[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 144 (Monday, July 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45155-45157]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16066]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0006; FRL-10011-89-Region 4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Macalloy Corporation
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is
proposing to Delete 134-acres of the 140-acre Macalloy Corporation
Superfund Site (Site) located at 1800 Pittsburgh Avenue, North
Charleston, South Carolina 29405 from the National Priorities List
(NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of South Carolina,
through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC), have determined that all appropriate response actions
at these identified parcels under CERCLA, other than groundwater
monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. This partial
deletion pertains to 134-acres. The remaining 6-acres with groundwater
concentrations above the 100 ug/L Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for
total chromium will remain on the NPL and is not being considered for
deletion as part of this action.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2000-0006, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Remedial Project Manager).

     Following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
and Office of Policy Management (OPM) guidance and specific state
guidelines impacting our regional offices, EPA's workforce has been
authorized to telework to help prevent transmission of the coronavirus
[COVID-19]. As a result there is a temporary shutdown of EPA's Docket
Center and EPA Regional Records Centers. While in this workforce
telework status, there are practical limitations on the ability of
staff to collect, and for Agency personnel to respond to, ``hard copy''
mailed queries sent directly to Agency office locations. Therefore,
until the workforce is able to return to office locations, EPA
recommends that, to the extent feasible, any correspondence mailed to
the Agency should also be sent via email.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2000-0006. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website
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 https://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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov.
    The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Regional
Records Centers for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID-19. In addition, many site information repositories are closed
and information in these repositories, including the deletion docket,
has not been updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further
information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Zeller, P.E., Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Superfund &
Emergency Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303,
(404) 562-8827, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 4 announces its intent to delete 134-acres of the 140-
acre Macalloy Corporation Superfund Site (Site), from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and request public comment on this proposed
action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as those sites that appear to
present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial
deletion of the Macalloy Corporation Superfund Site is proposed in
accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of
Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National
Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL
remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions
warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete this
site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the
Federal Register.
    Section II of this preamble explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III of this preamble discusses procedures
that EPA is using for this action. Section IV of this preamble
discusses where to access and review information that demonstrates how
the deletion criteria have been met for 134-acres of the 140-acre
Macalloy Corporation Superfund Site.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of 134-acres of the
Site:

    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
action prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control has concurred with the
deletion of 134- acres of the 140-acre Macalloy Corporation Superfund
Site, from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published
in a major local newspaper, The Charleston Post & Courier. The
newspaper announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
partial deletion in the deletion docket, made these items available for
public inspection, and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this
document, EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments
before making a final decision to delete the 134 acre parcel. If
necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any
significant public comments received. After the public comment period,
if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete 134-acres of the
140- acre Macalloy Corporation Superfund Site, the Regional
Administrator will publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the
Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the
Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to
interested parties and included in the site information repositories
listed above.
    Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself
create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter
EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is
designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA
management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion
of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future
response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Partial Site Deletion

    The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial
deletion in the deletion docket. The material provides explanation of
EPA's rationale for the partial deletion and demonstrates how it meets
the deletion criteria. This information is made available for public
inspection in the docket identified above.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C.1251 et seq; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: July 16, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-16066 Filed 7-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42672-42673]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: EC17-143-000.
    Applicants: Great Valley Solar 1, LLC, Great Valley Solar 2, LLC,
Great Valley Solar 3, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to July 31, 2017 Application for
Authorization of Transaction Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal
Power Act of Great Valley Solar 1, LLC, et. al.
    Filed Date: 8/31/17.
    Accession Number: 20170831-5248.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-148-000.
    Applicants: HD Project One, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of EG or FC of HD Project
One, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2401-001.
    Applicants: SP Decatur Parkway Solar, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Application for MBR
Authority and Initial Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2403-001.
    Applicants: SP Pawpaw Solar, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Application for MBR
Authority and Initial Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 9/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2404-001.
    Applicants: SP Sandhills Solar, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of Application for MBR
Authority and Initial Baseline Tariff Filing to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2416-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Annual Calculation of the Cost of New Entry value
(``CONE'') for each Local Resource Zone (``LRZ'') in the MISO Region of
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2417-000.
    Applicants: Great Valley Solar 3, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Great Valley Solar 3, LLC LGIA
Co-Tenancy Agreement Certificate of Concurrence to be effective 10/1/
2017.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2418-000.
    Applicants: Great Valley Solar 3, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Great Valley Solar 3, LLC Shared
Facilities Agreement Certificate of Concurrence to be effective 10/1/
2017.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2419-000.
    Applicants: Gateway Cogeneration 1, LLC.
    Description: Request of Gateway Cogeneration 1, LLC for Limited
Waiver of Tariff Provisions and Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2420-000.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Second Supplemental
Transmission Services Agreement to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2421-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Incorporate a
Clustering Approach in the Interconnection Procedures to be effective
11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2422-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: JPB Caltrain Supplement No.
3 under Master Agreement to be effective 9/5/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5189.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2423-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Amended and Restated Engineering
and Procurement Agreement to be effective 9/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2424-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SDGE TO Tariff Revisions to
Appendices IV and IX to be effective 12/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/1/17.
    Accession Number: 20170901-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/22/17.

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

    Dated: September 1, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19147 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8180-8181]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3427]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2010-0005-N-2]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below have been forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The
ICRs describes the nature of the information collection and their
expected burden. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collections of information
was published on December 16, 2009 (74 FR 66722).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 25, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Planning
and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6292), or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information
Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493-
6132). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, Sec.  2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised
at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.12. On December 16, 2009, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Federal Register soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was seeking
OMB approval. 74 FR 66722. FRA received no comments in response to this
notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30-day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summaries below describe the nature of the information
collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden. The revised
requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by
the PRA.
    Title: Designation of Qualified Persons.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0511
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Abstract: The collection of information is used to prevent the
unsafe movement of defective freight cars. Railroads are required to
inspect freight cars for compliance and to determine restrictions on
the movements of defective cars.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 40 hours.
    Title: Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0545.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Abstract: The collection of information is due to the passenger
train emergency regulations set forth in 49 CFR Parts 223 and 239 which
require railroads to meet minimum Federal standards for the
preparation, adoption, and implementation of emergency preparedness
plans connected with the operation of passenger trains, including
freight railroads hosting operations of rail passenger service. The
regulations require luminescent or lighted emergency markings so that
passengers and emergency responders can readily determine where the
closest and most accessible exit routes are located and how the
emergency exit mechanisms are operated. Windows and doors intended for
emergency access by responders for extrication of passengers must be
marked with retro-reflective material so that emergency responders,
particularly in conditions of poor visibility, can easily distinguish
them from the less accessible doors and windows. Records of the
inspection, maintenance, and repair of emergency windows and door
exits, as well as records of operational efficiency tests, will be used
to ensure compliance with the regulations.
    Annual Estimated Burden: 10,910 hours.
    Addressee: Send comments regarding these information collections to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503;
Attention: FRA

Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to OMB at the
following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of FRA, including whether the information will have
practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the
proposed information collections; ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 17, 2010.
Kimberly Coronel,
Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-3427 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30759-30760]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2018-0028; OMB No. 1660-0083]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Application for Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension,
without change, of a currently approved information collection. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks
comments concerning the Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program. This
collection allows the government to make loans to communities that have
suffered economic problems due to disasters.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2018-0028. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW, 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Polanco, Assistant Program
Manager, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Public Assistance Division,
(202) 212-5761. You may contact the Information Management Division for
copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program is
authorized by Section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
5184, and implementing regulations at 44 CFR subpart K. The Assistant
Administrator may make a CDL to any local government which has suffered
a substantial loss of tax or other revenues as a result of a major
disaster or emergency and which demonstrates a need for Federal
financial assistance in order to perform its governmental functions.
Local governments may indicate interest in acquiring a Community
Disaster Loan by contacting their Governor's Authorized Representative.
The Governor's Authorized Representative submits a letter to FEMA
requesting the Community Disaster Loan Program for their State.

Collection of Information

    Title: Application for Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0083.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 090-0-1, Certification Of Eligibility For
Community Disaster Loans; FEMA Form 116-0-1, Promissory Note; FEMA Form
116-0-1A, Promissory Note; FEMA Form 116-0-1B, Promissory Note; FEMA
Form 116-0-1C, Promissory Note; FEMA Form 085-0-1, Local Government
Resolution--Collateral Security; FEMA Form 112-0-3C, Certifications
Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility
Matters; And Drug-Free Workplace Requirements; FEMA Form 090-0-4,
Letter of Application through the GAR.
    Abstract: The loan package for the CDL Program provides Local and
Tribal governments that have suffered substantial loss of tax or other
revenues

as a result of a major disaster or emergency, the opportunity to obtain
financial assistance in order to perform their governmental functions.
The loan must be justified on the basis of need and actual expenses.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 144.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 144.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 518.13.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $27,761.41.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: 0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: 0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government:
$1,012,699.66.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Rachel Frier,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2018-14078 Filed 6-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67171-67179]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23598]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0155; FRL-9953-35-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Mississippi; Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve, in part, and disapprove in part, the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of
Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ), on June 20, 2013, for inclusion into the Mississippi
SIP. This final action pertains to the infrastructure requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA
requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is
commonly referred to as an

``infrastructure SIP submission.'' MDEQ certified that the Mississippi
SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi. EPA has
determined that Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission, provided
to EPA on June 20, 2013, satisfies certain required infrastructure
elements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0155. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information 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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the 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. 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: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Overview

    On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010), EPA promulgated a
revised primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts
per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. Pursuant to section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as
EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic
SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program
requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2,
2013.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the proposed action, EPA incorrectly cited a date of June
22, 2013, for the due date of infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS. 80 FR 51158 (August 24, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. In a proposed
rulemaking published on February 11, 2016, EPA proposed to approve
portions of Mississippi's June 20, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission. See 81 FR 7259. The details of
Mississippi's submission and the rationale for EPA's actions are
explained in the proposed rulemaking. Comments on the proposed
rulemaking were due on or before March 14, 2016. EPA received adverse
comments on the proposed action.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received one set of comments on the February 11, 2016, proposed
rulemaking to approve portions of Mississippi's 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission intended to meet the
CAA requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. A summary of
the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.\2\ A full set of
these comments is provided in the docket for this final rulemaking
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's responses to these comments are consistent with
actions taken on 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP
submissions for Virginia (80 FR 11557, March 4, 2015) at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-04/pdf/2015-04377.pdf and West
Virginia (79 FR 62022, October 16, 2014) at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-10-16/pdf/2014-24658.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Comments on Infrastructure SIP Requirements for Enforceable Emission
Limits

1. The Plain Language of the CAA
    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that the plain language of
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires the inclusion of enforceable
emission limits in an infrastructure SIP to prevent NAAQS exceedances
in areas not designated nonattainment. In support, the Commenter quotes
the language in section 110(a)(1) that requires states to adopt a plan
for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS and the
language in section 110(a)(2)(A) that requires SIPs to include
enforceable emissions limitations as well as schedules and timetables
for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of the CAA. The Commenter then states that
applicable requirements of the CAA include requirements for the
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and that CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) requires infrastructure SIPs to include enforceable
emission limits to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS. The Commenter
claims that Mississippi's SIP submission does not meet this asserted
requirement. Thus, the Commenter asserts that EPA must disapprove
Mississippi's SO2 infrastructure SIP submission because it
fails to include enforceable emission limitations necessary to ensure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS as required by CAA section
110(a)(2)(A). The Commenter then contends that the Mississippi 2010 1-
hour SO2 infrastructure SIP submission fails to comport with
CAA requirements for SIPs to establish enforceable emission limits that
are adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in areas not designated
nonattainment.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees that section 110 must be interpreted in
the manner suggested by the Commenter in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions. Section 110 is only one provision that is part of the
complicated structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program
under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be interpreted in the
context of not only that structure, but also of the historical
evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110
since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific SIP planning
requirements of the CAA, EPA interprets the requirement in section
110(a)(1) that the plan provide for ``implementation, maintenance and
enforcement'' in conjunction with the requirements in section
110(a)(2)(A) to mean that the infrastructure SIP must contain
enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or
maintaining the NAAQS and that the state demonstrate that it has the
necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate
state personnel and an enforcement program.
    With regard to the requirement for emission limitations in section
110(a)(2)(A), EPA has interpreted this to mean, for purposes of
infrastructure SIP submissions, that the state may rely on

measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new
control measures that the state may elect to impose as part of such SIP
submission. As EPA stated in ``Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' dated September 13, 2013, (Infrastructure
SIP Guidance), ``[t]he conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP
submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP contains the
necessary structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether
by establishing that the SIP already contains the necessary provisions,
by making a substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both.
Overall, the infrastructure SIP submission process provides an
opportunity . . . to review the basic structural requirements of the
air agency's air quality management program in light of each new or
revised NAAQS.'' Infrastructure SIP Guidance at pp. 1-2. Mississippi
appropriately demonstrated that its SIP has SO2 emissions
limitations and the ``structural requirements'' to implement the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in its infrastructure SIP submission.
    The Commenter makes general allegations that Mississippi does not
have sufficient protective measures to prevent SO2 NAAQS
exceedances. EPA addressed the adequacy of Mississippi's infrastructure
SIP for 110(a)(2)(A) purposes in the proposed rule and explained why
the SIP includes enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures that aid in maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
throughout the State. These include State regulations which
collectively establish enforceable emissions limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques for activities that contribute to
SO2 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. See 81 FR 7259. As discussed in this
rulemaking, EPA finds these provisions adequately address section
110(a)(2)(A) to aid in attaining and/or maintaining the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS and finds Mississippi demonstrated that it has the
necessary tools to implement and enforce the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
2. The Legislative History of the CAA
    Comment 2: The Commenter cites two excerpts from the legislative
history of the 1970 CAA and claims that the ``legislative history of
infrastructure SIPs provides that states must include enforceable
emission limits in their infrastructure SIPs sufficient to ensure the
implementation, maintenance, and attainment of each NAAQS in all areas
of the State.''
    Response 2: As provided in the previous response, the CAA, as
enacted in 1970, including its legislative history, cannot be
interpreted in isolation from the later amendments that refined that
structure and deleted relevant language from section 110 concerning
attainment. In any event, the two excerpts of legislative history the
Commenter cites merely provide that states should include enforceable
emission limits in their SIPs and they do not mention or otherwise
address whether states are required to impose additional emission
limitations or control measures as part of the infrastructure SIP
submission, as opposed to requirements for other types of SIP
submissions such as attainment plans required under section
110(a)(2)(I). As provided in Response 1, the proposed rule explains why
the SIP includes sufficient enforceable emissions limitations for
purposes of the infrastructure SIP submission.
3. Case Law
    Comment 3: The Commenter also discusses several court decisions
concerning the CAA, which the Commenter claims support its contention
that courts have been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
enforceable emissions limits in infrastructure SIP submissions to
prevent violations of the NAAQS. The Commenter first cites to language
in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), addressing the requirement
for ``emission limitations'' and stating that emission limitations
``are the specific rules to which operators of pollution sources are
subject, and which if enforced should result in ambient air which meets
the national standards.'' The Commenter also cites to Pennsylvania
Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for
the proposition that the CAA directs EPA to withhold approval of a SIP
where it does not ensure maintenance of the NAAQS, and to Mision
Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), which
quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA of 1970. The Commenter contends
that the 1990 Amendments do not alter how courts have interpreted the
requirements of section 110, quoting Alaska Dept. of Envtl.
Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in turn quoted
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also stated that ``SIPs must
include certain measures Congress specified'' to ensure attainment of
the NAAQS. The Commenter also quotes several additional opinions in
this vein. Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th
Cir. 2012) (``[t]he Clean Air Act directs states to develop
implementation plans--SIPs--that `assure' attainment and maintenance of
[NAAQS] through enforceable emissions limitations''); Mich. Dept. of
Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000) (``EPA's
deference to a state is conditioned on the state's submission of a plan
`which satisfies the standards of Sec.  110(a)(2)' and which includes
emission limitations that result in compliance with the NAAQS''; and
Hall v. EPA 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) for the proposition that EPA
may not approve a SIP revision that does not demonstrate how the rules
would not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response 3: None of the cases the Commenter cites support the
Commenter's contention that it is clear that section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires infrastructure SIP submissions to include detailed plans
providing for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of
the state, nor do they shed light on how EPA may reasonably interpret
section 110(a)(2)(A). With the exception of Train, none of the cases
the Commenter cites specifically concerned the interpretation of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 Act).
Rather, the other courts referenced section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section
110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the background section of
decisions involving challenges to EPA actions on revisions to SIPs that
were required and approved under other provisions of the CAA or in the
context of an enforcement action.
    In Train, 421 U.S. 60, the Court was addressing a state revision to
an attainment plan submission made pursuant to section 110 of the CAA,
the primary statutory provision at that time addressing such
submissions. The issue in that case was whether changes to requirements
that would occur before attainment was required were variances that
should be addressed pursuant to the provision governing SIP revisions
or were ``postponements'' that must be addressed under section 110(f)
of the CAA of 1970, which contained prescriptive criteria. The Court
concluded that EPA reasonably interpreted section 110(f) not to
restrict a state's choice of the mix of control measures needed to
attain the NAAQS, so long as the state met other applicable
requirements of the CAA, and that revisions to SIPs that would not
impact attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment date were not subject
to the limits of section 110(f). Thus the issue

was not whether the specific SIP at issue needs to provide for
attainment or whether emissions limits are needed as part of the SIP;
rather the issue was which statutory provision governed when the state
wanted to revise the emission limits in its SIP if such revision would
not impact attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources was also
decided based on a pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was whether
EPA properly rejected a revision to an approved SIP where the
inventories relied on by the state for the updated submission had gaps.
The Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of
EPA's disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that
provision. This decision did not address the question at issue in this
action, i.e., what a state must include in an infrastructure SIP
submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). Yet, even if the Court
had interpreted that provision, EPA notes that it was modified by
Congress in 1990; thus, this decision has little bearing on the issue
here.
    At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 F.2d 123, was the definition of
``emissions limitation'' not whether section 110 requires the state to
demonstrate how all areas of the state will attain and maintain the
NAAQS as part of their infrastructure SIPs. The language from the
opinion the Commenter quotes does not interpret but rather merely
describes section 110(a)(2)(A). The Commenter does not cite to this
case to assert that the measures relied on by the state in the
infrastructure SIP are not ``emissions limitations'' and the decision
in this case has no bearing here. In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666
F.3d 1174, the Court was reviewing a Federal implementation plan (FIP)
that EPA promulgated after a long history of the State failing to
submit an adequate SIP in response to EPA's finding under section
110(k)(5) that the previously approved SIP was substantially inadequate
to attain or maintain the NAAQS, which triggered the State's duty to
submit a new SIP to show how it would remedy that deficiency and attain
the NAAQS. The Court cited generally to sections 107 and 110(a)(2)(A)
of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs should assure attainment and
maintenance of NAAQS through emission limitations, but this language
was not part of the Court's holding in the case, which focused instead
on whether EPA's finding of SIP inadequacy and adoption of a remedial
FIP were lawful. The Commenter suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl.
Conservation, 540 U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that the 1990
CAA Amendments do not alter how courts interpret section 110. This
claim is inaccurate. Rather, the Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A),
which, as noted previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that
provision and the court makes no mention of the changed language.
Furthermore, the Commenter also quotes the Court's statement that
``SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified,'' but that
statement specifically referenced the requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C), which requires an enforcement program and a program for
the regulation of the modification and construction of new sources.
Notably, at issue in that case was the State's ``new source''
permitting program, not what is required for purposes of an
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A).
    EPA does not believe any of these court decisions addressed
required measures for infrastructure SIPs and believes nothing in the
opinions addressed whether infrastructure SIP submissions must contain
emission limitations or measures to ensure attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS.
4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR 51.112(a)
    Comment 4: The Commenter cites to 40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that
``Each plan must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations
contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and
maintenance of the national standard that it implements.'' The
Commenter relies on a statement in the preamble to the 1986 action
restructuring and consolidating provisions in part 51, in which EPA
stated that ``[i]t is beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address
the provisions of Part D of the Act . . .'' 51 FR 40656. Thus, the
Commenter contends that ``the provisions of 40 CFR 51.112 are not
limited to nonattainment SIPs; the regulation instead applies to
Infrastructure SIPs, which are required to attain and maintain the
NAAQS in all areas of a state, including those not designated
nonattainment.''
    Response 4: The Commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support
its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits
which ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS is incorrect. It
is clear on its face that 40 CFR 51.112 directly applies to state SIP
submissions for control strategy SIPs, i.e., plans that are
specifically required to attain and/or maintain the NAAQS. These
regulatory requirements apply when states are developing ``control
strategy'' SIPs under other provisions of the CAA, such as attainment
plans required for the various NAAQS in Part D and maintenance plans
required in section 175A. The Commenter's suggestion that 40 CFR 51.112
must apply to all SIP submissions required by section 110 based on the
preamble to EPA's action ``restructuring and consolidating'' provisions
in part 51, is also incorrect.\3\ EPA's action in 1986 was not to
establish new substantive planning requirements, but rather was meant
merely to consolidate and restructure provisions that had previously
been promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA noted that it had already issued guidance addressing the
new ``Part D'' attainment planning obligations. Also, as to
maintenance regulations, EPA expressly stated that it was not making
any revisions other than to re-number those provisions. See 51 FR
40657.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements
interpreting the provisions of new ``Part D'' of the CAA, it is clear
that the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended
to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated
that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (``Control strategy:
SOX and PM (portion)''), 51.14 (``Control strategy: CO, HC,
OX and NO2 (portion)''), 51.80 (``Demonstration
of attainment: Pb (portion)''), and 51.82 (``Air quality data
(portion)''). Id. at 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112
contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy
SIPs, and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan.
5. EPA Interpretations in Other Rulemakings
    Comment 5: The Commenter also references a 2006 partial approval
and partial disapproval of revisions to Missouri's existing plan
addressing the SO2 NAAQS and claims it was an action in
which EPA relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject an
infrastructure SIP. Specifically, the Commenter asserts that in that
action, EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) as a basis for disapproving a
revision to the State plan on the basis that the State failed to
demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance
of the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an emission limit and
cited to 40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that a plan demonstrates the rules
in a SIP are adequate to attain the SO2 NAAQS.
    Response 5: EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval of
revisions to restrictions on emissions of sulfur

compounds for the Missouri SIP in 71 FR 12623 specifically addressed
Missouri's attainment SIP submission--not Missouri's infrastructure SIP
submission. It is clear from the final Missouri rule that EPA was not
reviewing an initial infrastructure SIP submission, but rather
reviewing proposed SIP revisions that would make an already approved
SIP designed to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS less stringent.
Therefore, EPA does not agree that the 2006 Missouri action referenced
by the Commenter establishes how EPA reviews infrastructure SIP
submissions for purpose of section 110(a)(2)(A).
    As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA finds that the Mississippi
2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP meets the appropriate and
relevant structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA that
will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS and that the State demonstrated that it has the necessary tools
to implement and enforce the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA's final action does not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because Mississippi has not made a submission for
these elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments on Mississippi SIP SO2 Emission Limits

    Comment 6: The Commenter asserts that EPA may not approve the
Mississippi proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP because it fails
to include enforceable emission limitations with a 1-hour averaging
time that applies at all times. The Commenter cites to CAA section
302(k) which requires that emission limits must limit the quantity,
rate or concentration of emissions and must apply on a continuous
basis. The Commenter states that ``[e]nforceable emission limitations
contained in the I-SIP must, therefore, be accompanied by proper
averaging times; otherwise an appropriate numerical emission limit
could allow for peaks that exceed the NAAQS and yet still be permitted
since they would be averaged with lower emissions at other times.'' The
Commenter also cites to recommended averaging times in EPA guidance
providing that SIP emissions limits, ``should not exceed the averaging
time of the applicable NAAQS that the limit is intended to help
attain.'' EPA Memorandum of April 23, 2014, to Regional Air Division
Directors, Regions 1-10, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, at 22, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf. The Commenter notes that this
EPA guidance provides that `` `any emissions limits based on averaging
periods longer than 1 hour should be designed to have comparable
stringency to a 1-hour average limit at the critical emission value.'
''
    The Commenter also cites to a February 3, 2011, EPA Region 7 letter
to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment regarding the need
for 1-hour SO2 emission limits in a prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) permit, an EPA Environmental Appeals
Board decision rejecting use of a 3-hour averaging time for a
SO2 limit in a PSD permit, and EPA's disapproval of a
Missouri SIP which relied on annual averaging for SO2
emission rates and claims EPA has stated that 1-hour averaging times
are necessary for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\5\ The
Commenter states, ``Therefore, in order to ensure that Mississippi's
Infrastructure SIP actually implements the SO2 NAAQS in
every area of the state, the I-SIP must contain enforceable emission
limits with one-hour averaging times, monitored continuously, for large
sources of SO2.'' The Commenter asserts that EPA must
disapprove Mississippi's infrastructure SIP because it fails to require
emission limits with adequate averaging times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commenter cited to In re: Mississippi Lime Co., PSD
APPEAL 11-01, 2011 WL 3557194, at *26-27 (EPA Aug. 9, 2011) and 71
FR 12623, 12624 (March 13, 2006) (EPA disapproval of a control
strategy SO2 SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 6: As explained in detail in previous responses, the
purpose of the infrastructure SIP is to ensure that a state has the
structural capability to implement and enforce the NAAQS and thus,
additional SO2 emission limitations to ensure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS are not required for such infrastructure
SIPs.\6\ EPA disagrees that it must disapprove the proposed Mississippi
infrastructure SIP submission merely because the SIP does not contain
enforceable SO2 emission limitations with 1-hour averaging
periods that apply at all times, as this issue is not appropriate for
resolution in this action.\7\ Therefore, because EPA finds
Mississippi's SO2 infrastructure SIP approvable without the
additional SO2 emission limitations showing attainment of
the NAAQS, EPA finds the issue of appropriate averaging periods for
such future limitations not relevant at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a discussion on emission averaging times for emissions
limitations for SO2 attainment SIPs, see the April 23,
2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions. As
noted by the Commenter, EPA explained that it is possible, in
specific cases, for states to develop control strategies that
account for variability in 1-hour emissions rates through emission
limits with averaging times that are longer than 1-hour, using
averaging times as long as 30-days, but still provide for attainment
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as long as the limits are of at
least comparable stringency to a 1-hour limit at the critical
emission value. EPA has not taken final action to approve any
specific submission of such a limit that a state has relied upon to
demonstrate NAAQS attainment, and Mississippi has not submitted such
a limit for that purpose here, so it is premature at this time to
evaluate whether any emission limit in Mississippi's SIP is in
accordance with the April 23, 2014, guidance. If and when
Mississippi submits an emission limitation that relies upon such a
longer averaging time to demonstrate NAAQS attainment, EPA will
evaluate it then.
    \7\ There are currently no areas designated nonattainment
pursuant to CAA section 107 for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in Mississippi. EPA believes the appropriate time for examining the
necessity of 1-hour SO2 emission limits on specific
sources is within the attainment planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Commenter's citation to a prior EPA discussion on
emission limitations required in PSD permits (from EPA's Environmental
Appeals Board decision and EPA's letter to Kansas' permitting
authority) pursuant to part C of the CAA is neither relevant nor
applicable to infrastructure SIP submissions under CAA section 110. In
addition, and as previously discussed, the EPA disapproval of the 2006
Missouri SIP was a disapproval relating to an attainment plan SIP
submission required pursuant to part D attainment planning and is
likewise not relevant to the analysis of infrastructure SIP
requirements.
    Comment 7: Citing to section 110(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) of the CAA,
the Commenter contends that EPA may not approve Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP because it does not include enforceable 1-hour
emission limits for sources that the Commenter claims are currently
contributing to NAAQS exceedances. The Commenter asserts that emission
limits are especially important for meeting the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS because SO2 impacts are strongly source oriented. The
Commenter states that ``[d]espite the large contribution from coal-
fired EGUs [electricity generating units] to the State's SO2
pollution, Mississippi's I-SIP lacks enforceable emissions limitations
applicable to its coal-fired EGUs sufficient to ensure the
implementation, attainment, and maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.'' The Commenter refers to air dispersion modeling it conducted
for one power plant in Mississippi, the R.D. Morrow Power Plant.
Further, the Commenter cites two court cases to support its statement
that ``. . . an agency may not ignore information put in front of it''
and that thus, the Commenter contends that EPA must consider its expert
air dispersion modeling ``which demonstrates the inadequacy of
Mississippi's rules and regulations for

SO2 emissions.'' The Commenter summarizes its modeling
results for the R.D. Morrow Power Plant claiming that the data predict
exceedances of the standard. Thus, the Commenter contends that
Mississippi's infrastructure submission is ``substantially inadequate
to attain and maintain the NAAQS which it implements, as evidenced by
expert air dispersion modeling demonstrating that the emission limits
under the laws and regulations cited to in the SO2 I-SIP
Certification allow for exceedances of the NAAQS.'' Thus, the Commenter
asserts that EPA must disapprove Mississippi's SIP submission, and must
establish a FIP ``which incorporates necessary and appropriate source-
specific enforceable emission limitations (preferably informed by
modeling) on Plant Morrow, as well as any other major sources of
SO2 pollution in the State which are not presently located
in nonattainment areas and have modeled exceedances of the NAAQS.''
Further, the Commenter states that ``For Plant Morrow enforceable
emission limitations must be at least as stringent as the modeling-
based limits [provided by the Commenter] in order to protect the one-
hour SO2 NAAQS and implement, maintain, and enforce the
standard in Mississippi.''
    The Commenter also asserts that Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
must contain enforceable emission limits to avoid additional
nonattainment designations ``where modeling (or monitoring) shows that
SO2 levels exceed the one-hour NAAQS.'' The Commenter cites
to EPA's Next Steps for Area Designations and Implementation of the
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard \8\ (February 6,
2013), and EPA's Final SO2 NAAQS Rule at 75 FR 35553. The
Commenter further contends that EPA's proposal to designate Lamar
County, Mississippi, as attainment/unclassifiable is based on modeling
for Plant Morrow provided by the State of Mississippi with two
``significant problems'': (1) The modeling scenario using allowable
emissions was not included in accordance with the EPA-approved modeling
protocol and (2) the background SO2 concentrations (14 parts
per billion, or 36.65 micrograms per cubic meter) from the Jackson
Monitoring Station in Hinds County monitor were ``erroneously relied
on'', given that ``EPA has determined the design values for the Hinds
County monitors invalid.'' For these two issues related to the
modeling, the Commenter cites to the modeling from the State performed
by Trinity Consultants, 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS DESIGNATION MODELING REPORT,
pp. 23 and 32, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/ms-rec-att1-r2.pdf, and EPA's August 3, 2015,
SO2 Design Values file.
    Response 7: As stated previously, EPA believes that the proper
inquiry is whether Mississippi has met the basic, structural SIP
requirements appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon the
infrastructure submissions. Emissions limitations and other control
measures, whether on coal-fired EGUs or other SO2 sources,
that may be needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS in areas designated
nonattainment for that NAAQS are due on a different schedule from the
section 110 infrastructure SIP submission. A state, like Mississippi,
may reference pre-existing SIP emission limits or other rules contained
in part D plans for previous NAAQS in an infrastructure SIP submission
for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). For example, Mississippi
submitted a list of existing emission reduction measures in the SIP
that control emissions of SO2 as discussed above in response
to a prior comment and discussed in the proposed rulemaking on
Mississippi's SO2 infrastructure SIP. These provisions have
the ability to reduce SO2 overall. Although the Mississippi
SIP relies on measures and programs used to implement previous
SO2 NAAQS, these provisions are not limited to reducing
SO2 levels to meet one specific NAAQS and will continue to
provide benefits for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    Regarding the air dispersion modeling conducted by the Commenter
pursuant to AERMOD and its comments on the modeling submitted by
Mississippi pursuant to the section 107 designation process for the
R.D. Morrow Power Plant, EPA is not in this action making a
determination regarding the air quality status in the area where this
facility is located, and is not evaluating whether emissions applicable
to this facility are adequate to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
Consequently, the EPA does not find the modeling information relevant
for review of an infrastructure SIP for purposes of section
110(a)(2)(A). When additional areas in Mississippi are designated under
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and if any additional areas in
Mississippi are designated nonattainment in the future, any potential
future modeling submitted by the State with designations or attainment
demonstrations would need to account for any new emissions limitations
Mississippi develops to support such designation or demonstration,
which at this point is unknown. While EPA has extensively discussed the
use of modeling for attainment demonstration purposes and for
designations,\9\ EPA has recommended that such modeling was not needed
for the SO2 infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A), which are
not actions in which EPA makes determinations regarding current air
quality status. See April 12, 2012, letters to states and 2012 Draft
White Paper.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See for example, EPA's discussion of modeling for
characterizing air quality in the Agency's August 21, 2015, final
rule at 80 FR 51052 and for nonattainment planning in the April 23,
2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions.
    \10\ Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS, Draft
White Paper for Discussion, May 2012 (2012 Draft White Paper) and a
sample April 12, 2012, letter from EPA to states are available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statements that
EPA must disapprove Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission because
it does not establish specific enforceable SO2 emission
limits, either on coal-fired EGUs or other large SO2
sources, in order to demonstrate attainment and maintenance with the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at this time.
    Comment 8: The Commenter alleges that the SO2
infrastructure SIP submittal does not address sources significantly
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in other states as required by section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, and asserts EPA must therefore
disapprove the infrastructure SIP and impose a FIP. The Commenter
states that ``EPA must implement a FIP containing source-specific
emission limitations and other measures to ensure that pollution from
Mississippi is not preventing other states from attaining or
maintaining the NAAQS.'' The Commenter notes that regardless of whether
the Mississippi submitted a SIP revision to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the State ``has long since passed the June 2013
deadline to submit such provisions; rather than await some potential
future submission, Mississippi's failure to satisfy its Good Neighbor
obligations must be rectified now.'' The Commenter explains that the
Supreme Court disapproved the view that states cannot address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) until EPA resolves issues related to CSAPR and that
compliance with this provision is a ``mandatory duty'', citing to Homer
City, 696 F.3d 7, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev'd, No. 12-1182, slip op. at
27-28 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2014). The Commenter also highlights from

Order on Petition No. VI-2014-04 at 10 (citing EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014)) that, ``[T]he Supreme Court
has affirmed that the EPA is not required to provide any implementation
guidance before states' interstate transport obligation can be
addressed.''
    Response 8: This action does not address whether sources in
Mississippi are significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
another state as required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA (the
good neighbor provision). Thus, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's
statement that EPA must disapprove the submitted 2010 1-hour
SO2 infrastructure SIP due to Mississippi's failure to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In EPA's rulemaking proposing to
approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, EPA clearly stated that it was not taking any
action with respect to the good neighbor provision in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Mississippi did not make a submission to address
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, and thus there is no such submission upon which
EPA proposed to take action on under section 110(k) of the CAA.
Similarly, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that EPA cannot
approve other elements of an infrastructure SIP submission without the
good neighbor provision. There is no basis for the contention that EPA
has triggered its obligation to issue a FIP to address the good
neighbor obligation under section 110(c), as EPA has neither found that
Mississippi failed to timely submit a required 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS or found that such
a submission was incomplete, nor has EPA disapproved a SIP submission
addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA acknowledges the Commenter's concern for the interstate
transport of air pollutants and agrees in general with the Commenter
that sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the CAA generally require states
to submit, within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, a plan which addresses cross-state air pollution under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's
argument that EPA cannot approve an infrastructure SIP submission
without the good neighbor provision. Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA
authorizes EPA to approve a plan in full, disapprove it in full, or
approve it in part and disapprove it in part, depending on the extent
to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to
approve state SIP revisions in separable parts was included in the 1990
Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve individual
measures in a plan submission without either approving or disapproving
the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N.
3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832
F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).
    EPA interprets its authority under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, as
affording EPA the discretion to approve, or conditionally approve,
individual elements of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, separate and apart from any
action with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the CAA with respect to that NAAQS. EPA views discrete
infrastructure SIP requirements, such as the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from the other infrastructure elements
and interprets section 110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on individual
severable measures in a plan submission. In short, EPA believes that
even if Mississippi had made a SIP submission for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,
which to date it has not, EPA would still have discretion under section
110(k) of the CAA to act upon the various individual elements of the
State's infrastructure SIP submission, separately or together, as
appropriate.
    The Commenter raises no compelling legal or environmental rationale
for an alternate interpretation. Nothing in the Supreme Court's April
2014 decision in EME Homer City alters EPA's interpretation that EPA
may act on individual severable measures, including the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in a SIP submission. See EPA v. EME Homer
City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (affirming a state's obligation
to submit a SIP revision addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
independent of EPA's action finding significant contribution or
interference with maintenance). In sum, the concerns raised by the
Commenter do not establish that it is inappropriate or unreasonable for
EPA to approve the portions of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA has no obligation at this time to issue a FIP pursuant to
110(c)(1) to address Mississippi's obligations under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA first either finds Mississippi failed to
make a required submission addressing the element or the State has made
such a submission but it is incomplete, or EPA disapproves a SIP
submission addressing that element. Until either occurs, EPA does not
have the obligation to issue a FIP pursuant to section 110(c) with
respect to the good neighbor provision. Therefore, EPA disagrees with
the Commenter's contention that it must issue a FIP for Mississippi to
address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at
this time.

III. Final Action

    With the exception of 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
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is taking final action to approve
Mississippi's infrastructure submission submitted on June 20, 2013, for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the above described
infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is taking final action to approve
Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS for the above described infrastructure SIP
requirements because the submission is consistent with section 110 of
the CAA.
    With regard to the state board majority requirements respecting
significant portion of income, EPA is finalizing a disapproval of
Mississippi's June 20, 2013, infrastructure submission. Under section
179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that addresses a
requirement of a CAA Part D Plan or is required in response to a
finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5)
(SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. The portion of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being proposed for
disapproval in this notice) were not submitted to meet requirements for
Part D or a SIP call, and therefore, no sanctions will be triggered.
However, this final action will trigger the requirement under section
110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later
than two years from the date of the disapproval unless the State
corrects the deficiency, and EPA approves the plan or plan revision
before EPA promulgates such FIP.

IV. 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 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 action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 29, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

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.

    Dated: September 16, 2016.
Kenneth R. Lapierre,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart Z--Mississippi

0
2. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by adding a new entry ``110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                               EPA Approved Mississippi Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
  Name of non-regulatory SIP     Applicable geographic  submittal date/ EPA approval date       Explanation
           provision             or nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2)               Mississippi...........       6/20/2013  9/30/2016,         With the exception of
 Infrastructure Requirements                                             [Insert Federal    the interstate
 for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.                                          Register           transport
                                                                         citation].         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 section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.1272 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1272  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (e) Disapproval. Submittal from the State of Mississippi, through
the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on June 20,
2013, to address the Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the
2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) concerning state board majority requirements
respecting significant portion of income of section 128(a)(1). EPA is
disapproving MDEQ's submittal with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
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, and therefore, its current SIP does
not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements

respecting significant portion of income for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. 2016-23598 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


7
19
94
1
.
5
1
.4
1.7
1
.2
1.0
1
.4
3.1
3
.1
3.1
3
.7
3
.
6
3
.
7
19
95
1
.
5
1
.3
1.7
1
.3
1.0
1
.5
3.2
3
.1
3.3
3
.8
3
.
6
3
.
9
19
96
1
.
5
1
.3
1.7
1
.2
1.0
1
.4
3.3
3
.1
3.5
3
.9
3
.
6
4
.
1
19
97
1
.
4
1
.2
1.6
1
.1
1.0
1
.3
3.0
2
.9
3.1
3
.5
3
.
2
3
.
6
19
98
1
.
4
1
.2
1.5
1
.1
0.9
1
.2
3.0
2
.9
3.1
3
.7
3
.
4
3
.
8
19
99
(5)
1
.
7
1
.4
2.0
1
.4
1.0
1
.7
3.4
3
.3
3.5
3
.9
3
.
6
4
.
2
20
00
1
.
6
1
.3
1.8
1
.3
1.0
1
.5
3.3
3
.1
3.5
3
.9
3
.
5
4
.
2
20
01
1
.
5
1
.2
1.7
1
.2
0.9
1
.5
3.0
2
.8
3.2
3
.6
3
.
2
3
.
8
20
02
1
.
5
1
.2
1.7
1
.2
0.9
1
.4
2.8
2
.7
2.8
3
.4
3
.
3
3
.
4
20
03
1
.
4
1
.0
1.8
1
.2
0.8
1
.6
2.2
2
.0
2.4
2
.7
2
.
4
2
.
9
SOURCE: NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS, FINAL MORTALITY STATISTICS REPORT, 1979-2003
NOTES:
(1) RATES FOR THE YEARS 1979-1998 ARE AGE-ADJUSTED TO THE 1940 U.S. STANDARD POPULATION.
(2) RATES FOR 1999-2003 ARE AGE-ADJUSTED TO THE 2000 U.S. STANDARD POPULATION.
(3)  ALL RACES OTHER THAN WHITE.
(4) INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES, 9TH REVISION (ICD-9) CODE 493.
(5) INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF DISEASES, 10TH REVISION (ICD-10) CODE J45-J46.

AND SEX, 1999-2003
(1,2)
Year/Sex
NUMBER
RATE
NUMBER
RATE
NUMBER
RATE
NUMBER
RATE
NUMBER
RATE
Both Sexes
19
99
4,657
1
.
7
32
0
1
.
7
4,324
1
.
7
3
,011
1
.
4
1,134
4
.
1
20
00
4,487
1
.
6
29
2
1
.
5
4,164
1
.
6
2
,836
1
.
3
1,145
4
.
1
20
01
4,269
1
.
5
27
4
1
.
4
3,976
1
.
5
2
,717
1
.
2
1,092
3
.
6
20
02
4,261
1
.
5
28
7
1
.
3
3,950
1
.
5
2
,720
1
.
2
1,083
3
.
5
20
03
4,099
1
.
4
29
9
1
.
3
3,786
1
.
4
2
,589
1
.
3
1,019
2
.
8
Male
19
99
1,620
1
.
4
11
9
1
.
2
1,495
1
.
4
93
0
1
.
0
4
7
4
3
.
7
20
00
1,632
1
.
3
12
9
1
.
3
1,486
1
.
3
92
0
1
.
0
4
7
2
3
.
6
20
01
1,479
1
.
2
10
3
1
.
0
1,365
1
.
2
83
4
0
.
9
4
5
0
3
.
3
20
02
1,580
1
.
2
11
4
1
.
0
1,448
1
.
2
89
5
0
.
9
4
8
8
3
.
4
20
03
1,493
1
.
1
13
1
1
.
1
1,356
1
.
2
83
1
0
.
9
4
3
9
2
.
5
Female
19
99
3,037
2
.
0
20
1
2
.
0
2,829
2
.
0
2
,081
1
.
7
6
6
0
4
.
3
20
00
2,855
1
.
8
16
3
1
.
6
2,678
1
.
9
1
,916
1
.
5
6
7
3
4
.
3
20