7256 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

would have been if, holding constant 

the benefit formula, work history, and 

all other relevant factors used to 

determine benefits, those benefits were 

attributable to service with any other 

employer). 

All comments will be available for 

public inspection and copying at 

www.regulations.gov or upon request. 

Please Note: All comments will be made 

available to the public. Do not include 

any personally identifiable information 

(such as Social Security number, name, 

address, or other contact information) or 

confidential business information that 

you do not want publicly disclosed. All 

comments may be posted on the Internet 

and can be retrieved by most Internet 

search engines. 

A public hearing on these proposed 

regulations has been scheduled for 

March 22, 2016 beginning at 10 a.m. in 

the Auditorium, Internal Revenue 

Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC. Due to building 

security procedures, visitors must enter 

at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In 

addition, all visitors must present photo 

identification to enter the building. 

Because of access restrictions, visitors 

will not be admitted beyond the 

immediate entrance area more than 30 

minutes before the hearing starts. For 

information about having your name 

placed on the building access list to 

attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 

preamble. 

The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) 

apply to the hearing. Persons who wish 

to present oral comments at the hearing 

must submit written or electronic 

comments by March 15, 2016, and an 

outline of topics to be discussed and the 

amount of time to be devoted to each 

topic by March 15, 2016. A period of 10 

minutes will be allotted to each person 

for making comments. An agenda 

showing the scheduling of the speakers 

will be prepared after the deadline for 

receiving outlines has passed. Copies of 

the agenda will be available free of 

charge at the hearing. 

Contact Information 

For general questions regarding these 

regulations, please contact the 

Department of the Treasury MPRA 

guidance information line at (202) 622– 

1559 (not a toll-free number). For 

information regarding a specific 

application for a suspension of benefits, 

please contact the Treasury Department 

at (202) 622–1534 (not a toll-free 

number). 

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1 

Income taxes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Proposed Amendments to the 

Regulations 

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1—INCOME TAXES 

■ Paragraph 1. The authority citation 

for part 1 continues to read in part as 

follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * * 

■ Par. 2. Section 1.432(e)(9)–1 is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 1.432(e)(9)–1 Benefit suspensions for 

multiemployer plans in critical and 

declining status. 

(a) through (c) [Reserved] 

(d) Limitations on suspension. (1) 

through (7) [Reserved] 

(8) Additional rules for plans 

described in section 432(e)(9)(D)(vii)— 

(i) In general. In the case of a plan that 

includes the benefits described in 

paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section, any 

suspension of benefits under this 

section shall— 

(A) First, be applied to the maximum 

extent permissible to benefits 

attributable to a participant’s service for 

an employer that withdrew from the 

plan and failed to pay (or is delinquent 

with respect to paying) the full amount 

of its withdrawal liability under section 

4201(b)(1) of ERISA or an agreement 

with the plan; 

(B) Second, except as provided by 

paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section, be 

applied to all other benefits that may be 

suspended under this section; and 

(C) Third, be applied to benefits under 

a plan that are directly attributable to a 

participant’s service with any employer 

that has, prior to December 16, 2014— 

(1) Withdrawn from the plan in a 

complete withdrawal under section 

4203 of ERISA and paid the full amount 

of the employer’s withdrawal liability 

under section 4201(b)(1) of ERISA or an 

agreement with the plan, and 

(2) Pursuant to a collective bargaining 

agreement, assumed liability for 

providing benefits to participants and 

beneficiaries of the plan under a 

separate, single-employer plan 

sponsored by the employer, in an 

amount equal to any amount of benefits 

for such participants and beneficiaries 

reduced as a result of the financial 

status of the plan. 

(ii) Application of suspensions to 

benefits that are directly attributable to 

a participant’s service with certain 

employers—(A) Greater reduction in 

certain benefits not permitted. A 

suspension of benefits under this 

section must not be applied to provide 

for a greater reduction in benefits 

described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of 

this section than the reduction that is 

applied to benefits described in 

paragraph (d)(8)(i)(B) of this section. 

This requirement is satisfied if no 

participant’s benefits that are directly 

attributable to service with an employer 

described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of 

this section are reduced more than that 

participant’s benefits would have been 

reduced if, holding the benefit formula, 

work history, and all relevant factors 

used to compute benefits constant, those 

benefits were attributable to service 

with an employer that is not described 

in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section. 

(B) Application of limitation to 

benefits of participants with respect to 

which the employer has not assumed 

liability. Benefits under a plan that are 

directly attributable to a participant’s 

service with an employer described in 

paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of this section 

include all such benefits without regard 

to whether the employer has assumed 

liability for providing benefits to the 

participant that were reduced as a result 

of the financial status of the plan as 

described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C)(2) of 

this section. Thus, all benefits under a 

plan that are directly attributable to a 

participant’s service with an employer 

described in paragraph (d)(8)(i)(C) of 

this section are subject to the limitation 

in paragraph (d)(8)(ii)(A) of this section, 

even if the employer has not, pursuant 

to a collective bargaining agreement that 

satisfies the requirements of paragraph 

(d)(8)(i)(C)(2) of this section, assumed 

liability for providing those benefits to 

participants and beneficiaries of the 

plan. 

John Dalrymple, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02772 Filed 2–9–16; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket Number USCG–2016–0022] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Safety Zone; Cooper River Bridge Run, 

Cooper River, and Town Creek 

Reaches, Charleston, SC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

establish a safety zone on the waters of 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7257 

Cooper River and Town Creek Reaches 

in Charleston, South Carolina during the 

Cooper River Bridge Run on April 2, 

2016 from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. The 

Cooper River Bridge Run is a 10–K run 

across the Arthur Ravenel Bridge. The 

safety zone is necessary for the safety of 

the runners and the general public 

during this event. This proposed 

rulemaking would prohibit persons and 

vessels from entering, transiting 

through, anchoring in, or remaining 

within the safety zone unless authorized 

by the Captain of the Port Charleston or 

a designated representative. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before February 26, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2016–0022 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant 

John Downing, Sector Charleston Office 

of Waterways Management, Coast 

Guard; telephone (843) 740–3184, email 

John.Z.Downing@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

E.O. Executive order 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

Pub. L. Public Law 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

COTP Captain of the Port 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

The legal basis for this proposed rule 

is the Coast Guard’s authority to 

establish regulated safety zones and 

other limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 

1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05–1, 

6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; and Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 

0170. 

The purpose of the rule is to ensure 

the safety of the runners, and the 

general public during the scheduled 

event. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Coast Guard proposes to establish 

a safety zone on the waters of the 

Cooper River and Town Creek Reaches 

in Charleston, South Carolina during the 

Cooper River Bridge Run. The race is 

scheduled to take place from 7:30 

a.m.10:30 a.m. April 2, 2016 

Approximately 40,000 runners are 

anticipated to participate in the race. 

Persons and vessels desiring to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the proposed safety zone may 

contact the Captain of the Port 

Charleston by telephone at (843) 740– 

7050, or a designated representative via 

VHF radio on channel 16, to request 

authorization. If authorization to enter, 

transit through, anchor in, or remain 

within the proposed safety zone is 

granted by the Captain of the Port 

Charleston or a designated 

representative, all persons and vessels 

receiving such authorization must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. The Coast 

Guard will provide notice of the safety 

zone by Local Notice to Mariners, 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and onscene designated representatives. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies 

to assess the costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, if 

regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits. E.O.13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This NPRM has not been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

the NPRM has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. This 

proposed rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, as supplemented 

by Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 

does not require an assessment of 

potential costs and benefits under 

section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 

or under section 1 of Executive Order 

13563. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under those 

Orders. 

The economic impact of this rule is 

not significant for the following reasons: 

(1) The safety zone will only be 

enforced for a total of three hours; (2) 

although persons and vessels may not 

enter, transit through, anchor in, or 

remain within the safety zone without 

authorization from the Captain of the 

Port Charleston or a designated 

representative, they may operate in the 

surrounding area during the 

enforcement period; and (3) the Coast 

Guard will provide advance notification 

of the safety zone to the local maritime 

community by Local Notice to Mariners 

and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

We have considered the impact of this 

proposed rule on small entities. This 

rule may affect the following entities, 

some of which may be small entities: 

the owner or operators of vessels 

intending to enter, transit through, 

anchor in, or remain within the 

regulated area during the enforcement 

period. For the reasons discussed in 

Regulatory Planning and Review section 

above, this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would not call for 

a new collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7258 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has 

a substantial direct effect on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in E.O. 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under E.O. 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, because it 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. If you 

believe this proposed rule has 

implications for federalism or Indian 

tribes, please contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section above. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have made a 

preliminary determination that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This proposed rule 

involves safety zone prohibiting vessel 

traffic from a limited area surrounding 

the Cooper River Bridge on the waters 

of the Cooper River and Town Creek 

Reaches for a 3 hour period. This rule 

is categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 

2–1 of the Commandant Instruction. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places, or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking, and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. If your material 

cannot be submitted using http://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

We accept anonymous comments. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://

www.regulations.gov and will include 

any personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

the docket, you may review a Privacy 

Act notice regarding the Federal Docket 

Management System in the March 24, 

2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 

FR 15086). 

Documents mentioned in this NPRM 

as being available in the docket, and all 

public comments, will be in our online 

docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

and can be viewed by following that 

Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if 

you go to the online docket and sign up 

for email alerts, you will be notified 

when comments are posted or a final 

rule is published. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; and 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170. 

■ 2. Add a temporary § 165.35T07–0022 

to read as follows: 

§ 165.35T07–0022 Safety Zone; Cooper 

River Bridge Run, Charleston SC. 

(a) Location. All waters of the Cooper 

River, and Town Creek Reaches 

encompassed within the following 

points: 

(1) 32°48′32′′ N./079°56′08′′ W., 

(2) 32°48′20′′ N./079°54′20′′ W., 

(3) 32°47′20′′ N./079°54′29′′ W., 

(4) 32°47′20′′ N./079°55′28′′ W. 

(b) Definition. The term ‘‘designated 

representative’’ means Coast Guard 

Patrol Commanders, including Coast 

Guard coxswains, petty officers, and 

other officers operating Coast Guard 

vessels, and Federal, state, and local 

officers designated by or assisting the 

Captain of the Port Charleston in the 

enforcement of the regulated areas. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the regulated area 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Charleston or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Persons and vessels desiring to 

enter, transit through, or remain within 

the regulated area may contact the 

Captain of the Port Charleston by 

telephone at 843–740–7050, or a 

designated representative via VHF radio 

on channel 16, to request authorization. 

If authorization to enter, transit through, 

or remain within the regulated area is 

granted by the Captain of the Port 

Charleston or a designated 

representative, all persons and vessels 

receiving such authorization must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Charleston or a 

designated representative. 

(3) The Coast Guard will provide 

notice of the regulated area by Local 

Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to 

Mariners, and on-scene designated 

representatives. 

(d) Enforcement Period. This 

proposed rule will be enforced from 

7:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. on April 2, 

2016. 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 28 / Thursday, February 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 7259 

Dated: January 29, 2016. 

G.L. Tomasulo, 

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

Port Charleston. 

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

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0028; FRL–9942–02– 

Region 9] 

Approval of Air Plan Revisions; 

Arizona; Rescissions and Corrections 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Arizona State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) under the 

Clean Air Act. These revisions include 

rescissions of certain statutory 

provisions, administrative and 

prohibitory rules, and test methods. The 

EPA is also proposing to correct certain 

errors in previous actions on prior 

revisions to the Arizona SIP and to 

make certain other corrections. The 

intended effect is to rescind 

unnecessary provisions from the 

applicable SIP and to correct certain 

errors in previous SIP actions. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

March 14, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2016–0028 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

Andrew Steckel, Rules Office Chief, at 

Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

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

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

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

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4115, email: steckel.andrew@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, the EPA is approving 

the rescissions from the Arizona SIP, 

and correcting the errors from previous 

Arizona SIP rulemakings, in a direct 

final action without prior proposal 

because we believe the SIP revision and 

error corrections are not controversial. 

The rescissions involve statutory and 

regulatory provisions related to 

declarations of policy and legal 

authority, jurisdiction over Indian 

lands, prohibitory rules, and test 

methods and performance test 

specifications. The error corrections 

relate to an inadvertent listing of a rule 

on which the EPA did not take action 

in the Arizona SIP, a typographical 

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

A detailed rationale for the approval 

of the rescissions and the correction of 

the errors is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If we receive adverse comments, 

however, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule and 

address the comments in a subsequent 

final rule based on this proposed rule. 

Please note that if the EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, the EPA may 

adopt as final those provisions of the 

rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, see 

please see the direct final action. 

Dated: January 25, 2016. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0155; FRL–9942–19– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Mississippi; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, 

in part, and disapprove in part, portions 

of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission, submitted by the State of 

Mississippi, through the Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ), on June 20, 2013, to 

demonstrate that the State meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

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

hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). 

The CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. MDEQ certified 

that the Mississippi SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, 

and maintained in Mississippi. With the 

exception of the state board majority 

requirements respecting significant 

portion of income, for which EPA is 

proposing to disapprove, EPA is 

proposing to determine that portions of 

Mississippi’s infrastructure submission, 

submitted to EPA on June 20, 2013, 

satisfy certain required infrastructure 

elements for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 14, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0155, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2015– 

0155,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 


jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS