81 FR 67171 - Air Plan Approval; Mississippi; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 190 (September 30, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 190 (September 30, 2016)
| Page Range | 67171-67179 | |
| FR Document | 2016-23598 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 67171-67179] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [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 [[Page 67172]] ``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 protected] or via telephone at (404) 562-9031. 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.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-04/pdf/2015-04377.pdf and West Virginia (79 FR 62022, October 16, 2014) at https://www.thefederalregister.org/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 [[Page 67173]] 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 [[Page 67174]] 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 [[Page 67175]] 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 [[Page 67176]] 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 [[Page 67177]] 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. [[Page 67178]] 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 SO 2 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 [[Page 67179]] 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
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67171
desiring to enter into or passage through request access to EPS and open an Enterprise PO Boxes Online (EPOBOL)
the safety zone must request permission Enterprise Payment Account (EPA) to system. The EPA with automatic yearly
from the COTP or a designated pay for their products and services. EPA renewal (at twice the semi-annual fee) is
representative. If permission is granted, requires that the customers fund the the required payment method for
all persons and vessels shall comply account via Electronic Funds Transfer— EPOBOL customers.
with the instructions of the COTP or either Automated Clearing House (ACH) * * * * *
designated representative. Debit or ACH Credit.
This notice of enforcement is issued The first feature of EPS will allow 5.0 Caller Service
under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and business customers to open, close, and * * * * *
5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this pay for their PO Boxes and Caller
notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Service numbers (including reserved 5.5 Basis of Fees and Payment
Guard will provide the maritime numbers) online using the new * * * * *
community with advance notification of Enterprise PO Boxes Online (EPOBOL).
this enforcement period via Local EPS customers are required to have an 5.5.5 Payment
Notice to Mariners and updates via EPA to pay for EPOBOL service. Future [Add text at the end of 5.5.5 as follows:]
Marine Information Broadcasts. phases of EPS will provide commercial
* * * Registered customers may also
customers functionality to pay for
L. McClain, Jr., pay the fee online using an Enterprise
additional services.
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of Payment Account (EPA). The EPA with
the Port Pittsburgh. List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 automatic yearly renewal (at twice the
[FR Doc. 2016–23635 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am] Administrative practice and semi-annual fee) is the required
BILLING CODE P procedure, Postal Service. payment method for EPOBOL
The Postal Service adopts the customers.
following changes to Mailing Standards * * * * *
POSTAL SERVICE of the United States Postal Service, We will publish an appropriate
Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect
39 CFR Part 111 incorporated by reference in the Code of these changes.
Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. Stanley F. Mires,
Enterprise Payment System and Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is
Enterprise PO Boxes Online Attorney, Federal Compliance.
amended as follows:
[FR Doc. 2016–22517 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am]
AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.
PART 111—[AMENDED] BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Postal Service is revising ■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR
Mailing Standards of the United States part 111 continues to read as follows: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301– AGENCY
(DMM®) to provide an enhanced 307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101,
method for commercial customers to 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201– 40 CFR Part 52
3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632,
pay for and manage their services online 3633, and 5001. [EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0155; FRL–9953–35–
using a single account. Region 4]
DATES: Effective Date: September 30, ■2. Revise the Mailing Standards of the
2016. United States Postal Service, Domestic Air Plan Approval; Mississippi;
Mail Manual (DMM) as follows: Infrastructure Requirements for the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mailing Standards of the United States 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient
Ingrid Molinary at (202) 268–4138, or
Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual Air Quality Standard
Jacqueline Erwin at (202) 268–2158.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Postal (DMM) AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Service published an interim final rule * * * * * Agency (EPA).
(81 FR 48711) on July 26, 2016, to ACTION: Final rule.
enhance online payment options for 500 Additional Mailing Services
commercial customers, with a comment * * * * * SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
period which ended August 26, 2016. Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
508 Recipient Services approve, in part, and disapprove in part,
The Postal Service did not receive any
customer comments. * * * * * the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
The U.S. Postal Service is upgrading submission, submitted by the State of
4.0 Post Office Box Service
its payment architecture for business Mississippi, through the Mississippi
customers. The new Enterprise Payment * * * * * Department of Environmental Quality
System (EPS) will replace the current 4.4 Basis of Fees and Payment (MDEQ), on June 20, 2013, for inclusion
product-centric payment system with a into the Mississippi SIP. This final
centralized account management system * * * * * action pertains to the infrastructure
enabling commercial customers to pay 4.4.3 Payment requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
for and manage their services online or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur
using a single account. [Revise third sentence and add e to text dioxide (SO2) national ambient air
EPS has been designed to be part of in 4.4.3 as follows:] quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA
USPS products and services offered * * * Customers may pay the fee requires that each state adopt and
through the existing Business Customer using one of the following methods: submit a SIP for the implementation,
Gateway (BCG) portal. Commercial * * * e. Online using an Enterprise maintenance and enforcement of each
customers who want to use EPS will Payment Account (EPA) when business NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is
need to be a registered BCG user, customers are registered at the commonly referred to as an
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM 30SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_67361/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67173
measures already in place to address the infrastructure SIPs sufficient to ensure Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666
pollutant at issue or any new control the implementation, maintenance, and F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (‘‘[t]he
measures that the state may elect to attainment of each NAAQS in all areas Clean Air Act directs states to develop
impose as part of such SIP submission. of the State.’’ implementation plans—SIPs—that
As EPA stated in ‘‘Guidance on Response 2: As provided in the ‘assure’ attainment and maintenance of
Infrastructure State Implementation previous response, the CAA, as enacted [NAAQS] through enforceable emissions
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act in 1970, including its legislative history, limitations’’); Mich. Dept. of Envtl.
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ dated cannot be interpreted in isolation from Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th
September 13, 2013, (Infrastructure SIP the later amendments that refined that Cir. 2000) (‘‘EPA’s deference to a state
Guidance), ‘‘[t]he conceptual purpose of structure and deleted relevant language is conditioned on the state’s submission
an infrastructure SIP submission is to from section 110 concerning attainment. of a plan ‘which satisfies the standards
assure that the air agency’s SIP contains In any event, the two excerpts of of § 110(a)(2)’ and which includes
the necessary structural requirements legislative history the Commenter cites emission limitations that result in
for the new or revised NAAQS, whether merely provide that states should compliance with the NAAQS’’; and Hall
by establishing that the SIP already include enforceable emission limits in v. EPA 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) for
contains the necessary provisions, by their SIPs and they do not mention or the proposition that EPA may not
making a substantive SIP revision to otherwise address whether states are approve a SIP revision that does not
update the SIP, or both. Overall, the required to impose additional emission demonstrate how the rules would not
infrastructure SIP submission process limitations or control measures as part interfere with attainment and
provides an opportunity . . . to review of the infrastructure SIP submission, as maintenance of the NAAQS.
the basic structural requirements of the opposed to requirements for other types Response 3: None of the cases the
air agency’s air quality management of SIP submissions such as attainment Commenter cites support the
program in light of each new or revised plans required under section Commenter’s contention that it is clear
NAAQS.’’ Infrastructure SIP Guidance 110(a)(2)(I). As provided in Response 1, that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
at pp. 1–2. Mississippi appropriately the proposed rule explains why the SIP infrastructure SIP submissions to
demonstrated that its SIP has SO2 includes sufficient enforceable include detailed plans providing for
emissions limitations and the emissions limitations for purposes of attainment and maintenance of the
‘‘structural requirements’’ to implement the infrastructure SIP submission. NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in its they shed light on how EPA may
3. Case Law
infrastructure SIP submission. reasonably interpret section
The Commenter makes general Comment 3: The Commenter also 110(a)(2)(A). With the exception of
allegations that Mississippi does not discusses several court decisions Train, none of the cases the Commenter
have sufficient protective measures to concerning the CAA, which the cites specifically concerned the
prevent SO2 NAAQS exceedances. EPA Commenter claims support its interpretation of CAA section
addressed the adequacy of Mississippi’s contention that courts have been clear 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of
infrastructure SIP for 110(a)(2)(A) that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires the pre-1990 Act). Rather, the other
purposes in the proposed rule and enforceable emissions limits in courts referenced section 110(a)(2)(A)
explained why the SIP includes infrastructure SIP submissions to (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990
enforceable emission limitations and prevent violations of the NAAQS. The CAA) in the background section of
other control measures that aid in Commenter first cites to language in decisions involving challenges to EPA
maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), actions on revisions to SIPs that were
NAAQS throughout the State. These addressing the requirement for required and approved under other
include State regulations which ‘‘emission limitations’’ and stating that provisions of the CAA or in the context
collectively establish enforceable emission limitations ‘‘are the specific of an enforcement action.
emissions limitations and other control rules to which operators of pollution In Train, 421 U.S. 60, the Court was
measures, means or techniques for sources are subject, and which if addressing a state revision to an
activities that contribute to SO2 enforced should result in ambient air attainment plan submission made
concentrations in the ambient air, and which meets the national standards.’’ pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the
provide authority for MDEQ to establish The Commenter also cites to primary statutory provision at that time
such limits and measures as well as Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources addressing such submissions. The issue
schedules for compliance through SIP- v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) in that case was whether changes to
approved permits to meet the applicable for the proposition that the CAA directs requirements that would occur before
requirements of the CAA. See 81 FR EPA to withhold approval of a SIP attainment was required were variances
7259. As discussed in this rulemaking, where it does not ensure maintenance of that should be addressed pursuant to
EPA finds these provisions adequately the NAAQS, and to Mision Industrial, the provision governing SIP revisions or
address section 110(a)(2)(A) to aid in Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. were ‘‘postponements’’ that must be
attaining and/or maintaining the 2010 1- 1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) addressed under section 110(f) of the
hour SO2 NAAQS and finds Mississippi of the CAA of 1970. The Commenter CAA of 1970, which contained
demonstrated that it has the necessary contends that the 1990 Amendments do prescriptive criteria. The Court
tools to implement and enforce the 2010 not alter how courts have interpreted concluded that EPA reasonably
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. the requirements of section 110, quoting interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. a state’s choice of the mix of control
2. The Legislative History of the CAA EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in measures needed to attain the NAAQS,
Comment 2: The Commenter cites two turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the so long as the state met other applicable
excerpts from the legislative history of CAA and also stated that ‘‘SIPs must requirements of the CAA, and that
the 1970 CAA and claims that the include certain measures Congress revisions to SIPs that would not impact
‘‘legislative history of infrastructure specified’’ to ensure attainment of the attainment of the NAAQS by the
SIPs provides that states must include NAAQS. The Commenter also quotes attainment date were not subject to the
enforceable emission limits in their several additional opinions in this vein. limits of section 110(f). Thus the issue
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM 30SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_67361/page/3.svg)
![67174 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
was not whether the specific SIP at suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl. maintain the NAAQS. These regulatory
issue needs to provide for attainment or Conservation, 540 U.S. 461, stands for requirements apply when states are
whether emissions limits are needed as the proposition that the 1990 CAA developing ‘‘control strategy’’ SIPs
part of the SIP; rather the issue was Amendments do not alter how courts under other provisions of the CAA, such
which statutory provision governed interpret section 110. This claim is as attainment plans required for the
when the state wanted to revise the inaccurate. Rather, the Court quoted various NAAQS in Part D and
emission limits in its SIP if such section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as noted maintenance plans required in section
revision would not impact attainment or previously, differs from the pre-1990 175A. The Commenter’s suggestion that
maintenance of the NAAQS. version of that provision and the court 40 CFR 51.112 must apply to all SIP
The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of makes no mention of the changed submissions required by section 110
Envtl. Resources was also decided based language. Furthermore, the Commenter based on the preamble to EPA’s action
on a pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At also quotes the Court’s statement that ‘‘restructuring and consolidating’’
issue was whether EPA properly ‘‘SIPs must include certain measures provisions in part 51, is also incorrect.3
rejected a revision to an approved SIP Congress specified,’’ but that statement EPA’s action in 1986 was not to
where the inventories relied on by the specifically referenced the requirement establish new substantive planning
state for the updated submission had in section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires requirements, but rather was meant
gaps. The Court quoted section an enforcement program and a program merely to consolidate and restructure
110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in for the regulation of the modification provisions that had previously been
support of EPA’s disapproval, but did and construction of new sources. promulgated.
not provide any interpretation of that Notably, at issue in that case was the Although EPA was explicit that it was
provision. This decision did not address State’s ‘‘new source’’ permitting not establishing requirements
the question at issue in this action, i.e., program, not what is required for interpreting the provisions of new ‘‘Part
what a state must include in an purposes of an infrastructure SIP D’’ of the CAA, it is clear that the
infrastructure SIP submission for submission for purposes of section regulations being restructured and
purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). Yet, 110(a)(2)(A). consolidated were intended to address
even if the Court had interpreted that EPA does not believe any of these control strategy plans. In the preamble,
provision, EPA notes that it was court decisions addressed required EPA clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112
modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this measures for infrastructure SIPs and was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (‘‘Control
decision has little bearing on the issue believes nothing in the opinions strategy: SOX and PM (portion)’’), 51.14
here. addressed whether infrastructure SIP (‘‘Control strategy: CO, HC, OX and NO2
At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 submissions must contain emission (portion)’’), 51.80 (‘‘Demonstration of
F.2d 123, was the definition of limitations or measures to ensure attainment: Pb (portion)’’), and 51.82
‘‘emissions limitation’’ not whether attainment and maintenance of the (‘‘Air quality data (portion)’’). Id. at
section 110 requires the state to NAAQS. 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR
demonstrate how all areas of the state 51.112 contains consolidated provisions
will attain and maintain the NAAQS as 4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR
that are focused on control strategy SIPs,
part of their infrastructure SIPs. The 51.112(a)
and the infrastructure SIP is not such a
language from the opinion the Comment 4: The Commenter cites to plan.
Commenter quotes does not interpret 40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that ‘‘Each
but rather merely describes section plan must demonstrate that the 5. EPA Interpretations in Other
110(a)(2)(A). The Commenter does not measures, rules, and regulations Rulemakings
cite to this case to assert that the contained in it are adequate to provide Comment 5: The Commenter also
measures relied on by the state in the for the timely attainment and references a 2006 partial approval and
infrastructure SIP are not ‘‘emissions maintenance of the national standard partial disapproval of revisions to
limitations’’ and the decision in this that it implements.’’ The Commenter Missouri’s existing plan addressing the
case has no bearing here. In Mont. relies on a statement in the preamble to SO2 NAAQS and claims it was an action
Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, the 1986 action restructuring and in which EPA relied on section
the Court was reviewing a Federal consolidating provisions in part 51, in 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject
implementation plan (FIP) that EPA which EPA stated that ‘‘[i]t is beyond an infrastructure SIP. Specifically, the
promulgated after a long history of the the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address Commenter asserts that in that action,
State failing to submit an adequate SIP the provisions of Part D of the Act . . .’’ EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) as a basis
in response to EPA’s finding under 51 FR 40656. Thus, the Commenter for disapproving a revision to the State
section 110(k)(5) that the previously contends that ‘‘the provisions of 40 CFR plan on the basis that the State failed to
approved SIP was substantially 51.112 are not limited to nonattainment demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to
inadequate to attain or maintain the SIPs; the regulation instead applies to ensure attainment and maintenance of
NAAQS, which triggered the State’s Infrastructure SIPs, which are required the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an
duty to submit a new SIP to show how to attain and maintain the NAAQS in all emission limit and cited to 40 CFR
it would remedy that deficiency and areas of a state, including those not 51.112 as requiring that a plan
attain the NAAQS. The Court cited designated nonattainment.’’ demonstrates the rules in a SIP are
generally to sections 107 and Response 4: The Commenter’s adequate to attain the SO2 NAAQS.
110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its Response 5: EPA’s partial approval
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
proposition that SIPs should assure argument that infrastructure SIPs must and partial disapproval of revisions to
attainment and maintenance of NAAQS contain emission limits which ensure restrictions on emissions of sulfur
through emission limitations, but this attainment and maintenance of the
language was not part of the Court’s NAAQS is incorrect. It is clear on its 3 EPA noted that it had already issued guidance
holding in the case, which focused face that 40 CFR 51.112 directly applies addressing the new ‘‘Part D’’ attainment planning
obligations. Also, as to maintenance regulations,
instead on whether EPA’s finding of SIP to state SIP submissions for control EPA expressly stated that it was not making any
inadequacy and adoption of a remedial strategy SIPs, i.e., plans that are revisions other than to re-number those provisions.
FIP were lawful. The Commenter specifically required to attain and/or See 51 FR 40657.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM 30SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_67361/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67175
compounds for the Missouri SIP in 71 notes that this EPA guidance provides SIP submission merely because the SIP
FR 12623 specifically addressed that ‘‘ ‘any emissions limits based on does not contain enforceable SO2
Missouri’s attainment SIP submission— averaging periods longer than 1 hour emission limitations with 1-hour
not Missouri’s infrastructure SIP should be designed to have comparable averaging periods that apply at all times,
submission. It is clear from the final stringency to a 1-hour average limit at as this issue is not appropriate for
Missouri rule that EPA was not the critical emission value.’ ’’ resolution in this action.7 Therefore,
reviewing an initial infrastructure SIP The Commenter also cites to a because EPA finds Mississippi’s SO2
submission, but rather reviewing February 3, 2011, EPA Region 7 letter to infrastructure SIP approvable without
proposed SIP revisions that would make the Kansas Department of Health and the additional SO2 emission limitations
an already approved SIP designed to Environment regarding the need for 1- showing attainment of the NAAQS, EPA
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS hour SO2 emission limits in a finds the issue of appropriate averaging
less stringent. Therefore, EPA does not prevention of significant deterioration periods for such future limitations not
agree that the 2006 Missouri action (PSD) permit, an EPA Environmental relevant at this time.
referenced by the Commenter Appeals Board decision rejecting use of Further, the Commenter’s citation to a
establishes how EPA reviews a 3-hour averaging time for a SO2 limit prior EPA discussion on emission
infrastructure SIP submissions for in a PSD permit, and EPA’s disapproval limitations required in PSD permits
purpose of section 110(a)(2)(A). of a Missouri SIP which relied on (from EPA’s Environmental Appeals
As discussed in the proposed rule, annual averaging for SO2 emission rates Board decision and EPA’s letter to
EPA finds that the Mississippi 2010 1- and claims EPA has stated that 1-hour Kansas’ permitting authority) pursuant
hour SO2 infrastructure SIP meets the averaging times are necessary for the to part C of the CAA is neither relevant
appropriate and relevant structural 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.5 The nor applicable to infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the Commenter states, ‘‘Therefore, in order submissions under CAA section 110. In
CAA that will aid in attaining and/or to ensure that Mississippi’s addition, and as previously discussed,
maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 Infrastructure SIP actually implements the EPA disapproval of the 2006
NAAQS and that the State demonstrated the SO2 NAAQS in every area of the Missouri SIP was a disapproval relating
that it has the necessary tools to state, the I–SIP must contain enforceable to an attainment plan SIP submission
implement and enforce the 2010 1-hour emission limits with one-hour averaging required pursuant to part D attainment
SO2 NAAQS.4 times, monitored continuously, for large planning and is likewise not relevant to
sources of SO2.’’ The Commenter asserts the analysis of infrastructure SIP
B. Comments on Mississippi SIP SO2 requirements.
that EPA must disapprove Mississippi’s
Emission Limits Comment 7: Citing to section 110(a)(1)
infrastructure SIP because it fails to
Comment 6: The Commenter asserts require emission limits with adequate and (a)(2)(A) of the CAA, the
that EPA may not approve the averaging times. Commenter contends that EPA may not
Mississippi proposed SO2 infrastructure Response 6: As explained in detail in approve Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP
SIP because it fails to include previous responses, the purpose of the because it does not include enforceable
enforceable emission limitations with a infrastructure SIP is to ensure that a 1-hour emission limits for sources that
1-hour averaging time that applies at all state has the structural capability to the Commenter claims are currently
times. The Commenter cites to CAA implement and enforce the NAAQS and contributing to NAAQS exceedances.
section 302(k) which requires that thus, additional SO2 emission The Commenter asserts that emission
emission limits must limit the quantity, limitations to ensure attainment and limits are especially important for
rate or concentration of emissions and maintenance of the NAAQS are not meeting the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS because
must apply on a continuous basis. The required for such infrastructure SIPs.6 SO2 impacts are strongly source
Commenter states that ‘‘[e]nforceable EPA disagrees that it must disapprove oriented. The Commenter states that
emission limitations contained in the I– the proposed Mississippi infrastructure ‘‘[d]espite the large contribution from
SIP must, therefore, be accompanied by coal-fired EGUs [electricity generating
proper averaging times; otherwise an 5 The Commenter cited to In re: Mississippi Lime units] to the State’s SO2 pollution,
appropriate numerical emission limit Co., PSD APPEAL 11–01, 2011 WL 3557194, at Mississippi’s I–SIP lacks enforceable
could allow for peaks that exceed the *26–27 (EPA Aug. 9, 2011) and 71 FR 12623, 12624 emissions limitations applicable to its
(March 13, 2006) (EPA disapproval of a control coal-fired EGUs sufficient to ensure the
NAAQS and yet still be permitted since strategy SO2 SIP).
they would be averaged with lower 6 For a discussion on emission averaging times for
implementation, attainment, and
emissions at other times.’’ The emissions limitations for SO2 attainment SIPs, see maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.’’
Commenter also cites to recommended the April 23, 2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 The Commenter refers to air dispersion
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions. As noted by modeling it conducted for one power
averaging times in EPA guidance the Commenter, EPA explained that it is possible,
providing that SIP emissions limits, plant in Mississippi, the R.D. Morrow
in specific cases, for states to develop control
‘‘should not exceed the averaging time strategies that account for variability in 1-hour Power Plant. Further, the Commenter
of the applicable NAAQS that the limit emissions rates through emission limits with cites two court cases to support its
is intended to help attain.’’ EPA
averaging times that are longer than 1-hour, using statement that ‘‘. . . an agency may not
averaging times as long as 30-days, but still provide ignore information put in front of it’’
Memorandum of April 23, 2014, to for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as long as
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions the limits are of at least comparable stringency to and that thus, the Commenter contends
1–10, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS a 1-hour limit at the critical emission value. EPA that EPA must consider its expert air
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, at
has not taken final action to approve any specific dispersion modeling ‘‘which
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
submission of such a limit that a state has relied demonstrates the inadequacy of
22, available at https://www.epa.gov/ upon to demonstrate NAAQS attainment, and
sites/production/files/2016-06/ Mississippi has not submitted such a limit for that Mississippi’s rules and regulations for
documents/20140423guidance_ purpose here, so it is premature at this time to
evaluate whether any emission limit in 7 There are currently no areas designated
nonattainment_sip.pdf. The Commenter Mississippi’s SIP is in accordance with the April nonattainment pursuant to CAA section 107 for the
23, 2014, guidance. If and when Mississippi 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Mississippi. EPA
4 EPA’s final action does not address CAA section submits an emission limitation that relies upon believes the appropriate time for examining the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because Mississippi has not made such a longer averaging time to demonstrate necessity of 1-hour SO2 emission limits on specific
a submission for these elements. NAAQS attainment, EPA will evaluate it then. sources is within the attainment planning process.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM 30SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_67361/page/5.svg)
![67176 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
SO2 emissions.’’ The Commenter performed by Trinity Consultants, 1- demonstration, which at this point is
summarizes its modeling results for the Hour SO2 NAAQS DESIGNATION unknown. While EPA has extensively
R.D. Morrow Power Plant claiming that MODELING REPORT, pp. 23 and 32, discussed the use of modeling for
the data predict exceedances of the available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/ attainment demonstration purposes and
standard. Thus, the Commenter production/files/2016-03/documents/ for designations,9 EPA has
contends that Mississippi’s ms-rec-att1-r2.pdf, and EPA’s August 3, recommended that such modeling was
infrastructure submission is 2015, SO2 Design Values file. not needed for the SO2 infrastructure
‘‘substantially inadequate to attain and Response 7: As stated previously, EPA SIPs for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
maintain the NAAQS which it believes that the proper inquiry is for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A),
implements, as evidenced by expert air whether Mississippi has met the basic, which are not actions in which EPA
dispersion modeling demonstrating that structural SIP requirements appropriate makes determinations regarding current
the emission limits under the laws and at the point in time EPA is acting upon air quality status. See April 12, 2012,
regulations cited to in the SO2 I–SIP the infrastructure submissions. letters to states and 2012 Draft White
Certification allow for exceedances of Emissions limitations and other control Paper.10
the NAAQS.’’ Thus, the Commenter measures, whether on coal-fired EGUs In conclusion, EPA disagrees with the
asserts that EPA must disapprove or other SO2 sources, that may be Commenter’s statements that EPA must
Mississippi’s SIP submission, and must needed to attain and maintain the disapprove Mississippi’s infrastructure
establish a FIP ‘‘which incorporates NAAQS in areas designated SIP submission because it does not
necessary and appropriate source- nonattainment for that NAAQS are due establish specific enforceable SO2
specific enforceable emission on a different schedule from the section emission limits, either on coal-fired
limitations (preferably informed by 110 infrastructure SIP submission. A EGUs or other large SO2 sources, in
modeling) on Plant Morrow, as well as state, like Mississippi, may reference order to demonstrate attainment and
any other major sources of SO2 pre-existing SIP emission limits or other maintenance with the 2010 1-hour SO2
pollution in the State which are not rules contained in part D plans for NAAQS at this time.
presently located in nonattainment previous NAAQS in an infrastructure Comment 8: The Commenter alleges
areas and have modeled exceedances of SIP submission for purposes of section that the SO2 infrastructure SIP submittal
the NAAQS.’’ Further, the Commenter 110(a)(2)(A). For example, Mississippi does not address sources significantly
states that ‘‘For Plant Morrow submitted a list of existing emission contributing to nonattainment or
enforceable emission limitations must reduction measures in the SIP that interfering with maintenance of the
be at least as stringent as the modeling- control emissions of SO2 as discussed 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in other states
based limits [provided by the above in response to a prior comment as required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Commenter] in order to protect the one- and discussed in the proposed of the CAA, and asserts EPA must
rulemaking on Mississippi’s SO2 therefore disapprove the infrastructure
hour SO2 NAAQS and implement,
infrastructure SIP. These provisions SIP and impose a FIP. The Commenter
maintain, and enforce the standard in
have the ability to reduce SO2 overall. states that ‘‘EPA must implement a FIP
Mississippi.’’
Although the Mississippi SIP relies on containing source-specific emission
The Commenter also asserts that measures and programs used to limitations and other measures to
Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP must implement previous SO2 NAAQS, these ensure that pollution from Mississippi
contain enforceable emission limits to provisions are not limited to reducing is not preventing other states from
avoid additional nonattainment SO2 levels to meet one specific NAAQS attaining or maintaining the NAAQS.’’
designations ‘‘where modeling (or and will continue to provide benefits for The Commenter notes that regardless of
monitoring) shows that SO2 levels the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. whether the Mississippi submitted a SIP
exceed the one-hour NAAQS.’’ The Regarding the air dispersion modeling revision to address CAA section
Commenter cites to EPA’s Next Steps for conducted by the Commenter pursuant 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the State ‘‘has long
Area Designations and Implementation to AERMOD and its comments on the since passed the June 2013 deadline to
of the Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient modeling submitted by Mississippi submit such provisions; rather than
Air Quality Standard 8 (February 6, pursuant to the section 107 designation await some potential future submission,
2013), and EPA’s Final SO2 NAAQS process for the R.D. Morrow Power Mississippi’s failure to satisfy its Good
Rule at 75 FR 35553. The Commenter Plant, EPA is not in this action making Neighbor obligations must be rectified
further contends that EPA’s proposal to a determination regarding the air quality now.’’ The Commenter explains that the
designate Lamar County, Mississippi, as status in the area where this facility is Supreme Court disapproved the view
attainment/unclassifiable is based on located, and is not evaluating whether that states cannot address section
modeling for Plant Morrow provided by emissions applicable to this facility are 110(a)(2)(D)(i) until EPA resolves issues
the State of Mississippi with two adequate to attain and maintain the related to CSAPR and that compliance
‘‘significant problems’’: (1) The NAAQS. Consequently, the EPA does with this provision is a ‘‘mandatory
modeling scenario using allowable not find the modeling information duty’’, citing to Homer City, 696 F.3d 7,
emissions was not included in relevant for review of an infrastructure 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev’d, No. 12–1182,
accordance with the EPA-approved SIP for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). slip op. at 27–28 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2014).
modeling protocol and (2) the When additional areas in Mississippi The Commenter also highlights from
background SO2 concentrations (14 are designated under the 2010 1-hour
parts per billion, or 36.65 micrograms SO2 NAAQS, and if any additional areas 9 See for example, EPA’s discussion of modeling
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
per cubic meter) from the Jackson in Mississippi are designated for characterizing air quality in the Agency’s August
21, 2015, final rule at 80 FR 51052 and for
Monitoring Station in Hinds County nonattainment in the future, any nonattainment planning in the April 23, 2014,
monitor were ‘‘erroneously relied on’’, potential future modeling submitted by Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
given that ‘‘EPA has determined the the State with designations or Submissions.
10 Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour
design values for the Hinds County attainment demonstrations would need
SO2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper for Discussion, May
monitors invalid.’’ For these two issues to account for any new emissions 2012 (2012 Draft White Paper) and a sample April
related to the modeling, the Commenter limitations Mississippi develops to 12, 2012, letter from EPA to states are available in
cites to the modeling from the State support such designation or the docket for this action.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM 30SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_67361/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67177
Order on Petition No. VI–2014–04 at 10 extent to which such plan meets the a required submission addressing the
(citing EPA v. EME Homer City requirements of the CAA. This authority element or the State has made such a
Generation, 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014)) to approve state SIP revisions in submission but it is incomplete, or EPA
that, ‘‘[T]he Supreme Court has affirmed separable parts was included in the disapproves a SIP submission
that the EPA is not required to provide 1990 Amendments to the CAA to addressing that element. Until either
any implementation guidance before overrule a decision in the Court of occurs, EPA does not have the
states’ interstate transport obligation can Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding obligation to issue a FIP pursuant to
be addressed.’’ that EPA could not approve individual section 110(c) with respect to the good
Response 8: This action does not measures in a plan submission without neighbor provision. Therefore, EPA
address whether sources in Mississippi either approving or disapproving the disagrees with the Commenter’s
are significantly contributing to plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101– contention that it must issue a FIP for
nonattainment or interfering with 228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, Mississippi to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 3408 (discussing the express overruling for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at this
NAAQS in another state as required by of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 time.
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA (the (9th Cir. 1987)).
good neighbor provision). Thus, EPA EPA interprets its authority under III. Final Action
disagrees with the Commenter’s section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, as With the exception of the interstate
statement that EPA must disapprove the affording EPA the discretion to approve, transport requirements of section
submitted 2010 1-hour SO2 or conditionally approve, individual 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2,
infrastructure SIP due to Mississippi’s elements of Mississippi’s infrastructure and 4) and the state board majority
failure to address section SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 requirements respecting significant
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In EPA’s rulemaking NAAQS, separate and apart from any portion of income of section
proposing to approve Mississippi’s action with respect to the requirements 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is taking final
infrastructure SIP for the 2010 1-hour of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA action to approve Mississippi’s
SO2 NAAQS, EPA clearly stated that it with respect to that NAAQS. EPA views infrastructure submission submitted on
was not taking any action with respect discrete infrastructure SIP requirements, June 20, 2013, for the 2010 1-hour SO2
to the good neighbor provision in such as the requirements of NAAQS for the above described
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Mississippi did 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from the infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is
not make a submission to address the other infrastructure elements and taking final action to approve
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interprets section 110(k)(3) as allowing Mississippi’s infrastructure SIP
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and it to act on individual severable submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2
thus there is no such submission upon measures in a plan submission. In short, NAAQS for the above described
which EPA proposed to take action on EPA believes that even if Mississippi infrastructure SIP requirements because
under section 110(k) of the CAA. had made a SIP submission for section the submission is consistent with
Similarly, EPA disagrees with the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 section 110 of the CAA.
Commenter’s assertion that EPA cannot 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which to date it With regard to the state board
approve other elements of an has not, EPA would still have discretion majority requirements respecting
infrastructure SIP submission without under section 110(k) of the CAA to act significant portion of income, EPA is
the good neighbor provision. There is no upon the various individual elements of finalizing a disapproval of Mississippi’s
basis for the contention that EPA has the State’s infrastructure SIP June 20, 2013, infrastructure
triggered its obligation to issue a FIP to submission, separately or together, as submission. Under section 179(a) of the
address the good neighbor obligation appropriate. CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
under section 110(c), as EPA has neither The Commenter raises no compelling that addresses a requirement of a CAA
found that Mississippi failed to timely legal or environmental rationale for an Part D Plan or is required in response to
submit a required 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP alternate interpretation. Nothing in the a finding of substantial inadequacy as
submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 Supreme Court’s April 2014 decision in described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP
NAAQS or found that such a EME Homer City alters EPA’s call) starts a sanctions clock. The
submission was incomplete, nor has interpretation that EPA may act on portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
EPA disapproved a SIP submission individual severable measures, provisions (the provisions being
addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect including the requirements of section proposed for disapproval in this notice)
to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in a SIP submission. were not submitted to meet
EPA acknowledges the Commenter’s See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, requirements for Part D or a SIP call,
concern for the interstate transport of air L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (affirming a state’s and therefore, no sanctions will be
pollutants and agrees in general with obligation to submit a SIP revision triggered. However, this final action will
the Commenter that sections 110(a)(1) addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) trigger the requirement under section
and (a)(2) of the CAA generally require independent of EPA’s action finding 110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal
states to submit, within three years of significant contribution or interference Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than
promulgation of a new or revised with maintenance). In sum, the two years from the date of the
NAAQS, a plan which addresses cross- concerns raised by the Commenter do disapproval unless the State corrects the
state air pollution under section not establish that it is inappropriate or deficiency, and EPA approves the plan
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, EPA unreasonable for EPA to approve the or plan revision before EPA promulgates
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
disagrees with the Commenter’s portions of Mississippi’s infrastructure such FIP.
argument that EPA cannot approve an SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2
infrastructure SIP submission without NAAQS. IV. Statutory and Executive Order
the good neighbor provision. Section EPA has no obligation at this time to Reviews
110(k)(3) of the CAA authorizes EPA to issue a FIP pursuant to 110(c)(1) to Under the CAA, the Administrator is
approve a plan in full, disapprove it in address Mississippi’s obligations under required to approve a SIP submission
full, or approve it in part and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA first that complies with the provisions of the
disapprove it in part, depending on the either finds Mississippi failed to make Act and applicable Federal regulations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM 30SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_67361/page/7.svg)
![67178 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). application of those requirements would petition for reconsideration by the
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, be inconsistent with the CAA; and Administrator of this final rule does not
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, • does not provide EPA with the affect the finality of this action for the
provided that they meet the criteria of discretionary authority to address, as purposes of judicial review nor does it
the CAA. Accordingly, this action appropriate, disproportionate human extend the time within which a petition
merely approves state law as meeting health or environmental effects, using for judicial review may be filed, and
Federal requirements and does not practicable and legally permissible shall not postpone the effectiveness of
impose additional requirements beyond methods, under Executive Order 12898 such rule or action. This action may not
those imposed by state law. For that (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). be challenged later in proceedings to
reason, this action: In addition, the SIP is not approved enforce its requirements. See section
• Is not a significant regulatory action to apply on any Indian reservation land 307(b)(2).
subject to review by the Office of or in any other area where EPA or an
Management and Budget under Indian tribe has demonstrated that a List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Environmental protection, Air
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Indian country, the rule does not have
pollution control, Incorporation by
January 21, 2011); tribal implications as specified by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
• does not impose an information Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
collection burden under the provisions November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 substantial direct costs on tribal
organic compounds.
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); governments or preempt tribal law.
• is certified as not having a The Congressional Review Act, 5 Dated: September 16, 2016.
significant economic impact on a U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Kenneth R. Lapierre,
substantial number of small entities Business Regulatory Enforcement Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded agency promulgating the rule must PART 52—APPROVAL AND
mandate or significantly or uniquely submit a rule report, which includes a PROMULGATION OF
affect small governments, as described copy of the rule, to each House of the IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Congress and to the Comptroller General
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); of the United States. EPA will submit a
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
• does not have Federalism report containing this action and other
continues to read as follows:
implications as specified in Executive required information to the U.S. Senate,
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, the U.S. House of Representatives, and Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
1999); the Comptroller General of the United
• is not an economically significant States prior to publication of the rule in Subpart Z—Mississippi
regulatory action based on health or the Federal Register. A major rule
safety risks subject to Executive Order cannot take effect until 60 days after it ■ 2. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is published in the Federal Register. adding a new entry ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2)
• is not a significant regulatory action This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 1-hour SO2 NAAQS’’ at the end of the
28355, May 22, 2001); Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, table to read as follows:
• is not subject to requirements of petitions for judicial review of this
§ 52.1270 Identification of plan.
Section 12(d) of the National action must be filed in the United States
Technology Transfer and Advancement Court of Appeals for the appropriate * * * * *
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because circuit by November 29, 2016. Filing a (e) * * *
EPA APPROVED MISSISSIPPI NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Applicable geo- State submittal
Name of non-regulatory graphic or non- date/effective EPA approval date Explanation
SIP provision attainment area date
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infra- Mississippi ........ 6/20/2013 9/30/2016, [Insert Fed- With the exception of the interstate transport re-
structure Requirements eral Register citation]. quirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II)
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 (prongs 1, 2, and 4) and the state board majority
NAAQS. requirements respecting significant portion of in-
come of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
■ 3. Section 52.1272 is amended by 20, 2013, to address the Clean Air Act 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because a majority of
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2010 1- board members may still derive a
hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) National significant portion of income from
§ 52.1272 Approval status.
Ambient Air Quality Standards persons subject to permits or
* * * * * (NAAQS) concerning state board enforcement orders issued by the
(e) Disapproval. Submittal from the majority requirements respecting Mississippi Boards, and therefore, its
State of Mississippi, through the significant portion of income of section current SIP does not meet the section
Mississippi Department of 128(a)(1). EPA is disapproving MDEQ’s 128(a)(1) majority requirements
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on June submittal with respect to section
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM 30SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_67361/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67179
respecting significant portion of income available only in hard copy form. submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Publicly available docket materials are shorter period as the Administrator may
[FR Doc. 2016–23598 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am] available either electronically through prescribe) after the promulgation of a
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at national primary ambient air quality
the Air Regulatory Management Section, standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and
Air Planning and Implementation these SIP submissions are to provide for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
AGENCY Management Division, U.S. enforcement’’ of such NAAQS.
Environmental Protection Agency, In a proposed rulemaking published
40 CFR Part 52 Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., on August 24, 2015, EPA proposed to
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA approve Florida’s June 3, 2013, and
[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0423; FRL–9953–18–
requests that if at all possible, you January 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2
Region 4]
contact the person listed in the FOR NAAQS infrastructure SIP
Air Plan Approval; Florida; FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to submissions.2 See 80 FR 51157. The
Infrastructure Requirements for the schedule your inspection. The Regional details of Florida’s submissions and the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Office’s official hours of business are rationale for EPA’s actions are explained
Air Quality Standard Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to in the proposed rulemaking. Comments
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. on the proposed rulemaking were due
AGENCY: Environmental Protection FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: on or before September 23, 2015. EPA
Agency. Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory received adverse comments on the
ACTION: Final rule. Management Section, Air Planning and proposed action.
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides II. Response to Comments
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to EPA received one set of comments on
Environmental Protection Agency,
approve the State Implementation Plan the August 24, 2015, proposed
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
(SIP) submissions, submitted by the rulemaking to approve Florida’s 2010 1-
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
State of Florida, through the Florida hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP
Notarianni can be reached via electronic
Department of Environmental Protection submissions intended to meet the CAA
mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov or
(FDEP), on June 3, 2013, and requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
via telephone at (404) 562–9031.
supplemented on January 8, 2014, for NAAQS. A summary of the comments
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and EPA’s responses are provided
inclusion into the Florida SIP. This final
action pertains to the infrastructure I. Background and Overview below.3 A full set of these comments is
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA provided in the docket for today’s final
On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520, June
or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur rulemaking action.
22, 2010), EPA promulgated a revised
dioxide (SO2) national ambient air primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly A. Comments on Infrastructure SIP
quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) Requirements for Enforceable Emission
requires that each state adopt and based on a 3-year average of the annual Limits
submit a SIP for the implementation, 99th percentile of 1-hour daily
maintenance and enforcement of each 1. The Plain Language of the CAA
maximum concentrations. Pursuant to
NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are Comment 1: The Commenter contends
commonly referred to as an required to submit SIPs meeting the that the plain language of section
‘‘infrastructure SIP submission.’’ FDEP applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires the
certified that the Florida SIP contains 110(a)(2) within three years after inclusion of enforceable emission limits
provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour promulgation of a new or revised in an infrastructure SIP to prevent
SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, NAAQS or within such shorter period NAAQS exceedances in areas not
and maintained in Florida. EPA has as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) designated nonattainment. In support,
determined that the Florida’s requires states to address basic SIP the Commenter quotes the language in
infrastructure SIP submissions, elements such as requirements for section 110(a)(1) that requires states to
provided to EPA on June 3, 2013, and monitoring, basic program requirements adopt a plan for implementation,
supplemented on January 8, 2014, and legal authority that are designed to maintenance, and enforcement of the
satisfy the required infrastructure assure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS and the language in section
elements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 the NAAQS. States were required to 110(a)(2)(A) that requires SIPs to
NAAQS. submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour include enforceable emissions
SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June limitations as well as schedules and
DATES: This rule is effective October 31,
2, 2013.1 timetables for compliance, as may be
2016.
EPA is acting upon the SIP necessary or appropriate to meet the
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a applicable requirements of the CAA.
docket for this action under Docket submissions from Florida that address
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– the infrastructure requirements of CAA
2 Florida’s 2010 1-hour SO NAAQS
2014–0423. All documents in the docket sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2
infrastructure SIP submission dated June 3, 2013,
are listed on the www.regulations.gov 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The and supplemented on January 8, 2014, are also
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Web site. Although listed in the index, requirement for states to make a SIP collectively referred to as ‘‘Florida’s SO2
submission of this type arises out of infrastructure SIP’’ in this action.
some information is not publicly 3 EPA’s responses to these comments are
available, i.e., Confidential Business CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to
consistent with actions taken on 2010 1-hour SO2
Information or other information whose section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions for Virginia
disclosure is restricted by statute. (80 FR 11557, March 4, 2015) at https://
1 In the proposed action, EPA incorrectly cited a www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-04/pdf/2015-
Certain other material, such as date of June 22, 2013, for the due date of 04377.pdf and West Virginia (79 FR 62022, October
copyrighted material, is not placed on infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 16, 2014) at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
the Internet and will be publicly 80 FR 51158 (August 24, 2015). 2014-0-16/pdf/2014-24658.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:28 Sep 29, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM 30SER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_67361/page/9.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-09 13:33:45
Document Modified: 2018-02-09 13:33:45
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule will be effective October 31, 2016. | |
| 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 protected] or via telephone at (404) 562-9031. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 67171 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR