA on October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57202), cannot be said to correct the 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. In addition, on June 28, 2011, the

Administrator for EPA Region 4 signed a notice disapprov ing a SIP revision submitted by the

s tate of Georgia to address the requirements of 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2 .5 NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP that corrects that deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the s tate of Georgia addres sing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS, 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Illinois 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 and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. On September 14, 2007

, Illinois submitted a SIP revision to replace

the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the CAIR FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in Illinois. The SIP revision incorporated the CAIR trading programs for annual NO X , annual SO 2 , and ozone

- season NO X into the Illinois SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule

, following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina , the CAIR SIP which was approved by4

EPA on October 16, 2007 (72 FR 58528), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to sub mit. In this action, EPA is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) with the respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673), and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate

FIPs for the state of Illinois addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the

1997 ozone NAAQS , 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

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

CAA section 1 10(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. Indiana submitted a CAIR SIP in parts, including the part sub mitted on June 29, 2009, to replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and a CAIR FIP for the

1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in Indiana. These SIP revisions incorporated the CAIR trading progr am s for annual NO X , annual SO 2 , and ozone

- season NO X into the Indiana SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule , following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina , the

abbreviated CAIR SIP submi ttal approved by EPA on October 22, 2007 (72 FR 59480) and the

CAIR SIP submittal approved by EPA on November 29, 2010 (7 5 FR 72956), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25,2005 finding of failure to

submit. In this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of t h o se SIP submittal s

. In addition, on June 28, 20 11, the Administrator for EPA Region 5 signed a notice disapprov ing a SIP revision submitted by the s tate of Indiana to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP that corrects that deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Indiana addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to t he 1997 ozone NAAQS , 1997

PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

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 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not,

s ubsequent 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS for Iowa. This SIP revision incorporated the C AIR trading programs

for annual NO X and annual SO 2 into the Iowa SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport

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

, the CAIR SIP approved by EPA on August 6, 2007 (72 FR 43539), cannot be said to co rrect the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to the date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency. Based on these facts, t he provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for5

the state of Iowa addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Kansas

On June 28, 2011, the A dministrator for EPA Region 7 signed a notice disapprov ing a SIP revision submitted by the s tate of Kansas to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP that corrects 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 Kansas addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Kentucky 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 and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS ( 70 FR 21147 ) and has not, subsequent to that date r eceived and approved SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. On July 19, 2007

, Kentucky submitted a SIP revision to replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the CAIR FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in Kentucky. This SIP revision incorporated th e CAIR trading programs for annual NO X , annual

SO 2 , and ozone

- season NO X into the Kentucky SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport

Rule , following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina , the CAIR SIP approved by EPA on October 4, 2007 (72 FR 5 6623), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. In addition, on June 28, 2011, th e Administrator for EPA Region 4 signed a notice disapprov ing a SIP revision submitted by the

s tate of Kentucky to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006

PM 2.5 NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and appro ved a SIP that corrects that deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Kentucky addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1 997 ozone NAAQS , 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Louisiana 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 20, 2007 Louisiana submitted an abbreviated CAIR SIP which, among other things,

modif ied the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The abbreviated CAIR SIP mod ified provisions to the CAIR FIPs found in the ozone

- season NO X CAIR trading program. 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 o f the abbreviated CAIR SIP, the CAIR FIP remained the legal vehicle for implementation of the CAIR ozone

- season requirements in Louisiana . The CAIR FIPs were found unlawful and remanded to EPA to be replaced by rules consistent with the D.C. Circuit decis ion 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. In this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal.6

Based on these facts , the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Louisiana addressing the requirements o f 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Maryland 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 and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS ( 70 FR 21147 ) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. Maryland submitted a SIP revision on October 24, 2007 and then

submitted a revised submittal on June 30, 2008 to replace the CAIR FIP for t he 1997 ozone NAAQS and the CAIR FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in Maryland. This SIP revision incorporated the CAIR trading programs for annual NO X , annual SO 2 , and ozone

- season NO X into the Maryland SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule , fo llowing the D.C.

Circuit decision in North Carolina , the CAIR SIP approved by EPA on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56117), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In this actio n, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Maryl and addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS , 1997

PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 which, among other th ings,

modif ied the CAIR FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS ; then, on June 10, 2009, Michigan submitted

a revised abbreviated SIP revision

. EPA approved the se abbreviated SIP revision s on December 20, 2007 (72 FR 72256) and August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41637). As not ed 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 ozone

- season and annual requirements in Michigan . The CAIR FIPs were 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 impac t 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. In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address

the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Michigan addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.7

Minnesota On June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failu re to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency.

Based on this fac t , the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Minnesota addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Mississippi 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

Januar y 16, 2007

, Mississippi submitted a SIP revision to , among other things, replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for Mississippi. This SIP revision incorporated the CAIR trading program for ozone

- season NO X into the Mississippi SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule , following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina , the CAIR SIP approved by EPA on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56268), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiency identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of f ailure to submit. In this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. Based on this fact, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Mississippi ad dressing 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP revision to correct either deficiency. On May 18, 2007

, Missouri submitted a SIP revision to , among other things, replace the CAIR FIP

for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS for Missouri. This SIP revision incorporated the CAIR trading programs for annual NO X and annual SO 2 into the Missouri SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule , following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina , the CAIR SIP 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 this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. In addition, on Ju ne 28, 2011, the

Administrator for EPA Region 7 signed a notice disapprov ing a SIP revision submitted by the

s tate of Missouri to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, rec eived and approved a SIP that corrects that deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Missouri addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with r espect to the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Nebraska On June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and h as not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency. Based on this fact, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the8

Administrator shall promulgate a FIP for the state of Nebraska addressing the requirem ents of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

New Jersey 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 February 6, 2007

, New Jersey submitted an abbreviated CAIR SIP revision

, and then on July 9,

2007

, submitted a revis ed submittal to , among other things, m odify the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for New Jersey. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, the abbreviated SIPs approved by EPA on October 1, 2007 (72 FR 55666), modified but did not replace the CAIR FIPs promulgated by EPA. Following ap proval of the abbreviated CAIR SIP, the CAIR FIP remained the legal vehicle for implementation of the CAIR ozone

- season requirements in New Jersey. The CAIR FIPs were found unlawful and remanded to EPA to be replaced by rules

consistent with the D.C. Circ uit 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

. In addition, on June 1, 2011 the Administrator for EPA Region 2 signed a notice disapprov ing a SIP revision submitted by the s tate of New Jersey to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and has not, subsequen t to that date, received and approved a SIP that corrects that deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of New Jersey addressing the requirements of 110( a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and

2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

New York 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 and the 199 7 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. On September 17, 2007

, New York submitted a SIP revision to replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the CAIR FIP f or the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in New York. This SIP revision incorporated the CAIR trading programs for annual

NO X , annual SO 2 , and ozone

- season NO X into the New York SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule , following the D.C. Circuit decision in N orth Carolina , the CAIR SIP approved by EPA on January 24, 2008 (73 FR 41 09 ), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. In addition,

on June 1, 2011 the Administrator for EPA Region 2 signed a notice disapprov ing a SIP revision submitted by the s tate of New York to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP that corrects that deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of New York ad dressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS , 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS,

and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.9

North Carolina 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 and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. North Carolina submitted a CAIR SIP in parts, including the part

s ubmitted on June 20, 2008, to replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the CAIR

FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in North Carolina . The se SIP revis ions incorporated the CAIR

trad ing programs for annual NO X , annual SO 2 , and ozone

- season NO X into the N orth Carolina

SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule , following the D.C. Circuit decision in

North Carolina

, the abbreviated CAIR SIP submi ttal approved by EPA on October 5, 2007 (72 FR 56914) and the CAIR SIP submittal approved on November 3 0, 2009 (74 FR 62496 ) , cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of

failure to submit. In this action, EPA is correcting and narrowing its approval of th o se SIP

submittal s

. In addition, on June 28, 2011, the Administrator for Region 4 signed a notice disapprov ing a SIP revision submitted by the s tate of North Carolina to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date,

rec eived and approved a SIP that corrects that deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of North Carolina addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS , 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Ohio 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 and the 199 7 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. Ohio submitted a CAIR SIP in parts, including the parts submitted on July 16, 2009 and August 13, 2009, to replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and

the CAIR FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in Ohio. The se SIP revisions incorporated the CAIR trading programs for the annual NO X , annual SO 2 , and ozone

- season NO X in the Ohio SIP. As

noted in the preamble to the Transport Rul e , following the D.C. Circuit decision in North

Carolina , the abbreviated CAIR SIP submittal approved by EPA on February 1, 2008 (73 FR 6034) and the CAIR SIP submitt al approved by EPA on September 25, 2009 (74 FR 48857

, ),

cannot be said to correct the 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of

tho se SIP submittal s

. In addition, on June 28, 2011, the Administrator for EPA Region 5 sign ed

a notice disapprov ing a SIP revision submitted by the s tate of Ohio to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and has not, subsequent to that date, received and approved a SIP that corrects that deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Ohio addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS

, 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 P M 2.5 NAAQS.

Pennsylvania 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 and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not, subsequent to tha t date received and approved SIP revisions10

to correct either deficiency. On May 23, 2008

, Pennsylvani a submitted a SIP revision to replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the CAIR FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in Pennsylvania. This SIP revision incorporated the CAIR trading programs for annual NO X , annual SO 2 , and ozone

- season NOx into the Pennsylvania SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule , following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina , the CAIR SIP approved by EPA on Decem ber 10, 2009 (74 FR 65446), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP th at corrects the deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Pennsylvania addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect

to the 1997 ozone NAAQS , 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

South Carolina 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 and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. South Carolina submitted a CAIR SIP in parts, including the part

submitted on December 4, 2008 to replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the

CAIR FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS in South Carolina . The se SIP revisions incorporated the CAIR trading programs for annual NO X , annual SO 2 , and ozone

- season NO X into the South

Carolina SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule , followin g the D.C. Circuit

decision in North Carolina , the abbreviated CAIR SIP submittal approved by EPA on October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57209) and the CAIR SIP submittal approved on October 16, 2009 (74 FR 53167), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) defic iencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval s of

those SIP submittal s

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

that the Administra tor shall promulgate FIPs for the state of South Carolina addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Tennessee On April 25, 2005 EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address th e requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 Fr 21147) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. On September 8, 2006

, Tennesse e submitted an abbreviated CAIR SIP to modify the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Tennessee subsequently submitted a revision to the abbreviated SIP containing technical

corrections. EPA approved these abbreviated SIP submissi ons on August 20, 2007 (72 FR 46388) and November 25, 2009 (74 FR 61535) . 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 abbrev iated CAIR SIP, the CAIR FIP remained the legal vehicle for implementation of the CAIR ozone

- season and annual requirements in Tennessee. The CAIR FIPs were found unlawful and remanded to EPA to be replaced by rules consistent11

with the D.C. Circuit decisi on 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 . In

additi on, on July 1, 2011, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation signed a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Tennessee addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D) (i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS , 1997

PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Texas 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 and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS ( 70 FR 21147 ) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. On August 4, 2006

, Texas submitted an abbreviated CAIR SIP modifying the provisions of the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozo ne NAAQS and the CAIR FIP for the

1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS for Texas. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, the abbreviated SIPs approved by EPA on July 30, 2007 (72 FR 41453), modified but did not replace the CAIR FIPs promulgated by EPA. Following ap proval of the abbreviated CAIR SIP, the CAIR FIP remained the legal vehicle for implementation of the CAIR annual requirements in Texas. The CAIR FIPs were found unlawful and remanded to EPA to be replaced by rules consistent with

the D.C. Circuit decisio n 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 FIPs for the state of Texas addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS

.

Virginia On Ap ril 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 SIP revisions to correct the deficiency. On March 30, 2007

, Virginia submitted a CAIR SIP , then submitted revised submittal s on April 30, 2007 and June 11, 2007, to among other things, replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS in Virginia. The SIP revisions incorporated the CAI R trading programs for annual NO X , annual

SO 2 , and ozone

- season NO X into the Virginia SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport

Rule , following the D.C. Circuit decision in North Carolina , the CAIR SIP approved by EPA on December 28, 2007 (72 FR 73602 ) cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficienc y identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In this action, EPA also is correcting and narrowing its approval of that SIP submittal. In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for12

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

ozone NAAQS and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

W est Virginia 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 and the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS (70 FR 21147) and has not, subsequent to that date receiv ed and approved SIP revisions to correct either deficiency. West Virginia submitted a CAIR SIP in parts, including the parts

submitted on June 8, 2007 and on April 22, 2008, to replace the CAIR FIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the CAIR FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 in West Virginia. The se SIP revisions incorporated the CAIR trading programs for annual NO X , annual SO 2 , and ozone

- season NO X into the West Virginia SIP. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule , following the D.C.

Circuit decision in North Car olina , the abbreviated CAIR SIP revision approved by EPA on December 18, 2007 (72 FR 71576) and the CAIR SIP revision approved by EPA on August 4, 2009 (74 FR 38536), cannot be said to correct the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) deficiencies identified in the April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In this action, EPA is correcting and narrowing its approval of th o se SIP submittal s

. In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)( i) (I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administra tor shall promulgate FIPs for the state of West Virginia addressing the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS , 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, and 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

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 PM 2.5 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 a n abbreviated CAIR SIP to , among other things, modify the

CAIR FIP for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS for Wisconsin. As noted in the preamble to the Transport Rule, the abbreviated SIPs approved by EPA on October 16, 2007 (72 FR 58542), 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 ozone

season requirements in Wisconsin. The CAIR FIPs were 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 th e April 25, 2005 finding of failure to submit. In addition, on June 9, 2010, EPA made a finding of failure to submit a SIP to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) deficiency with respect to the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 32673) and has not, subsequent to that date received and approved a SIP that corrects the deficiency. Based on these facts, the provisions of section CAA 110(c)(1) establish that the Administrator shall promulgate FIPs for the state of Wisconsin addressing the requirem ents of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS and

2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS.