[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34898-34906]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14267]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0402; FRL-9686-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi;
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006
Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted by the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), as meeting certain
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a
SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. Mississippi certified that the Mississippi SIP
contains provisions that ensure that the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in
Mississippi (hereafter referred to as ``infrastructure submission'').
EPA is proposing to determine that Mississippi's infrastructure
submissions, provided to EPA on December 7, 2007, and on October 6,
2009, addressed all the required infrastructure elements for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with the exception of
sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(G), both of which will be
addressed in a separate action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0402, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0402,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0402. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy

form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Mississippi addressed the elements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([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. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs
to EPA no later than July 2000 for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, no later than October 2009 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent
decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, among other things, to
complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations
pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each state had made
complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008. In accordance with
the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings for each state based
upon what the Agency received from each state for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 2008.
    On October 22, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled,
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans
Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS''
making a finding that each state had submitted or failed to submit a
complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (See
73 FR 62902). For those states that did receive findings, the findings
of failure to submit for all or a portion of a state's implementation
plan established a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the outstanding SIP elements
unless, prior to that time, the affected states submitted, and EPA
approved, the required SIPs.
    The findings that all or portions of a state's submission are
complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon
the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k).
Mississippi's infrastructure submissions were received by EPA on
December 7, 2007, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and on
October 6, 2009, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
submissions were determined to be complete on June 7, 2008, and April
6, 2010, respectively. Mississippi was among other states that did not
receive findings of failure to submit because it had provided a
complete submission to EPA to address the infrastructure elements for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 3, 2008.
    On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club filed an
amended complaint related to EPA's failure to take action on the SIP
submittal related to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a
consent decree with WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club which required
EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice of the
Agency's final action either approving, disapproving, or approving in
part and disapproving in part the Mississippi 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP submittal addressing the
applicable requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except
for section 110(a)(2)(C) the nonattainment area requirements and
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport requirements, by September
30, 2012.
    Today's action is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure
submission for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
for sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except for sections
110(a)(2)(C) nonattainment area requirements, 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
interstate transport requirements, 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) state board
requirements, and 110(a)(2)(G) emergency power requirements. Section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and (G) will be addressed in a separate action.\1\
This action is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing
that Mississippi's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As described further below in Section II, EPA is not taking
on action on sections 110(a)(2)(C) nonattainment area requirements
and 110(a)(2)(D)(i) interstate transport requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, some states may need to adopt language specific
to the PM2.5 NAAQS to ensure that they have adequate SIP
provisions to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS.

    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the
subject of this proposed rulemaking are listed below \2\ and in EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and September
25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under
Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to
section 110(a)(2)(I) but does provide detail on how Mississippi's
SIP addresses 110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Today's proposed rule does not address element
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Interstate transport requirements were
formerly addressed by Mississippi consistent with the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR). On December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded by
the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, without vacatur, back to EPA. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (DC Cir. 2008). Prior to this
remand, EPA took final action to approve Mississippi SIP revision,
which was submitted to comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 56268 (October 3,
2007). In so doing, Mississippi CAIR SIP revision addressed the
interstate transport provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In response to the remand of
CAIR, EPA has recently finalized a new rule to address the
interstate transport of nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides in the
eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the
Transport Rule''). That rule was recently stayed by the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals. EPA's action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be
addressed in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' and
the September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 Fine
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' but as mentioned above is not relevant to today's
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country.
Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns
about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive
issues in the context of acting on those infrastructure SIP
submissions.\6\ Those Commenters specifically raised concerns involving
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in other
proposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part
of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing
provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction at sources (SSM), that may be contrary to the
CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; and (ii)
existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions
limits with limited public process or without requiring further
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (director's
discretion). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues for
which EPA likewise stated in other proposals that it would address
separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source new source review
(NSR) programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the
CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (minor source
NSR); and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR
Reform). In light of the comments, EPA believes that its statements in
various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs with respect to these
four individual issues should be explained in greater depth. It is
important to emphasize that EPA is taking the same position with
respect to these four substantive issues in this action on the
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS from
Mississippi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated
May 31, 2011. Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that
these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this
rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this
rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate
rulemaking action to which they apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these
four issues merely to be informational and to provide general notice of
the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of some
states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not want
states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under the
misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a re-approval of
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy,
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit
re-approval of any existing provisions that relate to these four
substantive issues. EPA is reiterating that position in this action on
the infrastructure SIP for Mississippi.
    Unfortunately, the Commenters and others evidently interpreted
these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM
provisions and the other three substantive issues to be

integral parts of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and
therefore that EPA was merely postponing taking final action on the
issues in the context of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's
intention. To the contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of
the potential for certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs and to
prevent any misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing
provisions. EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute
does not require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific
substantive issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt
with separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure
SIP submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that
it was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to
be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k)
or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from
EPA's statements in those other proposals, however, we want to explain
more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these four
potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed
separately from actions on infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and
that these SIPs are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program
submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host
of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific
matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2)
provides more details concerning the required contents of these
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory
provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal
authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions,
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and
substantive provisions.\7\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2)
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must
provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under
state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a substantive program to address
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event
of such an emergency.
    \8\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic
points as what constitutes significant contribution. See ``Rule To
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone
(Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162 (May 12,
2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase ``contribute
significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that ``each'' SIP
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\9\ This illustrates that
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states
to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with
different schedules.\10\ This illustrates that EPA may conclude that
subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into
separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS
where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere
submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's
implementation plans. Finally, EPA notes that not every element of
section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the
same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the attendant
infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example, the
monitoring requirements that might be necessary for purposes of section
110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different than what might be
necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content of an
infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a state might
be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to
an existing NAAQS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63--65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \10\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division
Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \11\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2),
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by
part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section
110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear
that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D
also would not need to address the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(G) with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements
would not be limited to nonattainment areas. As this example
illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some subsections
of section 110(a)(2) and not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for
infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\12\ Within this guidance document,
EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what
the Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs,
which it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards.'' \13\ As further identification of
these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the
guidance document included a short description of the various elements
of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of
issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such
infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic
requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an
interpretation of'' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief
description of the required elements.'' \14\ EPA also stated its belief
that with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self
explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA
Regions.'' \15\ However, for the one exception to that general
assumption (i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each
state would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine
the scope of a state's submittal based on an assessment of how the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic
structure of the state's implementation plans for the NAAQS in
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance'').
    \13\ Id., at page 2.
    \14\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \15\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by
commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations
to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\16\ In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a
number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure
SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS (e.g., the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had
bifurcated from the other infrastructure elements for those specific
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS). Significantly, neither the 2007
Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM,
director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among
specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the
2009 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended
to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to
address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007
Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make
submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP
structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA
believes that states can establish that they have the basic SIP
structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies
within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals for other states
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions. The same holds
true for this action on the infrastructure SIPs for Mississippi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''
from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25,
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP
requirement is reasonable because it would not be feasible to read
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern,
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS.
Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and
regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include
some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the
SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to
determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of
the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the

Agency to take appropriate tailored action, depending upon the nature
and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5)
authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP call'' whenever the Agency determines
that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain
the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or otherwise to comply
with the CAA.\17\ Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in
past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\18\
Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on the infrastructure
SIP is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential
existing SIP problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent
reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for
action at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate
to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's
discretion provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure
SIP, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory
bases that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a
subsequent action.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \18\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors
in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010).
EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641
(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004)
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \19\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado
on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section
110(a)(2)(A). See 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed
disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540
(January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Mississippi addressed the elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?

    Mississippi's infrastructure submissions address the provisions of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures:
Mississippi's infrastructure submissions provide an overview of the
provisions of the Mississippi Air Pollution Control (APC) Regulations
relevant to air quality control. The regulations described below have
been federally approved into the Mississippi SIP and include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures.
Mississippi SIP Regulations APC-S-1--Air Emission Regulations for the
Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants, and APC-S-3--
Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes,
generally authorizes DEQ to adopt rules for the control of air
pollution, including those necessary to obtain EPA approval under
section 110 of the CAA. The most recent federally approved revision in
this regulation was on October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56268). EPA has made the
preliminary determination that the provisions contained in these
regulations and Mississippi's practices are adequate to protect the
PM2.5 annual and 24-hour NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the
Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having deficient SSM provisions to
take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system:
Mississippi's infrastructure submissions cite SIP Regulation APC-S-1--
Air Emission Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of
Air Contaminants, with regard to the monitoring program within the
State. Annually, EPA approves the ambient air monitoring network plan
for the state agencies. On October 6, 2011, EPA approved Mississippi's
2011 monitoring network plan. Mississippi's approved monitoring network
plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-
R04-OAR-2012-0402. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air
quality monitoring and data systems related to the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources: Mississippi's authority to
regulate new and modified sources so as to provide for the protection
of air quality in nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable areas is
established in the Mississippi SIP Regulations APC-S-1--Air Emission
Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air
Contaminants, APC-S-2--Permit Regulations for the Construction and/or
Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, and APC-S-5--Regulations for the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. Mississippi's
regulations provide the permitting requirements for new major sources
or major modifications of existing sources in areas classified as
attainment or unclassifiable under section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of
the CAA. This permitting program is designed to ensure that sources in
areas attaining the NAAQS at the time of designations prevent any
significant deterioration in air quality. Additionally, on May 18,
2011, Mississippi submitted a SIP revision to its NSR/PSD and
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs. Mississippi's May 18,
2011, SIP submittal would incorporate by reference the federal NSR
provisions for fine particulate matter (also known as PM2.5)
as amended in EPA's 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule
(hereafter referred to as the ``NSR PM2.5 Rule'') into the
Mississippi SIP at APC-S-5--Regulations for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. In the May 18, 2011, SIP
revision, Mississippi includes revisions to rules that address the
infrastructure requirements (C) and (J). As such, today's proposed
approval of Mississippi's SIP respecting infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(C) is contingent upon EPA first taking final action to
approve the May 18, 2011, NSR PM2.5 Rule revision into the
State's SIP. EPA will propose approval of Mississippi's May 18, 2011,
NSR PM2.5 Rule revision in a rulemaking separate from
today's action.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour

PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the
modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to
assure that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove the State's existing minor NSR program itself to the extent
that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program.
EPA believes that a number of states may have minor NSR provisions that
are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA
intends to work with states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with
EPA's regulatory provisions for the program. The statutory requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in
designing minor NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be time to
revisit the regulatory requirements for this program to give the states
an appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that meets
their particular air quality concerns, while assuring reasonable
consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to
new and modified minor sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP
and practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources related to the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed above, final approval
of this rule is contingent upon the Agency first taking final action to
approve Mississippi's May 18, 2011, PM2.5 NSR Update.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport
provisions: In Regulation APC-S-2--Permit Regulations For The
Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, Mississippi
provides how it will notify neighboring states of potential impacts
from new or modified sources. The most recent federally approved
revision in this regulation was on July 10, 2006 (71 FR 38773).
Mississippi does not have any pending obligation under section 115 and
126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance
with the applicable requirements relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires
that each implementation plan provide (i) necessary assurances that the
State will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state
law to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) that the State comply
with the requirements respecting State Boards pursuant to section 128
of the Act, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the State has
relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality
for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan
provisions. As with the remainder of the infrastructure elements
addressed by this notice, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's SIP
as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii).
With respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (regarding state boards), EPA is not
taking action on this sub-element today, and will instead address this
requirement in a separate action. EPA's rationale for today's proposals
respecting sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) is described in turn
below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), DEQ is responsible for promulgating rules
and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards general policies, a
system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other
planning needs. As evidence of the adequacy of DEQ's resources with
respect to sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to
Mississippi on March 8, 2012, outlining 105 grant commitments and the
current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2011. The letter
EPA submitted to Mississippi can be accessed at www.regulations.gov
using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0402. Annually, states update
these grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality
planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. Mississippi
satisfactorily met all commitments agreed to in the Air Planning
Agreement for fiscal year 2011, therefore Mississippi's grants were
finalized and closed out. EPA has made the preliminary determination
that Mississippi has adequate resources for implementation of the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when EPA performs a
completeness determination for each SIP submittal. This determination
ensures that each submittal provides evidence that adequate personnel,
funding, and legal authority under state law has been used to carry out
the state's implementation plan and related issues. Mississippi's
authority is included in all prehearings and final SIP submittal
packages for approval by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi has adequate resources for
implementation of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system: Regulation
APC-S-2--Permit Regulations for the Construction and/or Operation of
Air Emissions Equipment, of the Mississippi SIP establishes
requirements for emissions compliance testing utilizing emissions
sampling and analysis. It further describes how the State ensures the
quality of its data through observing emissions and monitoring
operations. Mississippi DEQ uses these data to track progress towards
maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies,
identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance
with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements.
    Additionally, Mississippi is required to submit emissions data to
EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System
(EIS). States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and
the precursors that form them--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile
organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of
hazardous air pollutants. Mississippi made its latest update to the NEI
on December 30, 2011. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it
where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web
site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are
adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires
states to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency
plans to

implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs. Today, EPA is
not proposing any action with respect to element 110(a)(2)(G). This
element will be addressed in a separate action.
    8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: DEQ is responsible for
adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or
maintain the NAAQS in Mississippi. DEQ has the ability and authority to
respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a number of SIP
revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS. Mississippi
does not have any nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual or 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standard but has submitted an infrastructure
submission for these standards, which is the subject of this
rulemaking. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to
provide future SIP revisions related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    9. 110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government
officials: Mississippi Code Annotated Regulation 49-17-3, as well as
Mississippi's Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for
consultation between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution
control agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers),
provide for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions
might be affected by SIP development activities. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials related
to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when
necessary.
    10. 110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification:
APC-S-3--Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency
Episodes, of the Mississippi SIP requires that DEQ notify the public of
any air pollution episode or NAAQS violation. DEQ's has public notice
mechanisms in place to notify the public of PM and other pollutant
forecasting, including an air quality monitoring Web site providing
ground level ozone alerts, http://opc.deq.state.ms.us/aqi/ specifically
for the Jackson Metropolitan Area, DeSoto County, and the Mississippi
Gulf Coast. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's
ability to provide public notification related to the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    11. 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD) PSD and visibility protection: Mississippi
demonstrates its authority to regulate new and modified sources of PM
to assist in the protection of air quality in Regulation APC-S-5--
Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Air
Quality. Mississippi's SIP provides the permitting requirements for new
major sources or major modifications of existing sources in areas
classified as attainment or unclassifiable under section
107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the CAA. These provisions are designed to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas that are in
attainment of the NAAQS at the time of designations. As with
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C), infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(J) also requires compliance with applicable provisions of the
PSD program described in part C of the Act. Accordingly, final action
to approve the May 18, 2011, NSR PM2.5 Rule SIP revision, is
a prerequisite to today's proposed action to approve the State's
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J). See the discussion for element
110(a)(2)(C) above for a description of the submitted NSR
PM2.5 Rule SIP revision to the Mississippi SIP. EPA will not
take final action to approve Mississippi's SIP as meeting the
requirements infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J) prior to taking final
action to approve the State's May 10, 2011, NSR PM2.5 Rule
SIP revision
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of
a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds that there is
no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J)
when a new NAAQS becomes effective. This would be the case even in the
event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established,
because that NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part
C. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP
and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to implement
PSD programs and to provide for visibility protection related to the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. As
noted above, final approval of this element is contingent upon the
Agency first taking final action to approve Mississippi's May 18, 2011,
PM2.5 NSR Update submittal.
    12. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: DEQ has authority
pursuant to Mississippi SIP Regulation APC-S-5--Regulations for the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Air Quality, (which
incorporates 40 CFR part 51.21 by reference) to conduct air quality
modeling and report the results of such modeling to EPA. Additionally,
Mississippi supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of
emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS,
including the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, for
the Southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Mississippi's air quality
regulations demonstrate that DEQ has the authority to provide relevant
data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has made
the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality
and modeling (including analysis of the associated data) related to the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    13. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: Mississippi addresses the review
of construction permits as previously discussed in 110(a)(2)(C) above.
Permitting fees are collected through the State's title V fees program,
which has been federally approved. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately provide
for permitting fees related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    14. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: DEQ coordinates with local governments affected by the SIP.
Specifically, as described in Section IV of Regulation APC-S-2, Public
Participation and Public Availability Of Information, Mississippi
requires that State and local air pollution control agencies be
notified of modifications to stationary sources or the construction of
new sources within their region of jurisdiction. Furthermore, DEQ has
demonstrated consultation with, and participation by, affected local
entities through its work with local political subdivisions during the
developing of its Regional Haze Implementation Plan. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities
related to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS when
necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve that DEQ's CAA 110(a)(1) and (2)
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS meet the above described

infrastructure SIP requirements consistent with EPA's October 2, 2007,
and September 25, 2009, guidance. Mississippi's infrastructure
submissions, which are the subject of today's proposed rulemaking, were
submitted on December 7, 2007, for purposes of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and on October 6, 2009, for purposes of the
2006 24-hour annual PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed approval,
however, does not include infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and
110(a)(2)(G) for either the 1997 annual or 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. These elements will be addressed by EPA in a
separate action. In addition, final approval of the infrastructure
elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) proposed for approval today is contingent
upon the Agency first taking final action to approve Mississippi's May
18, 2011, PM2.5 NSR Update.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 1, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-14267 Filed 6-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28080-28082]
[DOCID:fr19my10-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62079; File No. 4-598]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. and EDGX Exchange, Inc.

May 11, 2010.
    On April 2, 2010, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') and the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') (together with EDGX,
the ``Parties'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 17d-2 thereunder,\2\ a plan for the
allocation of regulatory responsibilities, dated March 31, 2010 (``17d-
2 Plan'' or the ``Plan''). The Plan was published for comment on April
13, 2010.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the Plan. This
order approves and declares effective the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61861 (April 7,
2010), 75 FR 18920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,\4\ among other things, requires every
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national
securities exchange or national securities association to examine for,
and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with its
members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility
pursuant to Section 17(d) or Section 19(g)(2) of the Act.\5\ Without
this relief, the statutory obligation of each individual SRO could
result in a pattern of multiple examinations of broker-dealers that
maintain memberships in more than one SRO (``common members''). Such
regulatory duplication would add unnecessary expenses for common
members and their SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(d)(1) of the Act \6\ was intended, in part, to eliminate
unnecessary multiple examinations and regulatory duplication.\7\ With
respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1) authorizes the Commission,
by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the responsibility to receive
regulatory reports, to examine for and enforce compliance with
applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or to perform other
specified regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \7\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\8\ Rule 17d-1 authorizes the
Commission to name a single SRO as the designated examining authority
(``DEA'') to examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or SRO
rules.\9\ When an SRO has been named as a common member's DEA, all
other SROs to which the common member belongs are relieved of the
responsibility to examine the firm for compliance with the applicable
financial responsibility rules. On its face, Rule 17d-1 deals only with
an SRO's obligations to enforce member compliance with financial
responsibility requirements. Rule 17d-1 does not relieve an SRO from
its obligation to examine a common member for compliance with its own
rules and provisions of the federal securities laws governing matters
other than financial responsibility, including sales practices and
trading activities and practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1 and 17 CFR 240.17d-2, respectively.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12352 (April 20,
1976), 41 FR 18808 (May 7, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the
Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\10\ Rule 17d-2 permits
SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities with respect to their common members. Under paragraph
(c) of Rule 17d-2, the Commission may declare such a plan effective if,
after providing for appropriate notice and comment, it determines that
the plan is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and for the
protection of investors; to foster cooperation and coordination among
the SROs; to remove impediments to, and foster the development of, a
national market system and a national clearance and settlement system;
and is in conformity with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the
Act. Commission approval of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2
relieves an SRO of those

regulatory responsibilities allocated by the plan to another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 12935 (October 28,
1976), 41 FR 49091 (November 8, 1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Plan

    The proposed 17d-2 Plan is intended to reduce regulatory
duplication for firms that are common members of both EDGX and FINRA.
Pursuant to the proposed 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume certain
examination and enforcement responsibilities for those EDGX members
that are also members of FINRA and the associated persons therewith
(``Dual Members'') with respect to certain applicable laws, rules, and
regulations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Paragraph 1(c) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan (defining
``Dual Members'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the Plan delineates the proposed regulatory
responsibilities with respect to the Parties. Included in the proposed
Plan is an exhibit (the ``EDGX Certification for 17d-2 Agreement with
FINRA,'' referred to herein as the ``Certification'') that lists every
EDGX rule, and select federal securities laws, rules, and regulations,
for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan for overseeing
and enforcing with respect to Dual Members.
    Specifically, under the 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume examination
and enforcement responsibility relating to compliance by Dual Members
with the rules of EDGX that are substantially similar to the applicable
rules of FINRA, as well as any provisions of the federal securities
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder delineated in the
Certification (``Common Rules''). Common Rules would not include the
application of any EDGX rule or FINRA rule, or any rule or regulation
under the Act, to the extent that it pertains to violations of insider
trading activities, because such matters are covered by a separate
multiparty agreement under Rule 17d-2.\12\ In the event that a Dual
Member is the subject of an investigation relating to a transaction on
EDGX, the plan acknowledges that EDGX may, in its discretion, exercise
concurrent jurisdiction and responsibility for such matter.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See paragraph 1(b) of the proposed 17d-2 Plan. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 58350 (August 13, 2008), 73 FR
48247 (August 18, 2008) (File No. 4-566) (notice of filing of
proposed plan); and 58536 (September 12, 2008) 73 FR 54646
(September 22, 2008) (File No. 4-566) (order approving and declaring
effective the plan). The Certification identifies several Common
Rules that may also be addressed in the context of regulating
insider trading activities pursuant to the proposed separate
multiparty agreement.
    \13\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Plan, EDGX would retain full responsibility for
surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or
practices involving EDGX's own marketplace, including, without
limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated
persons (i.e., registration rules that are not Common Rules); its
duties as a DEA pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Act; and any EDGX
rules that are not Common Rules, except for EDGX rules for any broker-
dealer subsidiary of Direct Edge Holdings LLC.\14\ Apparent violations
of any EDGX rules by any broker-dealer subsidiary of Direct Edge
Holdings LLC. will be processed by, and enforcement proceedings in
respect thereto will be conducted by, FINRA.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \15\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the
factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act \16\ and Rule 17d-2(c)
thereunder \17\ in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters
cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and
fosters the development of the national market system. In particular,
the Commission believes that the proposed Plan should reduce
unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to FINRA certain
examination and enforcement responsibilities for Dual Members that
would otherwise be performed by both EDGX and FINRA. Accordingly, the
proposed Plan promotes efficiency by reducing costs to Dual Members.
Furthermore, because EDGX and FINRA will coordinate their regulatory
functions in accordance with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that when it granted the application of EDGX
for registration as a national securities exchange, the Commission
conditioned the operation of the EDGX exchange on the satisfaction of
several requirements.\18\ One of those requirements was the
effectiveness of an agreement pursuant to Rule 17d-2 between FINRA and
EDGX that allocates to FINRA regulatory responsibility for certain
specified matters, or, alternatively, the demonstration by EDGX that it
independently has the ability to fulfill all of its regulatory
obligations.\19\ The proposed 17d-2 Plan represents EDGX's effort to
satisfy that prerequisite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61698 (March 12,
2010), 75 FR 13151 (March 18, 2010) (File No. 10-196).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under the Plan, EDGX and FINRA have
allocated regulatory responsibility for those EDGX rules, set forth on
the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable
FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and
rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination
standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the
application of the rule, or a Dual Member's activity, conduct, or
output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Plan, FINRA
would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the
federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the
Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by
the Parties from time to time.
    Under the Plan, EDGX would retain full responsibility for
surveillance and enforcement with respect to trading activities or
practices involving EDGX's own marketplace, including, without
limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated
persons (i.e., registration rules that are not Common Rules); its
duties as a DEA pursuant to Rule 17d-1 under the Act; and any EDGX
rules that are not Common Rules, except for EDGX rules for any broker-
dealer subsidiary of Direct Edge Holdings LLC.\20\ Apparent violations
of any EDGX rules by any broker-dealer subsidiary of Direct Edge
Holdings LLC will be processed by, and enforcement proceedings in
respect thereto will be conducted by, FINRA.\21\ The effect of these
provisions is that regulatory oversight and enforcement
responsibilities for any broker-dealer subsidiary of Direct Edge
Holdings LLC, which is the parent company of EDGX, will be vested with
FINRA. These provisions should help avoid any potential conflicts of
interest that could arise if EDGX was primarily responsible for
regulating its affiliated broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \21\ See paragraph 6 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Plan, EDGX will review the Certification, at least
annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules
of EDGX or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of
Common Rules to add EDGX rules not included on the then-current list of
Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete EDGX
rules

included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no longer
substantially similar to FINRA rules; and confirm that the remaining
rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be EDGX rules that are
substantially similar to FINRA rules.\22\ FINRA will then confirm in
writing whether the rules listed in any updated list are Common Rules
as defined in the Plan. Under the Plan, EDGX will also provide FINRA
with a current list of Dual Members and shall update the list no less
frequently than once each quarter.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See paragraph 2 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \23\ See paragraph 3 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is hereby declaring effective a plan that, among
other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the
oversight and enforcement of all EDGX rules that are substantially
similar to the rules of FINRA for Dual Members of EDGX and FINRA.
Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with
the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the Parties
are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to EDGX rules
in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules
provided in the Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a EDGX
rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA
rule; delete a EDGX rule from the Certification that is substantially
similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification a EDGX rule that
is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change
would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the
Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act and noticed for public
comment.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Commission also notes that the addition to or deletion
from the Certification of any federal securities laws, rules, and
regulations for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan
for examining, and enforcing compliance by, Dual Members, also would
constitute an amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also permits EDGX and FINRA to terminate the Plan, subject
to notice.\25\ The Commission notes, however, that while the Plan
permits the Parties to terminate the Plan, the Parties cannot by
themselves reallocate the regulatory responsibilities set forth in the
Plan, since Rule 17d-2 under the Act requires that any allocation or
re-allocation of regulatory responsibilities be filed with the
Commission.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See paragraph 12 of the proposed 17d-2 Plan.
    \26\ The Commission notes that paragraph 12 of the Plan reflects
the fact that FINRA's responsibilities under the Plan will continue
in effect until the Commission approves any termination of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in
File No. 4-598. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the
Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 17(d) of the Act, that
the Plan in File No. 4-598, between FINRA and EDGX, filed pursuant to
Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved and declared effective.
    It is therefore ordered that EDGX is relieved of those
responsibilities allocated to FINRA under the Plan in File No. 4-598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\27\
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11934 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 168 (Friday, August 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53353-53354]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18999]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP19-741-003.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Compliance filing ANR 2019 Fuel Compliance Filing--
Refund Proposal to be effective 11/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200821-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1112-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement--
Range 08/22/2020 to be effective 8/22/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200821-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1113-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing REX Termination of Ultra Service
Agreements.
    Filed Date: 8/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200821-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1114-000.
    Applicants: Midship Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming/Neg Rate
Agreement--Gulfport Energy to be effective 10/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200821-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1114-000.
    Applicants: Midship Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming/Neg Rate
Agreement--Gulfport Energy to be effective 10/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 8/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200821-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/2/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 24, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18999 Filed 8-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11847-11848]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4774]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA Program Management Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 17, 2011 from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 850, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a RTCA Program Management Committee meeting. The
agenda will include:

 Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions).
 Review/Approve Summary of December 8, 2011 PMC meeting, RTCA
Paper No. 025-11/PMC-861.
 Publication Consideration/Approval.
     Final Draft, Revised DO-181-D, Minimum Operational
Performance Standards for Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon Systems/Mode
Select (ACTRBS/Mode S) Airborne Equipment, RTCA Paper No. 027-11/PMC-
863, prepared by SC-209.
     Final Draft, Change 1 to DO-306, Safety and Performance
Standard for Air Traffic Data Link Services in Oceanic and Remote
Airspace (Oceanic SPR Standard), RTCA Paper No. 034-11/PMC-865,
prepared by SC-214.
 Integration and Coordination Committee (ICC)--Status Report.
 Action Item Review.
     SC-216--Aeronautical Systems Security Discussion, Review,
and Approve Revised Terms of Reference.
     SC-217/WG-44, Terrain and Airport Databases, Discussion,
Review, and Approve Revised Terms of Reference.
     MASPS/MOPS/SPR/Concepts--Discussion.
 Discussion.
     Aircraft Audio Systems and Equipment Discussion of
Possible New Special Committee to Revise DO-214.
     SC-222--Inmarsat AMS(R)S--Discussion, Review/Approve
Revised Terms of Reference.
     SC-203--Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Discussion MASPS and
MOPS Schedules.
     SC-159--Global Positioning Systems, Discussion and
Potential Interference, 4 G Network.
     SC-223--Airport Surface Wireless Communications Discussion
and Status--
     FAA Market Survey on Next Generation TCAS Discussion.
     Special Committees Chairmen's

Reports and Meeting Management.
 Closing Plenary (Other Business, Document Production and PMC
Meeting Schedule Meeting, Adjourned).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Members of the public may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, February 28, 2011.
Kathy Hitt,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-4774 Filed 3-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P