Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 45733 

1Throughout this rulemaking the acronym IBR 

means ‘‘incorporate by reference’’ or ‘‘incorporates 

by reference.’’ 

2 ‘‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy 

and Other Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V 

Programs,’’ Final Rule, 76 FR 43490, (July 20, 2011) 

(hereinafter referred to as the CO2 Biomass Deferral 

Rule). 

3 Implementation of the New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5); Final Rule to Repeal 

Grandfather Provision’’ Final Rule, 76 FR 28646, 

(May 18, 2011) (hereinafter referred to as the PM10

Surrogate and Grandfather Policy Repeal). 

4 ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Nonattainment New Source Review: Reasonable 

Possibility in Recordkeeping’’ Final Rule, 72 FR 

72607, (December 21, 2007) (hereinafter referred to 

as the Reasonable Possibility Rule). 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0798; FRL–9914–79– 

OAR] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Mississippi: 

New Source Review (NSR)-Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of a revision to the Mississippi 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Mississippi, 

through the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ), on 

February 10, 2012. The SIP revision 

modifies Mississippi’s New Source 

Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program to 

incorporate by reference (IBR) certain 

Federal PSD regulations. EPA is 

proposing to approve these portions of 

Mississippi’s SIP revision because the 

Agency has preliminarily determined 

that they are consistent with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s NSR 

permitting regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 5, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0798 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–2012–0798, 

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: Ms. 

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– 

0798.’’ 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 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding the Mississippi 

SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 

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. Ms. 

Bradley’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9352; email address: 

bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Mississippi’s 

SIP revision? 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On February 10, 2012, MDEQ 

submitted a SIP revision to EPA for 

approval into the Mississippi SIP that 

includes changes to the State’s Air 

Quality Regulations in Air Pollution 

Control, Section 5 (APC–S–5)— 

Regulations for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. 

These rule changes were provided to 

comply with Federal NSR PSD 

permitting requirements. The February 

10, 2012, SIP submission updates the 

IBR1 date in APC–S–5 to November 4, 

2011, for the Federal PSD permitting 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 and 

portions of 51.166 to include PSD 

provisions promulgated in the carbon 

dioxide (CO2) Biomass Deferral Rule,2

PM10 Surrogate and Grandfather Policy 

Repeal,3 and Reasonable Possibility 

Rule.4 EPA is not proposing to approve 

the portion of Mississippi’s SIP 

submission that IBR the July 20, 2011 

CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule because the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45734 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5Mississippi’s February 10, 2012, SIP submission 

only addresses the adoption of the three PSD 

permitting regulations discussed above that the 

State requested for inclusion into the SIP. Any 

previous SIP revisions submitted by MDEQ that 

adopted other PSD permitting provisions captured 

in 40 CFR 52.21 as of November 4, 2011, were 

addressed by EPA in separate actions and are not 

relevant to the State’s February 10, 2012, 

submission or to today’s proposed approval into the 

SIP of the Reasonable Possibility Rule and the PM10

Surrogate and Grandfather Policy Repeal Rule PSD 

permitting provisions discussed in this rulemaking. 

6On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA 

published final rule changes to 40 CFR parts 51 and 

52 regarding the CAA’s PSD and nonattainment 

new source review programs. On November 7, 2003 

(68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final 

action on the reconsideration of the December 31, 

2002, final rule changes. The December 31, 2002, 

and the November 7, 2003, final actions are 

collectively referred to as the ‘‘2002 NSR Reform 

Rules.’’ After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were 

finalized and effective (March 3, 2003), industry, 

state, and environmental petitioners challenged 

numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, 

along with portions of EPA’s 1980 NSR Rules, 45 

FR 52676 (August 7, 1980). In summary, the D.C. 

Circuit vacated portions of the rules pertaining to 

clean units and PCPs, remanded a portion of the 

rules regarding recordkeeping and the term 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ found in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) 

and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and 51.166(r)(6), and either 

upheld or did not comment on the other provisions 

included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. On 

June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA took final action 

to revise the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to remove 

from Federal law all provisions pertaining to clean 

units and the PCPs exemption that were vacated by 

the DC Circuit. 

7On January 14, 2009, EPA denied a petition by 

the State of New Jersey (submitted February 15, 

2008) for reconsideration and stay of the December 

21, 2007, final rule for ‘‘reasonable possibility.’’ 

However, on March 11, 2009, New Jersey reiterated 

its request for reconsideration, which EPA granted 

on April 24, 2009. EPA has not taken action on the 

reconsideration; therefore, the current 

recordkeeping rules established in the December 21, 

2007, final rule are approvable. See http://

www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#2009 under Denial 

of Petitions to Reconsider Aspects of the PM2.5 NSR 

Requirements and Reasonable Possibility Rule for 

additional information on the New Jersey petition. 

8This rulemaking established regulations to 

implement the NSR program for the PM2.5 NAAQS 

on May 16, 2008. See 73 FR 28321. As a result of 

EPA’s final NSR PM2.5 Rule, states were required to 

submit SIP revisions to EPA no later than May 16, 

2011, to address these requirements for both the 

PSD and NNSR programs. On May 12, 2011, 

Mississippi submitted a SIP revision to IBR the NSR 

PM2.5 Rule into the state’s SIP at APC–S–5. EPA 

approved portions of the NSR PM2.5 rule into the 

Mississippi SIP PSD program on September 26, 

2012. See 77 FR 59095. 

Circuit) issued a decision on July 12, 

2013, in Center for Biological Diversity 

v. EPA, 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013) to 

vacate the rule. Today, EPA is proposing 

to approve only the portions of 

Mississippi’s February 10, 2012, SIP 

revision addressing the Reasonable 

Possibility Rule and the PM10 Surrogate 

and Grandfather Policy Repeal Rule.5

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

Today’s proposed action to revise the 

Mississippi SIP relates to PSD 

provisions promulgated in the PM10

Surrogate and Grandfather Policy 

Repeal and the Reasonable Possibility 

Rule. More details regarding these rules 

are found in the respective final 

rulemakings and are summarized below. 

A. Reasonable Possibility Rule 

On June 24, 2005, the D.C. Circuit 

issued a decision on the challenges to 

the 2002 NSR Reform Rules including 

reasonable possibility. New York v. U.S. 

EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005).6 For 

additional information on the 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002) and http://

www.epa.gov/nsr. 

In summary, the D.C. Circuit 

remanded a portion of the rules 

regarding recordkeeping and the term 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ found in 40 

CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) 

and 51.166(r)(6) requiring that EPA 

either provide an acceptable 

explanation for its ‘‘reasonable 

possibility’’ standard or devise an 

appropriate alternative. In response to 

the court’s decision, EPA took final 

action on December 21, 2007, to clarify 

that a ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ applies 

where source emissions equal or exceed 

50 percent of the CAA NSR significance 

levels for any pollutant. See 72 FR 

72607. The ‘‘reasonable possibility’’ 

provision identifies for sources and 

reviewing authorities the circumstances 

under which a major stationary source 

undergoing a modification that does not 

trigger major NSR must keep records. 

EPA’s December 21, 2007, final rule on 

the record-keeping and reporting 

provisions also explains state 

obligations with regard to the reasonable 

possibility related rule changes.7 See 72 

FR 72607 at 72613–14. The final rule 

gave states and local permitting 

authorities three years from publication 

to submit revisions to incorporate the 

reasonable possibility provisions or to 

submit notice to EPA that their 

regulations fulfill these requirements. 

MDEQ adopted the NSR Reform rules 

in the SIP on July 28, 2005, however, 

MDEQ did not incorporate the 

‘‘reasonable possibility’’ provision at 

that time due to the remand. In its 2005 

PSD regulations at APC–S–5 (2.6), 

MDEQ excluded the following phrase 

from its IBR of 40 CFR 52.21: ‘‘in 

circumstances where there is a 

reasonable possibility, within the 

meaning of paragraph (r)(6)(vi) of 40 

CFR 52.21, that a project that is not a 

part of a major modification may result 

in a significant emissions increase.’’ On 

July 10, 2006, EPA published the final 

rulemaking approving Mississippi’s SIP 

revision adopting the NSR Reform Rule. 

See 71 FR 38773. In the approval, EPA 

acknowledged Mississippi’s rule did not 

contain the reasonable possibility 

language that was included in the 

remand and stated, ‘‘EPA continues to 

move forward with its evaluation of the 

portion of its NSR reform rules that 

were remanded by the D.C. Circuit and 

is preparing to respond to the D.C. 

Circuit’s remand. EPA’s final decision 

with regard to the remand may require 

EPA to take further action on this 

portion of Mississippi’s rules.’’ 

B. PM10 Surrogate and Grandfather 

Policy Repeal 

In the NSR PM2.5 Rule,8 EPA finalized 

regulations to establish the framework 

for implementing preconstruction 

permit review for the PM2.5 NAAQS in 

both attainment and nonattainment 

areas. This rule included a grandfather 

provision that allowed PSD applicants 

that submitted their complete permit 

application prior to the July 15, 2008, 

effective date of the NSR PM2.5 Rule to 

continue to rely on the 1997 PM10

Surrogate Policy rather than amend 

their application to demonstrate 

compliance directly with the new PM2.5

requirements. See 73 FR 28321. On May 

12, 2011, Mississippi submitted a SIP 

revision that excluded the PM10

surrogate grandfathering provision at 40 

CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi) from the state’s PSD 

regulations. EPA approved portions of 

Mississippi’s May 12, 2011, SIP revision 

on September 26, 2012 (77 FR 59095). 

On May 18, 2011, EPA took final action 

to repeal the PM2.5 grandfathering 

provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi). See 

76 FR 28646. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Mississippi’s SIP revision? 

MDEQ’s PSD preconstruction rules 

are found at Mississippi Rule APC–S–5- 

Regulations for Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration for Air Quality and apply 

to major stationary sources or 

modifications constructed in areas 

designated attainment areas or 

unclassifiable/attainment areas as 

required under part C of title I of the 

CAA with respect to the NAAQS. 

MDEQ’s February 10, 2012, SIP 

submittal updates the IBR date in APC– 

S–5 to November 4, 2011, for the 

Federal PSD permitting regulations at 40 

CFR 52.21 to include the Federal PSD 

permitting updates promulgated in the 

CO2 Biomass Deferral Rule, the 

Reasonable Possibility Rule, and the 

PM10 Surrogate and Grandfather Policy 

Repeal. EPA is proposing to approve the 

updates only as they relate to the 

Reasonable Possibility Rule and the 

PM10 Surrogate and Grandfather Policy 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2014 / Proposed Rules 45735 

Repeal. EPA is not proposing to approve 

the portion of Mississippi’s February 10, 

2012, SIP submission that IBR the CO2

Biomass Deferral Rule at APC–S–5 as a 

result of the July 12, 2013, court 

decision identified above. EPA may 

address this portion of Mississippi’s SIP 

submission in a separate rulemaking. 

Regarding reasonable possibility, the 

February 10, 2012, SIP revision removes 

the reasonable possibility exclusion at 

APC–S–5(2.6) and IBR EPA’s December 

21, 2007, revised definition of 

reasonable possibility into its SIP. 

Mississippi’s February 10, 2012, SIP 

revision also adopts the repeal of the 

PM2.5 Grandfathering Provision. 

Mississippi’s February 10, 2012, SIP 

submittal incorporates into the 

Mississippi SIP the version of 40 CFR 

52.21 as of November 4, 2011, which 

includes the May 18, 2011, repeal of the 

grandfather provision. Thus, the 

language previously approved into 

Mississippi SIP at APC–S–5(2.7) that 

excludes the grandfathering provision is 

no longer necessary. Mississippi’s 

February 10, 2012, SIP submittal 

removes the unnecessary language 

pertaining to the grandfather provision 

from APC–S–5. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve portions 

of Mississippi’s February 10, 2012, SIP 

submission that update the IBR date in 

APC–S–5 to November 4, 2011, for the 

Federal PSD permitting regulations at 40 

CFR 52.21 to include the Reasonable 

Possibility Rule and the PM10 Surrogate 

and Grandfather Policy Repeal. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that these portions of the SIP revision 

are approvable because they are 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA 

and EPA PSD permitting regulations. 

V. 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. 

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 F43255, 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 proposed 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 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 28, 2014. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18625 Filed 8–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0148; FRL–9914–71– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 

Approval of the Redesignation 

Requests and Maintenance Plan of the 

Washington, DC–MD–VA 

Nonattainment Area for the 1997 

Annual Fine Particulate Matter 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the requests from the District of 

Columbia (the District), the State of 

Maryland (Maryland), and the 

Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) 

(collectively ‘‘the States’’) to redesignate 

to attainment their respective portions 

of the Washington, DC–MD–VA 

nonattainment area (hereafter ‘‘the 

Washington Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’) for the 

1997 annual fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS or standard). EPA is 

also proposing to approve as a revision 

to their respective State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs) the common maintenance 

plan submitted by the States to show 

maintenance of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS through 2025 for the 

Washington Area. The Washington Area 

maintenance plan includes motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for 

PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the 

Area for the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard, which EPA is proposing to 

approve for transportation conformity 

purposes. These actions are being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 5, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0148 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: Fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0148, 

Cristina Ferna ́ndez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode 

3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS