80 FR 29592 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 99 (May 22, 2015)

Page Range		29592-29600
FR Document		2015-12350
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve portions of the October 14, 2011, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the State of Florida, through the Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP) for inclusion into the Florida SIP. This proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. FL DEP certified that the Florida SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Florida. With the exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on October 14, 2011, as satisfying the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29592-29600]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12350]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0040; FRL- 9928-05-Region-4]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve portions of the October 14, 2011, State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) submission, provided by the State of Florida, through the 
Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP) for inclusion into the 
Florida SIP. This proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 
Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead national ambient air 
quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and 
submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of 
each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an 
``infrastructure'' SIP. FL DEP certified that the Florida SIP contains 
provisions that ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented, enforced, 
and maintained in Florida. With the exception of provisions pertaining 
to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting, EPA is 
proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure submission, provided to 
EPA on October 14, 2011, as satisfying the required infrastructure 
elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-

[[Page 29593]]

OAR-2013-0040, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0040,'' Air Regulatory Management 
Section, (formerly the Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning 
and Implementation Branch, (formerly the Air Planning Branch), Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional 
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0040. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or 
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy at the 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: Zuri Farngalo, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9152. Mr. Farngalo can be 
reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP 
submissions?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Florida addressed the elements of 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

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

    \1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions states generally 
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of 
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes, 
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved 
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations 
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 
110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise 
indicated, regulations referenced herein as the ``Florida 
Administrative Code (F.A.C.)'' have been approved into Florida's 
federally-approved SIP. Florida state statutes, referenced as 
``Florida Statue (F.S.)'' herein are not a part of the SIP unless 
otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's action is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP 
submission for the applicable requirements of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, with 
the exception of the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for 
major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J). With 
respect to Florida's infrastructure SIP submission related to the 
provisions pertaining to the PSD permitting requirements for major 
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J), EPA's 
approval of these elements was published on March 18, 2015 (80 FR 
14019). For the aspects of Florida's submittal proposed for approval 
today, EPA notes that the Agency is not approving any specific rule, 
but rather proposing that Florida's already approved SIP meets certain 
CAA requirements.

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

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide 
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or 
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such 
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 
110(a) imposes the

[[Page 29594]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials, 
public notification, and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities.

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

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Florida that addresses 
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must 
make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the 
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national 
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and 
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly 
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the 
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's 
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``each such 
plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the 
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term 
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to 
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions 
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such 
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to 
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of 
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to 
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and 
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address 
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more 
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list 
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide 
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required 
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program 
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both 
authority and substantive program provisions.\5\ EPA therefore believes 
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, 
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, 
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP 
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 29595]]

promulgated.\7\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all 
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, 
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable 
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also 
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required 
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA 
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. 
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP 
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable 
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan 
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By 
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by 
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that 
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, 
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is 
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning 
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission 
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language 
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is 
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) 
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP 
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have 
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, 
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same 
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews 
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that 
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make 
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some 
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and 
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\11\ EPA 
issued the 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance \12\ to provide states 
with up-to-date guidance for Lead infrastructure SIPs. Within this 
guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP 
submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three 
years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made 
recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) 
that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions. The 
guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are 
germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA 
interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure 
SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address 
others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for 
compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 
110(a)(2), as appropriate.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to 
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP 
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the 
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether 
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such 
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 
states, as appropriate.
    \12\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements Required under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, October 14, 
2011.
    \13\ Although not intended to provide guidance for purposes of 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA notes, 
that following the 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA issued 
the ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' 
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. This 2013 
guidance provides recommendations for air agencies' development and 
the EPA's review of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 ozone primary 
and secondary NAAQS, the 2010 primary nitrogen dioxide 
(NO2) NAAQS, the 2010 primary sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 primary fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) NAAQS, as well as infrastructure SIPs for new or 
revised NAAQS promulgated in the future.

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

[[Page 29596]]

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to 
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that 
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a 
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it 
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of 
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all 
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of 
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements 
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory 
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded 
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully 
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the 
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new 
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP 
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA 
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA 
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation 
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to 
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues 
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing 
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately 
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged 
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP 
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is 
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\14\ Section 
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as 
past approvals of SIP submissions.\15\ Significantly, EPA's 
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission 
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing 
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on 
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to 
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it 
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing 
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting 
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in 
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address 
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of 
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial 
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \15\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past 
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation 
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation 
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has 
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove 
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had 
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \16\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from 
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's 
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Florida infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of 
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A)--Emission limits and other control measures: 
Florida's infrastructure submission cites provisions of the Florida 
Administrative Code (F.A.C.) that provide FL DEP with the necessary 
authority to adopt and enforce air quality controls, which include 
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures. Chapters 
62-204, F.A.C., Air Pollution Control Provisions; 62-210, F.A.C., 
Stationary Sources--General Requirements; 62-212,F.A.C. Stationary 
Source-Preconstruction Review; 62-296, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--
Emissions Standards; and 62-297, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--Emissions 
Monitoring, establish emission limits for Lead and address the required 
control measures, means and techniques for compliance with the 2008 
Lead NAAQS respectively. EPA has made the preliminary determination 
that the above provisions and Florida's practices are adequate to 
protect the 2008 Lead NAAQS in the State. Accordingly, EPA is proposing 
to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to 
section 110(a)(2)(A).
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any 
existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. 
EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are 
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, ``State Implementation 
Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, 
and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the Agency plans to address 
such state regulations in the future.\17\ In the meantime, EPA 
encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to 
correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or 
disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's 
discretion or variance provisions. In the meantime, EPA encourages any 
state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is 
contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the 
deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: SIPs 
are required to provide for the establishment and operation of ambient 
air quality monitors; the compilation and analysis of ambient air 
quality data; and the submission of these data to EPA upon request. 
Chapters 62-204, F.A.C., Air Pollution Control Provisions, 62-210, 
F.A.C., Stationary Sources--General Requirements, and 62-212, F.A.C., 
Stationary Sources--Preconstruction Review of the Florida SIP, along 
with the Florida Network Description and Ambient Air Monitoring Network 
Plan, provide for an ambient air quality monitoring system in the 
State. Annually, States develop and submit to EPA for approval 
statewide ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the 
requirements of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan 
involves an evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring 
network, and includes

[[Page 29597]]

the annual ambient monitoring network design plan and a certified 
evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary support 
equipment.\18\ The latest monitoring network plan for Florida was 
submitted to EPA in May 2014 and on November 7, 2014, EPA approved this 
plan. Florida's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at 
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0040. EPA has 
made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices are 
adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system 
requirements related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    3. 110(a)(2)(C)--Program for enforcement, Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD) and new source review (NSR): This element consists 
of three sub-elements; enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and 
modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources; and 
preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications in 
areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as 
required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD program). In 
this action EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP 
submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to the general 
requirement of 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that 
provides for enforcement of emission limits and control measures and 
regulation of minor sources and minor modifications as well as the 
enforcement of lead emission limits to assist in the protection of air 
quality in nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable areas. This is 
established in Chapters 62-210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--General 
Requirements, Section 200--Definitions; and 62-212, F.A.C., Stationary 
Sources--Preconstruction Review, Section 400--Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration..
    Enforcement: FL DEP's SIP approved regulations provide for 
enforcement of lead emission limits and control measures and 
construction permitting for new or modified stationary lead sources.
    Preconstruction PSD Permitting for Major Sources: With respect to 
Florida's infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction 
PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), 
EPA approved this element at 80 FR 14019, published on March 18, 2015, 
and thus is not proposing any action today regarding these 
requirements.
    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) 
also requires the regulation of new and modified minor sources and 
minor modifications. FL DEP's SIP-approved rule chapters 62-204, 62-
210, and 62-212, F.A.C., collectively establish a preconstruction, new 
source permitting program that meets the NNSR requirements under parts 
C and D of the CAA for pollutant-emitting activities that contribute to 
lead concentrations in the ambient air and also provide for the 
enforcement of lead emission limits and control measures. FL DEP's SIP-
approved preconstruction review program applies to minor sources and 
modifications as well as major stationary sources and modifications (as 
discussed above).
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and 
practices are adequate for enforcement of control measures and 
regulation of minor sources and modifications related to the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate 
and International transport provisions: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two 
components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these 
components have two subparts resulting in four distinct components, 
commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in 
infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit 
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 
state (``prong 1''), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
another state (``prong 2''). The third and fourth prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit 
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required 
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state 
(``prong 3''), or to protect visibility in another state (``prong 4''). 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Intestate and International transport 
provisions requires SIPs to include provisions insuring compliance with 
sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and 
international pollution abatement.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 
requires infrastructure SIP submissions to include provisions 
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state 
from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with 
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state.
    The physical properties of lead prevent lead emissions from 
experiencing that same travel or formation phenomena as 
PM2.5 and ozone for interstate transport as outlined in 
prongs 1 and 2. More specifically, there is a sharp decrease in the 
lead concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance 
from a lead source increases. EPA believes that the requirements of 
prongs 1 and 2 can be satisfied through a state's assessment as to 
whether a lead source located within its State in close proximity to a 
state border has emissions that contribute significantly to the 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the 
neighboring state. For example, EPA's experience with the initial lead 
designations suggests that sources that emit less than 0.5 tpy 
generally appear unlikely to contribute significantly to the 
nonattainment in another state. EPA's experience also suggest that 
sources located more than two miles from the state border generally 
appear unlikely to contribute significantly to the nonattainment in 
another state. Florida has two lead sources that have emissions of lead 
over 0.5 tons per year (tpy) but these sources are located well beyond 
two miles from the State border.\19\ Thus, EPA believes there are no 
sources in Florida that are likely to contribute significantly to the 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another 
state. Therefore, EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
Florida's SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ There are two facilities in Florida that have Lead 
emissions greater than 0.5 tpy. The facilities are EnviroFocus 
Technologies and GulfPower Company Crist power plant. EnviroFocus 
Technologies is located at 1901 N 66th St, Tampa, FL 33619, which 
about 150 miles from the border of Georgia. GulfPower Company Crist 
power plant is located in Escambia County 11999 Pate Street, 
Pensacola, FL, approximately 10 miles from Alabama.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With respect to Florida's 
infrastructure SIP submission related to the interstate transport 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), EPA approved 
this element at 80 FR 14019, published on March 18, 2015, and thus is 
not proposing any action today regarding these requirements.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4: With regard to section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the visibility sub-element, referred to as prong 
4, significant impacts from lead emissions from stationary sources are 
expected to be limited to short distances from the source. The 2011 
Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance notes that

[[Page 29598]]

the lead constituent of PM would likely not travel far enough to affect 
Class I areas and that the visibility provisions of the CAA do not 
directly regulate lead. Lead stationary sources in Florida are located 
distances from Class I areas such that visibility impacts are 
negligible. In addition, Florida's Regional Haze SIP, which addresses 
visibility protection, was approved on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53250). 
Accordingly, EPA has preliminarily determined that the Florida SIP 
meets the relevant visibility requirements.
    110(a)(2)(D)(ii)--Interstate and International transport 
provisions: Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, F.A.C. require that 
any new major source or major modification undergo PSD or NNSR 
permitting and thereby provide notification to other potentially 
affected federal, state, and local government agencies. EPA is unaware 
of any pending obligations for the State of Florida pursuant to 
sections 115 and 126. EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
Florida's SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with 
the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international 
pollution abatement for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    5. 110(a)(2)(E)--Adequate personnel, funding, and authority. 
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide (i) 
necessary assurances that the State will have adequate personnel, 
funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation 
plan, (ii) that the State comply with the requirements respecting State 
Boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary 
assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional 
government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any 
plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate 
implementation of such plan provisions. EPA is proposing to approve 
Florida's SIP as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 
110(a)(2)(E)(i) through (iii). EPA's rationale for today's proposal 
respecting sub-element (i) through (iii) is described in turn below.
    To satisfy the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), 
Florida's infrastructure SIP submission describes that rules regarding 
emissions standards general policies, a system of permits, and fee 
schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs. 403.601 
(2),F.S., 403.601(4), F.S., section 403 .182, F.S., are the statutes 
that Florida relies on to meet this element. As evidence of the 
adequacy of FL DEP's resources, EPA submitted a letter to Florida on 
March 6, 2015, outlining 105 grant commitments and the current status 
of these commitments for fiscal year 2014. The letter EPA submitted to 
Florida can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-
R04-OAR-2013-0040. Annually, states update these grant commitments 
based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable 
requirements related to the NAAQS. Florida satisfactorily met all 
commitments agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year 
2014, therefore Florida's grants were finalized and closed out. EPA has 
made the preliminary determination that Florida has adequate resources 
for implementation of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    The section 128(a)(1) State Board requirements--as applicable to 
the infrastructure SIP pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)--provide 
that each SIP shall require that any board or body which approves 
permits or enforcement orders shall be subject to the described public 
interest and income restrictions therein. Subsection 128(a)(2), also 
pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), requires that any board or body, 
or the head of an executive agency with similar power to approve 
permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be subject to 
conflict of interest disclosure requirements.
    For purposes of section 128(a)(1), Florida has no boards or bodies 
with authority over air pollution permits or enforcement actions. Such 
matters are instead handled by an appointed Secretary. Appeals of final 
administrative orders and permits are available only through the 
judicial appellate process described at Florida Statute 120.68. As 
such, a ``board or body'' is not responsible for approving permits or 
enforcement orders in Florida, and the requirements of section 
128(a)(1) are not applicable.
    With respect to section 128(a)(2), FL DEP previously submitted the 
relevant provisions of Florida Statutes, specifically subsections 
112.3143(4) and 112.3144, F.S., for incorporation into the Florida SIP 
in its infrastructure submittal for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA approved 
these conflict of interest provisions for inclusion in the Florida SIP 
on July 30, 2012. See 77 FR 44485. These provisions of the Florida SIP 
are sufficient to satisfy the conflict of interest provisions 
applicable to the head of FL DEP and all public officers within the 
Department. Thus, EPA has made the preliminary determination that 
Florida's SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with 
the applicable requirements relating to state boards for the 2008 Lead 
NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(F)--Stationary source monitoring system: Florida's 
infrastructure SIP submission describes how the State establishes 
requirements for emissions compliance testing and utilizes emissions 
sampling and analysis. It further describes how the State ensures the 
quality of its data through observing emissions and monitoring 
operations. FL DEP uses these data to track progress towards 
maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, 
identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance 
with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. These 
requirements are provided in Chapters 62-204, Air Pollution Control 
Provisions; 62-210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--General Requirements; 
62-212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--Preconstruction Review; 62-296, 
F.A.C., Stationary Sources--Emissions Standards: and 62-297, F.A.C., 
Stationary Sources--Emissions Monitoring.
    Additionally, Florida is required to submit emissions data to EPA 
for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is 
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air 
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the 
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data 
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit 
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive 
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain 
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory 
System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants 
and the precursors that form them--NOX, sulfur dioxide, 
ammonia, Lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile 
organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants. Florida made its latest update to the 2013 
NEI on December 24, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data, 
supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public 
through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. 
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and 
practices are adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems 
related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(G)--Emergency Powers: This section of the CAA requires 
that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the 
CAA and adequate contingency plans to

[[Page 29599]]

implement such authority. This section of Florida's infrastructure SIP 
submission identifies Florida Statutes subsections 403.131 and 
120.569(2)(n), F.S which authorize DEP to ``[s]eek injunctive relief to 
prevent irreparable injury to the air, waters, and property, including 
animal, plant, and aquatic life, of the state and to protect human 
health, safety, and welfare caused or threatened by any violation''; 
and to issue emergency orders to address immediate dangers to the 
public health, safety, or welfare. These statutes were incorporated 
into the SIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) of the 
CAA in an EPA action approving certain portions of Florida's 
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on July 30, 2012. See 77 FR 
44485. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP 
and practices are adequate for emergency powers related to the 2008 
Lead NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(H)--Future SIP revisions: FL DEP is responsible for 
adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or 
maintain the NAAQS in Florida. Florida Statutes Subsection 403.061(35) 
grants FL DEP the broad authority to implement the CAA; also, 
subsection 403.061(9), F.S., which authorizes FL DEP to adopt a 
comprehensive program for the prevention, control, and abatement of 
pollution of the air of the state, and from time to time review and 
modify such programs as necessary. FL DEP has the ability and authority 
to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a number of SIP 
revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS. Florida has 
one nonattainment area for the 2008 Lead NAAQS in Hillsborough County 
related to the EnviroFocus Technologies, LLC facility. On June 29, 
2012, FL DEP submitted the required attainment demonstration for this 
Area. EPA approved this SIP revision on April 16, 2015. See 80 FR 6485. 
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and 
practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to provide future SIP 
revisions related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS, when necessary.
    9. 110(a)(2)(J): EPA is proposing to approve Florida's 
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to the general 
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP 
that provides for meeting the applicable consultation requirements of 
section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127; and 
visibility protection requirements of part C of the Act. With respect 
to Florida's infrastructure SIP submission related to the 
preconstruction PSD permitting, EPA approved this sub-element of 
110(a)(2)(J) on March 18, 2015, and thus is not proposing any action 
today regarding these requirements. See 80 FR 14019. EPA's rationale 
for its proposed action regarding applicable consultation requirements 
of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, 
and visibility protection requirements is described below.
    110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government 
officials: Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a 
process for consultation with local governments, designated 
organizations and federal land managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS 
implementation requirements pursuant to section 121 relative to 
consultation. Chapters 62-204, F.A.C., Air Pollution Control 
Provisions; 62-210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--General Requirements, 
and 62-212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--Preconstruction Review, as well 
as Florida's Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for 
consultation between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution 
control agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), 
provide for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions 
might be affected by SIP development activities. Florida adopted state-
wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation 
conformity. These consultation procedures include considerations 
associated with the development of mobile inventories for SIPs. 
Implementation of transportation conformity as outlined in the 
consultation procedures requires FL DEP to consult with federal, state 
and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the 
development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA approved Florida's 
consultation procedures on August 11, 2003. See 68 FR 47468. EPA has 
made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices 
adequately demonstrate that the State meets applicable requirements 
related to consultation with government officials related to the 2008 
Lead NAAQS, when necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: To meet 
the public notification requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), Florida 
has state statutes, subsections 403.061(20) Department; powers and 
duties which provides FL DEP with the authority ``to control and 
prohibit pollution of air and water in accordance with the law and 
rules adopted and promulgated by it and, for this purpose, to: collect 
and disseminate information and conduct educational and training 
programs relating to pollution.'' Along with 403.061 (21), F.S. which 
states that the FL DEP also can advise, consult, cooperate, and enter 
into agreements with other agencies of the state, the Federal 
Government, other states, interstate agencies, groups, political 
subdivisions, and industries affected by the provisions of this act, 
rules, or policies of the department. Chapters 62-204, F.A.C., Air 
Pollution Control Provisions; 62-210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--
General Requirements, and 62-212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--
Preconstruction Review also include public notice requirements for the 
State's permitting program. Additionally, Notification to the public of 
instances or areas exceeding the NAAQS and associated health effects is 
provided through implementation of the Air Quality Index reporting 
system in all required areas. EPA has made the preliminary 
determination that Florida's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate 
the State's ability to provide public notification related to the 2008 
Lead NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve 
Florida's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 
110(a)(2)(J) public notification.
    110(a)(2)(J) Visibility Protection: The 2011 Lead Infrastructure 
SIP Guidance notes that EPA does not generally treat the visibility 
protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes 
of the infrastructure SIP approval process. EPA recognizes that states 
are subject to visibility protection and regional haze program 
requirements under Part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 
169B). However, in the event of the establishment of a new primary 
NAAQS, the visibility protection and regional haze program requirements 
under part C do not change. Thus, EPA concludes there are no new 
applicable visibility protection obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J) 
as a result of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, and as such, EPA is proposing to 
approve section 110(a)(2)(J) of FL DEP's infrastructure SIP submission 
as it relates to visibility protection.
    10. 110(a)(2)(K)--Air quality and modeling/data: Section 
110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for performing air 
quality modeling so that effects on air quality of emissions from NAAQS 
pollutants can be predicted and submission of such data to the USEPA 
can be made. Chapter 62-204.800, F.A.C., Air Pollution Control 
Provisions; 62-210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--General Requirements, 
and 62-212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--

[[Page 29600]]

Preconstruction Review, incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.21(l), 
which specifies that air modeling be conducted in accordance with 40 
CFR part 51, Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' These 
regulations demonstrate that Florida has the authority to provide 
relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air 
quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Additionally, Florida supports a 
regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories 
and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 2008 
Lead NAAQS, for the Southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Florida's 
air quality regulations demonstrate that FL DEP has the authority to 
provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on 
ambient air quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA has made the 
preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices adequately 
demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality and 
modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 
2008 Lead NAAQS when necessary.
    11. 110(a)(2)(L)--Permitting fees: This element necessitates that 
the SIP require the owner or operator of each major stationary source 
to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit 
required under the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable 
costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, 
and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, 
the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and 
conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other 
costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee 
requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the 
Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V. Florida 
statute subsection 403.087(6)(a), F.S., Permit Fees directs FL DEP to 
require a processing fee in an amount sufficient for the reasonable 
cost of reviewing and acting upon PSD and NNSR permits. The local air 
program costs are covered by the Air Pollution Control Trust Fund which 
is comprised of various funding sources. Additionally, Florida has a 
fully approved title V operating permit program at subsection 403.0872, 
F.S., Annual Emissions Fee. and Chapter 62.213, F.A.C. Operation 
Permits For Major Sources of Air Pollution that covers the cost of 
implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have 
been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's 
statues and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to 
the 2008 Lead NAAQS, when necessary.
    12. 110(a)(2)(M)--Consultation/participation by affected local 
entities: This element requires states to provide for consultation and 
participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions 
affected by the SIP. Chapter 62-204, Air Pollution Control Provisions, 
requires that SIPs be submitted in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, 
subpart F. Florida statute subsection 403.061(21), F.S. authorizes FDEP 
to ``advise, consult, cooperate and enter into agreements with other 
agencies of the state, the Federal Government, other states, interstate 
agencies, groups, political subdivisions, and industries affected by 
the provisions of this act, rules, or policies of the department.'' EPA 
has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices 
adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities 
related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS, when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major 
sources contained in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J), 
EPA is proposing to approve Florida's October 14, 2011, SIP submission 
to incorporate provisions into the Florida SIP to address 
infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA is proposing 
to approve these portions of Florida's infrastructure submission for 
the 2008 Lead NAAQS because this submission is consistent with section 
110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: May 12, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-12350 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
29592 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules

significant environmental impact from Light (LL–2006) at 45°46′00″ N., respective COTP will provide advance
this proposed rule. 85°09′12″ W.; to White Shoals Light notice as reasonably practicable under
(LL–2003) at 45°50′30″ N., 85°08′06″ W.; the circumstances. The general
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
to a point at 45°49′12″ N., 85°04′48″ W.; regulations in 33 CFR 165.13 apply. The
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation then to a point at 45°45′42″ N., District Commander or respective COTP
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 85°08′42″ W.; then to the point of retains the discretion to authorize
requirements, Security measures, beginning. vessels to operate outside of issued
Waterways. (b) Regulations. The District orders.
For the reasons discussed in the Commander or respective Captain of the
Dated: May 4, 2015.
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to Port (COTP) will enforce these safety
F. M. Midgette,
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: zones as ice conditions dictate. Under
normal seasonal conditions, only one Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Ninth Coast Guard District.
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION closing each winter and one opening
each spring are anticipated. Prior to [FR Doc. 2015–11804 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am]
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
closing or opening these safety zones, BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 the District Commander or respective
continues to read as follows: COTP will give the public advance
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; notice, not less than 72 hours prior to ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; the closure. The general regulations in AGENCY
Department of Homeland Security Delegation 33 CFR 165.23 apply. The District
No. 0170.1. Commander or respective COTP retains 40 CFR Part 52
■ 2. Revise § 165.901 to read as follows: the discretion to permit vessels to enter/
transit a closed safety zone under [EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0040; FRL– 9928–05-
§ 165.901 Great Lakes—regulated Region-4]
navigation areas and safety zones.
certain circumstances.
(c) The following are regulated
(a) The following are safety zones: navigation areas (RNAs): Approval and Promulgation of
(1) Lake Erie. The U.S. waters of Lake (1) Lake Erie. The waters of Lake Erie Implementation Plans; Florida
Erie at the intersection of the known as the Maumee Bay Entrance Infrastructure Requirements for the
International Border at 082°55′00″ W., Channel between Maumee Bay Entrance 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality
following the International Border Channel Light at 41°49′32″ N., Standards
eastward to the intersection of the 083°11′37″ W.; and Grassy Island at
International Border at 082°35′00″ W., AGENCY: Environmental Protection
41°42′23″ N., 083°26′49″ W. Agency (EPA).
moving straight south to position (2) Straits of Mackinac. The waters
41°25′00″ N., 082°35′00″ W., continuing connecting Lake Huron to Lake ACTION: Proposed rule.
west to position 41°25′00″ N., Michigan known as the Straits of SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
082°55′00″ W., and ending north at the Mackinac from Lansing Shoal Light at Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
International Border and 082°55′00″ W. 45°54′8″ N., 085°33′25″ W. southwest to portions of the October 14, 2011, State
(2) Lake Huron. (i) The waters of Lake 45°50′7″ N., 085°34′3″ W. to Old Implementation Plan (SIP) submission,
Huron known as South Channel Mackinac Point Lighthouse at 45°47′36″ provided by the State of Florida,
between Bois Blanc Island and N., 084°44′23″ W. eastward to Bois through the Department of
Cheboygan, Michigan; bounded by a Blanc Island at 45°49′7″ N., 084°34′28″ Environmental Protection (FL DEP) for
line north from the mainland at W. then northwest to Mackinaw Island inclusion into the Florida SIP. This
45°39′48″ N., 84°27′36″ W.; to Bois at 45°51′5″ N., 084°36′19″ W., proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act
Blanc Island at 45°43′42″ N., 84°27′36″ encompassing Round Island, westward (CAA or the Act) infrastructure
W.; and a line north from the mainland to the northern point of the Mackinaw requirements for the 2008 Lead national
at 45°43′00″ N., 84°35′30″ W.; to the Bridge at 45°50′57″ N., 084°43′47″ W. ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
western tangent of Bois Blanc Island at and returning to the beginning at The CAA requires that each state adopt
45°48′42″ N., 84°35′30″ W. Lansing Shoal Light.
(ii) The waters of Lake Huron between and submit a SIP for the
(3) Green Bay. The waters of Lake
Mackinac Island and St. Ignace, implementation, maintenance, and
Michigan known as Green Bay from
Michigan, bounded by a line east from enforcement of each NAAQS
Rock Island Passage or Porte Des Morts
position 45°52′12″ N., 84°43′00″ W.; to promulgated by EPA, which is
Passage north to Escanaba Light at
Mackinac Island at 45°52′12″ N., commonly referred to as an
45°44′48″ N., 087°02′14″ W.; south to
84°39′00″ W.; and a line east from the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. FL DEP certified
the Fox River Entrance at 44°32′22″ N.,
mainland at 45°53′12″ N., 84°43′30″ W.; that the Florida SIP contains provisions
088°00′19″ W., to the Sturgeon Bay Ship
to the northern tangent of Mackinac that ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is
Canal from Sherwood Point Light at
Island at 45°53′12″ N., 84°38′48″ W. implemented, enforced, and maintained
44°53′34″ N., 087°26′00″ W.; to Sturgeon
(iii) The waters of Lake Huron known in Florida. With the exception of
Bay Ship Canal Light at 44°47′42″ N.,
as Saginaw Bay, Michigan; bounded by provisions pertaining to prevention of
087°18′48″ W.; and then to the point of
a line from Port Austin Reef Light (LL– significant deterioration (PSD)
beginning.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10275) at 44°04′55″ N., 082°58′57″ W.; (d) Regulations. In the RNAs under permitting, EPA is proposing to approve
to Tawas Light (LL–11240) at 44°15′13″ paragraph (c) of this section, the District Florida’s infrastructure submission,
N., 083°26′58″ W.; to Saginaw Bay Commander or respective COTP may provided to EPA on October 14, 2011,
Range Front Light (LL–10550) at issue orders to control vessel traffic for as satisfying the required infrastructure
43°38′54″ N., 083°51′06″ W.; then to the reasons which include but are not elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
point of beginning. limited to: channel obstructions, winter DATES: Written comments must be
(3) Lake Michigan. The waters of Lake navigation, unusual weather conditions, received on or before June 22, 2015.
Michigan known as Gray’s Reef Passage or unusual water levels. Prior to issuing ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
bounded by a line from Gray’s Reef these orders, the District Commander or identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 May 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1
29594 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules

obligation upon states to make a SIP • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source infrastructure SIP submissions, and
submission to EPA for a new or revised monitoring and reporting. section 110(a)(2) provides more details
NAAQS, but the contents of that • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers. concerning the required contents of
submission may vary depending upon • 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. these submissions. The list of required
the facts and circumstances. In • 110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment area elements provided in section 110(a)(2)
particular, the data and analytical tools plan or plan revision under part D.4 contains a wide variety of disparate
available at the time the state develops • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with provisions, some of which pertain to
and submits the SIP for a new or revised government officials, public required legal authority, some of which
NAAQS affects the content of the notification, and PSD and visibility pertain to required substantive program
submission. The contents of such SIP protection. provisions, and some of which pertain
submissions may also vary depending • 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/ to requirements for both authority and
upon what provisions the state’s data. substantive program provisions.5 EPA
existing SIP already contains. In the • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. therefore believes that while the timing
case of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, states • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/ requirement in section 110(a)(1) is
typically have met the basic program participation by affected local entities. unambiguous, some of the other
elements required in section 110(a)(2) III. What is EPA’s approach to the statutory provisions are ambiguous. In
through earlier SIP submissions in review of infrastructure SIP particular, EPA believes that the list of
connection with the 1978 Lead NAAQS. submissions? required elements for infrastructure SIP
Section 110(a)(1) provides the submissions provided in section
procedural and timing requirements for EPA is acting upon the SIP
110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific submission from Florida that addresses
concerning what is required for
elements that states must meet for the infrastructure requirements of CAA
inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
submission.
related to a newly established or revised 2008 Lead NAAQS. Pursuant to section
110(a)(1), states must make SIP The following examples of
NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
requirements include SIP infrastructure
shorter period as the Administrator may to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and
elements such as modeling, monitoring,
prescribe) after the promulgation of a section 110(a)(2) requirements with
and emissions inventories that are
national primary ambient air quality respect to infrastructure SIP
designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. The standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and submissions for a given new or revised
requirements that are the subject of this these SIP submissions are to provide for NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is
proposed rulemaking are listed below 2 the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and that section 110(a)(2) requires that
and in EPA’s October 14, 2011, enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The ‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the
memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on statute directly imposes on states the list of requirements therein, while EPA
Infrastructure State Implementation duty to make these SIP submissions, has long noted that this literal reading
Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under and the requirement to make the of the statute is internally inconsistent
Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the submissions is not conditioned upon and would create a conflict with the
2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air EPA’s taking any action other than nonattainment provisions in part D of
Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2011 promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. title I of the Act, which specifically
Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance). Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of address nonattainment SIP
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and specific elements that ‘‘each such plan’’ requirements.6 Section 110(a)(2)(I)
other control measures. submission must address. pertains to nonattainment SIP
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality EPA has historically referred to these requirements and part D addresses
monitoring/data system. SIP submissions made for the purpose when attainment plan SIP submissions
• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for of satisfying the requirements of CAA to address nonattainment area
enforcement, prevention of significant sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as requirements are due. For example,
deterioration (PSD) and new source ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. section 172(b) requires EPA to establish
review (NSR).3 Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ a schedule for submission of such plans
• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses for certain pollutants when the
international transport provisions. the term to distinguish this particular Administrator promulgates the
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, type of SIP submission from designation of an area as nonattainment,
funding, and authority. submissions that are intended to satisfy and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to
other SIP requirements under the CAA, two years, or in some cases three years,
2 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are
such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or for such designations to be
not governed by the three year submission deadline
of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating ‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to
5 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides
necessary local nonattainment area controls are not address the nonattainment planning
due within three years after promulgation of a new that states must provide assurances that they have
requirements of part D of title I of the adequate legal authority under state and local law
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the
nonattainment area plan requirements are due CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides
pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) required by EPA rule to address the that states must have a SIP-approved program to
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the visibility protection requirements of address certain sources as required by part C of title
extent that subsection refers to a permit program as I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that
required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2)
CAA section 169A, and nonattainment states must have legal authority to address
submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which new source review permit program emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements submissions to address the permit triggered in the event of such emergencies.
of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 6 See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport
rulemaking does not address infrastructure of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air
elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing
Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
nonattainment planning requirements of and general requirements for Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR
110(a)(2)(C). 25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
3 This rulemaking only addresses requirements 4 As mentioned above, this element is not relationship between timing requirement of section
for this element as they relate to attainment areas. relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 May 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29595

promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
that rather than apply all the stated and 110(a)(2) may also arise with question or the history of SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a respect to infrastructure SIP submission development for the relevant pollutant,
strict literal sense, EPA must determine requirements for different NAAQS. would meet each of the requirements, or
which provisions of section 110(a)(2) Thus, EPA notes that not every element meet each of them in the same way.
are applicable for a particular of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, Therefore, EPA has adopted an
infrastructure SIP submission. or as relevant, or relevant in the same approach under which it reviews
Another example of ambiguity within way, for each new or revised NAAQS. infrastructure SIP submissions against
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP the list of elements in section 110(a)(2),
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to submissions for each NAAQS therefore but only to the extent each element
whether states must meet all of the could be different. For example, the applies for that particular NAAQS.
infrastructure SIP requirements in a monitoring requirements that a state Historically, EPA has elected to use
single SIP submission, and whether EPA might need to meet in its infrastructure guidance documents to make
must act upon such SIP submission in SIP submission for purposes of section recommendations to states for
a single action. Although section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a different pollutants because the content conveying needed interpretations on
plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP newly arising issues and in some cases
interprets the CAA to allow states to submission to meet this element might conveying interpretations that have
make multiple SIP submissions be very different for an entirely new already been developed and applied to
separately addressing infrastructure SIP NAAQS than for a minor revision to an individual SIP submissions for
elements for the same NAAQS. If states existing NAAQS.10 particular elements.11 EPA issued the
elect to make such multiple SIP EPA notes that interpretation of 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when Guidance 12 to provide states with up-to-
SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act EPA reviews other types of SIP date guidance for Lead infrastructure
on such submissions either individually submissions required under the CAA. SIPs. Within this guidance, EPA
or in a larger combined action.8 Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP describes the duty of states to make
Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to submissions, EPA also has to identify infrastructure SIP submissions to meet
allow it to take action on the individual and interpret the relevant elements of basic structural SIP requirements within
parts of one larger, comprehensive section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to three years of promulgation of a new or
infrastructure SIP submission for a these other types of SIP submissions. revised NAAQS. EPA also made
given NAAQS without concurrent For example, section 172(c)(7) requires recommendations about many specific
action on the entire submission. For that attainment plan SIP submissions subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are
example, EPA has sometimes elected to required by part D have to meet the relevant in the context of infrastructure
act at different times on various ‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section SIP submissions. The guidance also
elements and sub-elements of the same 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment discusses the substantively important
infrastructure SIP submission.9 plan SIP submissions must meet the issues that are germane to certain
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) subsections of section 110(a)(2).
7 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section
regarding enforceable emission limits Significantly, EPA interprets sections
110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that
subparts of part D set specific dates for submission and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency infrastructure SIP submissions need to
of certain types of SIP submissions in designated
nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, resources and authority. By contrast, it address certain issues and need not
e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates is clear that attainment plan SIP address others. Accordingly, EPA
for submission of emissions inventories for the
submissions required by part D would reviews each infrastructure SIP
ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are submission for compliance with the
necessarily later than three years after promulgation not need to meet the portion of section
of the new or revised NAAQS. 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD applicable statutory provisions of
8 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
program required in part C of title I of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.13
Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to
the New Source Review (NSR) State
the CAA, because PSD does not apply 11 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of to a pollutant for which an area is requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment designated nonattainment and thus regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The
New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR subject to part D planning requirements. CAA directly applies to states and requires the
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action submission of infrastructure SIP submissions,
approving the structural PSD elements of the New
As this example illustrates, each type of
regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance
Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to SIP submission may implicate some or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA
meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR elements of section 110(a)(2) but not elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air others. states, as appropriate.
Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 12 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
Given the potential for ambiguity in
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required
Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR some of the statutory language of section under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). believes that it is appropriate to Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ Memorandum
9 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee,
interpret the ambiguous portions of from Stephen D. Page, October 14, 2011.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 13 Although not intended to provide guidance for
and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions for the
demonstrating that the State meets the requirements in the context of acting on a particular 2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA notes, that following the
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action SIP submission. In other words, EPA 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA issued
for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on assumes that Congress could not have the ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, intended that each and every SIP Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’
2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13,
42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 10 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM
2.5 2013. This 2013 guidance provides
actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure NAAQS required the deployment of a system of recommendations for air agencies’ development and
SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new the EPA’s review of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008
submittal. indicator species for the new NAAQS. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 May 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1
29596 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules

EPA’s approach to review of approvals of SIP submissions.15 compliance with the 2008 Lead NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submissions is to Significantly, EPA’s determination that respectively. EPA has made the
identify the CAA requirements that are an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP preliminary determination that the
logically applicable to that submission. submission is not the appropriate time above provisions and Florida’s practices
EPA believes that this approach to the and place to address all potential are adequate to protect the 2008 Lead
review of a particular infrastructure SIP existing SIP deficiencies does not NAAQS in the State. Accordingly, EPA
submission is appropriate, because it preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on is proposing to approve Florida’s
would not be reasonable to read the provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of infrastructure SIP submission with
general requirements of section the basis for action to correct those respect to section 110(a)(2)(A).
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in deficiencies at a later time. For example, In this action, EPA is not proposing to
110(a)(2) as requiring review of each although it may not be appropriate to approve or disapprove any existing
and every provision of a state’s existing require a state to eliminate all existing State provisions with regard to excess
SIP against all requirements in the CAA inappropriate director’s discretion emissions during startup, shutdown,
and EPA regulations merely for provisions in the course of acting on an and malfunction (SSM) of operations at
purposes of assuring that the state in infrastructure SIP submission, EPA a facility. EPA believes that a number of
question has the basic structural believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be states have SSM provisions which are
elements for a functioning SIP for a new among the statutory bases that EPA contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have relies upon in the course of addressing guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans:
grown by accretion over the decades as such deficiency in a subsequent Policy Regarding Excess Emissions
statutory and regulatory requirements action.16 During Malfunctions, Startup, and
under the CAA have evolved, they may Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how the Agency plans to address such state
include some outmoded provisions and Florida addressed the elements of
historical artifacts. These provisions, regulations in the future.17 In the
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) meantime, EPA encourages any state
while not fully up to date, nevertheless ‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions?
may not pose a significant problem for having a deficient SSM provision to take
the purposes of ‘‘implementation, The Florida infrastructure submission steps to correct it as soon as possible.
maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a addresses the provisions of sections Additionally, in this action, EPA is
new or revised NAAQS when EPA 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below. not proposing to approve or disapprove
evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 1. 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission limits and any existing State rules with regard to
SIP submission. EPA believes that a other control measures: Florida’s director’s discretion or variance
better approach is for states and EPA to infrastructure submission cites provisions. In the meantime, EPA
focus attention on those elements of provisions of the Florida Administrative encourages any state having a director’s
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely Code (F.A.C.) that provide FL DEP with discretion or variance provision which
to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the necessary authority to adopt and is contrary to the CAA and EPA
the promulgation of a new or revised enforce air quality controls, which guidance to take steps to correct the
NAAQS or other factors. include enforceable emission deficiency as soon as possible.
limitations and other control measures. 2. 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient air quality
Finally, EPA believes that its Chapters 62–204, F.A.C., Air Pollution monitoring/data system: SIPs are
approach with respect to infrastructure Control Provisions; 62–210, F.A.C., required to provide for the
SIP requirements is based on a Stationary Sources—General establishment and operation of ambient
reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) Requirements; 62–212,F.A.C. Stationary air quality monitors; the compilation
and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides Source-Preconstruction Review; 62–296, and analysis of ambient air quality data;
other avenues and mechanisms to F.A.C., Stationary Sources—Emissions and the submission of these data to EPA
address specific substantive deficiencies Standards; and 62–297, F.A.C., upon request. Chapters 62–204, F.A.C.,
in existing SIPs. These other statutory Stationary Sources—Emissions Air Pollution Control Provisions, 62–
tools allow EPA to take appropriately Monitoring, establish emission limits for 210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—
tailored action, depending upon the Lead and address the required control General Requirements, and 62–212,
nature and severity of the alleged SIP measures, means and techniques for F.A.C., Stationary Sources—
deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes Preconstruction Review of the Florida
EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the 15 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in SIP, along with the Florida Network
Agency determines that a state’s SIP is past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD Description and Ambient Air
substantially inadequate to attain or programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of
Monitoring Network Plan, provide for
maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in an ambient air quality monitoring
interstate transport, or to otherwise State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR system in the State. Annually, States
comply with the CAA.14 Section 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously develop and submit to EPA for approval
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to
statewide ambient monitoring network
errors in past actions, such as past remove numerous other SIP provisions that the
Agency determined it had approved in error. See, plans consistent with the requirements
e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The
ozone primary and secondary NAAQS, the 2010 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, annual network plan involves an
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

primary nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, the 2010 Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69
primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to
evaluation of any proposed changes to
primary fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, as California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, the monitoring network, and includes
well as infrastructure SIPs for new or revised 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
NAAQS promulgated in the future. 16 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 17 On February 22, 2013, EPA published a
14 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to from Colorado on the grounds that it would have proposed action in the Federal Register entitled,
address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to included a director’s discretion provision ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition
the treatment of excess emissions during SSM inconsistent with CAA requirements, including for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions
Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed
(April 18, 2011). (final disapproval of such provisions). Rule.’’ 78 FR 12459.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 May 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29599

implement such authority. This section permitting, EPA approved this sub- information and conduct educational
of Florida’s infrastructure SIP element of 110(a)(2)(J) on March 18, and training programs relating to
submission identifies Florida Statutes 2015, and thus is not proposing any pollution.’’ Along with 403.061 (21),
subsections 403.131 and 120.569(2)(n), action today regarding these F.S. which states that the FL DEP also
F.S which authorize DEP to ‘‘[s]eek requirements. See 80 FR 14019. EPA’s can advise, consult, cooperate, and enter
injunctive relief to prevent irreparable rationale for its proposed action into agreements with other agencies of
injury to the air, waters, and property, regarding applicable consultation the state, the Federal Government, other
including animal, plant, and aquatic requirements of section 121, the public states, interstate agencies, groups,
life, of the state and to protect human notification requirements of section 127, political subdivisions, and industries
health, safety, and welfare caused or and visibility protection requirements is affected by the provisions of this act,
threatened by any violation’’; and to described below. rules, or policies of the department.
issue emergency orders to address 110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Chapters 62–204, F.A.C., Air Pollution
immediate dangers to the public health, Consultation with government officials: Control Provisions; 62–210, F.A.C.,
safety, or welfare. These statutes were Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires Stationary Sources—General
incorporated into the SIP to address the states to provide a process for Requirements, and 62–212, F.A.C.,
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) of consultation with local governments, Stationary Sources—Preconstruction
the CAA in an EPA action approving designated organizations and federal Review also include public notice
certain portions of Florida’s land managers (FLMs) carrying out requirements for the State’s permitting
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS implementation requirements program. Additionally, Notification to
NAAQS on July 30, 2012. See 77 FR pursuant to section 121 relative to the public of instances or areas
44485. EPA has made the preliminary consultation. Chapters 62–204, F.A.C., exceeding the NAAQS and associated
determination that Florida’s SIP and Air Pollution Control Provisions; 62– health effects is provided through
practices are adequate for emergency 210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources— implementation of the Air Quality Index
powers related to the 2008 Lead General Requirements, and 62–212, reporting system in all required areas.
NAAQS. F.A.C., Stationary Sources— EPA has made the preliminary
8. 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP revisions: Preconstruction Review, as well as determination that Florida’s SIP and
FL DEP is responsible for adopting air Florida’s Regional Haze Implementation practices adequately demonstrate the
quality rules and revising SIPs as Plan (which allows for consultation State’s ability to provide public
needed to attain or maintain the between appropriate state, local, and notification related to the 2008 Lead
NAAQS in Florida. Florida Statutes tribal air pollution control agencies as NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly,
Subsection 403.061(35) grants FL DEP well as the corresponding Federal Land EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s
the broad authority to implement the Managers), provide for consultation infrastructure SIP submission with
CAA; also, subsection 403.061(9), F.S., with government officials whose respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public
which authorizes FL DEP to adopt a jurisdictions might be affected by SIP notification.
comprehensive program for the development activities. Florida adopted 110(a)(2)(J) Visibility Protection: The
prevention, control, and abatement of state-wide consultation procedures for 2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance
pollution of the air of the state, and from the implementation of transportation notes that EPA does not generally treat
time to time review and modify such conformity. These consultation the visibility protection aspects of
programs as necessary. FL DEP has the procedures include considerations section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for
ability and authority to respond to calls associated with the development of purposes of the infrastructure SIP
for SIP revisions, and has provided a mobile inventories for SIPs. approval process. EPA recognizes that
number of SIP revisions over the years Implementation of transportation states are subject to visibility protection
for implementation of the NAAQS. conformity as outlined in the and regional haze program requirements
Florida has one nonattainment area for consultation procedures requires FL under Part C of the Act (which includes
the 2008 Lead NAAQS in Hillsborough DEP to consult with federal, state and sections 169A and 169B). However, in
County related to the EnviroFocus local transportation and air quality the event of the establishment of a new
Technologies, LLC facility. On June 29, agency officials on the development of primary NAAQS, the visibility
2012, FL DEP submitted the required motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA protection and regional haze program
attainment demonstration for this Area. approved Florida’s consultation requirements under part C do not
EPA approved this SIP revision on April procedures on August 11, 2003. See 68 change. Thus, EPA concludes there are
16, 2015. See 80 FR 6485. EPA has made FR 47468. EPA has made the no new applicable visibility protection
the preliminary determination that preliminary determination that Florida’s obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J) as
Florida’s SIP and practices adequately SIP and practices adequately a result of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, and
demonstrate a commitment to provide demonstrate that the State meets as such, EPA is proposing to approve
future SIP revisions related to the 2008 applicable requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(J) of FL DEP’s
Lead NAAQS, when necessary. consultation with government officials infrastructure SIP submission as it
9. 110(a)(2)(J): EPA is proposing to related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS, when relates to visibility protection.
approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP for necessary. 10. 110(a)(2)(K)—Air quality and
the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to 110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of
the general requirement in section Public notification: To meet the public the CAA requires that SIPs provide for
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the notification requirements of section performing air quality modeling so that
SIP that provides for meeting the 110(a)(2)(J), Florida has state statutes, effects on air quality of emissions from
applicable consultation requirements of subsections 403.061(20) Department; NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and
section 121, the public notification powers and duties which provides FL submission of such data to the USEPA
requirements of section 127; and DEP with the authority ‘‘to control and can be made. Chapter 62–204.800,
visibility protection requirements of prohibit pollution of air and water in F.A.C., Air Pollution Control Provisions;
part C of the Act. With respect to accordance with the law and rules 62–210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—
Florida’s infrastructure SIP submission adopted and promulgated by it and, for General Requirements, and 62–212,
related to the preconstruction PSD this purpose, to: collect and disseminate F.A.C., Stationary Sources—

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:08 May 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1
29600 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules

Preconstruction Review, incorporates by 12. 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/ under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
reference 40 CFR 52.21(l), which participation by affected local entities: U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
specifies that air modeling be conducted This element requires states to provide • does not contain any unfunded
in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, for consultation and participation in SIP mandate or significantly or uniquely
Appendix W ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality development by local political affect small governments, as described
Models.’’ These regulations demonstrate subdivisions affected by the SIP. in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
that Florida has the authority to provide Chapter 62–204, Air Pollution Control of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
relevant data for the purpose of Provisions, requires that SIPs be • does not have Federalism
predicting the effect on ambient air submitted in accordance with 40 CFR implications as specified in Executive
quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. part 51, subpart F. Florida statute Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
Additionally, Florida supports a subsection 403.061(21), F.S. authorizes 1999);
regional effort to coordinate the FDEP to ‘‘advise, consult, cooperate and • is not an economically significant
development of emissions inventories enter into agreements with other regulatory action based on health or
and conduct regional modeling for agencies of the state, the Federal safety risks subject to Executive Order
several NAAQS, including the 2008 Government, other states, interstate 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
Lead NAAQS, for the Southeastern agencies, groups, political subdivisions, • is not a significant regulatory action
states. Taken as a whole, Florida’s air and industries affected by the subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
quality regulations demonstrate that FL provisions of this act, rules, or policies 28355, May 22, 2001);
DEP has the authority to provide of the department.’’ EPA has made the
relevant data for the purpose of • is not subject to requirements of
preliminary determination that Florida’s Section 12(d) of the National
predicting the effect on ambient air SIP and practices adequately
quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA Technology Transfer and Advancement
demonstrate consultation with affected Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
has made the preliminary determination local entities related to the 2008 Lead
that Florida’s SIP and practices application of those requirements would
NAAQS, when necessary. be inconsistent with the CAA; and
adequately demonstrate the State’s
ability to provide for air quality and V. Proposed Action • does not provide EPA with the
modeling, along with analysis of the With the exception of the PSD discretionary authority to address, as
associated data, related to the 2008 Lead permitting requirements for major appropriate, disproportionate human
NAAQS when necessary. sources contained in sections health or environmental effects, using
11. 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting fees: This 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J), EPA practicable and legally permissible
element necessitates that the SIP require is proposing to approve Florida’s methods, under Executive Order 12898
the owner or operator of each major October 14, 2011, SIP submission to (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
stationary source to pay to the incorporate provisions into the Florida The Florida SIP is not approved to
permitting authority, as a condition of SIP to address infrastructure apply on any Indian reservation land or
any permit required under the CAA, a requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. in any other area where EPA or an
fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable EPA is proposing to approve these Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
costs of reviewing and acting upon any portions of Florida’s infrastructure tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
application for such a permit, and (ii) if submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS Indian country, the rule does not have
the owner or operator receives a permit because this submission is consistent tribal implications as specified by
for such source, the reasonable costs of with section 110 of the CAA. Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
implementing and enforcing the terms November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
and conditions of any such permit (not VI. Statutory and Executive Order substantial direct costs on tribal
including any court costs or other costs Reviews governments or preempt tribal law.
associated with any enforcement Under the CAA, the Administrator is List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
action), until such fee requirement is required to approve a SIP submission
superseded with respect to such sources that complies with the provisions of the Environmental protection, Air
by the Administrator’s approval of a fee Act and applicable Federal regulations. pollution control, Incorporation by
program under title V. Florida statute 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). reference, Intergovernmental relations,
subsection 403.087(6)(a), F.S., Permit Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, Lead, and recordkeeping requirements.
Fees directs FL DEP to require a EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
processing fee in an amount sufficient provided that they meet the criteria of Dated: May 12, 2015.
for the reasonable cost of reviewing and the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
acting upon PSD and NNSR permits. Heather McTeer Toney,
action merely approves state law as
The local air program costs are covered Regional Administrator, Region 4.
meeting Federal requirements and does
by the Air Pollution Control Trust Fund not impose additional requirements [FR Doc. 2015–12350 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am]
which is comprised of various funding beyond those imposed by state law. For BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
sources. Additionally, Florida has a that reason, this proposed action:
fully approved title V operating permit • Is not a significant regulatory action
program at subsection 403.0872, F.S., subject to review by the Office of
Annual Emissions Fee. and Chapter Management and Budget under LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
62.213, F.A.C. Operation Permits For
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 45 CFR Parts 1610, 1627, and 1630
Major Sources of Air Pollution that October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
covers the cost of implementation and January 21, 2011); Use of Non-LSC Funds, Transfer of
enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits • does not impose an information LSC Funds, Program Integrity;
after they have been issued. EPA has collection burden under the provisions Subgrants and Membership Fees or
made the preliminary determination of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Dues; Cost Standards and
that Florida’s statues and practices U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Procedures—Extension of Comment
adequately provide for permitting fees • is certified as not having a Period
related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS, when significant economic impact on a
necessary. substantial number of small entities AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:28 May 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\22MYP1.SGM 22MYP1
Document Created: 2015-12-15 15:45:31
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 15:45:31
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		Proposed Rules
Action		Proposed rule.
Dates		Written comments must be received on or before June 22, 2015.
Contact		Zuri Farngalo, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9152. Mr. Farngalo can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected]
FR Citation		80 FR 29592
CFR Associated		Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Lead and Recordkeeping Requirements