Document ID: EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0546-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Mississippi; Section 128 Board Requirements for Infrastructure SIPs
Posted Date: 2018-03-30T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13712-13716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06544]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0546; FRL-9976-16--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; MS; Section 128 Board Requirements for 
Infrastructure SIPs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve the draft State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, 
submitted by the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi 
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for parallel processing, on 
June 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018. Together these draft submittals 
address specific Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements applicable to 
Mississippi state boards or bodies that approve CAA permits and 
enforcement orders. These submissions also request that EPA convert the 
previous partial disapproval of Mississippi's infrastructure SIPs 
related to the CAA state board significant portion of income 
requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 Nitrogen 
Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 
1997, 2006 and 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to full approvals. Whenever EPA 
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the state to make 
a new SIP submission establishing that the existing SIP meets the 
various applicable requirements, or revising the SIP to meet those 
requirements. This type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an 
``infrastructure'' SIP. In this proposed action, EPA is proposing to 
approve the June 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018 submissions with 
respect to the CAA requirements applicable to state boards; and the 
related state board infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 8-hour 
Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 1997, 
2006 and 2012 PM2.5, NAAQS. If this proposed approval action 
is finalized, EPA will no longer be required to promulgate a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the CAA state board requirements 
for Mississippi, as described in more detail below.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0546 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be 
reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 13713]]

I. What is parallel processing?

    Consistent with EPA regulations found at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 
V, section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting review of a SIP submittal, 
parallel processing allows a state to submit a plan to EPA prior to 
actual adoption by the state. Generally, the state submits a copy of 
the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its 
public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action, and prepares a 
notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is 
published in the Federal Register during the same time frame that the 
state is holding its public process. The state and EPA then provide for 
concurrent public comment periods on both the state action and Federal 
action.
    If the revision that is finally adopted and submitted by the State 
is changed in aspects other than those identified in the proposed 
rulemaking on the parallel process submission, EPA will evaluate those 
changes and if necessary and appropriate, issue another notice of 
proposed rulemaking. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only 
after the SIP revision has been adopted by the state and submitted 
formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
    On June 23, 2017, the State of Mississippi, through MDEQ, submitted 
a request for parallel processing of a draft SIP revision that the 
State has taken through public comment. On February 2, 2018, the State 
of Mississippi submitted an additional draft SIP revision that the 
State is taking through public comment. MDEQ requested parallel 
processing of both submissions so that EPA could begin to take action 
on its draft SIP revisions in advance of the State's submission of the 
final SIP revision. As stated above, the final rulemaking action by EPA 
will occur only after the SIP revisions have been: (1) Adopted by 
Mississippi, (2) submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the 
SIP; and (3) evaluated by EPA, including any changes made by the State 
after the June 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018, draft submissions were 
submitted to EPA.

II. Background

    By statute, states are required to have SIPs that provide for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. States are 
further required to make a SIP submission meeting the applicable 
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after EPA 
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS.\1\ EPA has historically referred to 
this type of SIP submission as an ``infrastructure SIP'' submission. 
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements 
such as for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority 
that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance with the newly 
established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 
provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIP 
submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must 
meet for the ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a newly 
established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP 
submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools 
available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in 
the state's existing EPA approved SIP at the time when the state 
develops and submits the infrastructure SIP submission for a new or 
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA has long noted that a literal reading of the statutory 
provisions of 110(a)(2) on the schedule provided in 110(a)(1) would 
create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of 
Title I of the CAA, which specifically address nonattainment area 
SIP requirements. See, e.g., ``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 at 4. For example, 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. The provisions in section 172(b) for 
submission of such plans for nonattainment areas differs from the 
timing requirements for an infrastructure SIP submission under 
110(a)(1). Thus, rather than applying all the stated requirements of 
section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA has determined that 
certain provisions like 110(a)(2)(I) of section 110(a)(2) are not 
applicable to infrastructure SIP submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action pertains to one of the requirements of section 
110(a)(2) that is relevant in the context of a state's development, and 
EPA's evaluation of, infrastructure SIP submissions. Section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA requires states to have SIPs that contain 
provisions that comply with certain specific requirements respecting 
State boards or bodies or heads of states agencies under CAA section 
128. Section 128 of the CAA requires that states include provisions in 
their SIP that require that any state board or body which approves 
permits or enforcement orders shall have a majority of members who 
represent the public interest and do not receive a significant portion 
of their income from parties subject to such permits or enforcement 
orders (section 128(a)(1)); and require that the members of any such 
board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to 
approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall adequately 
disclose potential conflicts of interest (section 128(a)(2)). 
Specifically, this action is limited to specific section 128 
requirements applicable to state boards or bodies.
    On October 11, 2012, MDEQ submitted SIP revisions for incorporation 
of Article 4, Section 109 of the Mississippi Constitution and portions 
of Mississippi Code sections 25-4-25, -27, -29, -103, -105, and -109 
into its SIP to meet its section 128 and related section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) obligations for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 
NAAQS. On April 8, 2013, EPA took final action to incorporate these 
provisions into the Mississippi SIP to meet the certain requirements of 
CAA sections 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). See 78 FR 20793.\2\ In this same 
final action, EPA disapproved Mississippi's October 11, 2012, 
submission as not satisfying the significant portion of income 
requirement of section 128(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This final action pertained to Mississippi's October 11, 
2012, infrastructure SIP submission and only addressed compliance 
with 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting CAA section 128 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, EPA took final action to disapprove Mississippi's 
infrastructure SIP submissions pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
for failing to comply with the significant portion of income 
requirement of section 128(a)(1) of for the 2008 8-hour Ozone on March 
2, 2015 (80 FR 11133), 2008 Lead on March 30, 2015 (80 FR 16566), 2010 
NO2 on August 16, 2016 (81 FR 63705), 2010 SO2 on 
September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67171), and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on 
December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89391).\3\ Under section 110(c)(1)(B), these 
disapprovals started a two-year clock for the EPA to promulgate a FIP 
to address the deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA has already approved or will consider in separate 
actions all other elements of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP 
submissions related to the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 1997, 2006 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to fully address the requirements of section 128, and thus 
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), Mississippi made the June 
23, 2017, and February 2, 2018, SIP submissions to revise the existing 
federally approved SIP and include these necessary revisions. Through 
this action, EPA is proposing approval of Mississippi's draft SIP 
revisions to incorporate into its SIP state law and regulatory 
provisions to meet certain state board requirements of section 128. 
More detail on how Mississippi's SIP revisions meet these requirements 
is provided below. As a result of the addition of these new SIP 
provisions to

[[Page 13714]]

meet the requirements of section 128, EPA is also proposing to approve 
the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure element for the 2008 8-hour 
Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 1997, 
2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The approvals proposed herein 
would fully address the SIP deficiencies from EPA's prior disapprovals 
for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 
SO2, and 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, 
if we finalize this proposed approval, this will resolve the prior 
disapprovals for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 
2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 1997, 2006 and 
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and terminate EPA's FIP obligation.
    A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this action is 
provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please 
refer to the Federal Register rulemakings cited below.

A. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    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. States were 
required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour 
Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 2011.

B. 2008 Lead NAAQS

    On November 12, 2008 (75 FR 81126), EPA issued a final rule to 
revise the Lead NAAQS. The Lead NAAQS was revised to 0.15 micrograms 
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\). States were required to submit 
infrastructure SIP submissions to EPA no later than October 15, 2011, 
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

C. 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA established a new 1-hour 
primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion 
(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly 
distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. States were 
required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 
NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 2013.

D. 2010 SO2 NAAQS

    On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary 
SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 ppb based on a 3-year 
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013.

E. 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, EPA also 
established a 24-hour NAAQS of 65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On 
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-
hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th 
percentile of 24-hour concentrations. States were required to submit 
such SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000 for the 1997 annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and no later than October 2009 for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

F. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 
2013). An area meets the standard if the three-year average of its 
annual average PM2.5 concentration (at each monitoring site 
in the area) is less than or equal to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. States were 
required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015.

III. What is EPA's analysis of how Mississippi addressed the 
requirements of section 128(a)(1)?

    On June 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018, Mississippi submitted for 
parallel processing, draft SIP submissions to revise the Mississippi 
SIP to meet certain portions of the state board requirements of CAA 
section 128. Of note, EPA has previously approved SIP revisions to 
address all elements of section 128 for Mississippi except the 
significant portion of income requirement of 128(a)(1). See 78 FR 
20793. The draft submissions under review in this proposed action 
primarily address this outstanding significant portion of income 
requirement, but also include additional supplemental language relevant 
to other elements of section 128.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA has fully approved revisions to the Mississippi SIP to 
address all elements of Section 128, except the significant portion 
of income requirement. Thus, these additional provisions supplement 
Mississippi's already approved SIP for these other elements of 
section 128, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a state has a board or body that approves CAA permits or 
enforcement orders, it is subject to section 128(a)(1), which requires 
that any state ``board or body which approves permits or enforcement 
orders under [the CAA] shall have at least a majority of members who 
represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion 
of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement under 
[the CAA].'' Section 128(a)(2) applies to the members of any such board 
or body that approves CAA permits and enforcement orders, and also to 
the head of an executive agency with similar powers, and requires that 
``any potential conflicts of interest . . . be adequately disclosed.''
    In 1978, EPA issued guidance recommending potential ways that 
states might elect to meet the requirements of section 128, including 
suggested interpretations of key terms.\5\ In this guidance, EPA 
recognized that states may have a variety of procedures and special 
concerns that may warrant differing approaches to implementation of 
section 128 and that the guidance does not create a requirement that 
all SIPs must include the suggested definitions verbatim, or that 
definitions per se must be included in SIPs. EPA provided further 
guidance with respect to these statutory requirements in its 2013 
infrastructure SIP guidance.\6\ In the 2013 guidance, EPA clarified 
that provisions to implement section 128 need to be contained within 
the SIP. Therefore, EPA will not approve an infrastructure SIP 
submission that only provides a narrative description or references 
existing state laws or requirements that are not approved into the SIP 
in order to address section 128. EPA has also provided certain 
interpretations of the statutory requirements of section 128 in its 
actions on infrastructure SIP submissions from various states, based on 
the facts and circumstances of those actions.\7\ In several actions, 
EPA has approved state law requirements that closely track or mirror 
the explicit statutory language of section 128.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy General Counsel, to 
Regional Air Directors, Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of 
Interest Requirements of Section 128 (March 2, 1978).
    \6\ ``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.
    \7\ Id., pp. 43-44.
    \8\ See, EPA proposed rule on Montana's SIP/infrastructure 
requirements, 81 FR 4225, 4233, finalized at 81 FR 23180; and EPA's 
approval of Georgia's infrastructure requirements, 77 FR 65125; 
proposed at 77 FR 35909.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The legislative history of the 1977 amendments to the CAA also 
indicates that states have some flexibility in determining the specific 
requirements needed to meet the section 128 requirements, so long as 
the statutory

[[Page 13715]]

requirements are met.\9\ Also, section 128 explicitly provides that 
states may adopt any requirements respecting conflicts of interest for 
such boards or bodies or heads of executive agencies, or any other 
entities which are more stringent than the requirements of paragraphs 
(1) and (2), and that the Administrator shall approve any such more 
stringent requirements submitted as part of an implementation plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Specifically, the conference committee for the 1977 
amendments stated that ``it is the responsibility of each state to 
determine the specific requirements to meet the general requirements 
of [section 128].'' H.R. Rep. 95-564 (1977), reprinted in 
Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 526-527 
(1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 2017, Mississippi submitted for incorporation into its 
SIP changes to Mississippi Code section 49-2-5. This provision 
specifically addresses the Mississippi Commission on Environmental 
Quality, which has CAA enforcement order approval authority. This 
change adds a provision which provides that: ``At least a majority of 
the members of the commission shall represent the public interest and 
shall not derive any significant portion of their income from persons 
subject to permits under the Federal Clean Air Act or enforcement order 
under the Federal Clean Air Act. In the event of any potential conflict 
of interest by a member of the commission, such member shall disclose 
the potential conflict to the other members of the commission and shall 
recuse himself or herself from participating in or voting on any matter 
related to such conflict of interest.'' EPA notes that this provision 
addresses certain section 128 requirements for which Mississippi's SIP 
has already received full approval; namely the representation of the 
public interest requirement of section 128(a)(1) and the conflict of 
interest disclosure requirements of section 128(a)(2). As explained 
below, EPA believes these additional provisions are approvable as well.
    On February 2, 2018, MDEQ submitted for incorporation into the SIP 
provisions that address section 128(a)(1) for the MDEQ Permit Board. 
First, the submissions requests incorporation of a new provision in 
Appendix C-26, ``Air Emissions Regulations for the Prevention, 
Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants'' Title 11, Part 2, Chapter 
1, Rule 1.1, which provides that ``the Mississippi Environmental 
Quality Permit Board (``Permit Board'') shall ensure that at least a 
majority of the members of the Permit Board shall represent the public 
interest and shall not derive any significant portion of their income 
from persons subject to permits under the Federal Clean Air Act or 
enforcement orders under the Federal Clean Air Act.''
    Second, the submission requests incorporation of revisions to the 
MDEQ Permit Board procedural rules at Appendix A-13, ``Regulations 
Regarding Administrative Procedures Pursuant to the Mississippi 
Administrative Procedures Act'', Title 11, Part 1 Chapter 5, Rule 5.1. 
This rule describes the composition of the MDEQ Permit Board as seven 
members who serve by virtue of Mississippi State Office as ``Ex Officio 
Members,'' (e.g., Chief of the Bureau of Environmental Health of the 
State Board of Health). Each Ex Officio Member is allowed to designate 
a replacement. Two Board members are appointed by the Governor of 
Mississippi and are required to be a retired professional engineer 
knowledgeable in the engineering of water wells and a retired water 
well contractor, respectively, but these members only vote on matters 
pertaining to the Office of Land and Water Resources. Administrative 
Procedures Act Rules, Title 11, Part 1 Chapter 5, Rule 5.1 provides 
that ``at least the majority of the Ex Officio Members of the MDEQ 
Permit Board shall represent the public interest and shall not derive 
any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits 
under the Federal Clean Air Act or enforcement orders under the Federal 
Clean Air Act (CAA).'' It also provides for annual certification as to 
whether the member derives a significant portion of income from persons 
subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA and a process 
for replacing members as needed to ensure that a majority does derive a 
significant portion of income from regulated entities.
    EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's June 23, 2017, and 
February 2, 2018, draft SIP submissions as meeting the public interest 
and significant portion of income requirements of section 128 because 
we believe these provisions comply with the statutory requirements and 
are consistent with EPA's guidance. The State has submitted a statutory 
provision for incorporation into the Mississippi SIP for the 
Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality and this provision 
mirrors section 128(a)(1) regarding the majority composition public 
interest and significant income requirements. As noted above, EPA has 
determined that state requirements that closely track or mirror the 
section 128 requirements satisfy CAA requirements. The provision also 
requires disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and recusal if 
such a conflict exists. EPA previously incorporated Mississippi Code 
Section 25-4-27 into Mississippi's SIP, which required the Commission 
and Board members to file annual statements of economic interests with 
the Mississippi Ethics Commission, and 25-4-27, which prescribed the 
contents for economic interest statements. See 78 FR 20793. In this 
previous approval action, EPA found that the state satisfied the 
disclosure requirements of section 128(a)(2). EPA views this additional 
disclosure requirement, which mirrors the language of section 
128(a)(2), as approvable. Regarding recusal when a conflict exists, EPA 
notes that this step is not required under section 128. As section 128 
explicitly provides that EPA ``shall approve . . . more stringent 
requirements submitted as part of an implementation plan,'' and EPA 
views the recusal requirement as more stringent than the section 128 
requirements, EPA is proposing to approve this provision.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See EPA's proposed rule on a Montana SIP revision to 
address section 128 and infrastructure SIP requirements for a 
discussion on EPA's approach to this type of recusal requirement. 81 
FR 4225, 4233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the MDEQ Permit Board, the state submitted regulations at Title 
11, Part 1 Chapter 5, Rule 5.1 and Title 11, Part 2, Chapter 1, Rule 
1.1 for incorporation into the SIP, which again mirrors section 
128(a)(1) regarding the public interest and significant income 
requirements and therefore satisfy CAA section 128. In Title 11, Part 1 
Chapter 5, Rule 5.1, Mississippi is also including certain procedural 
provisions that address implementation of the significant income 
requirement of section 128(a)(1) and provisions that describe the 
composition of the MDEQ Permit Board. EPA believes these provisions are 
not inconsistent with the section 128 requirements and associated 
guidance and are therefore approvable.
    With the incorporation of these specific statutory and regulatory 
provisions to comply with the relevant CAA requirements into the SIP, 
EPA believes that Mississippi will meet all the requirements of section 
128 of the CAA.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Mississippi addressed the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)?

    Mississippi also requested in the draft SIP submissions that EPA 
convert the previous partial disapproval of its infrastructure SIPs 
with regard to the significant portion of income board requirements to 
full approvals. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA requires

[[Page 13716]]

states to have SIP provisions that comply with the requirements of CAA 
section 128. Because EPA is proposing to approve provisions into 
Mississippi's SIP to meet the significant portion of income 
requirements of section 128(a)(1) as discussed above, it is also 
proposing to fully approve the SIP submission with respect to the 
related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the NAAQS 
previously mentioned. EPA notes that section 128 is not NAAQS-specific, 
and thus once a state has met the requirements of section 128 it will 
continue to do so for purposes of future NAAQS, unless there were 
future changes to the approved SIP provisions which would require 
further evaluation.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this notice, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by 
reference Mississippi Code section 49-2-5 to include certain section 
128 requirements for the MDEQ Commission on Environmental Quality; and 
Appendix C-26, ``Air Emissions Regulations for the Prevention, 
Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants'' Title 11, Part 2, Chapter 
1, Rule 1.1, and Appendix A-13, ``Regulations Regarding Administrative 
Procedures Pursuant to the Mississippi Administrative Procedures Act'', 
Title 11, Part 1 Chapter 5, Rule 5.1 to incorporate certain section 128 
requirements for the MDEQ Permit Board. EPA has made, and will continue 
to make, these materials generally available through 
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the 
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this preamble for more information).

VI. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to approve that the 
Mississippi SIP meets the significant portion of income requirements of 
128(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA is also proposing to conclude that, if 
Mississippi's June 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018, SIP revisions are 
approved, the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements are met for the 
2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 
and 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5, NAAQS for section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Consequently, if EPA finalizes approval of this 
action, the deficiencies identified in the previous partial 
disapprovals of Mississippi infrastructure SIP submissions related to 
the state board requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 1997, 2006 and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS will be cured. Finally, EPA is proposing to 
approve the new supplemental provisions regarding representation of the 
public interest of section 128(a)(1) for the MDEQ Permit Board and 
Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality, and disclosure of 
potential conflicts of interest of section 128(a)(2) for the 
Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely 
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does 
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    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, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 15, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-06544 Filed 3-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P