[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13712-13716]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06544]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0546; FRL-9976-16--Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; MS; Section 128 Board Requirements for
Infrastructure SIPs

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the draft State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions,
submitted by the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for parallel processing, on
June 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018. Together these draft submittals
address specific Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements applicable to
Mississippi state boards or bodies that approve CAA permits and
enforcement orders. These submissions also request that EPA convert the
previous partial disapproval of Mississippi's infrastructure SIPs
related to the CAA state board significant portion of income
requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and
1997, 2006 and 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to full approvals. Whenever EPA
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the state to make
a new SIP submission establishing that the existing SIP meets the
various applicable requirements, or revising the SIP to meet those
requirements. This type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. In this proposed action, EPA is proposing to
approve the June 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018 submissions with
respect to the CAA requirements applicable to state boards; and the
related state board infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 8-hour
Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2 and 1997,
2006 and 2012 PM2.5, NAAQS. If this proposed approval action
is finalized, EPA will no longer be required to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the CAA state board requirements
for Mississippi, as described in more detail below.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0546 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can be
reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What is parallel processing?

    Consistent with EPA regulations found at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix
V, section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting review of a SIP submittal,
parallel processing allows a state to submit a plan to EPA prior to
actual adoption by the state. Generally, the state submits a copy of
the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before conducting its
public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action, and prepares a
notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is
published in the Federal Register during the same time frame that the
state is holding its public process. The state and EPA then provide for
concurrent public comment periods on both the state action and Federal
action.
    If the revision that is finally adopted and submitted by the State
is changed in aspects other than those identified in the proposed
rulemaking on the parallel process submission, EPA will evaluate those
changes and if necessary and appropriate, issue another notice of
proposed rulemaking. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only
after the SIP revision has been adopted by the state and submitted
formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
    On June 23, 2017, the State of Mississippi, through MDEQ, submitted
a request for parallel processing of a draft SIP revision that the
State has taken through public comment. On February 2, 2018, the State
of Mississippi submitted an additional draft SIP revision that the
State is taking through public comment. MDEQ requested parallel
processing of both submissions so that EPA could begin to take action
on its draft SIP revisions in advance of the State's submission of the
final SIP revision. As stated above, the final rulemaking action by EPA
will occur only after the SIP revisions have been: (1) Adopted by
Mississippi, (2) submitted formally to EPA for incorporation into the
SIP; and (3) evaluated by EPA, including any changes made by the State
after the June 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018, draft submissions were
submitted to EPA.

II. Background

    By statute, states are required to have SIPs that provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. States are
further required to make a SIP submission meeting the applicable
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) within three years after EPA
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS.\1\ EPA has historically referred to
this type of SIP submission as an ``infrastructure SIP'' submission.
Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements
such as for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority
that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance with the newly
established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1)
provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIP
submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must
meet for the ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP
submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools
available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in
the state's existing EPA approved SIP at the time when the state
develops and submits the infrastructure SIP submission for a new or
revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA has long noted that a literal reading of the statutory
provisions of 110(a)(2) on the schedule provided in 110(a)(1) would
create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of
Title I of the CAA, which specifically address nonattainment area
SIP requirements. See, e.g., ``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 at 4. For example, 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. The provisions in section 172(b) for
submission of such plans for nonattainment areas differs from the
timing requirements for an infrastructure SIP submission under
110(a)(1). Thus, rather than applying all the stated requirements of
section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA has determined that
certain provisions like 110(a)(2)(I) of section 110(a)(2) are not
applicable to infrastructure SIP submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action pertains to one of the requirements of section
110(a)(2) that is relevant in the context of a state's development, and
EPA's evaluation of, infrastructure SIP submissions. Section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA requires states to have SIPs that contain
provisions that comply with certain specific requirements respecting
State boards or bodies or heads of states agencies under CAA section
128. Section 128 of the CAA requires that states include provisions in
their SIP that require that any state board or body which approves
permits or enforcement orders shall have a majority of members who
represent the public interest and do not receive a significant portion
of their income from parties subject to such permits or enforcement
orders (section 128(a)(1)); and require that the members of any such
board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to
approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall adequately
disclose potential conflicts of interest (section 128(a)(2)).
Specifically, this action is limited to specific section 128
requirements applicable to state boards or bodies.
    On October 11, 2012, MDEQ submitted SIP revisions for incorporation
of Article 4, Section 109 of the Mississippi Constitution and portions
of Mississippi Code sections 25-4-25, -27, -29, -103, -105, and -109
into its SIP to meet its section 128 and related section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) obligations for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. On April 8, 2013, EPA took final action to incorporate these
provisions into the Mississippi SIP to meet the certain requirements of
CAA sections 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). See 78 FR 20793.\2\ In this same
final action, EPA disapproved Mississippi's October 11, 2012,
submission as not satisfying the significant portion of income
requirement of section 128(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Subsequently, EPA took final action to disapprove Mississippi's
infrastructure SIP submissions pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
for failing to comply with the significant portion of income
requirement of section 128(a)(1) of for the 2008 8-hour Ozone on March
2, 2015 (80 FR 11133), 2008 Lead on March 30, 2015 (80 FR 16566), 2010
NO2 on August 16, 2016 (81 FR 63705), 2010 SO2 on
September 30, 2016 (81 FR 67171), and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on
December 12, 2016 (81 FR 89391).\3\ Under section 110(c)(1)(B), these
disapprovals started a two-year clock for the EPA to promulgate a FIP
to address the deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA has already approved or will consider in separate
actions all other elements of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP
submissions related to the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 1997, 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to fully address the requirements of section 128, and thus
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), Mississippi made the June
23, 2017, and February 2, 2018, SIP submissions to revise the existing
federally approved SIP and include these necessary revisions. Through
this action, EPA is proposing approval of Mississippi's draft SIP
revisions to incorporate into its SIP state law and regulatory
provisions to meet certain state board requirements of section 128.
More detail on how Mississippi's SIP revisions meet these requirements
is provided below. As a result of the addition of these new SIP
provisions to

meet the requirements of section 128, EPA is also proposing to approve
the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure element for the 2008 8-hour
Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 1997,
2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The approvals proposed herein
would fully address the SIP deficiencies from EPA's prior disapprovals
for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus,
if we finalize this proposed approval, this will resolve the prior
disapprovals for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2008 8-hour Ozone,
2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 1997, 2006 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and terminate EPA's FIP obligation.
    A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this action is
provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please
refer to the Federal Register rulemakings cited below.

A. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based
on 8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 77 FR 16436. States were
required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 2011.

B. 2008 Lead NAAQS

    On November 12, 2008 (75 FR 81126), EPA issued a final rule to
revise the Lead NAAQS. The Lead NAAQS was revised to 0.15 micrograms
per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\). States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions to EPA no later than October 15, 2011,
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

C. 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA established a new 1-hour
primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion
(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly
distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. States were
required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 2013.

D. 2010 SO2 NAAQS

    On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary
SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 ppb based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013.

E. 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, EPA also
established a 24-hour NAAQS of 65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-
hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations. States were required to submit
such SIPs to EPA no later than July 2000 for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and no later than October 2009 for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

F. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15,
2013). An area meets the standard if the three-year average of its
annual average PM2.5 concentration (at each monitoring site
in the area) is less than or equal to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. States were
required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015.

III. What is EPA's analysis of how Mississippi addressed the
requirements of section 128(a)(1)?

    On June 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018, Mississippi submitted for
parallel processing, draft SIP submissions to revise the Mississippi
SIP to meet certain portions of the state board requirements of CAA
section 128. Of note, EPA has previously approved SIP revisions to
address all elements of section 128 for Mississippi except the
significant portion of income requirement of 128(a)(1). See 78 FR
20793. The draft submissions under review in this proposed action
primarily address this outstanding significant portion of income
requirement, but also include additional supplemental language relevant
to other elements of section 128.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA has fully approved revisions to the Mississippi SIP to
address all elements of Section 128, except the significant portion
of income requirement. Thus, these additional provisions supplement
Mississippi's already approved SIP for these other elements of
section 128, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a state has a board or body that approves CAA permits or
enforcement orders, it is subject to section 128(a)(1), which requires
that any state ``board or body which approves permits or enforcement
orders under [the CAA] shall have at least a majority of members who
represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion
of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement under
[the CAA].'' Section 128(a)(2) applies to the members of any such board
or body that approves CAA permits and enforcement orders, and also to
the head of an executive agency with similar powers, and requires that
``any potential conflicts of interest . . . be adequately disclosed.''
    In 1978, EPA issued guidance recommending potential ways that
states might elect to meet the requirements of section 128, including
suggested interpretations of key terms.\5\ In this guidance, EPA
recognized that states may have a variety of procedures and special
concerns that may warrant differing approaches to implementation of
section 128 and that the guidance does not create a requirement that
all SIPs must include the suggested definitions verbatim, or that
definitions per se must be included in SIPs. EPA provided further
guidance with respect to these statutory requirements in its 2013
infrastructure SIP guidance.\6\ In the 2013 guidance, EPA clarified
that provisions to implement section 128 need to be contained within
the SIP. Therefore, EPA will not approve an infrastructure SIP
submission that only provides a narrative description or references
existing state laws or requirements that are not approved into the SIP
in order to address section 128. EPA has also provided certain
interpretations of the statutory requirements of section 128 in its
actions on infrastructure SIP submissions from various states, based on
the facts and circumstances of those actions.\7\ In several actions,
EPA has approved state law requirements that closely track or mirror
the explicit statutory language of section 128.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy General Counsel, to
Regional Air Directors, Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of
Interest Requirements of Section 128 (March 2, 1978).
    \6\ ``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.
    \7\ Id., pp. 43-44.
    \8\ See, EPA proposed rule on Montana's SIP/infrastructure
requirements, 81 FR 4225, 4233, finalized at 81 FR 23180; and EPA's
approval of Georgia's infrastructure requirements, 77 FR 65125;
proposed at 77 FR 35909.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The legislative history of the 1977 amendments to the CAA also
indicates that states have some flexibility in determining the specific
requirements needed to meet the section 128 requirements, so long as
the statutory

requirements are met.\9\ Also, section 128 explicitly provides that
states may adopt any requirements respecting conflicts of interest for
such boards or bodies or heads of executive agencies, or any other
entities which are more stringent than the requirements of paragraphs
(1) and (2), and that the Administrator shall approve any such more
stringent requirements submitted as part of an implementation plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Specifically, the conference committee for the 1977
amendments stated that ``it is the responsibility of each state to
determine the specific requirements to meet the general requirements
of [section 128].'' H.R. Rep. 95-564 (1977), reprinted in
Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 526-527
(1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 23, 2017, Mississippi submitted for incorporation into its
SIP changes to Mississippi Code section 49-2-5. This provision
specifically addresses the Mississippi Commission on Environmental
Quality, which has CAA enforcement order approval authority. This
change adds a provision which provides that: ``At least a majority of
the members of the commission shall represent the public interest and
shall not derive any significant portion of their income from persons
subject to permits under the Federal Clean Air Act or enforcement order
under the Federal Clean Air Act. In the event of any potential conflict
of interest by a member of the commission, such member shall disclose
the potential conflict to the other members of the commission and shall
recuse himself or herself from participating in or voting on any matter
related to such conflict of interest.'' EPA notes that this provision
addresses certain section 128 requirements for which Mississippi's SIP
has already received full approval; namely the representation of the
public interest requirement of section 128(a)(1) and the conflict of
interest disclosure requirements of section 128(a)(2). As explained
below, EPA believes these additional provisions are approvable as well.
    On February 2, 2018, MDEQ submitted for incorporation into the SIP
provisions that address section 128(a)(1) for the MDEQ Permit Board.
First, the submissions requests incorporation of a new provision in
Appendix C-26, ``Air Emissions Regulations for the Prevention,
Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants'' Title 11, Part 2, Chapter
1, Rule 1.1, which provides that ``the Mississippi Environmental
Quality Permit Board (``Permit Board'') shall ensure that at least a
majority of the members of the Permit Board shall represent the public
interest and shall not derive any significant portion of their income
from persons subject to permits under the Federal Clean Air Act or
enforcement orders under the Federal Clean Air Act.''
    Second, the submission requests incorporation of revisions to the
MDEQ Permit Board procedural rules at Appendix A-13, ``Regulations
Regarding Administrative Procedures Pursuant to the Mississippi
Administrative Procedures Act'', Title 11, Part 1 Chapter 5, Rule 5.1.
This rule describes the composition of the MDEQ Permit Board as seven
members who serve by virtue of Mississippi State Office as ``Ex Officio
Members,'' (e.g., Chief of the Bureau of Environmental Health of the
State Board of Health). Each Ex Officio Member is allowed to designate
a replacement. Two Board members are appointed by the Governor of
Mississippi and are required to be a retired professional engineer
knowledgeable in the engineering of water wells and a retired water
well contractor, respectively, but these members only vote on matters
pertaining to the Office of Land and Water Resources. Administrative
Procedures Act Rules, Title 11, Part 1 Chapter 5, Rule 5.1 provides
that ``at least the majority of the Ex Officio Members of the MDEQ
Permit Board shall represent the public interest and shall not derive
any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits
under the Federal Clean Air Act or enforcement orders under the Federal
Clean Air Act (CAA).'' It also provides for annual certification as to
whether the member derives a significant portion of income from persons
subject to permits or enforcement orders under the CAA and a process
for replacing members as needed to ensure that a majority does derive a
significant portion of income from regulated entities.
    EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's June 23, 2017, and
February 2, 2018, draft SIP submissions as meeting the public interest
and significant portion of income requirements of section 128 because
we believe these provisions comply with the statutory requirements and
are consistent with EPA's guidance. The State has submitted a statutory
provision for incorporation into the Mississippi SIP for the
Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality and this provision
mirrors section 128(a)(1) regarding the majority composition public
interest and significant income requirements. As noted above, EPA has
determined that state requirements that closely track or mirror the
section 128 requirements satisfy CAA requirements. The provision also
requires disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and recusal if
such a conflict exists. EPA previously incorporated Mississippi Code
Section 25-4-27 into Mississippi's SIP, which required the Commission
and Board members to file annual statements of economic interests with
the Mississippi Ethics Commission, and 25-4-27, which prescribed the
contents for economic interest statements. See 78 FR 20793. In this
previous approval action, EPA found that the state satisfied the
disclosure requirements of section 128(a)(2). EPA views this additional
disclosure requirement, which mirrors the language of section
128(a)(2), as approvable. Regarding recusal when a conflict exists, EPA
notes that this step is not required under section 128. As section 128
explicitly provides that EPA ``shall approve . . . more stringent
requirements submitted as part of an implementation plan,'' and EPA
views the recusal requirement as more stringent than the section 128
requirements, EPA is proposing to approve this provision.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See EPA's proposed rule on a Montana SIP revision to
address section 128 and infrastructure SIP requirements for a
discussion on EPA's approach to this type of recusal requirement. 81
FR 4225, 4233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the MDEQ Permit Board, the state submitted regulations at Title
11, Part 1 Chapter 5, Rule 5.1 and Title 11, Part 2, Chapter 1, Rule
1.1 for incorporation into the SIP, which again mirrors section
128(a)(1) regarding the public interest and significant income
requirements and therefore satisfy CAA section 128. In Title 11, Part 1
Chapter 5, Rule 5.1, Mississippi is also including certain procedural
provisions that address implementation of the significant income
requirement of section 128(a)(1) and provisions that describe the
composition of the MDEQ Permit Board. EPA believes these provisions are
not inconsistent with the section 128 requirements and associated
guidance and are therefore approvable.
    With the incorporation of these specific statutory and regulatory
provisions to comply with the relevant CAA requirements into the SIP,
EPA believes that Mississippi will meet all the requirements of section
128 of the CAA.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Mississippi addressed the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)?

    Mississippi also requested in the draft SIP submissions that EPA
convert the previous partial disapproval of its infrastructure SIPs
with regard to the significant portion of income board requirements to
full approvals. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA requires

states to have SIP provisions that comply with the requirements of CAA
section 128. Because EPA is proposing to approve provisions into
Mississippi's SIP to meet the significant portion of income
requirements of section 128(a)(1) as discussed above, it is also
proposing to fully approve the SIP submission with respect to the
related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the NAAQS
previously mentioned. EPA notes that section 128 is not NAAQS-specific,
and thus once a state has met the requirements of section 128 it will
continue to do so for purposes of future NAAQS, unless there were
future changes to the approved SIP provisions which would require
further evaluation.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this notice, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Mississippi Code section 49-2-5 to include certain section
128 requirements for the MDEQ Commission on Environmental Quality; and
Appendix C-26, ``Air Emissions Regulations for the Prevention,
Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants'' Title 11, Part 2, Chapter
1, Rule 1.1, and Appendix A-13, ``Regulations Regarding Administrative
Procedures Pursuant to the Mississippi Administrative Procedures Act'',
Title 11, Part 1 Chapter 5, Rule 5.1 to incorporate certain section 128
requirements for the MDEQ Permit Board. EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

VI. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to approve that the
Mississippi SIP meets the significant portion of income requirements of
128(a)(1) of the CAA. EPA is also proposing to conclude that, if
Mississippi's June 23, 2017, and February 2, 2018, SIP revisions are
approved, the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements are met for the
2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2,
and 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5, NAAQS for section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). Consequently, if EPA finalizes approval of this
action, the deficiencies identified in the previous partial
disapprovals of Mississippi infrastructure SIP submissions related to
the state board requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2008 Lead, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 1997, 2006 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS will be cured. Finally, EPA is proposing to
approve the new supplemental provisions regarding representation of the
public interest of section 128(a)(1) for the MDEQ Permit Board and
Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality, and disclosure of
potential conflicts of interest of section 128(a)(2) for the
Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality.

VII. 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. This action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 15, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-06544 Filed 3-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62556-62557]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21719]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0321]

Denial of Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of denial.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from nine
individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) prohibiting persons with a clinical
diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a
loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On March 9, 2016, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 31 individuals requesting an exemption from the
prohibition against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or
any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or
any loss of ability to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and
requested comments from the public (81 FR 12553). The public comment
period closed on April 8, 2016, and three comments were received, all
in support of granting seizure exemptions.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
concluded that granting nine of the 31 exemptions would not provide a
level of safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level
of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49
CFR 391.41(b)(8). A final notice announcing a decision on the remaining
22 requests will be published at a later date.

III. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal epilepsy standard for a renewable two-year period if
it finds ``such exemption is likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.''
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s) and
medical information about the applicant's seizure history, the length
of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure, the
stability of each individual's treatment regimen and the duration of
time on or off of anti-seizure medication. The Agency considered the
2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP). The
January 15, 2013 Federal Register notice (78 FR 3069) provides the
current MEP recommendations which is the criteria the Agency uses to
make decisions regarding seizure exemptions.

IV. Conclusion

    The Agency has determined that these nine applicants do not satisfy
the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions for a Federal
exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety
that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). Therefore, the applicants in this notice have been denied
an exemption from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8).
    Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of
final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision
letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitutes final
action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent
denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically
publishing names and reasons for denial. The following drivers were
listed previously in Federal Register

Notice FMCSA-2015-0321 published on March 9, 2016:
    George J. Conte--Mr. Conte has a history of epilepsy. His last
seizure was in 2014. He takes anti-seizure medication. He does not meet
the MEP guidelines at this time.
    Dean W. Drury--Mr. Drury has a history of seizure following surgery
in February 2015. He currently takes anti-seizure medication. He does
not meet the MEP guidelines at this time.
    Ronald Alan Nagy, Jr--Mr. Nagy underwent a craniotomy for resection
of an astrocytoma in June 2015. He takes anti-seizure medication. He
does not meet the MEP guidelines at this time.
    Nicholas Ramirez--Mr. Ramirez has a history of a seizure disorder.
His last seizure was in 2010. He takes anti-seizure medication. He does
not meet the MEP guidelines at this time.
    Tory J. Shuler--Mr. Shuler has a history of seizure. His last
seizure was in 2012. He takes anti-seizure medication. He does not meet
the MEP guidelines at this time.
    Randall T. Slavik--Mr. Slavik has a history of a single seizure in
2015. He takes anti-seizure medication. He not meet the MEP guidelines
at this time.
    Michael Spinelli, IV--Mr. Spinelli has a history of seizure. His
last seizure was in 2015. He takes anti-seizure medication. He does not
meet the MEP guidelines at this time.
    Daisy Tapia--Ms. Tapia has a history of a single seizure in 2012
followed by a resection of a benign meningioma. She takes anti-seizure
medication. She does not meet the MEP guidelines at this time.
    Paul Richard Trombley--Mr. Trombley has a history of a seizure
disorder. His last seizure was in 2014. He takes anti-seizure
medication. He does not meet the MEP guidelines at this time.

    Issued on: August 26, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-21719 Filed 9-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P