[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32707-32716]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12102]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0751; FRL-9946-83-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval/Disapproval; Mississippi Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve in part, and disapprove in part, portions of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of
Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) on February 28, 2013, to demonstrate that the State
meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
for the 2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt
and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of
each NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. MDEQ certified that the Mississippi SIP
contains provisions that ensure the 2010 NO2 NAAQS are
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 February
28, 2013, satisfies certain required infrastructure elements for the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2014-0751 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: Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Wong can be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

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

I. Background

    On February 9, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-
hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474. Pursuant to section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the
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 2010 NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22,
2013.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions States generally
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes,
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections
110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise
indicated, the term ``Air Pollution Control (APC)'' or ``Section
APC-S-X'' indicates that the cited regulation has been approved into
Mississippi's federally-approved SIP. The term ``Mississippi Code''
indicates cited Mississippi state statutes, which are not a part of
the SIP unless otherwise indicated.

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

    This action is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure
SIP submission for the applicable requirements of the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS, with the exception of the preconstruction PSD
permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
prong 3 of (D)(i) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), and the state
board majority requirements respecting significant portion of income of
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). On March 18, 2015, EPA approved Mississippi's
February 28, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission regarding the PSD
permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
prong 3 of D(i) and (J) for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. See
80 FR 14019. Therefore, EPA is not proposing any action in this
document pertaining to sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J).
Additionally, with respect to the interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is not
proposing any action in this document on these requirements. 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 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. In the case of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, states
typically have met the basic program elements required in section
110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous
NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned previously, these
requirements include basic SIP elements such as modeling, monitoring,
and emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this
proposed rulemaking are summarized later in this preamble and in EPA's
September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and
for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    \4\ As mentioned, this element is not relevant to this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public
Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection
 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling
Data
 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting Fees
 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local
Entities

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

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Mississippi that
addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2010 NO2 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
fine particulate matter (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
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?

    Mississippi's February 28, 2013, infrastructure submission
addresses the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described
later on.
    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 NO2 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 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Mississippi Code Title 49 is referenced in the State's
infrastructure SIP submissions as ``Appendix A-9.'' As discussed,
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, States develop
and submit to EPA for approval statewide ambient monitoring network
plans consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58.
The annual network plan involves an evaluation of any proposed changes
to the monitoring network, includes the annual ambient monitoring
network design plan and a certified evaluation of the agency's ambient
monitors and auxiliary support equipment.\20\ On June 9, 2015,
Mississippi submitted its monitoring network plan to EPA, and on
October 6, 2015, EPA approved this plan. Mississippi's approved
monitoring network plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0751. 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 2010 1-hour NO2 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: Section
110(a)(2)(C) 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,
MDEQ cited Section APC-S-5, Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, Section APC-S-2, Permit
Regulations for the Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions
Equipment. These regulations enable MDEQ to regulate sources
contributing to the 2010 1-hour NO2 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 NO2 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: With respect to Mississippi's
February 28, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission related to the PSD
permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA
took final action to approve these provisions for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019.
    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C)
also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor
source preconstruction program that regulates emissions of the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS. Mississippi has a SIP-approved minor NSR
permitting program at Section APC-S-2, Section I. D, Permitting
Requirements that regulates the preconstruction permitting of
modifications and construction of minor stationary sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP
and practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures
and regulation of minor sources and modifications related to the 2010
1-hour NO2 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 have two subparts
resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as
``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions.
The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment
of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 2''). The third and
fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state 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
in this rulemaking related 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) because Mississippi's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS
infrastructure submission did not address prongs 1 and 2.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--Prong 3: With respect to Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submission related to the interstate transport
requirements for PSD of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), EPA took
final action to approve Mississippi's February 28, 2013, infrastructure
SIP submission regarding prong 3 of D(i) for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019.
    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 2010 1-hour NO2 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 states 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 insuring compliance with the applicable
requirements relating to interstate and international pollution

abatement for the 2010 1-hour NO2 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 the proposals respecting each
section of 110(a)(2)(E) is described later on.
    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-2014-0751. 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. EPA has made the preliminary determination
that Mississippi has adequate resources for implementation of the 2010
1-hour NO2 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 2010 1-
hour NO2 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 SIP. See 78 FR
20793.\21\ In this same final action for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP (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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the public interest requirement of section
128(a)(1) and the adequate disclosure of conflicts of interest
requirement of section 128(a)(2), EPA has previously found these
requirements to be satisfied by the existing provisions in
Mississippi's SIP. See 78 FR 20793.
    With respect to the significant portion of income requirement of
section 128(a)(1), the provisions included in the February 28, 2013
infrastructure SIP submission do not preclude at least a majority of
the members of the Mississippi Boards \22\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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 2010 1-hour NO2 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
(EIS). States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and
the precursors that form them--nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide,
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile
organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of
hazardous air pollutants. Mississippi made its latest update to the
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 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires
that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the
CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-27 (Appendix A-9) and APC-S-3,
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
2010 1-hour NO2 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 2010 1-hour NO2
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 2010 1-hour
NO2 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; and visibility protection
requirements of part C of the Act. With respect to Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction PSD
permitting requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA took final action
to approve Mississippi's February 28, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS infrastructure SIP for these requirements on March 18, 2015. See
80 FR 14019. EPA's rationale for its proposed action regarding
applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public
notification requirements of section 127, and visibility protection
requirements is described later in this document.
    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 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(J) consultation with government officials.
    Public notification (127 public notification): These requirements
are met through regulation Section 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 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public notification.
    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 2010 1-hour NO2 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. These
standards demonstrate that Mississippi has the authority to perform air
quality modeling and provide relevant data for the purpose of
predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS. Also of note, Mississippi Code Title 49, Section
49-17-17(e) (Appendix A-9),\23\ 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].'' Additionally, Mississippi
participates in a regional effort to coordinate the development of
emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS,
including the 2010 1-hour NO2 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 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality modeling,
along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(K).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Mississippi Code Title 49 is referenced in the State's
infrastructure SIP submissions as ``Appendix A-9.'' As discussed,
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 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 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 including. 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 \24\ 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 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS when necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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) requires states to provide for consultation and
participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions
affected by the SIP. Mississippi Code Title 49, Appendix A-9, Section
49-17-17(c), gives the Commission the statutory authority to advise and
consult with any political subdivisions in the State. Mississippi Code
Title 49, Appendix A-9, Section 49-17-19(b) requires the Commission to
conduct public hearings in accordance with EPA regulations prior to
establishing, amending, or repealing standards of air quality.
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 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of the preconstruction PSD permitting
requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of
(D)(i), and (J), the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other
states and visibility protection 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 that Mississippi's
February 28, 2013, SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS has met the above-described infrastructure SIP requirements
because these aspects of the submission are consistent with section 110
of the CAA. EPA is proposing to disapprove in part section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Mississippi's infrastructure submission because a
majority of board members may still derive a significant portion of
income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by
the Mississippi Boards. Therefore, its current SIP does not meet the
section 128(a)(1) majority requirements respecting significant portion
of income. This proposed action, however, does not include the
preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of
section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of (D)(i), and (J), which have been
approved in a separate action, or the interstate transport provisions
pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance in other states of prongs 1, 2 and 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which will be addressed by EPA in a separate action.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a CAA Part D Plan or is required in
response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA
section 110(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. The portion of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being proposed for
disapproval in this action) were not submitted to meet requirements for
Part D or a SIP call, and therefore, if EPA takes final action to
disapprove this submittal, no sanctions will be triggered. However, if
this disapproval action is finalized, that final action will trigger
the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the date of the
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and EPA approves
the plan or plan revision before EPA promulgates such FIP.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 12, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-12102 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66764-66766]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1160; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-096-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model A330-200, -300 and -200 Freighter series airplanes; and
all Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a determination that the bonding lead from a certain
isolation valve to a frame was too close to an electrical harness,
which might cause chafing between the electrical harness and the
associated bonding lead. This chafing could lead to a short circuit of
the isolation valve and consequent non-closure of the isolation valve,
which would prevent the air-flow to be shut-off in case of fire. This
proposed AD would require modifying the bonding lead installation of
the isolation valve. We are proposing this AD to prevent such chafing,
which could result in non-closure of the isolation valve in the event
of a fire and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to its
occupants.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 24,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1160;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-096-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0090, dated May 22, 2012 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    It was noticed in production that the bonding lead from the
isolation valve 283HN to Frame (FR) 64, between Stringer (STGR) 33
and STGR 34, was too close to the electrical harness 5871VB. The
results of the technical investigations carried out by Airbus
determined that this insufficient clearance may cause chafing
between the electrical harness 5871VB and the associated bonding
lead.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a short circuit
of the isolation valve and consequent non-closure of the isolation
valve 283HN, which would prevent the air flow to be shut-off in case
of fire, potentially resulting in damage to the aeroplane and injury
to its occupants.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
installation of a new bonding bracket and new bonding lead at
STGR33, between FR64 and FR65 introduced by Airbus modification
(mod.) 201500, or mod. 201681 in production, or Airbus Service
Bulletin (SB) A330-21-3165, SB A330-21-3160 or SB A340-21-4152 in
service.
    In addition, for aeroplanes already modified in accordance with
the instructions of Airbus SB A330-21-3165 or SB A340-21-4152 at
original issue or Revision 01, it [this EASA AD] requires
accomplishment of the additional work (additional wiring connected
to the structure of the aeroplane).

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued the following service bulletins:
     Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-21-3160, dated August 4,
2011.
     Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-21-3165 Revision 02, dated
March 29, 2012.
     Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-21-4152, Revision 02,
dated March 29, 2012.

The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 58 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 6 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $66 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $33,408, or $576 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2012-1160; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
096-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 24, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -301, -302, -303, -
321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer
serial numbers, except for airplanes on which Airbus modification
201500 has been embodied in production.
    (2) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes, all manufacturer serial
numbers, except for airplanes on which Airbus modification 201681
has been embodied in production.
    (3) Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes,
all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air
conditioning.

 (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the bonding lead
from a certain isolation valve to a frame was too close to an
electrical harness, which might cause chafing between the electrical
harness and the associated bonding lead. This chafing could lead to
a short circuit of the isolation valve and consequent non-closure of
the isolation valve, which would prevent the air-flow to be shut-off
in case of fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent such chafing,
which could result in non-closure of the isolation valve in the
event of a fire and consequent damage to the airplane and injury to
its occupants.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Bonding Lead Installation Modification

    Within 48 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the
bonding lead installation of isolation valve 283HN, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service
bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this
AD.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-21-3165, Revision 02,
dated March 29, 2012 (for Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -
301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-21-3160, dated August
4, 2011 (for Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes).
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-21-4152, Revision 02,
dated March 29, 2012 (for Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312,
and -313 airplanes).

(h) Bonding Lead Additional Work Modification

    For airplanes that have already been modified, prior to the
effective date of this AD, as specified in Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A330-21-3165, dated September 27, 2011; or Mandatory
Service Bulletin A330-21-3165, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2011;
or according to Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-21-4152,
dated September 27, 2011; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-
21-4152, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2011: Within 48 months
after the effective date of this AD, perform the ``Additional
Work,'' as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-21-3165 Revision 02, dated March 29,
2012; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-21-4152, Revision
02, dated March 29, 2012; as applicable.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2012-0090, dated May 22, 2012, and the following service
information, for related information.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-21-3160, dated August
4, 2011.
    (ii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-21-3165 Revision 02,
dated March 29, 2012.
    (iii) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340-21-4152, Revision
02, dated March 29, 2012.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 30, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-27125 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12214]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2019-0224; Notice No. 2022-04]

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Public Meetings in 2022 for
International Standards on the Transport of Dangerous Goods

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of 2022 public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that PHMSA's Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety will host three public meetings during 2022 in advance
of certain international meetings. The first meeting will be held in
preparation of the 60th session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of
Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE TDG) scheduled for
June 27 to July 6, 2022, in Geneva, Switzerland. The second meeting
will be held in preparation of the International Civil Aviation
Organization's (ICAO) Dangerous Goods Panel (DGP) Working Group 22 (WG/
22) tentatively scheduled for November 21-25, in Montreal, Canada. The
third meeting will be held in preparation of the 61st session of the
UNSCOE TDG scheduled for November 28 to December 6, 2022, in Geneva,
Switzerland. For each of these meetings, PHMSA will solicit public
input on current proposals.

ADDRESSES: Each public meeting will take place virtually approximately
two weeks preceding the international meeting. If the guidelines
concerning the global health emergency change, PHMSA may hold the
meeting(s), concurrent with the virtual sessions, at DOT Headquarters,
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Specific information for each meeting will be posted when available on
the PHMSA website at https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/international-program/international-program-overview under ``Upcoming Events.'' This
information will include the public meeting date, time, conference
call-in number, and details for advanced registration.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Webb or Aaron Wiener, PHMSA,
U.S. Department of Transportation. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of PHMSA's public meetings held
in advance of certain international meetings is to allow the public to
give input on the current proposals being considered by the
international standards setting bodies.
    The 60th and 61st sessions of the UNSCOE TDG will represent the
third and fourth meetings scheduled for the 2021-2022 biennium. The
UNSCOE TDG will consider proposals for the 23rd Revised Edition of the
United Nations Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods:
Model Regulations (Model Regulations), which may be implemented into
relevant domestic, regional, and international regulations starting
January 1, 2025. Copies of working documents, informal documents, the
agenda, and the post-meeting final report may be obtained from the
United Nations Transport Division's website at: http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/danger.html.
    The ICAO WG/22 meeting will represent the first meeting of the
2022-2023 biennium. The ICAO DGP will consider proposals for the 2024-
2025 edition of the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of
Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284). Copies of working papers,
information papers, the agenda, and the post-meeting final report may
be obtained from the ICAO DGP website at: https://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/Pages/DGPMeetings.aspx.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on February 25, 2022.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator, Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-04435 Filed 3-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P