[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23806]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR11-102-000]

NorthWestern Corporation; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 15, 2011, NorthWestern Corporation filed
a Statement of Operating Conditions to comply with Order No. 714 and
the Commission Order issued on March 31, 2011 in Docket No. CP11-76-
000.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 2, 2011.

    Dated: April 21, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10262 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46759-46760]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19167]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9711-3]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a
proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by National Parks
Conservation Association, Montana Environmental Information Center,
Grand Canyon Trust, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Our Children's Earth
Foundation, Plains Justice, Powder River Basin Resource Council, Sierra
Club, and Environmental Defense Fund (collectively ``Plaintiffs'') in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: National
Parks Conservation Association, et al. v. Jackson, No. 1:11-cv-1548
(D.D.C.). Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that EPA failed to
promulgate regional haze federal implementation plans (FIPs) or approve
regional haze state implementation plans (SIPs) for various states,
including Florida, as required by section 110(c) of the CAA. The
complaint further alleged that EPA had also failed to act on ten
regional haze SIP submissions, as required by section 110(k) of the
CAA. On March 30, 2012, the Court entered a partial consent decree
resolving all claims asserted by Plaintiffs, except those with respect
to Florida. The proposed consent decree establishes proposed and final
promulgation deadlines for EPA to meet its obligations with respect to
Florida to resolve Plaintiffs' remaining claims.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by September 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2012-0617, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lea Anderson, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    Under section 110(c) of the CAA, EPA has a mandatory duty to
promulgate a federal implementation plan (``FIP'') within two years of
a finding that a state has failed to make a required state
implementation plan (``SIP'') submittal. EPA is not required to
promulgate a FIP, however, if the state submits the required SIP and
EPA approves the plan within the two years of EPA's finding. On January
15, 2009, EPA found that 37 states, the District of Columbia, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands had failed to submit CAA SIPs for improving
visibility in mandatory Federal Class I areas. 74 FR 2392. Plaintiffs
filed a complaint in 2011 pursuant to CAA section 304(a)(2), 42 U.S.C.
7604(a)(2), alleging, inter alia, failure by the Administrator to
promulgate regional haze FIPs or approve regional haze SIPs for 34
states within two years of its January 15, 2009 finding, as required by
section 110(c) of the CAA.
    EPA published notice of a proposed consent decree to resolve the
deadline suit filed by Plaintiffs, requesting comment in accordance
with section 113(g) of the CAA. 76 FR 75544 (Dec. 2, 2011). Following
its review of the comments, EPA concluded that it would be
inappropriate to move forward with the consent decree as it applied to
Florida, and EPA withdrew its consent to the provisions of the consent
decree establishing deadlines for action with respect to Florida. As a
result, in March 2012, the Court entered a partial consent decree
resolving all Plaintiffs' claims, except those with respect to Florida.
EPA is requesting comment today on a new proposed consent that
addresses the Agency's failure to promulgate a regional haze FIP or
approve a regional haze SIP for Florida within two years of its finding
that Florida had failed to submit a plan by the December 17, 2007
deadline.
    The proposed consent decree would resolve the remaining claims by
Plaintiffs in National Parks Conservation Association, et al. v.
Jackson, No. 1:11-cv-1548 (D.D.C.). EPA recently proposed action on
certain revisions to the Florida SIP addressing regional haze. 77 FR
31240 (May 25, 2012). The proposed consent decree requires EPA to sign
for publication in the Federal Register by November 15, 2012, a
notice(s) of final rulemaking taking action on the matters addressed in
the May 25, 2012 notice of proposed rulemaking. The proposed consent
decree also establishes proposed and final promulgation deadlines of
December 3, 2012, and July 13, 2013, respectively, for EPA to approve a
SIP or promulgate a FIP that will meet all remaining regional haze
requirements for Florida. The proposed consent decree further requires
that within ten business days of signing a proposed or final
rulemaking, EPA will deliver the notice to the Office of the Federal
Register and will provide a copy of the notice to Plaintiffs within
five business days. After EPA fulfills its obligations under the
proposed consent decree, EPA may move to have this decree terminated.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the proposed consent decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0617) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree.

The official public docket is available for public viewing at the
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: July 27, 2012.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-19167 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68648-68657]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27268]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0270; FRL-9919-41-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve in part and disapprove in part the November 17, 2011, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for inclusion into the
Mississippi SIP. This proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt
and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. MDEQ certified that the Mississippi SIP
contains provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented,
enforced, and maintained in Mississippi (hereafter referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP submission''). With the exception of provisions
pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting
and the state board majority requirements respecting significant
portion of income, EPA is proposing to determine that Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on November 17, 2011,
addresses the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 18,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0270, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0270,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0270. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9152. Mr. Farngalo can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. 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 October 5, 1978, EPA promulgated primary and secondary NAAQS for
Lead under section 109 of the Act. See 43 FR 46246. Both primary and
secondary standards were set at a level of 1.5 micrograms per cubic
meter ([micro]g/m\3\), measured as Lead in total suspended particulate
matter (Pb-TSP), not to be exceeded by the maximum arithmetic mean
concentration averaged over a calendar quarter. This standard was based
on the 1977 Air Quality Criteria for Lead (USEPA, August 7, 1977). On
November 12, 2008 (75 FR 81126), EPA issued a final rule to revise the
primary and secondary Lead NAAQS. The revised primary and secondary
Lead NAAQS were revised to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. By statute, SIPs meeting
the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by
states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP
requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling
to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required
to submit such SIPs to EPA no later than October 15, 2011, for the 2008
Lead NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Today's action is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure
submissions for the applicable requirements of the 2008 Lead NAAQS,
with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources
of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J) and the majority
requirements respecting significant portion of income of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). With respect to Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submission related to the provisions pertaining to the PSD permitting
requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of
D(i) and (J), EPA is not proposing any action today regarding these
requirements. EPA will act on these portions of the submission in a
separate action. With respect to Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submission related to the majority requirements respecting significant
portion of income of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to disapprove
this portion of Mississippi's November 17, 2011 submission in today's
rulemaking. For the aspects of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submission proposed for approval today, EPA is not approving any
specific rule, but rather proposing that Mississippi's already approved
SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

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

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, states typically have met
the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through
earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1978 Lead NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must
meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements
include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and
emissions inventories that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. The general requirements that are the subject
of EPA's infrastructure SIP rulemaking are listed below \2\ and in
EPA's October 14, 2011, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP
Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and international transport
provisions.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, funding, and authority.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revision
under part D.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials,
public notification, and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/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 Lead NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP
submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and

section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required
contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided
in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions,
some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which
pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which
pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program
provisions.\5\ EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement
in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory
provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of
required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in
section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for
inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants
because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP
submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely
new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP
development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the
requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has
adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP
submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only
to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\11\ EPA
issued the 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance \12\ to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for Lead infrastructure SIPs. 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. 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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Required under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, October 14,
2011.
    \13\ Although not intended to provide guidance for purposes of
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA notes,
that following the 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA issued
the ``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. This 2013
guidance provides recommendations for air agencies' development and
the EPA's review of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone primary
and secondary NAAQS, the 2010 primary nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) NAAQS, the 2010 primary sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 primary fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS, as well as infrastructure SIPs for new or
revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\14\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\15\ 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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).
    \15\ 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).
    \16\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Mississippi infrastructure submission addresses the provisions
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures:
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) and 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, provide the MDEQ with the authority to adopt, modify, or
repeal ambient air quality standards and emission standards for the
state under such conditions as the Mississippi Commission on

Environmental Quality (Commission) may prescribe for the prevention,
control, and abatement of pollution. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that the above provisions and Mississippi's practices are
adequate to protect the 2008 Lead NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the
Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future.\17\ In
the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision
to take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On February 22, 2013, EPA published a proposed action in
the Federal Register entitled, ``State Implementation Plans:
Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess
Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction;
Proposed Rule.'' 78 FR 12459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: SIPs
are required to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient
air quality monitors, the compilation and analysis of ambient air
quality data, and the submission of these data to EPA upon request.
Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(g) (Appendix A-9), provides
MDEQ with the necessary statutory 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.\18\ On June 26, 2013 with an
addendum on August 27, 2013, Mississippi submitted its monitoring
network plan to EPA, which was approved on November 22, 2013.
Mississippi's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0270. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices
are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system
requirements related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are
evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement, prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR): In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that provides for
enforcement of emission limits and control measures, the regulation of
minor sources and modifications, and the enforcement of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
emission limits to assist in the protection of air quality in
nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable areas. To meet these
obligations, Sections APC-S-5--Mississippi Regulations for the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality and APC-S-2--
Permit Regulation for the Construction and/or Operation of Air
Emissions Equipment, both of which pertain to the construction of any
new major stationary source or any project at an existing major
stationary source in an area designated as attainment or
unclassifiable.
    Enforcement: MDEQ's above-described, SIP-approved regulations
provide for enforcement of VOC and NOX emission limits and
control measures and construction permitting for new or modified
stationary sources.
    Preconstruction PSD permitting for major sources: With respect to
Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission related to the
preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of
section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA is not proposing any action today regarding
these requirements and instead will act on this portion of the
submission in a separate action.
    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C)
also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor
source pre-construction program that regulates emissions of the 2008
Lead NAAQS. Mississippi has a SIP-approved minor NSR permitting program
at APC-S-2, I. D--Permitting Requirements that regulates the
preconstruction permitting of modifications and construction of minor
stationary sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP
and practices are adequate for enforcement of control measures and
regulation of minor sources and modifications related to the Lead
NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and (ii): Interstate and international transport
provisions: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components;
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(II). Each of these components have
two subparts resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred
to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong
2''). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in
one state interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in another state (``prong 3''), or to
protect visibility in another state (``prong 4''). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requires infrastructure SIP submissions to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from contributing significantly to nonattainment in, or interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. The physical properties
of lead prevent lead emission from experiencing that same travel or
formation phenomena as PM2.5 and ozone for interstate
transport as outlined in prongs 1 and 2. More specifically, there is a
sharp decrease in lead concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction,
as the distance from a lead source increases. EPA believes that the

requirements of prongs 1 and 2 can be satisfied through a state's
assessment as to whether a lead source located within its State in
close proximity to a state border has emissions that contribute
significantly to the nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in the neighboring state. For example, EPA's experience with the
initial Lead designations suggest that sources that emit less than 0.5
tpy generally appear unlikely to contribute significantly to the
nonattainment in another state.\19\ Mississippi has no Lead sources
that have emissions of Lead over 0.5 tons per year (tpy). Therefore,
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP meets
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA's experience also suggests that sources located more
than two miles from the state border generally appear unlikely to
contribute significantly to the nonattainment in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With respect to Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction PSD
permitting requirements for major sources of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA is not proposing any action today regarding
these requirements and instead will act on this portion of the
submission in a separate action.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4: With regard to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the visibility sub-element, referred to as prong
4, significant impacts from lead emissions from stationary sources are
expected to be limited to short distances from the source. The 2011
Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance notes that it is anticipated that lead
emissions will contribute only negligibly to visibility impairment in
Class I areas. Lead stationary sources in Mississippi are located
distances from Class I areas such that visibility impacts are
negligible. Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submittal cites its SIP
revision regarding the Regional Haze Program Requirements (Appendix R)
to satisfy its obligations under prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
Mississippi also notes that the States does not have any lead sources
with emissions equal to or greater than 0.5 tons per year. Therefore,
EPA has preliminarily determined that the Mississippi SIP meets the
relevant visibility requirements of prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and International transport
provisions: Section APC-S-2--Permit Regulations for the Construction
and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, provides how MDEQ will
notify neighboring states of potential impacts from new or modified
sources consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166. EPA is
unaware of any pending obligations for the state of Mississippi
pursuant to sections 115 and 126. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for
insuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to
interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS.
    5. 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, funding, and authority:
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide (i)
necessary assurances that the State will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation
plan, (ii) that the State comply with the requirements respecting State
Boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary
assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any
plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of such plan provisions. EPA is proposing to approve
Mississippi's SIP as meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(E)(i)and (iii). EPA is proposing to approve in part and
disapprove in part Mississippi's SIP respecting section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA's rationale for today's proposals respecting each
section of 110(a)(2)(E) is described in turn below.
    To satisfy the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii),
Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission describes that Mississippi
Code Title 49, Sections 49-17-17(d) and 49-17-17(h) (Appendix A-9),
provide MDEQ with the authority to accept and administer laws and
grants from the federal government and from other sources, public and
private, for carrying out any of its functions, including its
responsibility to implement its SIP. As further evidence of the
adequacy of MDEQ's resources with respect to sub-elements (i) and
(iii), EPA submitted a letter to Mississippi on March 28, 2014,
outlining 105 grant commitments and the current status of these
commitments for fiscal year 2013. The letter EPA submitted to
Mississippi can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No.
EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0270. Annually, states update these grant commitments
based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS. Mississippi satisfactorily met all
commitments agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year
2013, therefore Mississippi's grants were finalized and closed out. EPA
has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi has adequate
resources for implementation of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    To meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), states must
comply with the requirements respecting state boards pursuant to
section 128 of the Act. Section 128 of the CAA requires that states
include provisions in their SIP to address conflicts of interest for
state boards or bodies that oversee CAA permits and enforcement orders
and disclosure of conflict of interest requirements. Specifically, CAA
section 128(a)(1) necessitates that each SIP shall require that at
least a majority of any board or body which approves permits or
enforcement orders shall be subject to the described public interest
service and income restrictions therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) requires
that the members of any board or body, or the head of an executive
agency with similar power to approve permits or enforcement orders
under the CAA, shall also be subject to conflict of interest disclosure
requirements.
    To meet its section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) obligations for the 2008 Lead
NAAQS, Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission cites the State's
revision to its SIP to meet the requirements of CAA section 128 for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which was submitted to EPA on
October 11, 2012.\20\ Based upon the review of the laws and provisions
contained in MDEQ's October 11, 2012, SIP revision, which have since
been incorporated into the SIP, EPA is proposing to approve the section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) portions of the infrastructure SIP submission as it
relates to the public interest requirements of section 128(a)(1) and
the conflict of interest disclosure provisions of section 128(a)(2).
EPA is also proposing to disapprove the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
portion of the infrastructure SIP submission as it pertains to
compliance with the significant portion of income requirement of
section 128(a)(1) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Mississippi's October 11, 2012, infrastructure SIP
submission only addressed compliance with 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
respecting CAA section 128 requirements. On May 8, 2014, Mississippi
clarified to EPA that the provisions submitted in the October 11,
2012, SIP submission to comply with 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP were also intended to
cover the 2008 Lead and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP.
    \21\ EPA took similar action with respect to Mississippi's
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the public interest requirement of section
128(a)(1) and the adequate disclosure of conflicts of interest
requirement of section 128(a)(2),

EPA has previously found these requirements to be satisfied by the
existing provisions in Mississippi's SIP. See 78 FR 20793.
    With respect to the significant portion of income requirement of
section 128(a)(1), the provisions included in the October 11, 2012
infrastructure SIP submission did not preclude at least a majority of
the members of the Mississippi Board from receiving a significant
portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement
orders issued by the Mississippi Boards. While the submitted laws and
provisions preclude members of the Mississippi Boards from certain
types of income (e.g., contracts with State or political subdivisions
thereof, or income obtained through the use of his or her public office
or obtained to influence a decision of the Mississippi Boards), they do
not preclude a majority of members of the Mississippi Boards from
deriving any significant portion of their income from persons subject
to permits or enforcement orders so long as that income is not derived
from one of the proscribed methods described in the laws and provisions
submitted by the State. Because a majority of board members may still
derive a significant portion of income from persons subject to permits
or enforcement orders issued by the Mississippi Boards, the Mississippi
SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements
respecting significant portion of income, and as such, EPA is today
proposing to disapprove the State's 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it
relates only to this portion of section 128(a)(1).
    Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it relates to the public interest
requirements of section 128(a)(1) and the conflict of interest
disclosure provisions of section 128(a)(2), and is proposing to
disapprove Mississippi's section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it
pertains to compliance with the significant portion of income
requirements of section 128(a)(1) for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system: Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submission describes how the State establishes
requirements for compliance testing by emissions sampling and analysis,
and for emissions and operation monitoring to ensure the quality of
data in the State. These requirements are met by Section APC-S-2--
Permit Regulations for the Construction and/or Operation of Air
Emissions Equipment and Mississippi Code 49, Section 49-17-21 (Appendix
A-9), which provides MDEQ with the authority to require the maintenance
of records related to the operation of air contaminant sources and
provides any authorized representative of the Mississippi Commission on
Environmental Quality with authority to examine and copy any such
records or memoranda pertaining to the operation of such contaminant
source. Section APC-S-2 also lists the requirements for compliance
testing which is included in any MDEQ air pollution air permit. Section
APC-S-1 authorizes source owners or operators to use any credible
evidence or information relevant to whether a source would have been in
compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance
or compliance test had been performed, for the purpose of submitting
compliance certifications. Accordingly, EPA is unaware of any provision
preventing the use of credible evidence in the Mississippi SIP.
    Additionally, Mississippi is required to submit emissions data to
EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory
System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants
and their associated precursors--NOX, sulfur dioxide,
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and VOCs. Many
states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
Mississippi made its latest update to the 2012 NEI on January 9, 2014.
EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and
releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for the
stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure
SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).
    7. 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes: This section of the CAA
requires that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303
of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority.
Mississippi cites Section APC-S-3--Mississippi Regulations for the
Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes and Mississippi Code
Title 49, 49-17-27 (Appendix A-9), as providing the State with the
authority to identify air pollution emergency events and to implement
preplanned abatement strategies in response to such events. This
regulation and statute further prevent the excessive buildup of air
pollutants during air pollution episodes. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for
emergency powers related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions: Mississippi's infrastructure
SIP submission cites Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(h)
(Appendix A-9), as providing MDEQ with the authority to adopt air
quality rules and revise SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS
in the State. The infrastructure SIP submission as cites this statute
as providing MDEQ with the statutory authority to revise the SIP to
accommodate changes to the NAAQS and revise the SIP if the EPA
Administrator finds the plan to be substantially inadequate to attain
the NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to
provide future SIP revisions related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS when
necessary.
    9. 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public
Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection: EPA is proposing to
approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead 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, EPA is not
proposing any action today regarding these requirements and instead
will act on these portions of the submission in a separate action.
    Consultation with government officials (121 Consultation): This
requirement is met through Section APC-S-5--Mississippi Regulations for
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality and
Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(c) (Appendix A-9), along
with

the State's SIP revisions, such as the Regional Haze SIP revision,
which allows 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. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate that the State
meets applicable requirements related to consultation with government
officials for the 2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary.
    Public notification (127 Public Notification): These requirements
are met through 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 2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary.
    Visibility protection: Proposed approval of Mississippi's
implementation plan respecting prong 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires
that the SIP contain adequate provisions to protect visibility
(referred to as ``prong 4'') in Mississippi. The 2011 Lead
Infrastructure SIP Guidance notes that EPA does not generally treat the
visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for
purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process. 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, in the event of the establishment of a new
primary NAAQS, the visibility protection and regional haze program
requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA concludes there are
no new applicable visibility protection obligations under section
110(a)(2)(J) as a result of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, and as such, EPA is
proposing to approve section 110(a)(2)(J) of MDEQ's infrastructure SIP
submission as it relates to visibility protection.
    10. 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality and modeling/data: Sections APC-S-2,
Section V.B.--Permit Regulation for the Construction and/or Operation
of Air Emissions Equipment and APC-S-5--Mississippi Regulations for the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, specify that
required air modeling be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality Models,'' as incorporated into
the Mississippi SIP. These standards demonstrate that Mississippi has
the authority to perform air quality monitoring and to provide relevant
data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of
the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Additionally, Mississippi supports a regional
effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories and
conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the Lead NAAQS,
for the southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Mississippi's air
quality regulations and practices demonstrate that MDEQ has the
authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the
effect on ambient air quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality
and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to
the 2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary.
    11. 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees: This element necessitates that
the SIP require the owner or operator of each major stationary source
to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit
required under the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover (i) The reasonable
costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit,
and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source,
the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and
conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other
costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee
requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the
Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V.
    To satisfy these requirements, Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submission cites Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-2-9(c) (Appendix
A-9), which 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), which provides for the
assessment of title V permit fees to cover the reasonable cost of
reviewing and acting upon permitting air permitting activities in the
state including title V, PSD and NNSR permits; and, Mississippi Code
Title 49, Section 49-17-14 (Appendix A-9), which 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
including, but not limited to, the reasonable costs of performing
activities related to the title V program. These funding mechanisms
reflect the reasonable cost of review, approval, implementation, and
enforcement of the state's air permitting program. The title V
operating program fees also cover the reasonable cost of implementation
and enforcement of PSD permits after they have been issued. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Mississippi adequately provides
for permitting fees related to the Lead NAAQS, when necessary.
    12. 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: Mississippi Code Title 49, Sections 49-17-17(c) and 49-17-
19(b) (Appendix A-9), requires that MDEQ notify the public of an
application, preliminary determination, the activity or activities
involved in the permit action, any emissions change associated with any
permit modification, and the opportunity for comment prior to making a
final permitting decision. Additionally, MDEQ works closely with local
political subdivisions during the development of its Transportation
Conformity SIP and Regional Haze SIP. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate consultation with affected local entities related to the
2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) and the state board
majority requirements respecting significant portion of income of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to approve that MDEQ's
infrastructure SIP submission, submitted November 17, 2011, for the
2008 Lead NAAQS has met the above-described infrastructure SIP
requirements. EPA is proposing to disapprove in part section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP 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 approval in part and disapproval in part, does not include
sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J). EPA will address these
portions of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008
Lead NAAQS in a separate action.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a CAA Part D Plan or is required in
response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA
section 110(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. The portion of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being proposed for
disapproval in today's notice) were not submitted to meet requirements
for Part D or a SIP call, and therefore, if EPA takes final action to
disapprove this submittal, no sanctions will be triggered. However, if
this disapproval action is finalized, that final action will trigger
the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a federal
implementation plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the date of the
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and EPA approves
the plan or plan revision before EPA promulgates such FIP.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, and Recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: November 3, 2014.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-27268 Filed 11-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P