Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66591 

emission levels would equal those in 

the attainment year. 

As shown in Table 12 above, Ohio is 

allocating a portion of that safety margin 

to the mobile source sector. Specifically, 

in 2020, Ohio is allocating 6.61 TPSD 

and 12.98 TPSD of the VOC and NOX

safety margins, respectively. In 2030, 

Ohio is allocating 5.78 TPSD and 11.10 

TPSD of the VOC and NOX safety 

margins, respectively. Ohio EPA is not 

requesting allocation to the MVEBs of 

the entire available safety margins 

reflected in the demonstration of 

maintenance. In fact, the amount 

allocated to the MVEBs represents only 

a small portion of the 2020 and 2030 

safety margins. Therefore, even though 

the State is requesting MVEBs that 

exceed the projected onroad mobile 

source emissions for 2020 and 2030 

contained in the demonstration of 

maintenance, the increase in onroad 

mobile source emissions that can be 

considered for transportation 

conformity purposes is well within the 

safety margins of the ozone maintenance 

demonstration. Further, once allocated 

to mobile sources, these safety margins 

will not be available for use by other 

sources. 

VI. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the Columbus nonattainment is 

attaining the 2008 ozone standard, 

based on quality-assured and certified 

monitoring data for 2013–2015 and that 

the Ohio portion of this area has met the 

requirements for redesignation under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA is 

thus proposing to approve Ohio EPA’s 

request to change the legal designation 

of the Columbus area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

2008 ozone standard. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as a revision to 

the Ohio SIP, the state’s maintenance 

plan for the area. The maintenance plan 

is designed to keep the Columbus area 

in attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

through 2030. Finally, EPA finds 

adequate and is proposing to approve 

the newly-established 2020 and 2030 

MVEBs for the Columbus area. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, redesignation of an 

area to attainment and the 

accompanying approval of a 

maintenance plan under section 

107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the 

status of a geographical area and do not 

impose any additional regulatory 

requirements on sources beyond those 

imposed by state law. A redesignation to 

attainment does not in and of itself 

create any new requirements, but rather 

results in the applicability of 

requirements contained in the CAA for 

areas that have been redesignated to 

attainment. Moreover, the Administrator 

is required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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 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 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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because 

redesignation is an action that affects 

the status of a geographical area and 

does not impose any new regulatory 

requirements on tribes, impact any 

existing sources of air pollution on 

tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance 

of ozone national ambient air quality 

standards in tribal lands. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 19, 2016. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2016–23293 Filed 9–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0421; FRL–9953–16– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Mississippi; 

Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2) 

for the 2010 1-hour NO2 Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Mississippi State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MS DEQ), on 

May 23, 2016, addressing the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) interstate transport 

(prongs 1 and 2) infrastructure SIP 

requirements for the 2010 1-hour 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 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, commonly 

referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ 

Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve Mississippi’s May 23, 2016, SIP 

submission addressing prongs 1 and 2, 

to ensure that air emissions in the State 

do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS in any other state. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66592 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

OAR–2016–0421 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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. 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, 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: 

Nacosta C. Ward of 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. Ms. Ward 

can be reached by telephone at (404) 

562–9140 or via electronic mail at 

ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by 

states within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to 

these SIP submissions made for the 

purpose of satisfying the requirements 

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

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

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

newly established or revised NAAQS. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for infrastructure 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. The contents of an 

infrastructure SIP submission may vary 

depending upon the data and analytical 

tools available to the state, as well as the 

provisions already contained in the 

state’s implementation plan at the time 

in which the state develops and submits 

the submission for a new or revised 

NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two 

components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes 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 from 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) and 

from interfering with measures to 

protect visibility in another state (prong 

4). 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. 

Through this proposed action, EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s May 

23, 2016, SIP submission addressing 

prong 1 and prong 2 requirements for 

the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. All other 

applicable infrastructure SIP 

requirements for Mississippi for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS have been 

addressed in separate rulemakings. See 

80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015), 81 FR 

32707 (May 24, 2016), and 81 FR 33139 

(May 25, 2016). A brief background 

regarding the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS 

is provided below. 

On January 22, 2010, EPA established 

a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2

at a level of 100 parts per billion, based 

on a 3-year average of the 98th 

percentile of the yearly distribution of 1- 

hour daily maximum concentrations. 

See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). This 

NAAQS is designed to protect against 

exposure to the entire group of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX). NO2 is the component of 

greatest concern and is used as the 

indicator for the larger group of NOX.

Emissions that lead to the formation of 

NO2 generally also lead to the formation 

of other NOX. Therefore, control 

measures that reduce NO2 can generally 

be expected to reduce population 

exposures to all gaseous NOX which 

may have the co-benefit of reducing the 

formation of ozone and fine particles 

both of which pose significant public 

health threats. 

States were required to submit 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no 

later than January 22, 2013. For 

comprehensive information on 2010 1- 

hour NO2 NAAQS, please refer to the 

Federal Register notice cited above. 

II. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

The requirement for states to make a 

SIP submission of this type arises out of 

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 ‘‘each such plan’’ 

submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (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 section 169A of the 

CAA, and nonattainment new source 

review 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66593 

1For 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. 

2See, 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)). 

3EPA 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, 

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. 4See, 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). 

5On 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. 

6For 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. 

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.1 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 CAA, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.2 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.3 This ambiguity illustrates 

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 

section 110(a)(1) and (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.4 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 subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submission.5

Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) 

and (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.6

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 

attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2); thus, 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 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66594 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

7EPA 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. 

8 ‘‘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. 

9EPA’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.3d 

7 (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. 

10Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, 

EPA’s interpretation of the CAA with respect to the 

approvability of affirmative defense provisions in 

SIPs has changed. See ‘‘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,’’ 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a 

result, EPA’s 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no 

longer represents the EPA’s view concerning the 

validity of affirmative defense provisions, in light 

of the requirements of section 113 and section 304. 

11By 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 or affirmative defense 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. 

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.7 EPA most recently 

issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

on September 13, 2013 (2013 

Guidance).8 EPA developed this 

document to provide states with up-todate 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.9 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). EPA 

interprets section 110(a)(1) and (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 

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 section 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. 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 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 SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

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

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether 

the state has an EPA-approved minor 

new source review 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 (SSM) that 

may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s 

policies addressing such excess 

emissions; 10 (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 SIPapproved 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 that 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.11 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 66595 

12For 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). 

13EPA 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 section 110(k)(6) of the 

CAA 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). 

14See, 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). 

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 

section 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 section 110(a)(1) 

and (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 SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.12 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.13

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.14

III. What are the prongs 1 and 2 

requirements? 

For each new NAAQS, section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires 

each state to submit a SIP revision that 

contains adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions activity in the 

state from contributing significantly to 

nonattainment, or interfering with 

maintenance, of the NAAQS in any 

downwind state. EPA sometimes refers 

to these requirements as prong 1 

(significant contribution to 

nonattainment) and prong 2 

(interference with maintenance), or 

conjointly as the ‘‘good neighbor’’ 

provision of the CAA. Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires the 

elimination of upwind state emissions 

that significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interference with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Mississippi addressed prongs 1 and 2? 

Mississippi has concluded that it does 

not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS in any other state for the 

following reasons: (1) All areas in 

Mississippi and in the surrounding 

states are designated as unclassifiable/ 

attainment for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS; (2) monitored ambient NO2

concentrations in the State and 

surrounding states are well below the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS; (3) total NOX

emissions in the State and surrounding 

states are trending downward; and (4) 

there are SIP-approved state regulations 

in place to control NOX emissions in the 

State. EPA preliminarily agrees with the 

State’s conclusion based on the 

rationale discussed below. 

First, there are no designated 

nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-hour 

NO2 NAAQS. On February 17, 2012 (77 

FR 9532), EPA designated the entire 

country as ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ 

for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, stating 

that ‘‘available information does not 

indicate that the air quality in these 

areas exceeds the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS.’’ 

Second, as part of its May 23, 2016, 

SIP submittal, Mississippi examined 

NO2 monitoring data from 2009–2014 in 

the State and surrounding states. 

According to this data, the design values 

during this period are well below the 

100 ppb standard with Alabama and 

Tennessee having the highest 2012– 

2014 design values (51 ppb). 

Third, Mississippi’s submittal 

provides total NOX emissions data 

reported to the National Emissions 

Inventory in 2005, 2008, and 2011 for 

Mississippi and the surrounding states. 

This data shows that NOX emissions 

generally decreased over this time 

period in these states. 

Fourth, in its submittal, Mississippi 

identifies SIP-approved regulations 

APC–S–1 (‘‘Air Emission Regulations 

for the Prevention, Abatement, and 

Control of Air Contaminants’’), APC–S– 

2 (‘‘Permit Regulation for the 

Construction and/or Operation of Air 

Emissions Equipment’’), APC–S–3 

(‘‘Mississippi Regulations for the 

Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency 

Episodes’’), and APC–S–5 (‘‘Mississippi 

Regulations for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air 

Quality’’) as regulations that control 

NOX emitting sources in the State. APC– 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
66596 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

S–2, for example, contains permitting 

requirements that require controls and 

emission limits for certain NOX emitting 

sources in the State. These permitting 

requirements help ensure that no new or 

modified NOX sources in the State 

subject to these permitting regulations 

will significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. 

For all the reasons discussed above, 

EPA has preliminarily determined that 

Mississippi does not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2010 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other state 

and that Mississippi’s SIP includes 

adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions sources within the State from 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of this standard in any 

other state. 

V. Proposed Action 

As described above, EPA is proposing 

to approve Mississippi’s May 23, 2016, 

SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

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 proposes to approve 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 

actions’’ 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 actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory 

actions 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). 

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. 

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

Dated: September 15, 2016. 

Kenneth R. Lapierre, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–23300 Filed 9–27–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0799; FRL–9953–17– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; 

Regional Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Tennessee through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC) on April 19, 2013. 

Tennessee’s April 19, 2013, SIP revision 

(Progress Report) addresses 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

each state to submit periodic reports 

describing progress towards reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) established for 

regional haze and a determination of the 

adequacy of the state’s existing SIP 

addressing regional haze (regional haze 

plan). EPA is proposing to approve 

Tennessee’s Progress Report on the basis 

that it addresses the progress report and 

adequacy determination requirements 

for the first implementation period for 

regional haze. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 28, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0799 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

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. 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, 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: 

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 by phone at 

(404) 562–9031 and via electronic mail 

at notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS