34898 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

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 during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

email at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, also entitled ‘‘Approval and 

Promulgation of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Maryland; 

Permit to Construct Exemptions,’’ that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. 

Dated: June 1, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14107 Filed 6–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0402; FRL–9686–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Mississippi; 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP), 

submitted by the State of Mississippi, 

through the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (DEQ), as 

meeting certain requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) for the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. Mississippi 

certified that the Mississippi SIP 

contains provisions that ensure that the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Mississippi (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘infrastructure 

submission’’). EPA is proposing to 

determine that Mississippi’s 

infrastructure submissions, provided to 

EPA on December 7, 2007, and on 

October 6, 2009, addressed all the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS with the exception of sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(G), both of 

which will be addressed in a separate 

action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0402, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0402,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning 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, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0402. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 34899 

1As described further below in Section II, EPA is 

not taking on action on sections 110(a)(2)(C) 

nonattainment area requirements and 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

interstate transport requirements. 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

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 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What elements are required under sections 

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

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Mississippi addressed the elements of 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA 

established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ 

m3) based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, 

EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS 

of 65 mg/m3. See 40 CFR 50.7. On 

October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA 

retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

at 15.0 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average 

of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 

and promulgated a new 24-hour 

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting 

the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 

and (2) are to be submitted by states 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) require states to 

address basic SIP requirements, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. States were required to submit 

such SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000 

for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, no 

later than October 2009 for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice 

submitted a notice of intent to sue 

related to EPA’s failure to issue findings 

of failure to submit related to the 

‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 

10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent 

decree with Earthjustice which required 

EPA, among other things, to complete a 

Federal Register notice announcing 

EPA’s determinations pursuant to 

section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each 

state had made complete submissions to 

meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

October 5, 2008. In accordance with the 

consent decree, EPA made completeness 

findings for each state based upon what 

the Agency received from each state for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 

2008. 

On October 22, 2008, EPA published 

a final rulemaking entitled, 

‘‘Completeness Findings for Section 

110(a) State Implementation Plans 

Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS’’ making a finding that 

each state had submitted or failed to 

submit a complete SIP that provided the 

basic program elements of section 

110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (See 73 FR 62902). 

For those states that did receive 

findings, the findings of failure to 

submit for all or a portion of a state’s 

implementation plan established a 24- 

month deadline for EPA to promulgate 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to 

address the outstanding SIP elements 

unless, prior to that time, the affected 

states submitted, and EPA approved, the 

required SIPs. 

The findings that all or portions of a 

state’s submission are complete 

established a 12-month deadline for 

EPA to take action upon the complete 

SIP elements in accordance with section 

110(k). Mississippi’s infrastructure 

submissions were received by EPA on 

December 7, 2007, for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS and on October 6, 2009, 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 

submissions were determined to be 

complete on June 7, 2008, and April 6, 

2010, respectively. Mississippi was 

among other states that did not receive 

findings of failure to submit because it 

had provided a complete submission to 

EPA to address the infrastructure 

elements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by 

October 3, 2008. 

On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians 

and Sierra Club filed an amended 

complaint related to EPA’s failure to 

take action on the SIP submittal related 

to the ‘‘infrastructure’’ requirements for 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On 

October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a 

consent decree with WildEarth 

Guardians and Sierra Club which 

required EPA, among other things, to 

complete a Federal Register notice of 

the Agency’s final action either 

approving, disapproving, or approving 

in part and disapproving in part the 

Mississippi 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure SIP submittal addressing 

the applicable requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except for 

section 110(a)(2)(C) the nonattainment 

area requirements and section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport 

requirements, by September 30, 2012. 

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve Mississippi’s infrastructure 

submission for the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for sections 

110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except for 

sections 110(a)(2)(C) nonattainment area 

requirements, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate 

transport requirements, 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

state board requirements, and 

110(a)(2)(G) emergency power 

requirements. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and (G) will be addressed in a separate 

action.1 This action 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 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. In the 

case of the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, some states may 

need to adopt language specific to the 

PM2.5 NAAQS to ensure that they have 

adequate SIP provisions to implement 

the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

34900 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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) but does 

provide detail on how Mississippi’s SIP addresses 

110(a)(2)(C). 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4Today’s proposed rule does not address element 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 

and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Interstate transport 

requirements were formerly addressed by 

Mississippi consistent with the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR). On December 23, 2008, CAIR was 

remanded by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, 

without vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina 

v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). Prior to this 

remand, EPA took final action to approve 

Mississippi SIP revision, which was submitted to 

comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 56268 (October 3, 

2007). In so doing, Mississippi CAIR SIP revision 

addressed the interstate transport provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. In response to the remand of CAIR, EPA 

has recently finalized a new rule to address the 

interstate transport of nitrogen oxides and sulfur 

oxides in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 

48208 (August 8, 2011) (‘‘the Transport Rule’’). That 

rule was recently stayed by the DC Circuit Court of 

Appeals. EPA’s action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

will be addressed in a separate action. 

5This requirement was inadvertently omitted 

from EPA’s October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under 

Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8–Hour Ozone 

and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ and the September 25, 2009, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

2006 Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards,’’ but as mentioned above is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

6See Comments of Midwest Environmental 

Defense Center, dated May 31, 2011. Docket # EPA– 

R05–OAR–2007–1179 (adverse comments on 

proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes 

that these public comments on another proposal are 

not relevant to this rulemaking and do not have to 

be directly addressed in this rulemaking. EPA will 

respond to these comments in the appropriate 

rulemaking action to which they apply. 

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 ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

mentioned above, these requirements 

include SIP infrastructure elements 

such as modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions inventories that are designed 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. The requirements that are 

the subject of this proposed rulemaking 

are listed below 2 and in EPA’s October 

2, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 

1997 8–Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and 

September 25, 2009, memorandum 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2006 24–Hour Fine Particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.’’ 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures.3

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.4

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated 

nonattainment and meet the applicable 

requirements of part D.5

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials; public 

notification; and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ 

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities. 

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs 

EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS for various 

states across the country. Commenters 

on EPA’s recent proposals for some 

states raised concerns about EPA 

statements that it was not addressing 

certain substantive issues in the context 

of acting on those infrastructure SIP 

submissions.6 Those Commenters 

specifically raised concerns involving 

provisions in existing SIPs and with 

EPA’s statements in other proposals that 

it would address two issues separately 

and not as part of actions on the 

infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions during periods of start-up, 

shutdown, or malfunction at sources 

(SSM), that may be contrary to the CAA 

and EPA’s policies addressing such 

excess emissions; and (ii) existing 

provisions related to ‘‘director’s 

variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that 

purport to permit revisions to SIP 

approved emissions limits with limited 

public process or without requiring 

further approval by EPA, that may be 

contrary to the CAA (director’s 

discretion). EPA notes that there are two 

other substantive issues for which EPA 

likewise stated in other proposals that it 

would address separately: (i) Existing 

provisions for minor source new source 

review (NSR) programs that may be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and EPA’s regulations that 

pertain to such programs (minor source 

NSR); and (ii) existing provisions for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(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). In light of the comments, EPA 

believes that its statements in various 

proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs 

with respect to these four individual 

issues should be explained in greater 

depth. It is important to emphasize that 

EPA is taking the same position with 

respect to these four substantive issues 

in this action on the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

from Mississippi. 

EPA intended the statements in the 

other proposals concerning these four 

issues merely to be informational and to 

provide general notice of the potential 

existence of provisions within the 

existing SIPs of some states that might 

require future corrective action. EPA did 

not want states, regulated entities, or 

members of the public to be under the 

misconception that the Agency’s 

approval of the infrastructure SIP 

submission of a given state should be 

interpreted as a re-approval of certain 

types of provisions that might exist 

buried in the larger existing SIP for such 

state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly 

noted that the Agency believes that 

some states may have existing SIP 

approved SSM provisions that are 

contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, 

but that ‘‘in this rulemaking, EPA is not 

proposing to approve or disapprove any 

existing state provisions with regard to 

excess emissions during SSM of 

operations at facilities.’’ EPA further 

explained, for informational purposes, 

that ‘‘EPA plans to address such State 

regulations in the future.’’ EPA made 

similar statements, for similar reasons, 

with respect to the director’s discretion, 

minor source NSR, and NSR Reform 

issues. EPA’s objective was to make 

clear that approval of an infrastructure 

SIP for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

provisions that relate to these four 

substantive issues. EPA is reiterating 

that position in this action on the 

infrastructure SIP for Mississippi. 

Unfortunately, the Commenters and 

others evidently interpreted these 

statements to mean that EPA considered 

action upon the SSM provisions and the 

other three substantive issues to be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 34901 

7For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) 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 substantive program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of the 

CAA; section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must 

have both legal authority to address emergencies 

and substantive contingency plans in the event of 

such an emergency. 

8For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

EPA to be sure that each state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent significant 

contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in 

other states. This provision contains numerous 

terms that require substantial rulemaking by EPA in 

order to determine such basic points as what 

constitutes significant contribution. See ‘‘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 (May 12, 

2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase 

‘‘contribute significantly to nonattainment’’). 

9See Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63—65 (May 12, 2005) 

(explaining relationship between timing 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 

110(a)(2)(I)). 

10EPA issued separate guidance to states with 

respect to SIP submissions to meet section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS. See ‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8–Hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ from 

William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy 

Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division Director, 

Regions I–X, dated August 15, 2006. 

11For 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. 

integral parts of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, and 

therefore that EPA was merely 

postponing taking final action on the 

issues in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA’s 

intention. To the contrary, EPA only 

meant to convey its awareness of the 

potential for certain types of 

deficiencies in existing SIPs and to 

prevent any misunderstanding that it 

was reapproving any such existing 

provisions. EPA’s intention was to 

convey its position that the statute does 

not require that infrastructure SIPs 

address these specific substantive issues 

in existing SIPs and that these issues 

may be dealt with separately, outside 

the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIP submission of a state. 

To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply 

that it was not taking a full final agency 

action on the infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to any 

substantive issue that EPA considers to 

be a required part of acting on such 

submissions under section 110(k) or 

under section 110(c). Given the 

confusion evidently resulting from 

EPA’s statements in those other 

proposals, however, we want to explain 

more fully the Agency’s reasons for 

concluding that these four potential 

substantive issues in existing SIPs may 

be addressed separately from actions on 

infrastructure SIP submissions. 

The requirement for the SIP 

submissions at issue arises out of CAA 

section 110(a)(1). That provision 

requires that states must make a SIP 

submission ‘‘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 

that these SIPs are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. Section 

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

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must meet. EPA has 

historically referred to these particular 

submissions that states must make after 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS as ‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ This 

specific term does not appear in the 

statute, but EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission designed to address basic 

structural requirements of a SIP from 

other types of SIP submissions designed 

to address other different requirements, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ 

submissions required to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required to address the visibility 

protection requirements of CAA section 

169A, NSR permitting program 

submissions required to address the 

requirements of part D, and a host of 

other specific types of SIP submissions 

that address other specific matters. 

Although section 110(a)(1) addresses 

the timing and general requirements for 

these infrastructure SIPs, and section 

110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes 

that many of the specific statutory 

provisions are facially ambiguous. In 

particular, 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 provisions, and 

some of which pertain to requirements 

for both authority and substantive 

provisions.7 Some of the elements of 

section 110(a)(2) are relatively 

straightforward, but others clearly 

require interpretation by EPA through 

rulemaking, or recommendations 

through guidance, in order to give 

specific meaning for a particular 

NAAQS.8

Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) 

provides that ‘‘each’’ SIP submission 

must meet the list of requirements 

therein, EPA has long noted that this 

literal reading of the statute is internally 

inconsistent, insofar as section 

110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment 

SIP requirements that could not be met 

on the schedule provided for these SIP 

submissions in section 110(a)(1).9 This 

illustrates that EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

may be applicable for a given 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Similarly, EPA has previously decided 

that it could take action on different 

parts of the larger, general 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ for a given NAAQS 

without concurrent action on all 

subsections, such as section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), because the Agency 

bifurcated the action on these latter 

‘‘interstate transport’’ provisions within 

section 110(a)(2) and worked with states 

to address each of the four prongs of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive 

administrative actions proceeding on 

different tracks with different 

schedules.10 This illustrates that EPA 

may conclude that subdividing the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may 

sometimes be appropriate for a given 

NAAQS where a specific substantive 

action is necessitated, beyond a mere 

submission addressing basic structural 

aspects of the state’s implementation 

plans. Finally, 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 and the attendant infrastructure 

SIP submission for that NAAQS. For 

example, the monitoring requirements 

that might be necessary for purposes of 

section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS 

could be very different than what might 

be necessary for a different pollutant. 

Thus, the content of an infrastructure 

SIP submission to meet this element 

from a state might be very different for 

an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor 

revision to an existing NAAQS.11

Similarly, EPA notes that other types 

of SIP submissions required under the 

statute also must meet the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2), and this also 

demonstrates the need to identify the 

applicable elements for other SIP 

submissions. For example, 

nonattainment SIPs required by part D 

likewise have to meet the relevant 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) such as 

section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, 

it is clear that nonattainment SIPs 

would not need to meet the portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part 

C, i.e., the PSD requirements applicable 

in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs 

required by part D also would not need 

to address the requirements of section 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

34902 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

12See ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ from William T. Harnett, Director Air 

Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors, 

Regions I–X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ‘‘2007 

Guidance’’). 

13 Id., at page 2. 

14 Id., at attachment A, page 1. 

15 Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised 

by commenters with respect to EPA’s approach to 

some substantive issues indicates that the statute is 

not so ‘‘self explanatory,’’ and indeed is sufficiently 

ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in order 

to explain why these substantive issues do not need 

to be addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs 

and may be addressed at other times and by other 

means. 

16See ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ from William T, 

Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I–X, dated 

September 25, 2009 (the ‘‘2009 Guidance’’). 

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency 

episodes, as such requirements would 

not be limited to nonattainment areas. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) and not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity of 

the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is 

appropriate for EPA to interpret that 

language in the context of acting on the 

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. 

Because of the inherent ambiguity of the 

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

EPA has adopted an approach in which 

it reviews infrastructure SIPs against 

this list of elements ‘‘as applicable.’’ In 

other words, EPA assumes that Congress 

could not have intended that each and 

every SIP submission, regardless of the 

purpose of the submission or the 

NAAQS in question, would meet each 

of the requirements, or meet each of 

them in the same way. EPA elected to 

use guidance to make recommendations 

for infrastructure SIPs for these ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On October 2, 2007, EPA issued 

guidance making recommendations for 

the infrastructure SIP submissions for 

both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.12 Within this 

guidance document, EPA described the 

duty of states to make these submissions 

to meet what the Agency characterized 

as the ‘‘infrastructure’’ elements for 

SIPs, which it further described as the 

‘‘basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards.’’ 13 As 

further identification of these basic 

structural SIP requirements, 

‘‘attachment A’’ to the guidance 

document included a short description 

of the various elements of section 

110(a)(2) and additional information 

about the types of issues that EPA 

considered germane in the context of 

such infrastructure SIPs. EPA 

emphasized that the description of the 

basic requirements listed on attachment 

A was not intended ‘‘to constitute an 

interpretation of’’ the requirements, and 

was merely a ‘‘brief description of the 

required elements.’’ 14 EPA also stated 

its belief that with one exception, these 

requirements were ‘‘relatively self 

explanatory, and past experience with 

SIPs for other NAAQS should enable 

States to meet these requirements with 

assistance from EPA Regions.’’ 15

However, for the one exception to that 

general assumption (i.e., how states 

should proceed with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA gave 

much more specific recommendations. 

But for other infrastructure SIP 

submittals, and for certain elements of 

the submittals for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA assumed that each state 

would work with its corresponding EPA 

regional office to refine the scope of a 

state’s submittal based on an assessment 

of how the requirements of section 

110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the 

basic structure of the state’s 

implementation plans for the NAAQS in 

question. 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued 

guidance to make recommendations to 

states with respect to the infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.16 In the 

2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a 

number of additional issues that were 

not germane to the infrastructure SIPs 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, but were germane to 

these SIP submissions for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS (e.g., the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had 

bifurcated from the other infrastructure 

elements for those specific 1997 ozone 

and PM2.5 NAAQS). Significantly, 

neither the 2007 Guidance nor the 2009 

Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM, 

director’s discretion, minor source NSR, 

or NSR Reform issues as among specific 

substantive issues EPA expected states 

to address in the context of the 

infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give 

any more specific recommendations 

with respect to how states might address 

such issues even if they elected to do so. 

The SSM and director’s discretion 

issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), 

and the minor source NSR and NSR 

Reform issues implicate section 

110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and 

the 2009 Guidance, however, EPA did 

not indicate to states that it intended to 

interpret these provisions as requiring a 

substantive submission to address these 

specific issues in existing SIP provisions 

in the context of the infrastructure SIPs 

for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA’s 2007 

Guidance merely indicated its belief 

that the states should make submissions 

in which they established that they have 

the basic SIP structure necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS. EPA believes that states can 

establish that they have the basic SIP 

structure, notwithstanding that there 

may be potential deficiencies within the 

existing SIP. Thus, EPA’s proposals for 

other states mentioned these issues not 

because the Agency considers them 

issues that must be addressed in the 

context of an infrastructure SIP as 

required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), 

but rather because EPA wanted to be 

clear that it considers these potential 

existing SIP problems as separate from 

the pending infrastructure SIP actions. 

The same holds true for this action on 

the infrastructure SIPs for Mississippi. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

infrastructure SIP requirement is 

reasonable because it would not be 

feasible to read section 110(a)(1) and (2) 

to require a top to bottom, stem to stern, 

review of each and every provision of an 

existing SIP 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 that, 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 considers the overall 

effectiveness of the SIP. To the contrary, 

EPA believes that a better approach is 

for EPA to determine which specific SIP 

elements from section 110(a)(2) are 

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a 

given NAAQS, and to focus attention on 

those elements that are most likely to 

need a specific SIP revision in light of 

the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for 

example, EPA’s 2007 Guidance 

specifically directed states to focus on 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) 

for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of 

the absence of underlying EPA 

regulations for emergency episodes for 

this NAAQS and an anticipated absence 

of relevant provisions in existing SIPs. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach is a reasonable reading of 

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

statute provides other avenues and 

mechanisms to address specific 

substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. 

These other statutory tools allow the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 34903 

17EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a 

specific SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. 

See, ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revision,’’ 74 FR 21639 (April 

18, 2011). 

18EPA has recently utilized 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 EmittingSources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 

75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 

previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) 

to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See 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). 

19EPA has recently disapproved 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 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 

21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 

2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 

Agency to take appropriate 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 otherwise to 

comply with the CAA.17 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.18

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on the infrastructure SIP is not 

the appropriate time and place to 

address all potential existing SIP 

problems does not preclude the 

Agency’s subsequent reliance on 

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

the basis for action 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 the infrastructure 

SIP, EPA believes that section 

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory 

bases that the Agency cites in the course 

of addressing the issue in a subsequent 

action.19

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Mississippi addressed the elements of 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

Mississippi’s infrastructure 

submissions address the provisions of 

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

below. 

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

other control measures: Mississippi’s 

infrastructure submissions provide an 

overview of the provisions of the 

Mississippi Air Pollution Control (APC) 

Regulations relevant to air quality 

control. The regulations described 

below have been federally approved 

into the Mississippi SIP and include 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures. Mississippi SIP 

Regulations 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, generally 

authorizes DEQ to adopt rules for the 

control of air pollution, including those 

necessary to obtain EPA approval under 

section 110 of the CAA. The most recent 

federally approved revision in this 

regulation was on October 3, 2007 (72 

FR 56268). EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

provisions contained in these 

regulations and Mississippi’s practices 

are adequate to protect the PM2.5 annual 

and 24-hour 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 of 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 plans to address such state 

regulations in the future. In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having deficient SSM provisions to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

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: Mississippi’s 

infrastructure submissions cite SIP 

Regulation APC–S–1—Air Emission 

Regulations for the Prevention, 

Abatement, and Control of Air 

Contaminants, with regard to the 

monitoring program within the State. 

Annually, EPA approves the ambient air 

monitoring network plan for the state 

agencies. On October 6, 2011, EPA 

approved Mississippi’s 2011 monitoring 

network plan. Mississippi’s approved 

monitoring network plan can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0402. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for the ambient 

air quality monitoring and data systems 

related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

enforcement of control measures 

including review of proposed new 

sources: Mississippi’s authority to 

regulate new and modified sources so as 

to provide for the protection of air 

quality in nonattainment, attainment or 

unclassifiable areas is established in the 

Mississippi SIP Regulations APC–S–1— 

Air Emission Regulations for the 

Prevention, Abatement, and Control of 

Air Contaminants, APC–S–2—Permit 

Regulations for the Construction and/or 

Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, 

and APC–S–5—Regulations for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

of Air Quality. Mississippi’s regulations 

provide the permitting requirements for 

new major sources or major 

modifications of existing sources in 

areas classified as attainment or 

unclassifiable under section 

107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the CAA. This 

permitting program is designed to 

ensure that sources in areas attaining 

the NAAQS at the time of designations 

prevent any significant deterioration in 

air quality. Additionally, on May 18, 

2011, Mississippi submitted a SIP 

revision to its NSR/PSD and 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) programs. Mississippi’s May 18, 

2011, SIP submittal would incorporate 

by reference the federal NSR provisions 

for fine particulate matter (also known 

as PM2.5) as amended in EPA’s 2008 

NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘NSR PM2.5

Rule’’) into the Mississippi SIP at APC– 

S–5—Regulations for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. 

In the May 18, 2011, SIP revision, 

Mississippi includes revisions to rules 

that address the infrastructure 

requirements (C) and (J). As such, 

today’s proposed approval of 

Mississippi’s SIP respecting 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C) is 

contingent upon EPA first taking final 

action to approve the May 18, 2011, 

NSR PM2.5 Rule revision into the State’s 

SIP. EPA will propose approval of 

Mississippi’s May 18, 2011, NSR PM2.5

Rule revision in a rulemaking separate 

from today’s action. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

34904 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the 

SIP that regulates the modification and 

construction of any stationary source as 

necessary to assure that the NAAQS are 

achieved. EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove the State’s 

existing minor NSR program itself to the 

extent that it is inconsistent with EPA’s 

regulations governing this program. EPA 

believes that a number of states may 

have minor NSR provisions that are 

contrary to the existing EPA regulations 

for this program. EPA intends to work 

with states to reconcile state minor NSR 

programs with EPA’s regulatory 

provisions for the program. The 

statutory requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable 

flexibility in designing minor NSR 

programs, and EPA believes it may be 

time to revisit the regulatory 

requirements for this program to give 

the states an appropriate level of 

flexibility to design a program that 

meets their particular air quality 

concerns, while assuring reasonable 

consistency across the country in 

protecting the NAAQS with respect to 

new and modified minor sources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for program 

enforcement of control measures 

including review of proposed new 

sources related to the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As 

discussed above, final approval of this 

rule is contingent upon the Agency first 

taking final action to approve 

Mississippi’s May 18, 2011, PM2.5 NSR 

Update. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and 

International transport provisions: In 

Regulation APC–S–2—Permit 

Regulations For The Construction and/ 

or Operation of Air Emissions 

Equipment, Mississippi provides how it 

will notify neighboring states of 

potential impacts from new or modified 

sources. The most recent federally 

approved revision in this regulation was 

on July 10, 2006 (71 FR 38773). 

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 insuring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. 

5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: 

Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each 

implementation plan provide (i) 

necessary assurances that the 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. As with the 

remainder of the infrastructure elements 

addressed by this notice, EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s SIP 

as meeting the requirements of subelements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). With 

respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (regarding 

state boards), EPA is not taking action 

on this sub-element today, and will 

instead address this requirement in a 

separate action. EPA’s rationale for 

today’s proposals respecting subelement 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) is 

described in turn below. 

In support of EPA’s proposal to 

approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and 

(iii), DEQ 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 evidence of 

the adequacy of DEQ’s resources with 

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

submitted a letter to Mississippi on 

March 8, 2012, outlining 105 grant 

commitments and the current status of 

these commitments for fiscal year 2011. 

The letter EPA submitted to Mississippi 

can be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0402. Annually, states update 

these grant commitments based on 

current SIP requirements, air quality 

planning, and applicable requirements 

related to the NAAQS. Mississippi 

satisfactorily met all commitments 

agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement 

for fiscal year 2011, therefore 

Mississippi’s grants were finalized and 

closed out. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi has adequate resources for 

implementation of the 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 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 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 1997 annual and 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source 

monitoring system: Regulation APC–S– 

2—Permit Regulations for the 

Construction and/or Operation of Air 

Emissions Equipment, of the Mississippi 

SIP 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. 

Mississippi DEQ 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. 

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 (EIS). 

States report emissions data for the six 

criteria pollutants and the precursors 

that form them—nitrogen oxides, sulfur 

dioxide, 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 NEI on 

December 30, 2011. 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 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: 

Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to 

provide for authority to address 

activities causing imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public 

health, including contingency plans to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 34905 

implement the emergency episode 

provisions in their SIPs. Today, EPA is 

not proposing any action with respect to 

element 110(a)(2)(G). This element will 

be addressed in a separate action. 

8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: 

DEQ is responsible for adopting air 

quality rules and revising SIPs as 

needed to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS in Mississippi. DEQ 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 does not have any 

nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual 

or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard but has 

submitted an infrastructure submission 

for these standards, which is the subject 

of this rulemaking. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate a commitment 

to provide future SIP revisions related to 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS when necessary. 

9. 110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) 

Consultation with government officials: 

Mississippi Code Annotated Regulation 

49–17–3, as well as Mississippi’s 

Regional Haze Implementation Plan 

(which allows for consultation between 

appropriate state, local, and tribal air 

pollution control agencies as well as the 

corresponding Federal Land Managers), 

provide for consultation with 

government officials whose jurisdictions 

might be affected by SIP development 

activities. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate consultation 

with government officials related to the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS when necessary. 

10. 110(a)(2)(J) (127 public 

notification) Public notification: APC– 

S–3—Regulations for the Prevention of 

Air Pollution Emergency Episodes, of 

the Mississippi SIP requires that DEQ 

notify the public of any air pollution 

episode or NAAQS violation. DEQ’s has 

public notice mechanisms in place to 

notify the public of PM and other 

pollutant forecasting, including an air 

quality monitoring Web site providing 

ground level ozone alerts, http:// 

opc.deq.state.ms.us/aqi/ specifically for 

the Jackson Metropolitan Area, DeSoto 

County, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast. 

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 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when 

necessary. 

11. 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD) PSD and 

visibility protection: Mississippi 

demonstrates its authority to regulate 

new and modified sources of PM to 

assist in the protection of air quality in 

Regulation APC–S–5—Regulations for 

the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration for Air Quality. 

Mississippi’s SIP provides the 

permitting requirements for new major 

sources or major modifications of 

existing sources in areas classified as 

attainment or unclassifiable under 

section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the 

CAA. These provisions are designed to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in areas that are in attainment of 

the NAAQS at the time of designations. 

As with infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(C), infrastructure element 

110(a)(2)(J) also requires compliance 

with applicable provisions of the PSD 

program described in part C of the Act. 

Accordingly, final action to approve the 

May 18, 2011, NSR PM2.5 Rule SIP 

revision, is a prerequisite to today’s 

proposed action to approve the State’s 

infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J). See 

the discussion for element 110(a)(2)(C) 

above for a description of the submitted 

NSR PM2.5 Rule SIP revision to the 

Mississippi SIP. EPA will not take final 

action to approve Mississippi’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements infrastructure 

element 110(a)(2)(J) prior to taking final 

action to approve the State’s May 10, 

2011, NSR PM2.5 Rule SIP revision 

With regard to the applicable 

requirements for visibility protection, 

EPA recognizes that states are subject to 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C of the Act 

(which includes sections 169A and 

169B). In the event of the establishment 

of a new NAAQS, however, the 

visibility and regional haze program 

requirements under part C do not 

change. Thus, EPA finds that there is no 

new visibility obligation ‘‘triggered’’ 

under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new 

NAAQS becomes effective. This would 

be the case even in the event a 

secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is 

established, because that NAAQS would 

not affect visibility requirements under 

part C. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

State’s ability to implement PSD 

programs and to provide for visibility 

protection related to the 1997 annual 

and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when 

necessary. As noted above, final 

approval of this element is contingent 

upon the Agency first taking final action 

to approve Mississippi’s May 18, 2011, 

PM2.5 NSR Update submittal. 

12. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and 

modeling/data: DEQ has authority 

pursuant to Mississippi SIP Regulation 

APC–S–5—Regulations for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

for Air Quality, (which incorporates 40 

CFR part 51.21 by reference) to conduct 

air quality modeling and report the 

results of such modeling to EPA. 

Additionally, Mississippi supports a 

regional effort to coordinate the 

development of emissions inventories 

and conduct regional modeling for 

several NAAQS, including the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

for the Southeastern states. Taken as a 

whole, Mississippi’s air quality 

regulations demonstrate that DEQ has 

the authority to provide relevant data 

for the purpose of predicting the effect 

on ambient air quality of the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 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 (including analysis of the 

associated data) related to the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

when necessary. 

13. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: 

Mississippi addresses the review of 

construction permits as previously 

discussed in 110(a)(2)(C) above. 

Permitting fees are collected through the 

State’s title V fees program, which has 

been federally approved. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately provide for permitting fees 

related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. 

14. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/ 

participation by affected local entities: 

DEQ coordinates with local 

governments affected by the SIP. 

Specifically, as described in Section IV 

of Regulation APC–S–2, Public 

Participation and Public Availability Of 

Information, Mississippi requires that 

State and local air pollution control 

agencies be notified of modifications to 

stationary sources or the construction of 

new sources within their region of 

jurisdiction. Furthermore, DEQ has 

demonstrated consultation with, and 

participation by, affected local entities 

through its work with local political 

subdivisions during the developing of 

its Regional Haze Implementation Plan. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation with affected local entities 

related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve that 

DEQ’s CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS meet the above described 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

34906 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

infrastructure SIP requirements 

consistent with EPA’s October 2, 2007, 

and September 25, 2009, guidance. 

Mississippi’s infrastructure 

submissions, which are the subject of 

today’s proposed rulemaking, were 

submitted on December 7, 2007, for 

purposes of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, and on October 6, 2009, for 

purposes of the 2006 24-hour annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed approval, 

however, does not include 

infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and 110(a)(2)(G) for either the 1997 

annual or 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

These elements will be addressed by 

EPA in a separate action. In addition, 

final approval of the infrastructure 

elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) proposed 

for approval today is contingent upon 

the Agency first taking final action to 

approve Mississippi’s May 18, 2011, 

PM2.5 NSR Update. 

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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Air pollution control, Environmental 

protection, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: June 1, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14267 Filed 6–11–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0382; FRL–9686–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida; 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plans (SIPs), 

submitted by the State of Florida, 

through the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP), as 

demonstrating that the State meets the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that 

each state adopt and submit a SIP for 

the implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. Florida certified 

that the Florida SIP contains provisions 

that ensure the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are 

implemented, enforced, and maintained 

in Florida (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure submission’’). EPA is 

proposing to determine that Florida’s 

infrastructure submissions, provided to 

EPA on April 18, 2008, and on 

September 23, 2009, addressed all the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. As discussed further below, 

final action to approve elements 

110(a)(2)(C), (E)(ii), and (J) is contingent 

upon the Agency first taking final action 

on submitted SIP revisions associated 

with these elements. Final action on 

those SIP revisions will be addressed in 

a separate action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 12, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0382, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0382,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning 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, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0382. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS