[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36848-36858]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13601]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0424; FRL-9947-41-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval/Disapproval; MS; Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, in part, and disapprove in part, portions of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of
Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ), on December 11, 2015, to demonstrate that the State
meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. MDEQ certified that the
Mississippi SIP contains provisions to ensure the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in
Mississippi. With the exception of the state board majority
requirements respecting significant portion of income, for which EPA is
proposing to disapprove, EPA is proposing to determine that portions of
Mississippi's infrastructure submission, submitted to EPA on December
11, 2015, satisfy certain required infrastructure elements for the 2012
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES:  Written comments must be received on or before July 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2014-0424 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. Background and Overview

    On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), EPA
promulgated a revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The
standard was strengthened from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. 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 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015.\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 ``APC'' indicates Mississippi Air Pollution
Control (APC) regulations relevant to air quality control. The cited
regulation has either been approved, or submitted for approval into
Mississippi's federally-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure
SIP submission for the applicable requirements of the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, with the exception of the visibility
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4), interstate

transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in other states of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) and the state board majority
requirements respecting significant portion of income of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). With respect to the interstate transport provisions
pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and
2) and visibility requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4),
EPA will address these in a separate rulemaking action. With respect to
Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission 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 infrastructure SIP submission because Mississippi does
not preclude at least a majority of the members of its boards from
receiving a significant portion of their income from persons subject to
permits or enforcement orders issued by such boards. For the aspects of
Mississippi's submittal proposed for approval, 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.
    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 the ``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
requirements that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking 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\

 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\
 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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. This proposed rulemaking
does not address infrastructure elements related to section
110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
    \3\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
    \4\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to this
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public
Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (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 submission from Mississippi that
addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 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 (NNSR) 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. On
March 17, 2016, EPA released a memorandum titled, ``Information on
the Interstate Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' to provide guidance to
states for interstate transport requirements specific to the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 new source review (NSR)
pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). 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 implementation plan 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 NSR
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 implementation
plan 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 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Mississippi's December 11, 2015, infrastructure submission
addresses the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described
below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures:
Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that each implementation plan include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable
permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet
the applicable requirements. Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submission provides an overview of the provisions of the Mississippi
Air Pollution Control (APC) regulations relevant to air quality
control. Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(h) (Appendix A-
9),\18\ authorizes 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. 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, establish
enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means or
techniques, for activities that contribute to PM2.5
concentrations in the ambient air and provide authority for MDEQ to
establish such limits and measures as well as schedules for compliance
through SIP-approved permits to meet the applicable requirements of the
CAA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that the provisions
contained in these regulations, and Mississippi's statute are adequate
for enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means,
or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance for
the 2012 Annual PM2.5 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
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 is addressing such state regulations in a separate action.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ On June 12, 2015, EPA published a final action entitled,
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs;
Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown, and Malfunction.'' See 80 FR 33840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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:
Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and
operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures
necessary to: (i) Monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air
quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the

Administrator. 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), provides MDEQ with the authority to
collect and disseminate information relating to air quality and
pollution and the prevention, control, supervision, and abatement
thereof. Annually, MDEQ develops and submits 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 9, 2015, Mississippi submitted its
monitoring network plan to EPA, which was approved by EPA on October 6,
2015. Mississippi's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0424. 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 2012 Annual PM2.5 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): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and
for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: This element
consists of three sub-elements: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of
new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major
sources, and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major
modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the
subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source
PSD program). To meet the requirements for this element, Mississippi
cited 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,
Section V. These regulations enable MDEQ to regulate sources
contributing to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through
enforceable permits.
    Enforcement: MDEQ's APC-S-2, Permit Regulation for the Construction
and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, Section VI provides for
the enforcement of PM2.5 emission limits and control
measures through construction permitting for new or modified stationary
sources. Also note that under Mississippi Code Title 49, Chapter 17,
MDEQ has enforcement authority to seek penalties and injunctive relief
for violations of emission limits and other control measures and
violations of permits.
    PSD Permitting for Major Sources: EPA interprets the PSD sub-
element to require that a state's infrastructure SIP submission for a
particular NAAQS demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD
permitting program in place covering the structural PSD requirements
for all regulated NSR pollutants. A state's PSD permitting program is
complete for this sub-element (and prong 3 of D(i) and J related to
PSD) if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously approving the
state's SIP with respect to all structural PSD requirements that are
due under the EPA regulations or the CAA on or before the date of the
EPA's proposed action on the infrastructure SIP submission.
    For the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, Mississippi's authority
to regulate new and modified sources to assist in the protection of air
quality in nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable areas in
Mississippi is established in Regulations 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. These SIP-approved regulations
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. Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submission demonstrates that new major sources and
major modifications in areas of the State designated attainment or
unclassifiable for the specified NAAQS are subject to a federally-
approved PSD permitting program meeting all the current structural
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA to satisfy the
infrastructure SIP PSD elements.\21\ As such, EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are
adequate and comply with the PSD elements of the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For more information on the structural PSD program
requirements that are relevant to EPA's review infrastructure SIP in
connection with the current PSD-related infrastructure requirements,
see the Technical Support Document in the docket for today's
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2012
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Mississippi has a SIP-approved minor NSR
permitting program at APC-S-2, Section I. D--Permitting Requirements,
that regulates the preconstruction permitting of minor modifications
and construction of minor stationary sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP
is adequate for enforcement of control measures, PSD permitting for
major sources and regulation of minor sources and modifications related
to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 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)(i)(II). Each of these components has 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 from
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'').
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action
related to the 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'') of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2). EPA will consider
these requirements in relation to Mississippi's 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure submission in a separate
rulemaking.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With regard to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this
requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure
SIP submission that new major sources and

major modifications in the state are subject to: a PSD program meeting
all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the
CAA, or (if the state contains a nonattainment area for the relevant
pollutant) a NNSR program that implements the NAAQS for a relevant
pollutant. As discussed in more detail above under section
110(a)(2)(C), Mississippi's SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD
program that reflects the required structural PSD requirements to
satisfy the requirement of prong 3. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP is adequate for interstate
transport for PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications
related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3).
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4: EPA is not proposing any action in
this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions
pertaining to visibility protection in other states of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) and will consider these requirements in
relation to Mississippi's 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure submission in a separate rulemaking.
    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and
International Air Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
Section APC-S-5, Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, provides how MDEQ will notify
neighboring state and local agencies of potential impacts from new or
modified sources consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166,
which is adopted by reference into the Mississippi SIP. Additionally,
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 ensuring compliance
with the applicable requirements relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement for the 2012 Annual PM2.5
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 its proposal 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 April 19, 2016,
outlining 105 grant commitments and the current status of these
commitments for fiscal year 2015. The letter EPA submitted to
Mississippi can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No.
EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0424. Annually, states update these grant commitments
based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no outstanding issues in
relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2015, therefore, MDEQ's grants were
finalized and closed out. 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 to
implement provisions of the State's implementation plan 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 2012 Annual
PM2.5 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 2012
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submission cites Article 4, Section 109 of the Mississippi Constitution
and portions of Mississippi Code sections 25-4-25, -27, -29, -103, -
105, and -109. These provisions were incorporated into the Mississippi
SIP to meet CAA section 128 requirements in EPA's final action for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs. See 78 FR
20793.\22\ In this same final action for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs (78 FR 20793), EPA
disapproved Mississippi's October 11, 2012, submission as not
satisfying the significant portion of income requirement of section
128(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ This final action pertained to Mississippi's October 11,
2012, infrastructure SIP submission and only addressed compliance
with 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting CAA section 128 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon the review of the above cited laws and provisions, 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) for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is 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 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ EPA took similar action with respect to Mississippi's
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Lead, and 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the significant portion of income requirement of
section 128(a)(1), the provisions included in the infrastructure SIP
submission do not preclude at least a majority of the members of the
Mississippi Boards \24\

from receiving a significant portion of their income from persons
subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by such 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. To date, 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 proposing to disapprove the State's
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it relates only to this portion of
section 128(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality issues
and supervises enforcement orders, and the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality Permit Board has the authority to issue,
modify, revoke or deny permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting:
Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements
addressing: (i) The installation, maintenance, and replacement of
equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners
or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such
sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions
and emissions related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of
such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this section, which reports shall be
available at reasonable times for public inspection. 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. 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. 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. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants
and the precursors that form them--NOX, SO2,
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
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 2012 Annual PM2.5 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, 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.
Also, 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. Emergency situations
include those which create an imminent and substantial endangerment
threatening the public health and safety or the lives and property of
the people in Mississippi. EPA has made the preliminary determination
that Mississippi's SIP is adequate for emergency powers related to the
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(G).
    9. 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary,
requires each SIP to provide for revisions of such plan (i) as may be
necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved
or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii)
whenever the Administrator finds that the plan is

substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply
with any additional applicable requirements. MDEQ is responsible for
adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or
maintain the NAAQS in Mississippi. The State 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 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 2012 Annual
PM2.5 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 submission for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 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, the
public notification requirements of section 127, PSD, and visibility
protection. EPA's rationale for each sub-element is described below.
    Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): Section
110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a process for
consultation with local governments, designated organizations and
Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements
pursuant to section 121 relative to consultation. 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 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure
SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) consultation with
government officials.
    Public notification (127 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 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public notification.
    PSD: With regard to the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J), this
requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure
SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the
state are subject to a PSD program meeting all the current structural
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA. As discussed in more
detail above under the section discussing 110(a)(2)(C), Mississippi's
SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD program that reflect the
relevant SIP revisions pertaining to the required structural PSD
requirements to satisfy the requirement of the PSD element of section
110(a)(2)(J). EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for the PSD element of
section 110(a)(2)(J).
    Visibility protection: EPA's 2013 Guidance notes that it does not
treat the visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as
applicable for purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process.
MDEQ referenced its regional haze program as germane to the visibility
component of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA recognizes that states are
subject to visibility protection and regional haze program requirements
under part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B).
However, there are no newly applicable visibility protection
obligations after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA
has determined that states do not need to address the visibility
component of 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP submittals so MDEQ does
not need to rely on its regional haze program to fulfill its
obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submission related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is
approvable for the visibility protection element of section
110(a)(2)(J) and that Mississippi does not need to rely on its regional
haze program to address this element.
    11. 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling
Data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for
performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of
emissions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and submission of such
data to the EPA can be made. 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. Also of
note, Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(e) (Appendix A-
9),\25\ authorizes MDEQ to ``encourage, participate in, or conduct
studies, investigations, research and demonstrations relating to air
and water quality and pollution and causes, prevention, control and
abatement as it may deem advisable and necessary for the discharge of
its duties under [the Mississippi air and water pollution control
law].'' 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 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS. Additionally, Mississippi supports a regional effort to
coordinate the development of emissions inventories and conduct
regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 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 2012 Annual
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, along with analysis of
the associated data, related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(K).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires
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
\26\ 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 provides for permitting fees
related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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: Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires states to provide
for consultation and participation in SIP development by local
political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Mississippi Code Title 49,
Sections 49-17-17(c) 49-17-19(b) (Appendix A-9) requires that MDEQ
notify the public (including local political subdivisions) 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
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to
the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in
other states and visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), and the state board
majority requirements respecting the significant portion of income of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's
December 11, 2015, SIP submission for the 2012 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS for the above described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is
proposing to approve these portions of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS because these
aspects of the submission are consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
With regard to the state board majority requirements respecting
significant portion of income, EPA is proposing to disapprove
Mississippi's December 11, 2015, infrastructure submission.
    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 this 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 two 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 26, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-13601 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33750-33751]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER91-569-048.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Entergy
Services, Inc.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110527-5279.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3664-000.
    Applicants: U.S. Gas & Electric, Inc.
    Description: U.S. Gas & Electric, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.15: Cancel All Tariffs to be effective 5/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110527-5237.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3665-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Southwestern Public Service Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011--05--27--SPS GBEC-GSEC-Howard--641-SPS
to be effective 5/28/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110527-5241.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3666-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 1313R4 Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company NITSA NOA to
be effective 5/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110527-5251.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 17, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3667-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Amendment 1 to APS Service Agreement No. 193 to be
effective 4/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110527-5263.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 17, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES11-24-000.
    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company.
    Description: Additional Supplement to Upper Peninsula Power
Company's Application for Renewed Authorization to Issue Short-term
Debt.
    Filed Date: 05/26/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110526-5124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 6, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online

service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866) 208-
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 31, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14230 Filed 6-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 55069]
[DOCID:fr24se08-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER08-100-002, ER07-265-002]

Sempra Energy Trading LLC, Sempra Energy Solutions LLC; Notice of
Filing

September 17, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 11, 2008, Sempra Energy Trading LLC,
and Sempra Energy Solutions LLC (together Sellers) filed a response to
Commission staff regarding its June 30, 2008 filing, affirming that
none of the Sellers or any of their affiliates has erected or will
erect barriers to entry into the relevant market.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 2, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-22267 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                             EPA Region 9 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST                         To evaluate compliance with 40 CFR 51, Appendix V

                                                                 Submittal Date  April 30, 2020  District Name  San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD  Date Reviewed  April 30, 2020  EPA Reviewer  S. Tong

Key:                                                    C                                                     I N/A O      Rule 2250  -  Permit-Exempt Equipment Registration   ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS (per Appendix V, Section 2.1)

= Complete = Incomplete = Not Applicable to Rule = Material Missing

 (a)	Submittal letter from Governor/designee                                        C

 (b)	Evidence of adoption                                        C

 (c)	State/District legal authority to adopt                                        C

 (d1) Copy of actual rule/plan                                        C

 (d2) Rule changes indicated by underline cross-out                                       N/A

 (e) Proof that action met procedural requirements                                        C

 (f)	Copy of public notice                                        C

 (g)	Certification that hearing fulfilled public notice                                        C

 (h) Public comments & agency response                                         C

 TECHNICAL SUPPORT (per Appendix V, Section 2.2)  (a) Regulated pollutants identified                                       N/A

 (b) Affected sources & attainment status identified                                         C

 (c) Rule/plan emissions impact                                        N/A

 (d) Attainment, PSD & other required demonstration                                        N/A

 (e) Modeling support as appropriate                                        N/A

 (f) Reliance on continuous emission reductions                                        N/A

 (g) Evidence of limits & other needed requirements                                        N/A

 (i) Justification for deviation from EPA policy                                        N/A

 OVERALL COMPLETENESS					C  Notes: Rule 2250 is an administrative rule that was developed for the purpose of assuring enforceability of certain equipment that has been traditionally exempted from the District's permitting program.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 26177]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11634]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2019-0040]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on February 13, 2019, the City
of Fargo, North Dakota (City), petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part
222. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2019-0040.
    Specifically, the City seeks a waiver from the provisions of 49 CFR
222.35(b)(1) so that a new quiet zone consisting of two public highway-
rail grade crossings (7th Avenue North & 16th Street North) may be
established, without constant warning time (CWT) devices on one of the
yard tracks. The City asserts that the 16th Street North crossing
consists of two main line tracks and two yard tracks. The 16th Street
crossing is equipped with flashing lights and gates, and CWT devices on
the two main line tracks and the north yard track; however, the south
yard track does not have CWT devices. The south yard track uses a
battery relay, which will trigger the crossing active lights/gates when
equipment is within limits of the crossing.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by July 22, 2019 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Railroad Safety.
[FR Doc. 2019-11634 Filed 6-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P