[Federal Register: December 19, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 242)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 75096-75098]
[DOCID:fr19de05-28]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-8009-4]

NESHAP: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing amendments to the national emissions
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for hazardous waste
combustors which were issued October 12, 2005, under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act. In that rule, we inadvertently included three new or
revised bag leak detection system requirements for Phase I sources--
incinerators, cement kilns, and lightweight aggregate kilns--among
implementation requirements taking effect on December 12, 2005, rather
than, as intended, after three years when the sources begin complying
with the revised emission standards under the NESHAP for hazardous
waste combustors. We intended to establish the compliance date for
these provisions three years after promulgation--October 14, 2008--
because the provisions establish more stringent requirements for Phase
I sources, which cannot readily be complied with on short notice, and
because these provisions are inextricably tied to the revised emissions
standards.

DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received by January 18, 2006,
unless a public hearing is requested by December 29, 2005. If a hearing
is requested, written comments must be received by February 2, 2006.
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public
hearing by December 29, 2005, we will hold a public hearing on January
3, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0022, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: HQ EPA Docket
Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies. We request that you also send a separate copy of each
comment to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: HQ EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0022, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-108, Washington, DC
20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.
We request that you also send a separate copy of each comment to the
contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0022. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://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 information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified

as CBI only to the following address: Mr. Roberto Morales, OAQPS
Document Control Officer, EPA (C404-02), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2004-0022, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Clearly mark the
part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. The
http://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 e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail

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 docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the HQ EPA Docket

Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0022, EPA West Building, Room B-
102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The HQ EPA Docket Center telephone number is
(202) 566-1742. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public

Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.
    Public Hearing. If a public is requested, it will be held at 10
a.m. at EPA's Crystal Station office building, 2800 Crystal Drive,
Arlington, Virginia, or at an alternate site in the Washington DC
metropolitan area. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mr.
Frank Behan, EPA, at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or at e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at least two days in advance of the
potential date of the public hearing. Persons interested in attending
the public hearing must also call Mr. Behan to verify the time, date,
and location of the hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this
rulemaking, contact Frank Behan at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office of Solid Waste (MC: 5302W), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Examples of potentially  regulated
                  Category                     NAICS code       SIC code                   entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any industry that combusts hazardous waste           562211            4953  Incinerator, hazardous waste.
 as defined in the final rule.
                                                     327310            3241  Cement manufacturing, clinker
                                                                              production.
                                                     327992            3295  Ground or treated mineral and earth
                                                                              manufacturing.
                                                        325              28  Chemical Manufacturers.
                                                        324              29  Petroleum Refiners.
                                                        331              33  Primary Aluminum.
                                                        333              38  Photographic equipment and
                                                                              supplies.
                                              488, 561, 562              49  Sanitary Services, N.E.C.
                                                        421              50  Scrap and waste materials.
                                                        422              51  Chemical and Allied Products,
                                                                              N.E.C.
                                             512, 541, 561,              73  Business Services, N.E.C.
                                                        812              89  Services, N.E.C.
                                             512, 514, 541,              95  Air, Water and Solid Waste
                                                        711                   Management.
                                                        924
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists examples of the types of entities EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed could also be affected. To determine whether your
facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.1200. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's direct final rule will also be available
on the WWW at http://www.epa.gov/hwcmact.

    Direct Final Rule. In the Rules and Regulations section of this
Federal Register, we are taking direct final action on the proposed
amendments because we view the amendments as noncontroversial, and we
anticipate no adverse comments. We have explained our reasons for the
proposed amendments in the preamble to the direct final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comments, we will take no further action
on the proposed amendments. If we receive adverse comments, we will
withdraw the amendments. We will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register indicating that the amendments are being withdrawn. If
the direct final rule amendments in the Rules and Regulations section
of this Federal Register are withdrawn, all comments will be addressed
in a subsequent final action based on the proposed amendments. We will
not institute a second comment period on the subsequent final action.
Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. If no
relevant adverse comments are received, no further action will be taken
on the proposal, and the direct final rule will become effective as
provided in that action.
    The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the
direct final rule published in the Rule and Regulations section of this
Federal Register. For further supplementary information, see the direct
final rule.
    Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    For a complete discussion of all of the administrative requirements
applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and
Regulations section of today's Federal Register.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of today's amendments on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administrations' regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in the field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This action does not create any new regulatory requirements.
Rather, they continue to apply existing requirements by delaying the
compliance date for new or more stringent requirements. We continue to
be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 12, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-24199 Filed 12-16-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69787-69796]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27808]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0698; FRL-9919-64-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve in part and disapprove in part, the May 29, 2012, and July 26,
2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, provided by the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for inclusion
into the Mississippi SIP. This proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that
each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. MDEQ certified that the
Mississippi SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi
(hereafter referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP submissions''). With
the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permitting, interstate transport, visibility
protection requirements and the state board majority requirements
respecting significant portion of income, EPA is proposing to determine
that Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions, provided to EPA on
May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012, address the required infrastructure
elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 24,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0698, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0698,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0698. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics

Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background and Overview
II. What Elements are Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP
Submissions?
IV. What is EPA's Analysis of How Mississippi Addressed the Elements
of Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' Provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Overview

    On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based
on 8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 77 FR 16436. Pursuant to
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs
meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such
shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states
to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring,
basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to
assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to
submit such SIPs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than
March 2011.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions States generally
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes,
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections
110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise
indicated, the term ``Air Pollution Control (APC)'' or ``Section
APC-S-X'' indicates that the cited regulation has been approved into
Mississippi's federally-approved SIP. The term ``Mississippi Code''
indicates cited Mississippi state statutes, which are not a part of
the SIP unless otherwise indicated. Additionally, since the time of
Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour
NAAQS, the state's implementation plan and statutes and have been
recodified. In its original infrastructure SIP submission, MDEQ
refers to Mississippi Code Title 49 as ``Appendix A-8.'' However,
Mississippi supplemented its original infrastructure SIP submission
following this recodification, and as such, updated the Mississippi
Code reference to ``Appendix A-9'' to reflect the most current
codification. Accordingly, EPA utilizes the ``Appendix A-9''
reference throughout today's rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's action is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure
SIP submissions for the applicable requirements of the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for
major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through
4), the state board majority requirements respecting significant
portion of income of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and the visibility
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J). With respect to Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submissions related to the provisions pertaining to
the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections
110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), and the visibility requirements of
110(a)(2)(J), EPA is not proposing any action today regarding these
requirements. EPA will act on these portions of the submissions in a
separate action. With respect to Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submissions related to the majority requirements respecting significant
portion of income of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to disapprove
this portion of Mississippi's submissions in today's rulemaking. For
the aspects of Mississippi's submittals proposed for approval today,
EPA notes that the Agency is not approving any specific rule, but
rather proposing that Mississippi's already approved SIP meets certain
CAA requirements.

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

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The general
requirements that are the subject of EPA's infrastructure SIP
rulemakings are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013,
memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
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): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution
Transport
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and
International Air Pollution
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict
of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers
     110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions
     110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As mentioned above, this element 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 and Submission of
Modeling Data

     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected
Local Entities

III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Mississippi that
address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The requirement for states
to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section
110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\5\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\6\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\7\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \7\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined action.\8\ Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given
NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example,
EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements
and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \9\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state

might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants
because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP
submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely
new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\11\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\12\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\13\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \12\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \13\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's
implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants. By
contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions
that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are
merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to
provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional
provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the
context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, among other things, the requirement that states
have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates
whether the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program
and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that
NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission,
however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each
and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e.,
already in the

existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's
regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\14\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\15\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\16\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \16\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \17\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions address the provisions
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures:
Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions provide an overview of the
provisions of the Mississippi Air Pollution Control (APC) regulations
relevant to air quality control. Sections APC-S-1--Air Emission
Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air
Contaminants, and APC-S-3--Regulations for the Prevention of Air
Pollution Emergency Episodes, and Mississippi Code Title 49, Section
49-17-17(h) (Appendix A-9),\18\ authorize MDEQ to adopt, modify, or
repeal ambient air quality standards and emissions standards for the
control of air pollution, including those necessary to obtain EPA
approval under section 110 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that the provisions contained in these regulations and
Mississippi's practices

are adequate to protect the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Mississippi Code Title 49 is referenced in the State's
infrastructure SIP submissions as ``Appendix A-9.'' As discussed
above, unless otherwise indicated herein, portions of the
Mississippi Code referenced in this proposal are not incorporated
into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the
Agency plans to address such state regulations in a separate
action.\19\ In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a
deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it as soon as
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ On February 22, 2013, EPA published a proposed action in
the Federal Register entitled, ``State Implementation Plans:
Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess
Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction;
Proposed Rule.'' 78 FR 12459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: SIPs
are required to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient
air quality monitors, the compilation and analysis of ambient air
quality data, and the submission of these data to EPA upon request.
Section APC-S-1--Air Emission Regulations for the Prevention,
Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants and Mississippi Code Title
49, Section 49-17-17(g), provide MDEQ with the authority to collect and
disseminate information relating to air quality and pollution and the
prevention, control, supervision, and abatement thereof. Annually,
States develop and submit to EPA for approval statewide ambient
monitoring network plans consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR
parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan involves an evaluation of
any proposed changes to the monitoring network, includes the annual
ambient monitoring network design plan and a certified evaluation of
the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary support equipment.\20\ On
June 26, 2013, Mississippi submitted its monitoring network plan to
EPA, which was approved by EPA on November 22, 2013. Mississippi's
approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov
using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0698. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for the
ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements related to
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are
evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources: In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates new
and modified sources of emissions that contribute to ozone
concentrations and the enforcement of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emission limits
to assist in the protection of air quality in nonattainment, attainment
or unclassifiable areas. To meet this obligation, Mississippi cited
Sections APC-S-5, Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality and APC-S-2, Permit Regulation
for the Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, both
of which pertain to the construction of any new major stationary source
or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area
designated as nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable.
    Enforcement: MDEQ's above-described, SIP-approved regulations
provide for enforcement of VOC and NOX emission limits and
control measures and construction permitting for new or modified
stationary sources.
    Preconstruction PSD Permitting for Major Sources: With respect to
Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions related to the
preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of
section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA is not proposing any action today regarding
these requirements and instead will act on this portion of the
submissions in a separate action.
    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C)
also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor
source pre-construction program that regulates emissions of the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Mississippi has a SIP-approved minor NSR permitting
program at APC-S-2, I. D--Permitting Requirements that regulates the
preconstruction permitting of modifications and construction of minor
stationary sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP
and practices are adequate for enforcement of control measures and
regulation of minor sources and modifications related to the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport:
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(II). Each of these components have two subparts resulting
in four distinct components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that
must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two
prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are
provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and interfering with maintenance
of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 2''). The third and fourth
prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state interfering
with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in another state (``prong 3''), or to protect visibility in
another state (``prong 4''). With respect to Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submissions related to the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
(prongs 1 through 4), EPA is not proposing any action today regarding
these requirements and instead will act on these portions of the
submissions in a separate action.
    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and
International Air Pollution: Section APC-S-2--Permit Regulations For
The Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, provides
how MDEQ will notify neighboring states of potential impacts from new
or modified sources consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166.
Mississippi does not have any pending obligation under section 115 and
126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance
with the applicable requirements relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    6. 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of
Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies:
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide (i)
necessary assurances that the State will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation
plan, (ii) that the State comply with the requirements respecting State
Boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary
assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any
plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of such plan provisions. EPA is proposing to approve
Mississippi's SIP as meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). EPA is proposing to approve in part and
disapprove in part Mississippi's SIP respecting section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA's rationale for today's proposals respecting each
section of 110(a)(2)(E) is described in turn below.
    To satisfy the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii),
Mississippi provides that MDEQ is responsible for promulgating rules
and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards general policies, a
system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other
planning needs as found in Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-
17(d) and Section 49-17-17(h) (Appendix A-9). As evidence of the
adequacy of MDEQ's resources with respect to sub-elements (i) and
(iii), EPA submitted a letter to Mississippi on March 28, 2014,
outlining 105 grant commitments and the current status of these
commitments for fiscal year 2013. The letter EPA submitted to
Mississippi can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No.
EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0698. Annually, states update these grant commitments
based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS. Mississippi satisfactorily met all
commitments agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year
2013, therefore Mississippi's grants were finalized and closed out. EPA
has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi has adequate
resources for implementation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    To meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), states must
comply with the requirements respecting state boards pursuant to
section 128 of the Act. Section 128 of the CAA requires that states
include provisions in their SIP to address conflicts of interest for
state boards or bodies that oversee CAA permits and enforcement orders
and disclosure of conflict of interest requirements. Specifically, CAA
section 128(a)(1) necessitates that each SIP shall require that at
least a majority of any board or body which approves permits or
enforcement orders shall be subject to the described public interest
service and income restrictions therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) requires
that the members of any board or body, or the head of an executive
agency with similar power to approve permits or enforcement orders
under the CAA, shall also be subject to conflict of interest disclosure
requirements.
    To meet its section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) obligations for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions cite the State's
revision to its SIP to meet the requirements of CAA section 128 for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which was submitted to EPA on
October 11, 2012.\21\ Based upon the review of the laws and provisions
as contained in MDEQ's October 11, 2012, SIP revision, which have since
been incorporated into the SIP, EPA is proposing to approve the section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) portions of the infrastructure SIP submission as it
relates to the public interest requirements of section 128(a)(1) and
the conflict of interest disclosure provisions of section 128(a)(2).
EPA is also proposing to disapprove the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
portion of the infrastructure SIP submission as it pertains to
compliance with the significant portion of income requirement of
section 128(a)(1) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Mississippi's October 11, 2012, infrastructure SIP
submission only addressed compliance with 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
respecting CAA section 128 requirements. On May 8, 2014, Mississippi
clarified to EPA that the provisions submitted in the October 11,
2012, SIP submission to comply with 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP were also intended to
cover the 2008 Lead and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP.
    \22\ EPA took similar action with respect to Mississippi's
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the public interest requirement of section
128(a)(1) and the adequate disclosure of conflicts of interest
requirement of section 128(a)(2), EPA has previously found these
requirements to be satisfied by the existing provisions in
Mississippi's SIP. See 78 FR 20793.
    With respect to the significant portion of income requirement of
section 128(a)(1), the provisions included in the October 11, 2012
infrastructure SIP submission did not preclude at least a majority of
the members of the Mississippi Board from receiving a significant
portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement
orders issued by the Mississippi Boards. While the submitted laws and
provisions preclude members of the Mississippi Boards from certain
types of income (e.g., contracts with State or political subdivisions
thereof, or income obtained through the use of his or her public office
or obtained to influence a decision of the Mississippi Boards), they do
not preclude a majority of members of the Mississippi Boards from
deriving any significant portion of their income from persons subject
to permits or enforcement orders so long as that income is not derived
from one of the proscribed methods described in the laws and provisions
submitted by the State. Because a majority of board members may still
derive a significant portion of income from persons subject to permits
or enforcement orders issued by the Mississippi Boards, the Mississippi
SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements
respecting significant portion of income, and as such, EPA is today
proposing to disapprove the State's 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it
relates only to this portion of section 128(a)(1).
    Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it relates to the public interest
requirements of section 128(a)(1) and the conflict of interest
disclosure provisions of section 128(a)(2) and proposing to disapprove
Mississippi's section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it pertains to
compliance with the significant portion of income requirement of
section 128(a)(1) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system: Section APC-
S-2--Permit Regulations for the Construction and/or Operation of Air
Emissions Equipment, establishes requirements for emissions compliance
testing utilizing emissions sampling and analysis. It further describes
how the State ensures the quality of its data through observing
emissions and monitoring operations. MDEQ uses these data to track
progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance
strategies, identify sources and general emission levels, and determine
compliance with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements.
Mississippi Code 49, Section 49-17-21 (Appendix A-9) provides MDEQ with
the authority to require the maintenance of records related to the
operation of air contaminant sources and any authorized representative
of the Commission may examine and copy any such records or memoranda
pertaining to the operation

of such contaminant source. Section APC-S-2 lists requirements for
compliance testing and reporting that is required to be included in any
MDEQ air pollution permit and requires that copies of records relating
to the operation of air contamination sources be submitted to the
Permit Board as required by the permit or upon request. State-approved
regulation Section APC-S-1--Air Emission Regulations For The
Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants, authorizes
source owners or operators to use any credible evidence or information
relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance with
applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance
test had been performed, for the purpose of submitting compliance
certifications. Accordingly, EPA is unaware of any provision preventing
the use of credible evidence in the Mississippi SIP.
    Additionally, Mississippi is required to submit emissions data to
EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System
(EIS). States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and
the precursors that form them--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and VOCs. Many
states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
Mississippi made its latest update to the 2012 NEI on January 9, 2014.
EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and
releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for the
stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers: This section of the CAA requires
that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the
CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
Mississippi Code Title 49 (Appendix A-9) and Section APC-S-3--
Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency
Episodes, identify air pollution emergency episodes and preplanned
abatement strategies. Specifically, Mississippi Code Title 49, Section
49-17-27 (Appendix A-9), states that in the event an emergency is found
to exist by the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality, it may
issue an emergency order as circumstances may require. Section APC-S-3
authorizes the MDEQ Director, once it has been determined that an Air
Pollution Emergency Episode condition exists at one or more monitoring
sites solely because of emissions from a limited number of sources, to
order source(s) to put into effect the emission control programs which
are applicable for each episode stage. Section APC-S-3 also lists
regulations to prevent the excessive buildup of air pollutants during
air pollution episodes. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for emergency powers
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing
to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(G).
    9. 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions: MDEQ is responsible for adopting
air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the
NAAQS in Mississippi. Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(h)
(Appendix A-9), provides MDEQ with the statutory authority to adopt,
modify or repeal and promulgate ambient air and water quality standards
and emissions standards for the State. As such, the State has the
authority to revise the SIP to accommodate changes to NAAQS and revise
the SIP if the EPA Administrator finds the plan to be substantially
inadequate to attain the NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    10. 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public
Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection: EPA is proposing to
approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that provides for meeting
the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, and the public
notification requirements of section 127. With respect to Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submissions related to the preconstruction PSD
permitting and visibility protection requirements, EPA is not proposing
any action today regarding these requirements and instead will act on
these portions of the submissions in a separate action. EPA's rationale
for applicable consultation requirements of section 121 and the public
notification requirements of section 127 is described below.
    Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): This
requirement is met through Section APC-S-5--Mississippi Regulations for
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality and
Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(c) (Appendix A-9), along
with the State's various implementations plans, such as the State's
Regional Haze Implementation Plan, provide for consultation between
appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies as
well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers whose jurisdictions
might be affected by SIP development activities. Mississippi adopted
state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of
transportation conformity. These consultation procedures were developed
in coordination with the transportation partners in the State and are
consistent with the approaches used for development of mobile
inventories for SIPs. Implementation of transportation conformity as
outlined in the consultation procedures requires MDEQ to consult with
federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency
officials on the development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA
has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and
practices adequately demonstrate that the State meets applicable
requirements related to consultation with government officials for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing
to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(J) consultation with government officials.
    Public notification: These requirements are met through regulation
APC-S-3--Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution
Emergency Episodes, which requires that MDEQ notify the public of any
air pollution alert, warning, or emergency. The MDEQ Web site also
provides air quality summary data, air quality index reports and links
to more information regarding public awareness of measures that can
prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the public can
participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. EPA
has

made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide public
notification related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure
SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public
notification.
    11. 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling
Data: Sections APC-S-2, V. B.--Permit Regulation for the Construction
and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, and APC-S-5--Mississippi
Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality, specify that required air modeling be conducted in accordance
with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality Models,'' as
incorporated into the Mississippi SIP. These standards demonstrate that
Mississippi has the authority to perform air quality monitoring and
provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on
ambient air quality of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally,
Mississippi supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of
emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS,
including the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, for the southeastern states.
Taken as a whole, Mississippi's air quality regulations and practices
demonstrate that MDEQ has the authority to provide relevant data for
the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's
ability to provide for air quality and modeling, along with analysis of
the associated data, related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when
necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(K).
    12. 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees: This element necessitates that
the SIP require the owner or operator of each major stationary source
to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit
required under the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable
costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit,
and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source,
the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and
conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other
costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee
requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the
Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V.
    Mississippi's Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-2-9(c)
(Appendix A-9), authorizes MDEQ to apply for, receive, and expend
Federal or state funds in order to operate its air programs.
Mississippi SIP Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-30 (Appendix
A-9), provides for the assessment of title V permit fees to cover the
reasonable cost of reviewing and acting upon air permitting activities
in the state including title V, PSD and NNSR permits. Mississippi Code
Title 49, Section 49-17-14 (Appendix A-9), allows MDEQ to expend or
utilize monies in the Mississippi Air Operating Permit Program Fee
Trust Fund to pay all reasonable direct and indirect costs associated
with the development and administration of the title V program and the
PSD and NNSR permitting programs. The Mississippi Air Operating Permit
Program Fee Trust Fund consists of state legislative appropriations,
Federal grant funds and title V fees. Additionally, Mississippi has a
federally-approved title V operating permit program at Section APC-S-6
\23\ that covers the implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR
permits after they have been issued. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi adequately provide for permitting fees
related to the 2008 8-hour NAAQS when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Title V program regulations are federally-approved but not
incorporated into the federally-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local
Entities: Mississippi Code Title 49, Sections 49-17-17(c) 49-17-19(b)
(Appendix A-9) requires that MDEQ notify the public of an application,
preliminary determination, the activity or activities involved in the
permit action, any emissions change associated with any permit
modification, and the opportunity for comment prior to making a final
permitting decision. Additionally, MDEQ works closely with local
political subdivisions during the development of its Transportation
Conformity SIP and Regional Haze SIP. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate consultation with affected local entities related to the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through
4), the state board majority requirements respecting the significant
portion of income of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), and the visibility
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA is proposing to approve that
MDEQ's infrastructure SIP submissions, submitted May 29, 2012, and July
26, 2012, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS have met the above described
infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to disapprove in part
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Mississippi's infrastructure submissions
because a majority of board members may still derive a significant
portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders
issued by the Mississippi Boards, therefore, its current SIP does not
meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements respecting significant
portion of income. This proposed approval in part and disapproval in
part, however, does not include the PSD permitting requirements for
major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through
4), and the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) and will be
addressed by EPA in a separate action.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a CAA Part D Plan or is required in
response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA
section 110(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. The portion of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being proposed for
disapproval in today's notice) were not submitted to meet requirements
for Part D or a SIP call, and therefore, if EPA takes final action to
disapprove this submittal, no sanctions will be triggered. However, if
this disapproval action is finalized, that final action will trigger
the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the date of the
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and EPA approves
the plan or plan revision before EPA promulgates such FIP.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions,

EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
     is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 3, 2014.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-27808 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 38809]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2022-31]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; ALOFT
AeroArchitects

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before July 19, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2022-0549
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael H. Harrison, AIR-612, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 S 216th St, Des Moines, WA 98198, phone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2022.
Daniel J. Commins,
Manager, Technical Writing Section.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2022-0549
    Petitioner: ALOFT AeroArchitects
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25, SFAR No. 109, 2.(b)(2)
    Description of Relief Sought: ALOFT AeroArchitects (ALOFT) is
seeking relief from 14 CFR 25, Special Federal Aviation Regulation
(SFAR) No. 109, Sec.  2.(b)(2) requirement that airplanes outfitted
with interior doors have at least one flight attendant, if the airplane
model was originally certified for 75 passengers or more. Specifically,
ALOFT is proposing that compliance for flight attendant requirements be
governed by 14 CFR 91.533, in lieu of 25 SFAR 109 Sec.  2.(b)(2) on
their Boeing Model 737-8 airplanes, as modified, with an executive
interior, and operated for private, not-for-hire carriage.

[FR Doc. 2022-13932 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P