Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7259 

Dated: January 29, 2016. 

G.L. Tomasulo, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Charleston. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02621 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0028; FRL–9942–02– 

Region 9] 

Approval of Air Plan Revisions; 

Arizona; Rescissions and Corrections 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) under the 

Clean Air Act. These revisions include 

rescissions of certain statutory 

provisions, administrative and 

prohibitory rules, and test methods. The 

EPA is also proposing to correct certain 

errors in previous actions on prior 

revisions to the Arizona SIP and to 

make certain other corrections. The 

intended effect is to rescind 

unnecessary provisions from the 

applicable SIP and to correct certain 

errors in previous SIP actions. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 14, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2016–0028 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Andrew Steckel, Rules Office Chief, at 

Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4115, email: steckel.andrew@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, the EPA is approving 

the rescissions from the Arizona SIP, 

and correcting the errors from previous 

Arizona SIP rulemakings, in a direct 

final action without prior proposal 

because we believe the SIP revision and 

error corrections are not controversial. 

The rescissions involve statutory and 

regulatory provisions related to 

declarations of policy and legal 

authority, jurisdiction over Indian 

lands, prohibitory rules, and test 

methods and performance test 

specifications. The error corrections 

relate to an inadvertent listing of a rule 

on which the EPA did not take action 

in the Arizona SIP, a typographical 

error, and erroneous approvals of nonSIP submittals as part of the SIP. 

A detailed rationale for the approval 

of the rescissions and the correction of 

the errors is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If we receive adverse comments, 

however, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule and 

address the comments in a subsequent 

final rule based on this proposed rule. 

Please note that if the EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, the EPA may 

adopt as final those provisions of the 

rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, see 

please see the direct final action. 

Dated: January 25, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02724 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0155; FRL–9942–19– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Mississippi; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

in part, and disapprove in part, portions 

of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission, submitted by the State of 

Mississippi, through the Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ), on June 20, 2013, to 

demonstrate that the State meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1- 

hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

The CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. MDEQ certified 

that the Mississippi SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, 

and maintained in Mississippi. With the 

exception of the state board majority 

requirements respecting significant 

portion of income, for which EPA is 

proposing to disapprove, EPA is 

proposing to determine that portions of 

Mississippi’s infrastructure submission, 

submitted to EPA on June 20, 2013, 

satisfy certain required infrastructure 

elements for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 14, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0155, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2015– 

0155,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7260 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions states 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a 

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

of which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be 

appropriate for demonstrating compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this 

rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term 

‘‘Air Pollution Control (APC)’’ or ‘‘Section APC–S– 

X’’ indicates that the cited regulation has been 

approved into Mississippi’s federally-approved SIP. 

The term ‘‘Mississippi Code’’ indicates cited 

Mississippi State statutes, which are not a part of 

the SIP unless otherwise indicated. 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2015– 

0155. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Notarianni can be reached via telephone 

at (404) 562–9031 or via electronic mail 

at notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Overview 

II. What elements are required under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Mississippi addressed the elements of 

the Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Overview 

On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA 

promulgated a revised primary SO2

NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 

parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year 

average of the annual 99th percentile of 

1-hour daily maximum concentrations. 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 

requires states to address basic SIP 

elements such as requirements for 

monitoring, basic program requirements 

and legal authority that are designed to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 

22, 2013.1

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the applicable 

requirements of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS, with the exception of the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 

1, 2, and 4) and the state board majority 

requirements respecting significant 

portion of income of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). With respect to the 

interstate transport requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), EPA is 

not proposing any action today 

regarding these requirements. With 

respect to Mississippi’s infrastructure 

SIP submission related to the majority 

requirements respecting significant 

portion of income of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 

EPA is proposing to disapprove this 

portion of Mississippi’s infrastructure 

SIP submission because Mississippi 

does not preclude at least a majority of 

the members of its boards from 

receiving a significant portion of their 

income from persons subject to permits 

or enforcement orders issued by such 

boards. For the aspects of Mississippi’s 

submittal proposed for approval today, 

EPA notes that the Agency is not 

approving any specific rule, but rather 

proposing that Mississippi’s already 

approved SIP meets certain CAA 

requirements. 

II. What elements are required under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7261 

2Two 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 due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D title I of the CAA; and (2) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4As mentioned above, this element is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

5For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 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 SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

6See, 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, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

7EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

Continued 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

mentioned above, these requirements 

include basic SIP elements such as 

requirements for monitoring, basic 

program requirements and legal 

authority that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. The requirements that are the 

subject of this proposed rulemaking are 

summarized below and in EPA’s 

September 13, 2013, memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 2

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and 

Other Control Measures 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 3

• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate 

Pollution Transport 

• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution 

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and 

Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

Regional Agencies 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source 

Monitoring and Reporting 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers 

• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for 

Nonattainment Areas 4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Visibility Protection 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling 

and Submission of Modeling Data 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and 

Participation by Affected Local 

Entities 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from Mississippi that 

addresses the infrastructure 

requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. The requirement for states to 

make a SIP submission of this type 

arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must make SIP submissions ‘‘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 these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. 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 program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.5 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.6 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7262 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

8See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

9On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

10For 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. 

11EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

12 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

13EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that 

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

that rather than apply all the stated 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.8

Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to 

allow it to take action on the individual 

parts of one larger, comprehensive 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to 

act at different times on various 

elements and sub-elements of the same 

infrastructure SIP submission.9

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, 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. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants because the content 

and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.10

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submissions. 

For example, section 172(c)(7) requires 

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment 

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD 

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

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

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.11 EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).12 EPA developed 

this document to provide states with upto-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

for any new or revised NAAQS. Within 

this guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions.13 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submissions need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7263 

14By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

15For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

implementation plan appropriately 

addresses the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 

2013 Guidance explains EPA’s 

interpretation that there may be a 

variety of ways by which states can 

appropriately address these substantive 

statutory requirements, depending on 

the structure of an individual state’s 

permitting or enforcement program (e.g., 

whether permits and enforcement 

orders are approved by a multi-member 

board or by a head of an executive 

agency). However they are addressed by 

the state, the substantive requirements 

of section 128 are necessarily included 

in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and new 

source review (NSR) pollutants, 

including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By 

contrast, structural PSD program 

requirements do not include provisions 

that are not required under EPA’s 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are 

merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the 2012 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. 

Accordingly, the latter optional 

provisions are types of provisions EPA 

considers irrelevant in the context of an 

infrastructure SIP action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s 

implementation plan meets basic 

structural requirements. For example, 

section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, among 

other things, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether 

the state has an EPA-approved minor 

NSR program and whether the program 

addresses the pollutants relevant to that 

NAAQS. In the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without scrutinizing the 

totality of the existing SIP for such 

potentially deficient provisions and may 

approve the submission even if it is 

aware of such existing provisions.14 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations 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. These provisions, 

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 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely 

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance 

gives simpler recommendations with 

respect to carbon monoxide than other 

NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Finally, EPA believes 

that its approach with respect to 

infrastructure SIP requirements is based 

on a reasonable reading of sections 

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

provides other avenues and mechanisms 

to address specific substantive 

deficiencies in existing SIPs. These 

other statutory tools allow EPA to take 

appropriately 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 the Agency determines that a 

state’s implementation plan is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.15 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7264 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

16EPA has used 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 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

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

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency 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). 

17See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of 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 at 42344 

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

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

18 Mississippi Code Title 49 is referenced in the 

State’s infrastructure SIP submissions as ‘‘Appendix 

A–9.’’ As discussed above, unless otherwise 

indicated herein, portions of the Mississippi Code 

referenced in this proposal are not incorporated 

into the SIP. 

19On June 12, 2015, EPA published a final action 

entitled, ‘‘State 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.’’ 

See 80 FR 33840. 

20On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

approvals of SIP submissions.16

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies 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 an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.17

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Mississippi addressed the elements of 

the sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘Infrastructure’’ provisions? 

Mississippi’s June 20, 2013, 

infrastructure submission addresses the 

provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

as described below. 

1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and 

Other Control Measures: Section 

110(a)(2)(A) requires that each 

implementation plan include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic 

incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements. Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission provides 

an overview of the provisions of the 

Mississippi Air Pollution Control (APC) 

regulations relevant to air quality 

control. Mississippi Code Title 49, 

Section 49–17–17(h) (Appendix A–9),18

authorizes MDEQ to adopt, modify, or 

repeal ambient air quality standards and 

emissions standards for the control of 

air pollution, including those necessary 

to obtain EPA approval under section 

110 of the CAA. Sections APC–S–1, Air 

Emission Regulations for the Prevention, 

Abatement, and Control of Air 

Contaminants, and APC–S–3, 

Regulations for the Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes, establish 

enforceable emissions limitations and 

other control measures, means or 

techniques, for activities that contribute 

to SO2 concentrations in the ambient air 

and provide authority for MDEQ to 

establish such limits and measures as 

well as schedules for compliance 

through SIP-approved permits to meet 

the applicable requirements of the CAA. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that the provisions 

contained in these regulations, and 

Mississippi’s statute are adequate for 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or 

techniques, as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance for the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the State. 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing state 

provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during SSM operations at a 

facility. EPA believes that a number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and 

the Agency is addressing such state 

regulations in a separate action.19

Additionally, in this action, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing state rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. EPA believes that a number 

of states have such provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 

1987)), and the Agency plans to take 

action in the future to address such state 

regulations. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision which 

is contrary to the CAA and EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 

2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System: Section 

110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for 

establishment and operation of 

appropriate devices, methods, systems, 

and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, 

compile, and analyze data on ambient 

air quality, and (ii) upon request, make 

such data available to the 

Administrator. Section APC–S–1, Air 

Emission Regulations for the Prevention, 

Abatement, and Control of Air 

Contaminants, and Mississippi Code 

Title 49, Section 49–17–17(g), provides 

MDEQ with the authority to collect and 

disseminate information relating to air 

quality and pollution and the 

prevention, control, supervision, and 

abatement thereof. Annually, States 

develop and submit to EPA for approval 

statewide ambient monitoring network 

plans consistent with the requirements 

of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The 

annual network plan involves an 

evaluation of any proposed changes to 

the monitoring network, includes the 

annual ambient monitoring network 

design plan and a certified evaluation of 

the agency’s ambient monitors and 

auxiliary support equipment.20 On June 

9, 2015, Mississippi submitted its 

monitoring network plan to EPA, which 

was approved by EPA on October 6, 

2015. Mississippi’s approved 

monitoring network plan can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2015– 

0155. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for the ambient 

air quality monitoring and data system 

requirements related to the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. 

3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources: This element 

consists of three sub-elements: 

Enforcement, state-wide regulation of 

new and modified minor sources and 

minor modifications of major sources, 

and preconstruction permitting of major 

sources and major modifications in 

areas designated attainment or 

unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as 

required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the 

major source PSD program). To meet the 

requirements for this element, 

Mississippi cited APC–S–5, Mississippi 

Regulations for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7265 

21For more information on the structural PSD 

program requirements that are relevant to EPA’s 

review infrastructure SIP in connection with the 

current PSD-related infrastructure requirements, see 

the Technical Support Document in the docket for 

today’s rulemaking. 

and APC–S–2, Permit Regulation for the 

Construction and/or Operation of Air 

Emissions Equipment, Section V. These 

regulations enable MDEQ to regulate 

sources contributing to the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS through enforceable 

permits. 

Enforcement: MDEQ’s APC–S–2, 

Permit Regulation for the Construction 

and/or Operation of Air Emissions 

Equipment, Section VI provides for the 

enforcement of SO2 emission limits and 

control measures through construction 

permitting for new or modified 

stationary sources. Also note that under 

Mississippi Code Title 49, Chapter 17, 

MDEQ has enforcement authority to 

seek penalties and injunctive relief for 

violations of emission limits and other 

control measures and violations of 

permits. 

PSD Permitting for Major Sources: 

EPA interprets the PSD sub-element to 

require that a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for a particular NAAQS 

demonstrate that the state has a 

complete PSD permitting program in 

place covering the structural PSD 

requirements for all regulated NSR 

pollutants. A state’s PSD permitting 

program is complete for this subelement (and prong 3 of D(i) and J 

related to PSD) if EPA has already 

approved or is simultaneously 

approving the state’s SIP with respect to 

all structural PSD requirements that are 

due under the EPA regulations or the 

CAA on or before the date of the EPA’s 

proposed action on the infrastructure 

SIP submission. 

For the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, 

Mississippi’s authority to regulate new 

and modified sources to assist in the 

protection of air quality in 

nonattainment, attainment or 

unclassifiable areas in Mississippi is 

established in Regulations APC–S–5, 

Mississippi Regulations for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality, and APC–S–2, Permit 

Regulation for the Construction and/or 

Operation of Air Emissions Equipment. 

These SIP-approved regulations pertain 

to the construction of any new major 

stationary source or any project at an 

existing major stationary source in an 

area designated as nonattainment, 

attainment or unclassifiable. 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission demonstrates that new 

major sources and major modifications 

in areas of the State designated 

attainment or unclassifiable for the 

specified NAAQS are subject to a 

federally-approved PSD permitting 

program meeting all the current 

structural requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA to satisfy the infrastructure 

SIP PSD elements.21 As such, EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Mississippi’s SIP and practices are 

adequate and comply with the PSD 

elements of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

Regulation of minor sources and 

modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also 

requires the SIP to include provisions 

that govern the minor source preconstruction program that regulates 

emissions of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. Mississippi has a SIP-approved 

minor NSR permitting program at APC– 

S–2, Section I. D—Permitting 

Requirements, that regulates the 

preconstruction permitting of 

modifications and construction of minor 

stationary sources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP is 

adequate for enforcement of control 

measures, PSD permitting for major 

sources and regulation of minor sources 

and modifications related to the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate 

Pollution Transport: Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Each of these components has two 

subparts resulting in four distinct 

components, commonly referred to as 

‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The first 

two prongs, which are codified in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions 

that prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

from interfering with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or 

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: 

EPA is not proposing any action in this 

rulemaking related to the interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

(prongs 1 and 2) because Mississippi’s 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure 

submission did not address prongs 1 

and 2. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the 

PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this 

requirement may be met by a state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to: A PSD program meeting all 

the current structural requirements of 

part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the 

state contains a nonattainment area for 

the relevant pollutant) a NNSR program 

that implements the NAAQS for a 

relevant pollutant. As discussed in more 

detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), 

Mississippi’s SIP contains provisions for 

the State’s PSD program that reflects the 

required structural PSD requirements to 

satisfy the requirement of prong 3. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Mississippi’s SIP is adequate for 

interstate transport for PSD permitting 

of major sources and major 

modifications related to the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: EPA is not 

proposing any action in this rulemaking 

related to the interstate transport 

provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 

4) and will consider these requirements 

in relation to Mississippi’s 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS infrastructure submission 

in a separate rulemaking. 

5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution 

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

requires SIPs to include provisions 

ensuring compliance with sections 115 

and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

Section APC–S–5, Mississippi 

Regulations for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, 

provides how MDEQ will notify 

neighboring state and local agencies of 

potential impacts from new or modified 

sources consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.166, which 

is adopted by reference into the 

Mississippi SIP. Additionally, 

Mississippi does not have any pending 

obligation under section 115 and 126 of 

the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for ensuring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement for 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources 

and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

Regional Agencies: Section 110(a)(2)(E) 

requires that each implementation plan 

provide (i) necessary assurances that the 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7266 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

22This final action pertained to Mississippi’s 

October 11, 2012, infrastructure SIP submission and 

only addressed compliance with 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

respecting CAA section 128 requirements. 

23EPA took similar action with respect to 

Mississippi’s section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, and 2008 8- 

hour Ozone NAAQS. 

24The Mississippi Commission on Environmental 

Quality issues and supervises enforcement orders, 

and the Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality Permit Board has the authority to issue, 

modify, revoke or deny permits. 

state will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) 

that the state comply with the 

requirements respecting state boards 

pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and 

(iii) necessary assurances that, where 

the state has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any plan 

provision, the state has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such plan provisions. EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s SIP 

as meeting the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). EPA is 

proposing to approve, in part, and 

disapprove, in part, Mississippi’s SIP 

respecting section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA’s 

rationale for today’s proposals 

respecting each section of 110(a)(2)(E) is 

described in turn below. 

To satisfy the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), Mississippi 

provides that MDEQ is responsible for 

promulgating rules and regulations for 

the NAAQS, emissions standards, 

general policies, a system of permits, fee 

schedules for the review of plans, and 

other planning needs as found in 

Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49– 

17–17(d) and Section 49–17–17(h) 

(Appendix A–9). As evidence of the 

adequacy of MDEQ’s resources with 

respect to sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA 

submitted a letter to Mississippi on 

March 12, 2015, outlining 105 grant 

commitments and the current status of 

these commitments for fiscal year 2014. 

The letter EPA submitted to Mississippi 

can be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2015–0155. Annually, states update 

these grant commitments based on 

current SIP requirements, air quality 

planning, and applicable requirements 

related to the NAAQS. There were no 

outstanding issues in relation to the SIP 

for fiscal year 2014, therefore, MDEQ’s 

grants were finalized and closed out. In 

addition, the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when 

EPA performs a completeness 

determination for each SIP submittal. 

This determination ensures that each 

submittal provides evidence that 

adequate personnel, funding, and legal 

authority under State law has been used 

to carry out the State’s implementation 

plan and related issues. Mississippi’s 

authority to implement provisions of the 

State’s SIP is included in all prehearings 

and final SIP submittal packages for 

approval by EPA. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi has adequate resources for 

implementation of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

To meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), states must comply with 

the requirements respecting state boards 

pursuant to section 128 of the Act. 

Section 128 of the CAA requires that 

states include provisions in their SIP to 

address conflicts of interest for state 

boards or bodies that oversee CAA 

permits and enforcement orders and 

disclosure of conflict of interest 

requirements. Specifically, CAA section 

128(a)(1) necessitates that each SIP shall 

require that at least a majority of any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders shall be subject to 

the described public interest service and 

income restrictions therein. Subsection 

128(a)(2) requires that the members of 

any board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar power to 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA, shall also be subject to 

conflict of interest disclosure 

requirements. 

To meet its section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

obligations for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS, Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission cites Article 4, Section 109 

of the Mississippi Constitution and 

portions of Mississippi Code sections 

25–4–25, –27, –29, –103, –105, and 

–109. These provisions were 

incorporated into the Mississippi SIP to 

meet CAA section 128 requirements in 

EPA’s final action for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP. See 78 

FR 20793.22 In this same final action for 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP (78 FR 20793), EPA 

disapproved Mississippi’s October 11, 

2012, submission as not satisfying the 

significant portion of income 

requirement of section 128(a)(1). 

Based upon the review of the above 

cited laws and provisions, EPA is 

proposing to approve the section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) portions of the 

infrastructure SIP submission as it 

relates to the public interest 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) and 

the conflict of interest disclosure 

provisions of section 128(a)(2) for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) portion of the 

infrastructure SIP submission as it 

pertains to compliance with the 

significant portion of income 

requirement of section 128(a)(1) for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.23

With respect to the significant portion 

of income requirement of section 

128(a)(1), the provisions included in the 

infrastructure SIP submission do not 

preclude at least a majority of the 

members of the Mississippi Boards 24

from receiving a significant portion of 

their income from persons subject to 

permits or enforcement orders issued by 

such Boards. While the submitted laws 

and provisions preclude members of the 

Mississippi Boards from certain types of 

income (e.g., contracts with State or 

political subdivisions thereof, or income 

obtained through the use of his or her 

public office or obtained to influence a 

decision of the Mississippi Boards), they 

do not preclude a majority of members 

of the Mississippi Boards from deriving 

any significant portion of their income 

from persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders so long as that 

income is not derived from one of the 

proscribed methods described in the 

laws and provisions submitted by the 

State. To date, because a majority of 

board members may still derive a 

significant portion of income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders issued by the 

Mississippi Boards, the Mississippi SIP 

does not meet the section 128(a)(1) 

majority requirements respecting 

significant portion of income, and as 

such, EPA is today proposing to 

disapprove the State’s 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

submission as it relates only to this 

portion of section 128(a)(1). 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

submission as it relates to the public 

interest requirements of section 

128(a)(1) and the conflict of interest 

disclosure provisions of section 

128(a)(2) and proposing to disapprove 

Mississippi’s section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

submission as it pertains to compliance 

with the significant portion of income 

requirement of section 128(a)(1) for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source 

Monitoring and Reporting: Section 

110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet 

applicable requirements addressing: (i) 

the installation, maintenance, and 

replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary 

steps, by owners or operators of 

stationary sources to monitor emissions 

from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions 

and emissions related data from such 

sources, and (iii) correlation of such 

reports by the state agency with any 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7267 

emission limitations or standards 

established pursuant to this section, 

which reports shall be available at 

reasonable times for public inspection. 

Section APC–S–2, Permit Regulations 

for the Construction and/or Operation of 

Air Emissions Equipment, establishes 

requirements for emissions compliance 

testing utilizing emissions sampling and 

analysis. It further describes how the 

State ensures the quality of its data 

through observing emissions and 

monitoring operations. MDEQ uses 

these data to track progress towards 

maintaining the NAAQS, develop 

control and maintenance strategies, 

identify sources and general emission 

levels, and determine compliance with 

emission regulations and additional 

EPA requirements. Mississippi Code 49, 

Section 49–17–21 (Appendix A–9) 

provides MDEQ with the authority to 

require the maintenance of records 

related to the operation of air 

contaminant sources and any authorized 

representative of the Commission may 

examine and copy any such records or 

memoranda pertaining to the operation 

of such contaminant source. Section 

APC–S–2 lists requirements for 

compliance testing and reporting that is 

required to be included in any MDEQ 

air pollution permit and requires that 

copies of records relating to the 

operation of air contamination sources 

be submitted to the Permit Board as 

required by the permit or upon request. 

Section APC–S–1, Air Emission 

Regulations For The Prevention, 

Abatement, and Control of Air 

Contaminants, authorizes source 

owners or operators to use any credible 

evidence or information relevant to 

whether a source would have been in 

compliance with applicable 

requirements if the appropriate 

performance or compliance test had 

been performed, for the purpose of 

submitting compliance certifications. 

EPA is unaware of any provision 

preventing the use of credible evidence 

in the Mississippi SIP. 

Additionally, Mississippi is required 

to submit emissions data to EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through EPA’s online 

Emissions Inventory System. States 

report emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and the precursors that form 

them—NOX, SO2, ammonia, lead, 

carbon monoxide, particulate matter, 

and volatile organic compounds. Many 

states also voluntarily report emissions 

of hazardous air pollutants. Mississippi 

made its latest update to the 2012 NEI 

on January 9, 2014. EPA compiles the 

emissions data, supplementing it where 

necessary, and releases it to the general 

public through the Web site http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/

eiinformation.html. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems related to the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency powers: 

This section of the CAA requires that 

states demonstrate authority comparable 

with section 303 of the CAA and 

adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority. Mississippi 

Code Title 49 (Appendix A–9) and 

Section APC–S–3, Mississippi 

Regulations for the Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes, identify 

air pollution emergency episodes and 

preplanned abatement strategies. 

Specifically, Section APC–S–3 

authorizes the MDEQ Director, once it 

has been determined that an Air 

Pollution Emergency Episode condition 

exists at one or more monitoring sites 

solely because of emissions from a 

limited number of sources, to order 

source(s) to put into effect the emission 

control programs which are applicable 

for each episode stage. Section APC–S– 

3 also lists regulations to prevent the 

excessive buildup of air pollutants 

during air pollution episodes. Also, 

Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49– 

17–27 (Appendix A–9), states that in the 

event an emergency is found to exist by 

the Mississippi Commission on 

Environmental Quality, it may issue an 

emergency order as circumstances may 

require. Emergency situations include 

those which create an imminent and 

substantial endangerment threatening 

the public health and safety or the lives 

and property of the people in 

Mississippi. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP is adequate for 

emergency powers related to the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(G). 

9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP Revisions: Section 

110(a)(2)(H), in summary, requires each 

SIP to provide for revisions of such plan 

(i) as may be necessary to take account 

of revisions of such national primary or 

secondary ambient air quality standard 

or the availability of improved or more 

expeditious methods of attaining such 

standard, and (ii) whenever the 

Administrator finds that the plan is 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS or to otherwise comply with 

any additional applicable requirements. 

MDEQ is responsible for adopting air 

quality rules and revising SIPs as 

needed to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS in Mississippi. The State has 

the ability and authority to respond to 

calls for SIP revisions, and has provided 

a number of SIP revisions over the years 

for implementation of the NAAQS. 

Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49– 

17–17(h) (Appendix A–9), provides 

MDEQ with the statutory authority to 

adopt, modify or repeal and promulgate 

ambient air and water quality standards 

and emissions standards for the State. 

As such, the State has the authority to 

revise the SIP to accommodate changes 

to NAAQS and revise the SIP if the EPA 

Administrator finds the plan to be 

substantially inadequate to attain the 

NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate a 

commitment to provide future SIP 

revisions related to the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS when necessary. 

10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility 

Protection: EPA is proposing to approve 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS with respect to the general 

requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to 

include a program in the SIP that 

provides for meeting the applicable 

consultation requirements of section 

121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127, PSD, and 

visibility protection. EPA’s rationale for 

each sub-element is described below. 

Consultation with government 

officials (121 consultation): Section 

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to 

provide a process for consultation with 

local governments, designated 

organizations and Federal Land 

Managers carrying out NAAQS 

implementation requirements pursuant 

to section 121 relative to consultation. 

Section APC–S–5, Mississippi 

Regulations for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, 

and Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 

49–17–17(c) (Appendix A–9), along 

with the State’s various 

implementations plans, such as the 

State’s Regional Haze Implementation 

Plan, provide for consultation between 

appropriate state, local, and tribal air 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7268 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

pollution control agencies as well as the 

corresponding Federal Land Managers 

whose jurisdictions might be affected by 

SIP development activities. Mississippi 

adopted state-wide consultation 

procedures for the implementation of 

transportation conformity. These 

consultation procedures were developed 

in coordination with the transportation 

partners in the State and are consistent 

with the approaches used for 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIPs. Implementation of transportation 

conformity as outlined in the 

consultation procedures requires MDEQ 

to consult with Federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials on the development of motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate that the State 

meets applicable requirements related to 

consultation with government officials 

for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when 

necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) 

consultation with government officials. 

Public notification (127 public 

notification): These requirements are 

met through regulation APC–S–3, 

Mississippi Regulations for the 

Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency 

Episodes, which requires that MDEQ 

notify the public of any air pollution 

alert, warning, or emergency. The 

MDEQ Web site also provides air quality 

summary data, air quality index reports 

and links to more information regarding 

public awareness of measures that can 

prevent such exceedances and of ways 

in which the public can participate in 

regulatory and other efforts to improve 

air quality. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the State’s 

ability to provide public notification 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public 

notification. 

PSD: With regard to the PSD element 

of section 110(a)(2)(J), this requirement 

may be met by a state’s confirmation in 

an infrastructure SIP submission that 

new major sources and major 

modifications in the state are subject to 

a PSD program meeting all the current 

structural requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA. As discussed in more 

detail above under the section 

discussing 110(a)(2)(C), Mississippi’s 

SIP contains provisions for the State’s 

PSD program that reflect the relevant 

SIP revisions pertaining to the required 

structural PSD requirements to satisfy 

the requirement of the PSD element of 

section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the PSD element of section 

110(a)(2)(J). 

Visibility protection: EPA’s 2013 

Guidance notes that it does not treat the 

visibility protection aspects of section 

110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of 

the infrastructure SIP approval process. 

MDEQ referenced its regional haze 

program as germane to the visibility 

component of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA 

recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility protection and regional haze 

program requirements under part C of 

the Act (which includes sections 169A 

and 169B). However, there are no newly 

applicable visibility protection 

obligations after the promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has 

determined that states do not need to 

address the visibility component of 

110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP 

submittals so MDEQ does not need to 

rely on its regional haze program to 

fulfill its obligations under section 

110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS is approvable for the 

visibility protection element of section 

110(a)(2)(J) and that Mississippi does 

not need to rely on its regional haze 

program to address this element. 

11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling 

and Submission of Modeling Data: 

Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires 

that SIPs provide for performing air 

quality modeling so that effects on air 

quality of emissions from NAAQS 

pollutants can be predicted and 

submission of such data to the EPA can 

be made. Sections APC–S–2, V. B.— 

Permit Regulation for the Construction 

and/or Operation of Air Emissions 

Equipment, and APC–S–5, Mississippi 

Regulations for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, 

specify that required air modeling be 

conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 51, Appendix W, Guideline on Air 

Quality Models, as incorporated into the 

Mississippi SIP. These standards 

demonstrate that Mississippi has the 

authority to perform air quality 

monitoring and provide relevant data 

for the purpose of predicting the effect 

on ambient air quality of the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, 

Mississippi supports a regional effort to 

coordinate the development of 

emissions inventories and conduct 

regional modeling for several NAAQS, 

including the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, 

for the southeastern states. Taken as a 

whole, Mississippi’s air quality 

regulations and practices demonstrate 

that MDEQ has the authority to provide 

relevant data for the purpose of 

predicting the effect on ambient air 

quality of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

State’s ability to provide for air quality 

and modeling, along with analysis of the 

associated data, related to the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(K). 

12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: 

Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires the owner 

or operator of each major stationary 

source to pay to the permitting 

authority, as a condition of any permit 

required under the CAA, a fee sufficient 

to cover (i) the reasonable costs of 

reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

Mississippi’s Mississippi Code Title 

49, Section 49–2–9(c) (Appendix A–9), 

authorizes MDEQ to apply for, receive, 

and expend Federal or State funds in 

order to operate its air programs. 

Mississippi SIP Mississippi Code Title 

49, Section 49–17–30 (Appendix A–9), 

provides for the assessment of title V 

permit fees to cover the reasonable cost 

of reviewing and acting upon air 

permitting activities in the State 

including title V, PSD and NNSR 

permits. Mississippi Code Title 49, 

Section 49–17–14 (Appendix A–9), 

allows MDEQ to expend or utilize 

monies in the Mississippi Air Operating 

Permit Program Fee Trust Fund to pay 

all reasonable direct and indirect costs 

associated with the development and 

administration of the title V program 

and the PSD and NNSR permitting 

programs. The Mississippi Air 

Operating Permit Program Fee Trust 

Fund consists of State legislative 

appropriations, Federal grant funds and 

title V fees. Additionally, Mississippi 

has a federally-approved title V 

operating permit program at Section 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7269 

25Title V program regulations are federallyapproved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. 

APC–S–6 25 that covers the 

implementation and enforcement of 

PSD and NNSR permits after they have 

been issued. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi adequately provide for 

permitting fees related to the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary. 

13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation and 

Participation by Affected Local Entities: 

Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires 

states to provide for consultation and 

participation in SIP development by 

local political subdivisions affected by 

the SIP. Mississippi Code Title 49, 

Sections 49–17–17(c) 49–17–19(b) 

(Appendix A–9) requires that MDEQ 

notify the public (including local 

political subdivisions) of an application, 

preliminary determination, the activity 

or activities involved in the permit 

action, any emissions change associated 

with any permit modification, and the 

opportunity for comment prior to 

making a final permitting decision. 

Additionally, MDEQ works closely with 

local political subdivisions during the 

development of its transportation 

conformity SIP and regional haze SIP. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation with affected local entities 

related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of interstate 

transport provisions pertaining to the 

contribution to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance in other 

states and visibility protection 

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

and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), and the 

state board majority requirements 

respecting the significant portion of 

income of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s June 

20, 2013, SIP submission for the 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS for the above 

described infrastructure SIP 

requirements. EPA is proposing to 

approve these portions of Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS because these 

aspects of the submission are consistent 

with section 110 of the CAA. With 

regard to the state board majority 

requirements respecting significant 

portion of income, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove Mississippi’s June 20, 2013, 

infrastructure submission. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of a CAA Part 

D Plan or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as 

described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP 

call) starts a sanctions clock. The 

portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

provisions (the provisions being 

proposed for disapproval in today’s 

notice) were not submitted to meet 

requirements for Part D or a SIP call, 

and therefore, if EPA takes final action 

to disapprove this submittal, no 

sanctions will be triggered. However, if 

this disapproval action is finalized, that 

final action will trigger the requirement 

under section 110(c) that EPA 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) no later than two years from 

the date of the disapproval unless the 

State corrects the deficiency, and EPA 

approves the plan or plan revision 

before EPA promulgates such FIP. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 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 proposed 

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 proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: January 28, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02608 Filed 2–10–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0743; FRL–9942–01– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval and Designation of 

Areas; MS; Redesignation of the 

DeSoto County, 2008 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On December 11, 2015, the 

State of Mississippi, through the 

Mississippi Department of Environment 

Quality (MDEQ), submitted a request for 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to redesignate the portion of 

Mississippi that is within the Memphis, 

Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas 

(Memphis, TN-MS-AR) 2008 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Memphis, TN-MS-AR 

Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) and to approve a State 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS