[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15205-15210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06062]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0798; FRL-9943-88-Region 4]


Air Plan Disapprovals; MS; Prong 4-2008 Ozone, 2010 
NO2, SO2, and 2012 PM2.5

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
disapprove the visibility transport (prong 4) portions of revisions to 
the Mississippi State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the 
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), addressing the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 
8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 1-
hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2012 annual Fine Particulate 
Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for 
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS 
promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP.'' 
Specifically, EPA is proposing to disapprove the prong 4 portions of 
Mississippi's May 29, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP 
submission; July 26, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP 
resubmission; February 28, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 
infrastructure SIP submission; June 20, 2013, 2010 1-hour 
SO2 infrastructure SIP submission; and December 8, 2015, 
2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission. All other 
applicable infrastructure requirements for these SIP submissions have 
been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0798 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: Sean Lakeman of 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. Mr. Lakeman can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9043 
or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised 
NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for 
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. 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 of the newly established 
or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the 
procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 
110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the 
infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or 
revised NAAQS. 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 
implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits 
the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct 
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed 
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit 
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit 
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required 
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state 
(prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in 
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to 
include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the 
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the prong 4 
portions of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 
8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, 
and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. All other applicable 
infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or 
will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding 
the NAAQS relevant to today's proposal is provided below. For 
comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal 
Register notices cited in the following subsections.

a. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 
parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were 
required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the

[[Page 15206]]

2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. For the 
2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, today's proposed action only addresses the 
prong 4 element of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submissions 
received on May 29, 2012, and July 26, 2012. EPA took action on the 
remainder of Mississippi's May 29, 2012, SIP submission, and July 26, 
2012, SIP resubmission in separate rulemakings. See 80 FR 11131 (March 
2, 2015); 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015); 80 FR 48355 (August 12, 2015).

b. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS

    On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for 
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion, based on a 3-year 
average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour 
daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States 
were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. For 
the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, today's proposed action only 
addresses the prong 4 element of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP 
submission received on February 28, 2013. EPA will take action on the 
remainder of Mississippi's February 28, 2013, SIP submission through a 
separate rulemaking.

c. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an 
hourly standard of 75 parts per billion based on a 3-year average of 
the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 
75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. For the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS, today's proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of 
Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission received on June 20, 2013. 
EPA will take action on the remainder of Mississippi's June 20, 2013, 
SIP submission through a separate rulemaking.

d. 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual 
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). 
See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). An area will meet 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. For the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, today's 
proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of Mississippi's 
infrastructure SIP submission received on December 8, 2015. EPA will 
take action on the remainder of Mississippi's December 8, 2015 SIP 
submission through a separate rulemaking.

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

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type 
arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 
must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as 
the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national 
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and 
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly 
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the 
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's 
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``each such 
plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the 
purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as 
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure 
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this 
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to 
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment 
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the 
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA, 
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to address the 
visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and 
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address 
the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more 
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list 
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required 
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program 
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes 
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, 
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, 
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP 
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states 
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority 
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C) 
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address 
certain sources as required by part C of Title I of the CAA; and 
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority 
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements 
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or 
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) 
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of 
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal 
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a 
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the 
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\ 
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and 
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address 
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) 
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for 
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation 
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two 
years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be 
promulgated.\3\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all 
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, 
EPA must determine

[[Page 15207]]

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular 
infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions 
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; 
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) 
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is 
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific 
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in 
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., 
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of 
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific 
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of 
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with 
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all 
of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and 
whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. 
Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet 
these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make 
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP 
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP 
submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect 
to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined 
action.\4\ Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action 
on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP 
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire 
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different 
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure 
SIP submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State 
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR 
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural 
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately 
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), 
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for 
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013) 
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the 
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP 
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for 
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On 
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA 
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 
2007 submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with 
respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different 
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) 
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for 
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP 
submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, 
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its 
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) 
could be very different for different pollutants, because the content 
and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this 
element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a 
minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure 
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required 
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA 
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. 
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions 
required by part D to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of section 
110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission 
limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air 
agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that 
attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to 
meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD 
program required in part C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not 
apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and 
thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example 
illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of 
section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language 
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP 
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have 
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, 
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same 
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews 
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that 
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make 
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some 
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and 
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\7\ EPA 
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 
2013 (2013 Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document to provide states 
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised 
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make 
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP 
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of 
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure 
SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also discusses the substantively 
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 
110(a)(2). EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that 
infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need 
not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP 
submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of 
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to 
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the 
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether 
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``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.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make 
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to 
address Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the DC Circuit 
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had 
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light 
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to 
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding 
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a 
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of 
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this 
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, 
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or

[[Page 15208]]

enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. 
Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the 
state's SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's 
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can 
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, 
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or 
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are 
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). 
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements 
of Section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of 
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions 
with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), 
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program 
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural 
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD 
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including 
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program 
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under 
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an 
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of 
complete permit applications with respect to the PM2.5 
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of 
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure 
SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a 
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the 
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a 
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the 
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether 
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the 
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA 
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every 
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in 
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and 
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an 
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the 
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in 
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions 
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and 
EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; \10\ (ii) existing 
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's 
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to 
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public 
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing 
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current 
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR 
Reform). Thus, EPA believes that it may approve an infrastructure SIP 
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for 
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission 
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\11\ It is important to 
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission 
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any 
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three 
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA's 
interpretation of the CAA with respect to the approvability of 
affirmative defense provisions in SIPs has changed. See ``State 
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; 
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; 
Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend 
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, 
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a 
result, EPA's 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no longer represents the 
EPA's view concerning the validity of affirmative defense 
provisions, in light of the requirements of section 113 and section 
304.
    \11\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a 
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a 
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption or affirmative defense for 
excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate 
that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA 
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to 
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a 
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it 
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring 
review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against 
all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of 
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements 
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory 
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded 
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP 
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA 
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation 
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with 
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the 
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP 
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need 
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and 
mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately 
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged 
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP 
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\12\ Section

[[Page 15209]]

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submissions.\13\ Significantly, EPA's 
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission 
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing 
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on 
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to 
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it 
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing 
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting 
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \13\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past 
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 
previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to 
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it 
had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 
FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004 
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) 
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \14\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the prong 4 requirements?

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's SIP to contain 
provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants 
in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to protect 
visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 
169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be 
satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately 
address any contribution of that state's sources to impacts on 
visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also 
states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such 
that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential 
for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant 
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
    The 2013 Guidance lays out two ways in which a state's 
infrastructure SIP may satisfy prong 4. The first way is through an air 
agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has 
an EPA-approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 
40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require 
that a state participating in a regional planning process include all 
measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction 
obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional 
haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's 
jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included 
in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze 
SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a 
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions 
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans 
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need 
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure 
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze 
reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Mississippi addressed prong 4?

    Mississippi's May 29, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; July 26, 
2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone resubmission; February 28, 2013, 2010, 
NO2 submission; and December 8, 2015, 2012 PM2.5 
submission each cite to the State's regional haze SIP as satisfying 
prong 4 requirements. The June 20, 2013, 2010 SO2 submission 
cites to the State's regional haze SIP and to EPA's February 20, 2013 
(78 FR 11805) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the prong 4 
element of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997 and 
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In that notice, EPA proposed to approve 
the prong 4 element on the basis that Mississippi's regional haze SIP, 
in combination with its SIP provisions to implement the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR), prevented sources from interfering with 
measures adopted by other states to protect visibility.
    In its regional haze SIP, Mississippi relied on CAIR to satisfy the 
best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for its CAIR-
subject electricity generating units (EGUs).\15\ Although this reliance 
on CAIR was consistent with the CAA at the time that the State 
submitted its regional haze SIP, CAIR has since been replaced by the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and can no longer be relied upon 
as a substitute for BART or as part of a long-term control strategy 
(LTS) for regional haze. Therefore, EPA finalized a limited disapproval 
of the Mississippi regional haze SIP to the extent that it relies on 
CAIR to satisfy BART and LTS requirements.\16\ See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 
2012). Because Mississippi's regional haze SIP is not fully approved, 
the State cannot rely on this plan alone to meet the prong 4 
requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-
hour SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, 
unlike CAIR, CSAPR does not cover SO2 emissions from EGUs in 
Mississippi and therefore cannot be relied upon to fully satisfy 
outstanding regional haze requirements for EGUs in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making 
reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural 
visibility conditions in Class I areas. Implementation plans must 
also give specific attention to certain stationary sources. 
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to 
revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, 
including a requirement that certain categories of existing major 
stationary sources 8 built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, 
and operate BART as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states 
are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-
eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to 
any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
    \16\ EPA finalized a limited approval of Mississippi's regional 
haze SIP on June 27, 2012. See 77 FR 38191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mississippi's reference to EPA's February 20, 2013, NPRM to approve 
the prong 4 element of the State's infrastructure SIP submissions for 
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is not relevant because the 
legal status of CAIR and CSAPR has changed since publication of that 
notice. In June 2012, EPA finalized the limited disapproval of the 
State's regional haze SIP, which relied on CAIR to satisfy affected 
EGUs' BART requirements. At that time, questions regarding the legality 
of CSAPR were pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The D.C. Circuit 
subsequently vacated and remanded CSAPR in August 2012, leaving CAIR in 
place temporarily.\17\ As of February 20, 2013, when EPA proposed 
approving the prong 4 element of the State's 1997 and 2006 
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA had not yet asked 
the United States Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit's decision 
on CSAPR. Based upon the

[[Page 15210]]

D.C. Circuit's direction to EPA to continue administering CAIR, the 
Agency believed that it was appropriate for states to rely on CAIR 
emission reductions for prong 4 purposes. EPA intended to allow this 
practice until a valid replacement for CAIR was developed and EPA acted 
on SIPs submitted in compliance with any new rule, or until the CSAPR 
litigation was resolved in a way that provided different direction 
regarding CAIR and CSAPR. After publication of the February 20, 2013, 
prong 4 proposal, EPA asked the Supreme Court to review the DC 
Circuit's decision and the Supreme Court reversed that ruling and 
upheld CSAPR.\18\ EPA began implementation of CSAPR, which replaced 
CAIR, on January 1, 2015. Therefore, because of this intervening change 
in the law, EPA cannot finalize its February 20, 2013, proposal to 
approve the prong 4 element that relies on CAIR, and Mississippi cannot 
rely on the outdated rationale contained in the NPRM regarding CAIR to 
satisfy prong 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. 
Cir. 2012).
    \18\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 
without a fully approved regional haze SIP by showing that its SIP 
contains adequate provisions to prevent emissions from within the state 
from interfering with other states' measures to protect visibility. 
Mississippi did not, however, provide a demonstration in any of the 
infrastructure SIP submissions subject to today's proposed action that 
emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other states' 
plans to protect visibility.
    As discussed above, Mississippi does not have a fully approved 
regional haze SIP that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 and has 
not otherwise shown that its SIP contains adequate provisions to 
prevent emissions from within the state from interfering with other 
states' measures to protect visibility. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
disapprove the prong 4 portions of Mississippi's May 29, 2012, 2008 8-
hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; July 26, 2012, 2008 8-hour 
Ozone infrastructure SIP resubmission; February 28, 2013, 2010 1-hour 
NO2 infrastructure SIP submission; June 20, 2013, 2010 1-
hour SO2 infrastructure SIP submission; and December 8, 
2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission. 
Mississippi did not submit these infrastructure SIPs to meet 
requirements for Part D or a SIP call; therefore, if EPA takes final 
action to disapprove the prong 4 portions of these submissions, no 
sanctions will be triggered. However, if EPA finalizes this proposed 
disapproval action, that final action will trigger the requirement 
under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later than two years 
from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the 
deficiency through a SIP revision and EPA approves the SIP revision 
before EPA promulgates such a FIP.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to disapprove the prong 4 
portions of Mississippi's May 29, 2012, 2008 Ozone infrastructure SIP 
submission; July 26, 2012, 2008 Ozone infrastructure SIP resubmission; 
February 28, 2013, 2010 NO2 infrastructure SIP submission; 
June 20, 2013, 2010 SO2 infrastructure SIP submission; and 
December 8, 2015, 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission. 
All other outstanding applicable infrastructure requirements for these 
SIP submissions will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. EPA is proposing to 
determine that the prong 4 portions of the aforementioned SIP 
submissions do not meet Federal requirements. Therefore, this proposed 
action does not impose additional requirements on the state beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does 
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 8, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-06062 Filed 3-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P