Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69787 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

direct final action, of the same title, 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. The EPA is 

correcting an error made in a final rule 

(79 FR 33438, June 11, 2014) by adding 

the conversion factor from tons to 

pounds of SO2 to 40 CFR 

52.2502(b)(1)(i). The EPA is making this 

correction without prior proposal 

because the EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial revision and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the action is set 

forth in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If the EPA receives no adverse 

comments, the EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. 

If the EPA receives adverse 

comments, the EPA will withdraw the 

direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. The EPA will address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if we receive adverse comment on 

an amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

the EPA may adopt as final those 

provisions of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. 

Dated: October 27, 2014. 

Michelle Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27501 Filed 11–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0698; FRL–9919–64– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Mississippi; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

in part and disapprove in part, the May 

29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, 

provided by the Mississippi Department 

of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for 

inclusion into the Mississippi SIP. This 

proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each 

state adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. MDEQ certified 

that the Mississippi SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is implemented, 

enforced, and maintained in Mississippi 

(hereafter referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure SIP submissions’’). With 

the exception of provisions pertaining to 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permitting, interstate transport, 

visibility protection requirements and 

the state board majority requirements 

respecting significant portion of income, 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions, provided to EPA on May 

29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, address the 

required infrastructure elements for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 24, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0698, 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– 

0698,’’ 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, Chief, 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0698. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

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

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the 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 a.m. to 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69788 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions States 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

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

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

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

appropriate for demonstrating compliance with 

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

rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term 

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

X’’ indicates that the cited regulation has been 

approved into Mississippi’s federally-approved SIP. 

The term ‘‘Mississippi Code’’ indicates cited 

Mississippi state statutes, which are not a part of 

the SIP unless otherwise indicated. Additionally, 

since the time of Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 2008 8-hour NAAQS, the state’s 

implementation plan and statutes and have been 

recodified. In its original infrastructure SIP 

submission, MDEQ refers to Mississippi Code Title 

49 as ‘‘Appendix A–8.’’ However, Mississippi 

supplemented its original infrastructure SIP 

submission following this recodification, and as 

such, updated the Mississippi Code reference to 

‘‘Appendix A–9’’ to reflect the most current 

codification. Accordingly, EPA utilizes the 

‘‘Appendix A–9’’ reference throughout today’s 

rulemaking. 

2Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

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

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

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

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

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

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

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

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

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

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4As mentioned above, this element is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9140. 

Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic 

mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Overview 

II. What Elements are Required Under 

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

III. What is EPA’s Approach to the Review of 

Infrastructure SIP Submissions? 

IV. What is EPA’s Analysis of How 

Mississippi Addressed the Elements of 

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

‘‘Infrastructure’’ Provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Overview 

On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated 

a revised NAAQS for ozone based on 8- 

hour average concentrations. EPA 

revised the level of the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 

77 FR 16436. Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required 

to submit SIPs meeting the applicable 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) within 

three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS or within such 

shorter period as EPA may prescribe. 

Section 110(a)(2) requires states to 

address basic SIP elements such as 

requirements for monitoring, basic 

program requirements and legal 

authority that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. States were required to submit 

such SIPs for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to EPA no later than March 

2011.1

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the applicable 

requirements of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), 

the interstate transport requirements of 

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

1 through 4), the state board majority 

requirements respecting significant 

portion of income of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and the visibility 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J). 

With respect to Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions related to 

the provisions pertaining to the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), 

the interstate transport requirements of 

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

visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J), 

EPA is not proposing any action today 

regarding these requirements. EPA will 

act on these portions of the submissions 

in a separate action. With respect to 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions related to the majority 

requirements respecting significant 

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

EPA is proposing to disapprove this 

portion of Mississippi’s submissions in 

today’s rulemaking. For the aspects of 

Mississippi’s submittals proposed for 

approval today, EPA notes that the 

Agency is not approving any specific 

rule, but rather proposing that 

Mississippi’s already approved SIP 

meets certain CAA requirements. 

II. What elements are required under 

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

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. In the 

case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

states typically have met the basic 

program elements required in section 

110(a)(2) through earlier SIP 

submissions in connection with the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

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 basic SIP elements such as 

requirements for monitoring, basic 

program requirements and legal 

authority that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. The general requirements that 

are the subject of EPA’s infrastructure 

SIP rulemakings are summarized below 

and in EPA’s September 13, 2013, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 2

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and 

Other Control Measures 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring/Data System 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for 

Enforcement of Control Measures and 

for Construction or Modification of 

Stationary Sources 3

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

Pollution Transport 

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

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources 

and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

Regional Agencies 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source 

Monitoring and Reporting 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers 

• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for 

Nonattainment Areas 4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility 

Protection 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling 

and Submission of Modeling Data 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69789 

5For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

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

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

6See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

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

7EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

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

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

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

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

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

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

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

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

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

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

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

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

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

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

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

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

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

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

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

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

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

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

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

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and 

Participation by Affected Local Entities 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Mississippi that 

address the infrastructure requirements 

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

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

requirement for states to make a SIP 

submission of this type arises out of 

CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to 

section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

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

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

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

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.5 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

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

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

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

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

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

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

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

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

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

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

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

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.8

Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to 

allow it to take action on the individual 

parts of one larger, comprehensive 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to 

act at different times on various 

elements and sub-elements of the same 

infrastructure SIP submission.9

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

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

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69790 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

11EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

12 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

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

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

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

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

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

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

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

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

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

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

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

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

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

different pollutants because the content 

and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.10

EPA notes that interpretation of 

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

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

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

these other types of SIP submissions. 

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

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

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

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

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

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

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

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

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

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

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

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

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

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

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

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

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

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.11 EPA most 

recently issued guidance for 

infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Guidance).12 EPA developed 

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

for any new or revised NAAQS. Within 

this guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

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

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions.13 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

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

infrastructure SIP submissions need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

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

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

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

implementation plan appropriately 

addresses the requirements of section 

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

2013 Guidance explains EPA’s 

interpretation that there may be a 

variety of ways by which states can 

appropriately address these substantive 

statutory requirements, depending on 

the structure of an individual state’s 

permitting or enforcement program (e.g., 

whether permits and enforcement 

orders are approved by a multi-member 

board or by a head of an executive 

agency). However they are addressed by 

the state, the substantive requirements 

of section 128 are necessarily included 

in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

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

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

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

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

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and NSR 

pollutants. By contrast, structural PSD 

program requirements do not include 

provisions that are not required under 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but 

are merely available as an option for the 

state, such as the option to provide 

grandfathering of complete permit 

applications with respect to the 2012 

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, 

among other things, the requirement 

that states have a program to regulate 

minor new sources. Thus, EPA 

evaluates whether the state has an EPAapproved 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69791 

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

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

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

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

16EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

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

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

17See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

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

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) 

(final disapproval of such provisions). 

18 Mississippi Code Title 49 is referenced in the 

State’s infrastructure SIP submissions as ‘‘Appendix 

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

indicated herein, portions of the Mississippi Code 

referenced in this proposal are not incorporated 

into the SIP. 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

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

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

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without scrutinizing the 

totality of the existing SIP for such 

potentially deficient provisions and may 

approve the submission even if it is 

aware of such existing provisions.14 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

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

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

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

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

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance 

gives simpler recommendations with 

respect to carbon monoxide than other 

NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

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

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

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

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

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

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow EPA to take appropriately 

tailored action, depending upon the 

nature and severity of the alleged SIP 

deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes 

EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the 

Agency determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.15 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.16

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

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

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

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

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.17

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Mississippi addressed the elements of 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

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 SIP submissions provide 

an overview of the provisions of the 

Mississippi Air Pollution Control (APC) 

regulations relevant to air quality 

control. Sections APC–S–1—Air 

Emission Regulations for the Prevention, 

Abatement, and Control of Air 

Contaminants, and APC–S–3— 

Regulations for the Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes, and 

Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49– 

17–17(h) (Appendix A–9),18 authorize 

MDEQ to adopt, modify, or repeal 

ambient air quality standards and 

emissions standards for the control of 

air pollution, including those necessary 

to obtain EPA approval under section 

110 of the CAA. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

provisions contained in these 

regulations and Mississippi’s practices 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69792 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

19On February 22, 2013, EPA published a 

proposed action in the Federal Register entitled, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition 

for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed 

Rule.’’ 78 FR 12459. 

20On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

are adequate to protect the 2008 8-hour 

ozone 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 a separate action.19 In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a deficient SSM provision 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: SIPs are 

required to provide for the 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors, the compilation 

and analysis of ambient air quality data, 

and the submission of these data to EPA 

upon request. Section APC–S–1—Air 

Emission Regulations for the Prevention, 

Abatement, and Control of Air 

Contaminants and Mississippi Code 

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

MDEQ with the authority to collect and 

disseminate information relating to air 

quality and pollution and the 

prevention, control, supervision, and 

abatement thereof. Annually, States 

develop and submit to EPA for approval 

statewide ambient monitoring network 

plans consistent with the requirements 

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

annual network plan involves an 

evaluation of any proposed changes to 

the monitoring network, includes the 

annual ambient monitoring network 

design plan and a certified evaluation of 

the agency’s ambient monitors and 

auxiliary support equipment.20 On June 

26, 2013, Mississippi submitted its 

monitoring network plan to EPA, which 

was approved by EPA on November 22, 

2013. Mississippi’s approved 

monitoring network plan can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0698. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for the ambient 

air quality monitoring and data system 

requirements related to the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

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

enforcement of control measures 

including review of proposed new 

sources: In this action, EPA is proposing 

to approve Mississippi’s infrastructure 

SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement in section 

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

SIP that regulates new and modified 

sources of emissions that contribute to 

ozone concentrations and the 

enforcement of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

emission limits to assist in the 

protection of air quality in 

nonattainment, attainment or 

unclassifiable areas. To meet this 

obligation, Mississippi cited Sections 

APC–S–5, Mississippi Regulations for 

the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality and APC– 

S–2, Permit Regulation for the 

Construction and/or Operation of Air 

Emissions Equipment, both of which 

pertain to the construction of any new 

major stationary source or any project at 

an existing major stationary source in an 

area designated as nonattainment, 

attainment or unclassifiable. 

Enforcement: MDEQ’s abovedescribed, SIP-approved regulations 

provide for enforcement of VOC and 

NOX emission limits and control 

measures and construction permitting 

for new or modified stationary sources. 

Preconstruction PSD Permitting for 

Major Sources: With respect to 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions related to the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA is not 

proposing any action today regarding 

these requirements and instead will act 

on this portion of the submissions in a 

separate action. 

Regulation of minor sources and 

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

requires the SIP to include provisions 

that govern the minor source preconstruction program that regulates 

emissions of the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Mississippi has a SIP-approved 

minor NSR permitting program at APC– 

S–2, I. D—Permitting Requirements that 

regulates the preconstruction permitting 

of modifications and construction of 

minor stationary sources. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for enforcement 

of control measures and regulation of 

minor sources and modifications related 

to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

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

Pollution Transport: Section 

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

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

Each of these components have two 

subparts resulting in four distinct 

components, commonly referred to as 

‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in 

infrastructure SIP submissions. The first 

two prongs, which are codified in 

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

that prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

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

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

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

prongs, which are codified in section 

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

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

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

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). With respect to 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions related to the interstate 

transport requirements of section 

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

(prongs 1 through 4), EPA is not 

proposing any action today regarding 

these requirements and instead will act 

on these portions of the submissions in 

a separate action. 

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

Abatement and International Air 

Pollution: Section APC–S–2—Permit 

Regulations For The Construction and/ 

or Operation of Air Emissions 

Equipment, provides how MDEQ will 

notify neighboring states of potential 

impacts from new or modified sources 

consistent with the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.166. 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 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69793 

21Mississippi’s October 11, 2012, infrastructure 

SIP submission only addressed compliance with 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting CAA section 128 

requirements. On May 8, 2014, Mississippi clarified 

to EPA that the provisions submitted in the October 

11, 2012, SIP submission to comply with 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure 

SIP were also intended to cover the 2008 Lead and 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP. 

22EPA took similar action with respect to 

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

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

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

and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and 

Oversight of Local Governments and 

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

requires that each implementation plan 

provide (i) necessary assurances that the 

State will have adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority under state law 

to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) 

that the State comply with the 

requirements respecting State Boards 

pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and 

(iii) necessary assurances that, where 

the State has relied on a local or 

regional government, agency, or 

instrumentality for the implementation 

of any plan provision, the State has 

responsibility for ensuring adequate 

implementation of such plan provisions. 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Mississippi’s SIP as meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 

and (iii). EPA is proposing to approve in 

part and disapprove in part 

Mississippi’s SIP respecting section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA’s rationale for 

today’s proposals respecting each 

section of 110(a)(2)(E) is described in 

turn below. 

To satisfy the requirements of sections 

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

provides that MDEQ is responsible for 

promulgating rules and regulations for 

the NAAQS, emissions standards 

general policies, a system of permits, fee 

schedules for the review of plans, and 

other planning needs as found in 

Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49– 

17–17(d) and Section 49–17–17(h) 

(Appendix A–9). As evidence of the 

adequacy of MDEQ’s resources with 

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

submitted a letter to Mississippi on 

March 28, 2014, outlining 105 grant 

commitments and the current status of 

these commitments for fiscal year 2013. 

The letter EPA submitted to Mississippi 

can be accessed at www.regulations.gov 

using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0698. 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 2013, therefore 

Mississippi’s grants were finalized and 

closed out. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi has adequate resources for 

implementation of the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

To meet the requirements of section 

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

the requirements respecting state boards 

pursuant to section 128 of the Act. 

Section 128 of the CAA requires that 

states include provisions in their SIP to 

address conflicts of interest for state 

boards or bodies that oversee CAA 

permits and enforcement orders and 

disclosure of conflict of interest 

requirements. Specifically, CAA section 

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

require that at least a majority of any 

board or body which approves permits 

or enforcement orders shall be subject to 

the described public interest service and 

income restrictions therein. Subsection 

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

any board or body, or the head of an 

executive agency with similar power to 

approve permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA, shall also be subject to 

conflict of interest disclosure 

requirements. 

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

obligations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions cite the State’s revision to 

its SIP to meet the requirements of CAA 

section 128 for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, which was submitted to EPA 

on October 11, 2012.21 Based upon the 

review of the laws and provisions as 

contained in MDEQ’s October 11, 2012, 

SIP revision, which have since been 

incorporated into the SIP, EPA is 

proposing to approve the section 

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

infrastructure SIP submission as it 

relates to the public interest 

requirements of section 128(a)(1) and 

the conflict of interest disclosure 

provisions of section 128(a)(2). EPA is 

also proposing to disapprove the section 

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

infrastructure SIP submission as it 

pertains to compliance with the 

significant portion of income 

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

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.22

With respect to the public interest 

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

adequate disclosure of conflicts of 

interest requirement of section 128(a)(2), 

EPA has previously found these 

requirements to be satisfied by the 

existing provisions in Mississippi’s SIP. 

See 78 FR 20793. 

With respect to the significant portion 

of income requirement of section 

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

October 11, 2012 infrastructure SIP 

submission did not preclude at least a 

majority of the members of the 

Mississippi Board from receiving a 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders issued by the 

Mississippi Boards. While the submitted 

laws and provisions preclude members 

of the Mississippi Boards from certain 

types of income (e.g., contracts with 

State or political subdivisions thereof, 

or income obtained through the use of 

his or her public office or obtained to 

influence a decision of the Mississippi 

Boards), they do not preclude a majority 

of members of the Mississippi Boards 

from deriving any significant portion of 

their income from persons subject to 

permits or enforcement orders so long as 

that income is not derived from one of 

the proscribed methods described in the 

laws and provisions submitted by the 

State. Because a majority of board 

members may still derive a significant 

portion of income from persons subject 

to permits or enforcement orders issued 

by the Mississippi Boards, the 

Mississippi SIP does not meet the 

section 128(a)(1) majority requirements 

respecting significant portion of income, 

and as such, EPA is today proposing to 

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

submission as it relates only to this 

portion of section 128(a)(1). 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

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

submission as it relates to the public 

interest requirements of section 

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

disclosure provisions of section 

128(a)(2) and proposing to disapprove 

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

submission as it pertains to compliance 

with the significant portion of income 

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

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

7. 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring system: Section APC–S–2— 

Permit Regulations for the Construction 

and/or Operation of Air Emissions 

Equipment, establishes requirements for 

emissions compliance testing utilizing 

emissions sampling and analysis. It 

further describes how the State ensures 

the quality of its data through observing 

emissions and monitoring operations. 

MDEQ uses these data to track progress 

towards maintaining the NAAQS, 

develop control and maintenance 

strategies, identify sources and general 

emission levels, and determine 

compliance with emission regulations 

and additional EPA requirements. 

Mississippi Code 49, Section 49–17–21 

(Appendix A–9) provides MDEQ with 

the authority to require the maintenance 

of records related to the operation of air 

contaminant sources and any authorized 

representative of the Commission may 

examine and copy any such records or 

memoranda pertaining to the operation 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69794 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

of such contaminant source. Section 

APC–S–2 lists requirements for 

compliance testing and reporting that is 

required to be included in any MDEQ 

air pollution permit and requires that 

copies of records relating to the 

operation of air contamination sources 

be submitted to the Permit Board as 

required by the permit or upon request. 

State-approved regulation Section APC– 

S–1—Air Emission Regulations For The 

Prevention, Abatement, and Control of 

Air Contaminants, authorizes source 

owners or operators to use any credible 

evidence or information relevant to 

whether a source would have been in 

compliance with applicable 

requirements if the appropriate 

performance or compliance test had 

been performed, for the purpose of 

submitting compliance certifications. 

Accordingly, EPA is unaware of any 

provision preventing the use of credible 

evidence in the Mississippi SIP. 

Additionally, Mississippi is required 

to submit emissions data to EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through EPA’s online 

Emissions Inventory System (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 

VOCs. Many states also voluntarily 

report emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants. Mississippi made its latest 

update to the 2012 NEI on January 9, 

2014. EPA compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and 

releases it to the general public through 

the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for the stationary source 

monitoring systems related to the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

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

This section of the CAA requires that 

states demonstrate authority comparable 

with section 303 of the CAA and 

adequate contingency plans to 

implement such authority. Mississippi 

Code Title 49 (Appendix A–9) and 

Section APC–S–3—Mississippi 

Regulations for the Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes, identify 

air pollution emergency episodes and 

preplanned abatement strategies. 

Specifically, Mississippi Code Title 49, 

Section 49–17–27 (Appendix A–9), 

states that in the event an emergency is 

found to exist by the Mississippi 

Commission on Environmental Quality, 

it may issue an emergency order as 

circumstances may require. Section 

APC–S–3 authorizes the MDEQ 

Director, once it has been determined 

that an Air Pollution Emergency 

Episode condition exists at one or more 

monitoring sites solely because of 

emissions from a limited number of 

sources, to order source(s) to put into 

effect the emission control programs 

which are applicable for each episode 

stage. Section APC–S–3 also lists 

regulations to prevent the excessive 

buildup of air pollutants during air 

pollution episodes. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for emergency powers related 

to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(G). 

9. 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions: MDEQ 

is responsible for adopting air quality 

rules and revising SIPs as needed to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS in 

Mississippi. Mississippi Code Title 49, 

Section 49–17–17(h) (Appendix A–9), 

provides MDEQ with the statutory 

authority to adopt, modify or repeal and 

promulgate ambient air and water 

quality standards and emissions 

standards for the State. As such, the 

State has the authority to revise the SIP 

to accommodate changes to NAAQS and 

revise the SIP if the EPA Administrator 

finds the plan to be substantially 

inadequate to attain the NAAQS. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate a commitment 

to provide future SIP revisions related to 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when 

necessary. 

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

Government Officials, Public 

Notification, and PSD and Visibility 

Protection: EPA is proposing to approve 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS with respect to the general 

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

include a program in the SIP that 

provides for meeting the applicable 

consultation requirements of section 

121, and the public notification 

requirements of section 127. With 

respect to Mississippi’s infrastructure 

SIP submissions related to the 

preconstruction PSD permitting and 

visibility protection requirements, EPA 

is not proposing any action today 

regarding these requirements and 

instead will act on these portions of the 

submissions in a separate action. EPA’s 

rationale for applicable consultation 

requirements of section 121 and the 

public notification requirements of 

section 127 is described below. 

Consultation with government 

officials (121 consultation): This 

requirement is met through Section 

APC–S–5—Mississippi Regulations for 

the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality and 

Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49– 

17–17(c) (Appendix A–9), along with 

the State’s various implementations 

plans, such as the State’s Regional Haze 

Implementation Plan, provide for 

consultation between appropriate state, 

local, and tribal air pollution control 

agencies as well as the corresponding 

Federal Land Managers whose 

jurisdictions might be affected by SIP 

development activities. Mississippi 

adopted state-wide consultation 

procedures for the implementation of 

transportation conformity. These 

consultation procedures were developed 

in coordination with the transportation 

partners in the State and are consistent 

with the approaches used for 

development of mobile inventories for 

SIPs. Implementation of transportation 

conformity as outlined in the 

consultation procedures requires MDEQ 

to consult with federal, state and local 

transportation and air quality agency 

officials on the development of motor 

vehicle emissions budgets. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate that the State 

meets applicable requirements related to 

consultation with government officials 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when 

necessary. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to approve Mississippi’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

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

consultation with government officials. 

Public notification: These 

requirements are met through regulation 

APC–S–3—Mississippi Regulations for 

the Prevention of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episodes, which requires 

that MDEQ notify the public of any air 

pollution alert, warning, or emergency. 

The MDEQ Web site also provides air 

quality summary data, air quality index 

reports and links to more information 

regarding public awareness of measures 

that can prevent such exceedances and 

of ways in which the public can 

participate in regulatory and other 

efforts to improve air quality. EPA has 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 69795 

23Title V program regulations are federallyapproved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. 

made the preliminary determination 

that Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the State’s 

ability to provide public notification 

related to the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(J) public notification. 

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

and Submission of Modeling Data: 

Sections APC–S–2, V. B.—Permit 

Regulation for the Construction and/or 

Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, 

and APC–S–5—Mississippi Regulations 

for the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration of Air Quality, specify that 

required air modeling be conducted in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix W ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality 

Models,’’ as incorporated into the 

Mississippi SIP. These standards 

demonstrate that Mississippi has the 

authority to perform air quality 

monitoring and provide relevant data 

for the purpose of predicting the effect 

on ambient air quality of the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, 

Mississippi supports a regional effort to 

coordinate the development of 

emissions inventories and conduct 

regional modeling for several NAAQS, 

including the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, for the southeastern states. 

Taken as a whole, Mississippi’s air 

quality regulations and practices 

demonstrate that MDEQ has the 

authority to provide relevant data for 

the purpose of predicting the effect on 

ambient air quality of the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the State’s 

ability to provide for air quality and 

modeling, along with analysis of the 

associated data, related to the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS when necessary. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to 

approve Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions with respect to section 

110(a)(2)(K). 

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

element necessitates that the SIP require 

the owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of 

any permit required under the CAA, a 

fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable 

costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. 

Mississippi’s Mississippi Code Title 

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

authorizes MDEQ to apply for, receive, 

and expend Federal or state funds in 

order to operate its air programs. 

Mississippi SIP Mississippi Code Title 

49, Section 49–17–30 (Appendix A–9), 

provides for the assessment of title V 

permit fees to cover the reasonable cost 

of reviewing and acting upon air 

permitting activities in the state 

including title V, PSD and NNSR 

permits. Mississippi Code Title 49, 

Section 49–17–14 (Appendix A–9), 

allows MDEQ to expend or utilize 

monies in the Mississippi Air Operating 

Permit Program Fee Trust Fund to pay 

all reasonable direct and indirect costs 

associated with the development and 

administration of the title V program 

and the PSD and NNSR permitting 

programs. The Mississippi Air 

Operating Permit Program Fee Trust 

Fund consists of state legislative 

appropriations, Federal grant funds and 

title V fees. Additionally, Mississippi 

has a federally-approved title V 

operating permit program at Section 

APC–S–6 23 that covers the 

implementation and enforcement of 

PSD and NNSR permits after they have 

been issued. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that 

Mississippi adequately provide for 

permitting fees related to the 2008 8- 

hour NAAQS when necessary. 

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

Participation by Affected Local Entities: 

Mississippi Code Title 49, Sections 49– 

17–17(c) 49–17–19(b) (Appendix A–9) 

requires that MDEQ notify the public of 

an application, preliminary 

determination, the activity or activities 

involved in the permit action, any 

emissions change associated with any 

permit modification, and the 

opportunity for comment prior to 

making a final permitting decision. 

Additionally, MDEQ works closely with 

local political subdivisions during the 

development of its Transportation 

Conformity SIP and Regional Haze SIP. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Mississippi’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate 

consultation with affected local entities 

related to the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), 

the interstate transport requirements of 

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

1 through 4), the state board majority 

requirements respecting the significant 

portion of income of section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and the visibility 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA 

is proposing to approve that MDEQ’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions, 

submitted May 29, 2012, and July 26, 

2012, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

have met the above described 

infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is 

proposing to disapprove in part section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Mississippi’s 

infrastructure submissions because a 

majority of board members may still 

derive a significant portion of income 

from persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders issued by the 

Mississippi Boards, therefore, its current 

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

majority requirements respecting 

significant portion of income. This 

proposed approval in part and 

disapproval in part, however, does not 

include the PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the 

interstate transport requirements of 

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

1 through 4), and the visibility 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) and 

will be addressed by EPA in a separate 

action. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of a CAA Part 

D Plan or is required in response to a 

finding of substantial inadequacy as 

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

call) starts a sanctions clock. The 

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

provisions (the provisions being 

proposed for disapproval in today’s 

notice) were not submitted to meet 

requirements for Part D or a SIP call, 

and therefore, if EPA takes final action 

to disapprove this submittal, no 

sanctions will be triggered. However, if 

this disapproval action is finalized, that 

final action will trigger the requirement 

under section 110(c) that EPA 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the 

date of the disapproval unless the State 

corrects the deficiency, and EPA 

approves the plan or plan revision 

before EPA promulgates such FIP. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69796 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 226 / Monday, November 24, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 (Public Law 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: November 3, 2014. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27808 Filed 11–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0258; FRL–9919–50– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead (Pb) and the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) 

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 

Arizona to address the requirements of 

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

Act (CAA) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and 

2008 ozone 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 EPA. We refer to such 

SIP revisions as ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs 

because they are intended to address 

basic structural SIP requirements for 

new or revised NAAQS including, but 

not limited to, legal authority, 

regulatory structure, resources, permit 

programs, monitoring, and modeling 

necessary to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the standards. In 

addition, we are proposing to approve 

several state provisions addressing CAA 

conflict of interest and monitoring 

requirements into the Arizona SIP. We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before December 24, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0258, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: Jeffrey Buss at buss.jeffrey@

epa.gov. 

3. Fax: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning 

Office (AIR–2), at fax number 415–947– 

3579. 

4. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning 

Office (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 

94105. 

5. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey 

Buss, Air Planning Section (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San 

Francisco, California 94105. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2014– 

0258. 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 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through www.regulations.gov or email 

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. 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. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS