80 FR 51157 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 163 (August 24, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 163 (August 24, 2015)
| Page Range | 51157-51167 | |
| FR Document | 2015-20748 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 51157-51167] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-20748] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0423; FRL-9932-86-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), on June 3, 2013, and supplemented on January 8, 2014, for inclusion into the Florida SIP. This proposal pertains to the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP submission.'' FDEP certified that the Florida SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Florida. EPA is proposing to determine that Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions, provided to EPA on June 3, 2013, and supplemented on January 8, 2014, satisfy the required infrastructure elements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 23, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04- OAR-2014-0423, 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-2014-0423,'' 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. 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- 2014-0423. 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: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected] or the telephone number (404) 562-9031. Table of Contents I. Background and Overview 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 and Overview On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the [[Page 51158]] CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 22, 2013.\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). Florida's existing SIP consists largely of Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) rules adopted by FDEP and approved by EPA through the SIP revision process. However, there are some F.A.C. state regulations that are not part of the Florida federally-approved SIP. Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term ``F.A.C.'', ``Rule'', or ``Chapter'' indicate that the cited regulation has been approved into Florida's federally-approved SIP. The term ``Florida Statutes'' indicates cited Florida state statutes, which are not a part of the SIP unless otherwise indicated. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today's action is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions for the applicable requirements of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. With respect to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2), EPA is not proposing any action at this time regarding these requirements. For the Florida submissions 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 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 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with earlier versions of the SO2 NAAQS. More specifically, 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 basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' \2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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 are 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): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources \3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element as they relate to attainment areas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas \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 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility Protection 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions? EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Florida that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach 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 (NNSR) permit program submissions to address the [[Page 51159]] 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 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 [[Page 51160]] 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 most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\12\ EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.\13\ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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 under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. \13\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 128. As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHG). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action. For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs. With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\14\ It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are [[Page 51161]] 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. For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of 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.\15\ Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\16\ 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.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ 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). \16\ 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). \17\ 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 the sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions? The Florida infrastructure submissions address the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below. 1. 110(a)(2)(A) Emission Limits and Other Control Measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that each implementation plan include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements. Several regulations within Florida's SIP are relevant to air quality control regulations. The regulations described below include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures. Chapters 62-204, Air Pollution Control--General Provisions; 62-210, Stationary Sources--General Requirements; 62-212, Stationary Sources - Preconstruction Review; 62-296, Stationary Sources--Emissions Standards; and 62-297, Stationary Sources -Emissions Monitoring collectively establish enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means or techniques for activities that contribute to SO2 concentrations in the ambient air, and provide authority for FDEP to establish such limits and measures as well as schedules for compliance through SIP-approved permits to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. Additionally, the following sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. Section 403.061(9), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[a]dopt a comprehensive program for the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution of the air . . . of the state,'' and section 403.8055, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[a]dopt rules substantively identical to regulations adopted in the Federal Register by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to federal law. . .'' EPA has made the preliminary determination that the provisions contained in these State regulations and sections of the Florida Statutes, and Florida's practices are adequate to protect the 2010 1- hour SO2 NAAQS in the State. In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during start up, shut down, and malfunction (SSM) 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 is addressing such state regulations in a separate action.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ On May 22, 2015, the EPA Administrator signed a final action entitled, ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.'' The prepublication version of this rule is available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove [[Page 51162]] any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. 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: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator. SIP- approved rules at Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212 of the F.A.C. require the use of Federal Reference Method or equivalent monitors and also provide authority for FDEP to establish monitoring requirements through SIP-approved permits. Additionally, the following three sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to take specific actions in support of this infrastructure element. Section 403.061(11), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[e]stablish ambient air quality . . . standards for the state as a whole or for any part thereof.'' 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, includes the annual ambient monitoring network design plan, and includes a certified evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary support equipment.\19\ On July 1, 2013, Florida submitted its plan for 2013 to EPA. On November 22, 2013, EPA approved Florida's monitoring network plan. Florida's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR- 0423. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ 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) Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: 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). FDEP's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions cited a number of SIP provisions to address these requirements. EPA's rationale for its proposed action regarding each sub-element is described below. Specifically, FDEP cited Chapters 62- 204, 62-210, and 62-212, F.A.C. Collectively, these provisions of Florida's SIP regulate the construction of any new major stationary source or any modification at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable. These regulations enable FDEP to regulate sources contributing to the 2010 1- hour SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, the following two sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to take specific actions in support of this infrastructure element. Section 403.061(6), Florida Statutes, requires FDEP to ``[e]xercise general supervision of the administration and enforcement of the laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to air and water pollution.'' Section 403.121, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to seek judicial and administrative remedies, including civil penalties, injunctive relief, and criminal prosecution for violations of any FDEP rule or permit. Enforcement: Section 403.061(6), Florida Statutes, requires FDEP to ``[e]xercise general supervision of the administration and enforcement of the laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to air and water pollution.'' Section 403.121, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to seek judicial and administrative remedies, including civil penalties, injunctive relief, and criminal prosecution for violations of any FDEP rule or permit. These provisions provide FDEP with authority for enforcement of SO2 emission limits and control measures. PSD Permitting for Major Sources: EPA interprets the PSD sub- element to require that a state's infrastructure SIP submission for a particular NAAQS demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD permitting program in place covering the structural PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. A state's PSD permitting program is complete for this sub-element (and prong 3 of D(i) and J related to PSD) if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously approving the state's SIP with respect to all structural PSD requirements that are due under the EPA regulations or the CAA on or before the date of the EPA's proposed action on the infrastructure SIP submission. For the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, Florida's authority to regulate new and modified sources to assist in the protection of air quality in attainment or unclassifiable areas is established in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-210, Stationary Sources--General Requirements, Section 200--Definitions, and 62-212, Stationary Sources--Preconstruction Review, Section 400--Prevention of Significant Deterioration, of the Florida SIP. Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions demonstrate that new major sources and major modifications in areas of the State designated attainment or unclassifiable for the specified NAAQS are subject to a federally-approved PSD permitting program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA to satisfy the infrastructure SIP PSD elements.\20\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \20\ More information concerning how the Florida infrastructure SIP submission currently meets applicable requirements for the PSD elements (110(a)(2)(C); (D)(i)(I), prong 3; and (J)) can be found in EPA's November 13, 2014 proposed rulemaking and March 18, 2015 final approval notices for these elements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008 lead NAAQS, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions. See 79 FR 67398 and 80 FR 14019 respectively. For more information on the structural PSD program requirements that are relevant to EPA's review of infrastructure SIPs in connection with the current PSD-related infrastructure SIP requirements, see the technical support document in the docket for today's rulemaking. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor source program that regulates emissions of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Florida's SIP-approved rules, 62-210.300, F.A.C., and 62-212.300, F.A.C., collectively govern the preconstruction permitting of modifications and construction of minor stationary sources, and minor modifications of major stationary sources. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures, regulation of minor sources and modifications, and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. [[Page 51163]] 4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate Pollution Transport: 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 has 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''). 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) because Florida's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure submissions did not address prongs 1 and 2. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the PSD element, referred to as prong 3, may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to: A PSD program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the state contains a nonattainment area for the relevant pollutant), a NNSR program that implements NAAQS for the relevant pollutant. As discussed in more detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), Florida's SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD program that reflects the required structural PSD requirements to satisfy prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Florida addresses prong 3 through F.A.C. 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212 for the PSD and NNSR programs. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices are adequate for interstate transport for PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3). 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that the SIP contain adequate provisions to protect visibility in other states. EPA approved Florida's regional haze SIP.\21\ Florida's supplemental submission on January 8, 2014, relied on EPA's approval of the State's regional haze SIP submission and incorporation of all relevant portions of Florida's visibility program into the State's implementation plan to address the prong 4 requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Federal regulations require that a state's regional haze SIP contain a long- term strategy to address regional haze visibility impairment in each Class I area within the state and each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from the state.\22\ A state participating in a regional planning process, such as Florida, must include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emissions reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.\23\ EPA's approval of Florida's regional haze SIP therefore ensures that emissions from Florida are not interfering with measures to protect visibility in other states, satisfying the requirements of prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\24\ Thus, EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS meet the requirements of prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ See 77 FR 71111 (November 29, 2012); 78 FR 53250 (August 29, 2013). \22\ See 40 CFR 51.308(d). \23\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Florida participated in the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast regional planning organization, a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues in the Southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments included: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians. \24\ See EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance document entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' at pp. 32-35, available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html; see also memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(1)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (September 25, 2009) at pp. 5- 6, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212 of the F.A.C. require any new major source or major modification to undergo PSD or NNSR permitting and thereby provide notification to other potentially affected Federal, state, and local government agencies. Additionally, Florida does not have any pending obligation under sections 115 and 126 of the CAA relating to international or interstate pollution abatement. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices are adequate for ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies: 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 infrastructure SIP submission as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii). In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), FDEP's infrastructure submissions demonstrate that it is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards and general policies, a system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs. Section 403.061(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[h]ire only such employees as may be necessary to effectuate the responsibilities of the department.'' Section 403.061(4), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[s]ecure necessary scientific, technical, research, administrative, and operational services by interagency agreement, by contract, or otherwise.'' Section 403.182, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to approve local pollution control programs. Section 320.03(6), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to establish an Air Pollution Control Trust Fund and use a $1 fee on every motor vehicle license [[Page 51164]] registration sold in the State for air pollution control purposes. As evidence of the adequacy of FDEP's resources with respect to sub- elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to FDEP on February 28, 2014, outlining 105 grant commitments and current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2013. The letter EPA submitted to FDEP can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR- 2014-0423. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no outstanding issues in relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2013, therefore, FDEP's grants were finalized and closed out. In addition, the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when EPA performs a completeness determination for each SIP submittal. This determination ensures that each submittal provides evidence that adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law has been used to carry out the state's implementation plan and related issues. FDEP's authority is included in all prehearings and final SIP submittal packages for approval by EPA. FDEP is responsible for submitting all revisions to the Florida SIP to EPA for approval. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida has adequate resources for implementation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP provide: (1) The majority of members of the state board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. 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. 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. Florida is only subject to the requirements of 128(a)(2) and submitted the applicable statutes for incorporation into Florida SIP. On July 30, 2012, EPA approved Florida statutes into the SIP to comply with section 128 respecting state boards. See 77 FR 44485. EPA has made the preliminary determination that the State has adequately addressed the requirements of section 128(a)(2), and accordingly has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii). 7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements addressing (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this section, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection. FDEP's infrastructure SIP submissions describe the establishment of requirements for compliance testing by emissions sampling and analysis, and for emissions and operation monitoring to ensure the quality of data in the State. The Florida infrastructure SIP submissions also describe how the major source and minor source emission inventory programs collect emission data throughout the State and ensure the quality of such data. Florida meets these requirements through Chapters 62-204, 62-210, 62-212, 62- 296, and 62-297, F.A.C., which require emissions monitoring and reporting for activities that contribute to SO2 concentrations in the air, including requirements for the installation, calibration, maintenance, and operation of equipment for continuously monitoring or recording emissions, or provide authority for FDEP to establish such emissions monitoring and reporting requirements through SIP-approved permits and require reporting of SO2 emissions. The following sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. Section 403.061(13) authorizes FDEP to ``[r]equire persons engaged in operations which may result in pollution to file reports which may contain . . . any other such information as the department shall prescribe . . .''. Section 403.8055 authorizes FDEP to ``[a]dopt rules substantively identical to regulations adopted in the Federal Register by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to federal law. . . .'' Section 90.401, Florida Statutes, defines relevant evidence as evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact. Section 90.402, Florida Statutes, states that all relevant evidence is admissible except as provided by law. EPA is unaware of any provision preventing the use of credible evidence in the Florida SIP.\25\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ ``Credible Evidence'' makes allowances for owners and/or operators to utilize ``any credible evidence or information relevant'' to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed, for the purpose of submitting compliance certification and can be used to establish whether or not an owner or operator has violated or is in violation of any rule or standard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 , SO2 , 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 NEI on December 17, 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 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: This section requires that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions identify air pollution emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies as outlined in the Florida Statutes Sections 403.131 and 120.569(2)(n). These sections of the Florida Statutes were submitted for [[Page 51165]] inclusion in the SIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA and have been approved by EPA into Florida's SIP. Section 403.131 authorizes FDEP to: Seek injunctive relief to enforce compliance with this chapter or any rule, regulation or permit certification, or order; to enjoin any violation specified in Section 403.061(1); and to seek 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. Section 120.569(2)(n), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to issue emergency orders to address immediate dangers to the public health, safety, or welfare. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP, State laws, and practices are adequate to satisfy the infrastructure SIP obligations for emergency powers related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(G). 9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP Revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary, requires each SIP to provide for revisions of such plan (i) as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii) whenever the Administrator finds that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any additional applicable requirements. As previously discussed, FDEP is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS. Florida 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 two nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for which the State must submit a SIP demonstrating future attainment and maintenance for these areas by April 4, 2015. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). One of the nonattainment areas encompasses a portion of Nassau County and the other area encompasses a portion of Hillsborough County. The State submitted the required SIPs for the Nassau County and Hillsborough County SO2 nonattainment areas on April 3, 2015. The following sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this element. Section 403.061(35) gives FDEP the broad authority to implement the CAA. Section 403.061(9) authorizes FDEP to ``[a]dopt 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.'' EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida adequately demonstrates a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(H). 10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with government officials, public notification, and PSD and visibility protection: EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that complies with the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, PSD and visibility protection. EPA's rationale for each sub-element is described below. Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): Florida's SIP-approved Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, as well as its Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for continued consultation with 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. Specifically, Florida adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity which includes the development of mobile inventories for SIP development. These consultation procedures were developed in coordination with the transportation partners in the State and are consistent with the approaches used for development of mobile inventories for SIPs. Required partners covered by Florida's consultation procedures include Federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency officials. Also, Section 403.061(21), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[a]dvise, 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 government officials related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary. Public notification (127 public notification): FDEP has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of instances or areas exceeding the NAAQS along with associated health effects through the Air Quality Index reporting system in required areas. Section 403.061(20), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[c]ollect and disseminate information . . . relating to pollution'' and Florida implements an Air Quality Index reporting system to notify the public in impacted areas. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public notification. PSD: With regard to the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J), this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a PSD program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA. As discussed in more detail above under the section discussing 110(a)(2)(C), Florida's SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD program that reflect the relevant SIP revisions pertaining to the required structural PSD requirements to satisfy the requirement of the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices are adequate for interstate transport for PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J). Visibility protection: EPA's 2013 Guidance notes that it does not treat the visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process. FDEP referenced its regional haze program as germane to the visibility component of section 110(a)(2)(J). 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, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has determined that states do not need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP submittals so FDEP does not need to rely on its regional haze program to fulfill its obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that it does not need to address the visibility [[Page 51166]] protection element of section 110(a)(2)(J) in Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling and Submission of 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 EPA can be made. SIP-approved sections of Chapter 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, F.A.C., require use of EPA-approved modeling of pollutant-emitting sources that contribute to SO2 concentrations in the ambient air. Also, the following sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to conduct actions in support of this element. Section 403.061(13), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[r]equire persons engaged in operations which may result in pollution to file reports which may contain information relating to locations, size of outlet, height of outlet, rate and period of emission, and composition and concentration of effluent and such other information as the department shall prescribe to be filed . . .'' Section 403.061(18), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[e]ncourage and conduct studies, investigations, and research relating to pollution and its causes, effects, prevention, abatement, and control.'' These regulations and State statutes also demonstrate that Florida has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, Florida supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, for the Southeastern states. Florida notes in its SIP submissions that the FDEP has the technical capability to conduct or review all air quality modeling associated with the NSR program and all SIP-related modeling, except photochemical grid modeling which is performed for FDEP under contract. All such modeling is conducted in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' Taken as a whole, Florida's air quality regulations and practices demonstrate that FDEP has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any pollutant for which a NAAQS had been promulgated, and to provide such information to the EPA Administrator upon request. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(K). 12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: This section requires 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. Section 403.087(6)(a), Florida Statutes, directs FDEP to ``require a processing fee in an amount sufficient, to the greatest extent possible, to cover the costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for a permit . . .''. Florida's Air Pollution Control Trust Fund is the depository for all funds for the operation of the Division of Air Resource Management. Within the fund is an account that contains all fees under the title V program. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's State rules and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(L). 13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities: Florida coordinates with local governments affected by the SIP. Florida's SIP also includes a description of the public participation process for SIP development. Florida has consulted with local entities for the development of transportation conformity and has worked with the Federal Land Managers as a requirement of the regional haze rule. Section 403.061(21), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[a]dvise, 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.'' Section 403.061(21), Florida Statutes, is one way that the State meets the requirements of this element as described further below. More specifically, Florida adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity which includes the development of mobile inventories for SIP development and the requirements that link transportation planning and air quality planning in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Required partners covered by Florida's consultation procedures include Federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency officials. The state and local transportation agency officials are most directly impacted by transportation conformity requirements and are required to provide public involvement for their activities including the analysis demonstrating how they meet transportation conformity requirements. Also, FDEP has agreements with eight county air pollution control agencies (Duval, Orange, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Sarasota, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade) that delineate the responsibilities of each county in carrying out Florida's air program, including the Florida SIP. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when necessary. V. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure submissions submitted on June 3, 2013, and supplemented on January 8, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the above described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS because the submissions are 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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 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: [[Page 51167]]Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: August 12, 2015. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2015-20748 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51157
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a DATES: Written comments must be technical difficulties and cannot contact
second comment period. Any parties received on or before September 23, you for clarification, EPA may not be
interested in commenting on this action 2015. able to consider your comment.
should do so at this time. Please note ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, Electronic files should avoid the use of
that if EPA receives adverse comment identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– special characters, any form of
on an amendment, paragraph, or section OAR–2014–0423, by one of the encryption, and be free of any defects or
of this rule and if that provision may be following methods: viruses. For additional information
severed from the remainder of the rule, 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
EPA may adopt as final those provisions on-line instructions for submitting Docket Center homepage at http://
of the rule that are not the subject of an comments. www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
adverse comment. For additional Docket: All documents in the
2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov.
information, see the direct final rule electronic docket are listed in the
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
which is located in the Rules section of 4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2014– www.regulations.gov index. Although
this Federal Register. listed in the index, some information is
0423,’’ Air Regulatory Management
Dated: August 10, 2015. not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
Section, Air Planning and
information whose disclosure is
Susan Hedman, Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
restricted by statute. Certain other
Regional Administrator, Region 5. and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
material, such as copyrighted material,
[FR Doc. 2015–20769 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] Environmental Protection Agency,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
publicly available only in hard copy
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
form. Publicly available docket
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
materials are available either
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
AGENCY Management Section, Air Planning and
in hard copy at the Air Regulatory
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
40 CFR Part 52 Management Section, Air Planning and
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0423; FRL–9932–86– Environmental Protection Agency, and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Region 4] Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Approval and Promulgation of deliveries are only accepted during the Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
Implementation Plans; Florida; Regional Office’s normal hours of requests that if at all possible, you
Infrastructure Requirements for the operation. The Regional Office’s official contact the person listed in the FOR
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient hours of business are Monday through FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
Air Quality Standard Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding schedule your inspection. The Regional
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Federal holidays. Office’s official hours of business are
Agency. Instructions: Direct your comments to Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
0423. EPA’s policy is that all comments
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection received will be included in the public
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve docket without change and may be
Management Section, Air Planning and
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) made available online at
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
submissions, submitted by the State of www.regulations.gov, including any
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Florida, through the Florida Department personal information provided, unless
Environmental Protection Agency,
of Environmental Protection (FDEP), on the comment includes information
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
June 3, 2013, and supplemented on claimed to be Confidential Business
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
January 8, 2014, for inclusion into the Information (CBI) or other information
Notarianni can be reached via electronic
Florida SIP. This proposal pertains to whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov or
the infrastructure requirements of the Do not submit through
the telephone number (404) 562–9031.
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 www.regulations.gov or email,
1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national information that you consider to be CBI Table of Contents
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). or otherwise protected. The I. Background and Overview
The CAA requires that each state adopt www.regulations.gov Web site is an II. What elements are required under sections
and submit a SIP for the ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 110(a)(1) and (2)?
implementation, maintenance and means EPA will not know your identity III. What is EPA’s approach to the review of
enforcement of each NAAQS or contact information unless you infrastructure SIP submissions?
promulgated by EPA, which is provide it in the body of your comment. IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how Florida
commonly referred to as an If you send an email comment directly addressed the elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘infrastructure’’
‘‘infrastructure SIP submission.’’ FDEP to EPA without going through provisions?
certified that the Florida SIP contains www.regulations.gov, your email V. Proposed Action
provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour address will be automatically captured VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and included as part of the comment
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
and maintained in Florida. EPA is that is placed in the public docket and I. Background and Overview
proposing to determine that Florida’s made available on the Internet. If you On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA
infrastructure SIP submissions, submit an electronic comment, EPA promulgated a revised primary SO2
provided to EPA on June 3, 2013, and recommends that you include your NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75
supplemented on January 8, 2014, name and other contact information in parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year
satisfy the required infrastructure the body of your comment and with any average of the annual 99th percentile of
elements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 1-hour daily maximum concentrations.
NAAQS. cannot read your comment due to Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51320/page/1.svg)
![51158 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
CAA, states are required to submit SIPs and submits the SIP for a new or revised • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers
meeting the applicable requirements of NAAQS affects the content of the • 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions
section 110(a)(2) within three years after submission. The contents of such SIP • 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for
promulgation of a new or revised submissions may also vary depending Nonattainment Areas 4
NAAQS or within such shorter period upon what provisions the state’s • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with
as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) existing SIP already contains. In the Government Officials, Public
requires states to address basic SIP case of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, Notification, and Prevention of
elements such as requirements for states typically have met the basic Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
monitoring, basic program requirements program elements required in section Visibility Protection
and legal authority that are designed to 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP • 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling
assure attainment and maintenance of submissions in connection with earlier and Submission of Modeling Data
the NAAQS. States were required to versions of the SO2 NAAQS. • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour More specifically, section 110(a)(1) • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and
SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June provides the procedural and timing Participation by Affected Local
22, 2013.1 requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) Entities
Today’s action is proposing to lists specific elements that states must III. What is EPA’s approach to the
approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP review of infrastructure SIP
submissions for the applicable requirements related to a newly submissions?
requirements of the 2010 1-hour SO2 established or revised NAAQS. As
NAAQS. With respect to the interstate EPA is acting upon the SIP
mentioned above, these requirements
transport provisions pertaining to the submissions from Florida that address
include basic SIP elements such as
contribution to nonattainment or the infrastructure requirements of CAA
requirements for monitoring, basic
interference with maintenance in other sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
program requirements and legal
states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The
authority that are designed to assure
(prongs 1 and 2), EPA is not proposing requirement for states to make a SIP
attainment and maintenance of the
any action at this time regarding these submission of this type arises out of
NAAQS. The requirements are
requirements. For the Florida CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to
summarized below and in EPA’s
submissions proposed for approval section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
September 13, 2013, memorandum
today, EPA notes that the Agency is not submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such
entitled ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure
approving any specific rule, but rather shorter period as the Administrator may
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
proposing that Florida’s already prescribe) after the promulgation of a
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
approved SIP meets certain CAA national primary ambient air quality
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 2
requirements. standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and these SIP submissions are to provide for
II. What elements are required under Other Control Measures the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires Monitoring/Data System statute directly imposes on states the
states to submit SIPs to provide for the • 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for duty to make these SIP submissions,
implementation, maintenance, and Enforcement of Control Measures and and the requirement to make the
enforcement of a new or revised for Construction or Modification of submissions is not conditioned upon
NAAQS within three years following Stationary Sources 3 EPA’s taking any action other than
the promulgation of such NAAQS, or • 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
within such shorter period as EPA may Pollution Transport
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the • 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution
specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
obligation upon states to make a SIP Abatement and International Air
plan’’ submission must address.
submission to EPA for a new or revised Pollution EPA has historically referred to these
NAAQS, but the contents of that • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and
SIP submissions made for the purpose
submission may vary depending upon Authority, Conflict of Interest, and
of satisfying the requirements of CAA
the facts and circumstances. In Oversight of Local Governments and
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
particular, the data and analytical tools Regional Agencies
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions.
available at the time the state develops • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source
Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
Monitoring and Reporting
does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses
1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions states
2 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are
the term to distinguish this particular
generally certify evidence of compliance with
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a not governed by the three year submission deadline type of SIP submission from
combination of state regulations and statutes, some of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating submissions that are intended to satisfy
of which have been incorporated into the federally- necessary local nonattainment area controls are not other SIP requirements under the CAA,
approved SIP. In addition, certain federally- due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time
such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or
approved, non-SIP regulations may also be
appropriate for demonstrating compliance with the nonattainment area plan requirements are due ‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to
sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Florida’s existing SIP pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) address the nonattainment planning
consists largely of Florida Administrative Code Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the requirements of part D of title I of the
(F.A.C.) rules adopted by FDEP and approved by extent that subsection refers to a permit program as
CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA through the SIP revision process. However, required in part D, title I of the CAA; and (2)
there are some F.A.C. state regulations that are not submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which required by EPA rule to address the
part of the Florida federally-approved SIP. pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements visibility protection requirements of
Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise of part D, title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed CAA section 169A, and nonattainment
indicated, the term ‘‘F.A.C.’’, ‘‘Rule’’, or ‘‘Chapter’’ rulemaking does not address infrastructure
elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the
new source review (NNSR) permit
indicate that the cited regulation has been approved
into Florida’s federally-approved SIP. The term nonattainment planning requirements of program submissions to address the
‘‘Florida Statutes’’ indicates cited Florida state 110(a)(2)(C).
statutes, which are not a part of the SIP unless 3 This rulemaking only addresses requirements 4 As mentioned above, this element is not
otherwise indicated. for this element as they relate to attainment areas. relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51320/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51161
logically applicable to that submission. 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct regulations. The regulations described
EPA believes that this approach to the errors in past actions, such as past below include enforceable emission
review of a particular infrastructure SIP approvals of SIP submissions.16 limitations and other control measures.
submission is appropriate, because it Significantly, EPA’s determination that Chapters 62–204, Air Pollution
would not be reasonable to read the an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP Control—General Provisions; 62–210,
general requirements of section submission is not the appropriate time Stationary Sources—General
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in and place to address all potential Requirements; 62–212, Stationary
110(a)(2) as requiring review of each existing SIP deficiencies does not Sources –Preconstruction Review; 62–
and every provision of a state’s existing preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 296, Stationary Sources—Emissions
SIP against all requirements in the CAA provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of Standards; and 62–297, Stationary
and EPA regulations merely for the basis for action to correct those Sources –Emissions Monitoring
purposes of assuring that the state in deficiencies at a later time. For example, collectively establish enforceable
question has the basic structural although it may not be appropriate to emissions limitations and other control
elements for a functioning SIP for a new require a state to eliminate all existing measures, means or techniques for
or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have inappropriate director’s discretion activities that contribute to SO2
grown by accretion over the decades as provisions in the course of acting on an concentrations in the ambient air, and
statutory and regulatory requirements infrastructure SIP submission, EPA provide authority for FDEP to establish
under the CAA have evolved, they may believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be such limits and measures as well as
include some outmoded provisions and among the statutory bases that EPA schedules for compliance through SIP-
historical artifacts. These provisions, relies upon in the course of addressing approved permits to meet the applicable
while not fully up to date, nevertheless such deficiency in a subsequent requirements of the CAA.
may not pose a significant problem for action.17 Additionally, the following sections
the purposes of ‘‘implementation, of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how authority to conduct certain actions in
maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a Florida addressed the elements of the
new or revised NAAQS when EPA support of this infrastructure element.
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Section 403.061(9), Florida Statutes,
evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure ‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions?
SIP submission. EPA believes that a authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[a]dopt a
better approach is for states and EPA to The Florida infrastructure comprehensive program for the
focus attention on those elements of submissions address the provisions of prevention, control, and abatement of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described pollution of the air . . . of the state,’’
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely
below. and section 403.8055, Florida Statutes,
to warrant a specific SIP revision due to
1. 110(a)(2)(A) Emission Limits and authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[a]dopt rules
the promulgation of a new or revised Other Control Measures: Section
NAAQS or other factors. substantively identical to regulations
110(a)(2)(A) requires that each adopted in the Federal Register by the
For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance
implementation plan include United States Environmental Protection
gives simpler recommendations with
enforceable emission limitations and Agency pursuant to federal law. . .’’
respect to carbon monoxide than other
other control measures, means, or EPA has made the preliminary
NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility techniques (including economic determination that the provisions
requirements of section incentives such as fees, marketable contained in these State regulations and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon permits, and auctions of emissions sections of the Florida Statutes, and
monoxide does not affect visibility. As rights), as well as schedules and Florida’s practices are adequate to
a result, an infrastructure SIP timetables for compliance, as may be protect the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in
submission for any future new or necessary or appropriate to meet the the State.
revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide applicable requirements. Several In this action, EPA is not proposing to
need only state this fact in order to regulations within Florida’s SIP are approve or disapprove any existing state
address the visibility prong of section relevant to air quality control provisions with regard to excess
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). emissions during start up, shut down,
Finally, EPA believes that its Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State and malfunction (SSM) operations at a
approach with respect to infrastructure Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 facility. EPA believes that a number of
SIP requirements is based on a (April 18, 2011).
states have SSM provisions which are
16 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in
reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD
and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans:
other avenues and mechanisms to Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Policy Regarding Excess Emissions
address specific substantive deficiencies Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in
During Malfunctions, Startup, and
in existing SIPs. These other statutory State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR
82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and
tools allow EPA to take appropriately used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to the Agency is addressing such state
tailored action, depending upon the remove numerous other SIP provisions that the regulations in a separate action.18
nature and severity of the alleged SIP Agency determined it had approved in error. See,
Additionally, in this action, EPA is
deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641
(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, not proposing to approve or disapprove
EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69
Agency determines that a state’s SIP is FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 18 On May 22, 2015, the EPA Administrator
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
substantially inadequate to attain or California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, signed a final action entitled, ‘‘State
maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
17 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA’s SSM
interstate transport, or to otherwise
from Colorado on the grounds that it would have Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial
comply with the CAA.15 Section included a director’s discretion provision Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions
inconsistent with CAA requirements, including Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
15 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.’’ The
address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s prepublication version of this rule is available at
the treatment of excess emissions during SSM discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/
events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of (final disapproval of such provisions). emissions.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51320/page/5.svg)
![51162 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
any existing state rules with regard to 3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for requirements for all regulated NSR
director’s discretion or variance Enforcement of Control Measures and pollutants. A state’s PSD permitting
provisions. EPA believes that a number for Construction or Modification of program is complete for this sub-
of states have such provisions which are Stationary Sources: This element element (and prong 3 of D(i) and J
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA consists of three sub-elements: related to PSD) if EPA has already
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, enforcement, state-wide regulation of approved or is simultaneously
1987)), and the Agency plans to take new and modified minor sources and approving the state’s SIP with respect to
action in the future to address such state minor modifications of major sources, all structural PSD requirements that are
regulations. In the meantime, EPA and preconstruction permitting of major due under the EPA regulations or the
encourages any state having a director’s sources and major modifications in CAA on or before the date of the EPA’s
discretion or variance provision which areas designated attainment or proposed action on the infrastructure
is contrary to the CAA and EPA unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as SIP submission. For the 2010 1-hour
guidance to take steps to correct the required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the SO2 NAAQS, Florida’s authority to
deficiency as soon as possible. major source PSD program). FDEP’s regulate new and modified sources to
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure assist in the protection of air quality in
2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient Air Quality SIP submissions cited a number of SIP attainment or unclassifiable areas is
Monitoring/Data System: Section provisions to address these established in Florida Administrative
110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for requirements. EPA’s rationale for its Code Chapters 62–210, Stationary
establishment and operation of proposed action regarding each sub- Sources—General Requirements,
appropriate devices, methods, systems, element is described below. Section 200—Definitions, and 62–212,
and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, Specifically, FDEP cited Chapters 62– Stationary Sources—Preconstruction
compile, and analyze data on ambient 204, 62–210, and 62–212, F.A.C. Review, Section 400—Prevention of
air quality, and (ii) upon request, make Collectively, these provisions of Significant Deterioration, of the Florida
such data available to the Florida’s SIP regulate the construction SIP. Florida’s infrastructure SIP
Administrator. SIP-approved rules at of any new major stationary source or submissions demonstrate that new
Chapters 62–204, 62–210, and 62–212 of any modification at an existing major major sources and major modifications
the F.A.C. require the use of Federal stationary source in an area designated in areas of the State designated
Reference Method or equivalent as nonattainment, attainment or attainment or unclassifiable for the
monitors and also provide authority for unclassifiable. These regulations enable specified NAAQS are subject to a
FDEP to establish monitoring FDEP to regulate sources contributing to federally-approved PSD permitting
requirements through SIP-approved the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. program meeting all the current
permits. Additionally, the following Additionally, the following two structural requirements of part C of title
three sections of the Florida Statutes sections of the Florida Statutes provide I of the CAA to satisfy the infrastructure
provide FDEP the authority to take FDEP the authority to take specific SIP PSD elements.20
specific actions in support of this actions in support of this infrastructure Regulation of minor sources and
infrastructure element. Section element. Section 403.061(6), Florida modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also
403.061(11), Florida Statutes, authorizes Statutes, requires FDEP to ‘‘[e]xercise requires the SIP to include provisions
FDEP to ‘‘[e]stablish ambient air quality general supervision of the that govern the minor source program
. . . standards for the state as a whole administration and enforcement of the that regulates emissions of the 2010 1-
or for any part thereof.’’ Annually, states laws, rules, and regulations pertaining hour SO2 NAAQS. Florida’s SIP-
develop and submit to EPA for approval to air and water pollution.’’ Section approved rules, 62–210.300, F.A.C., and
statewide ambient monitoring network 403.121, Florida Statutes, authorizes 62–212.300, F.A.C., collectively govern
plans consistent with the requirements FDEP to seek judicial and the preconstruction permitting of
of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The administrative remedies, including civil modifications and construction of minor
annual network plan involves an penalties, injunctive relief, and criminal stationary sources, and minor
evaluation of any proposed changes to prosecution for violations of any FDEP modifications of major stationary
the monitoring network, includes the rule or permit. sources.
annual ambient monitoring network Enforcement: Section 403.061(6), EPA has made the preliminary
design plan, and includes a certified Florida Statutes, requires FDEP to determination that Florida’s SIP and
evaluation of the agency’s ambient ‘‘[e]xercise general supervision of the practices are adequate for program
monitors and auxiliary support administration and enforcement of the enforcement of control measures,
equipment.19 On July 1, 2013, Florida laws, rules, and regulations pertaining regulation of minor sources and
submitted its plan for 2013 to EPA. On to air and water pollution.’’ Section modifications, and preconstruction
November 22, 2013, EPA approved 403.121, Florida Statutes, authorizes permitting of major sources and major
Florida’s monitoring network plan. FDEP to seek judicial and modifications related to the 2010 1-hour
Florida’s approved monitoring network administrative remedies, including civil SO2 NAAQS.
plan can be accessed at penalties, injunctive relief, and criminal
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID prosecution for violations of any FDEP 20 More information concerning how the Florida
rule or permit. These provisions provide infrastructure SIP submission currently meets
No. EPA–R04–OAR–0423. EPA has applicable requirements for the PSD elements
made the preliminary determination FDEP with authority for enforcement of (110(a)(2)(C); (D)(i)(I), prong 3; and (J)) can be found
that Florida’s SIP and practices are SO2 emission limits and control in EPA’s November 13, 2014 proposed rulemaking
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
adequate for the ambient air quality measures. and March 18, 2015 final approval notices for these
PSD Permitting for Major Sources: elements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008 lead
monitoring and data system related to NAAQS, and 2010 NO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP
EPA interprets the PSD sub-element to submissions. See 79 FR 67398 and 80 FR 14019
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
require that a state’s infrastructure SIP respectively. For more information on the structural
submission for a particular NAAQS PSD program requirements that are relevant to
19 On occasion, proposed changes to the EPA’s review of infrastructure SIPs in connection
monitoring network are evaluated outside of the
demonstrate that the state has a with the current PSD-related infrastructure SIP
network plan approval process in accordance with complete PSD permitting program in requirements, see the technical support document
40 CFR part 58. place covering the structural PSD in the docket for today’s rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51320/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51163
4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate contain adequate provisions to protect ensuring compliance with sections 115
Pollution Transport: Section visibility in other states. EPA approved and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: Florida’s regional haze SIP.21 Florida’s and international pollution abatement.
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). supplemental submission on January 8, Chapters 62–204, 62–210, and 62–212 of
Each of these components has two 2014, relied on EPA’s approval of the the F.A.C. require any new major source
subparts resulting in four distinct State’s regional haze SIP submission or major modification to undergo PSD or
components, commonly referred to as and incorporation of all relevant NNSR permitting and thereby provide
‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in portions of Florida’s visibility program notification to other potentially affected
infrastructure SIP submissions. The first into the State’s implementation plan to Federal, state, and local government
two prongs, which are codified in address the prong 4 requirements of agencies. Additionally, Florida does not
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 1- have any pending obligation under
that prohibit any source or other type of hour SO2 NAAQS. Federal regulations sections 115 and 126 of the CAA
emissions activity in one state from require that a state’s regional haze SIP relating to international or interstate
contributing significantly to contain a long-term strategy to address pollution abatement. EPA has made the
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another regional haze visibility impairment in preliminary determination that Florida’s
state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with each Class I area within the state and SIP and practices are adequate for
maintenance of the NAAQS in another each Class I area outside the state that ensuring compliance with the
state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth may be affected by emissions from the applicable requirements relating to
prongs, which are codified in section state.22 A state participating in a interstate and international pollution
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that regional planning process, such as abatement for the 2010 1-hour SO2
prohibit emissions activity in one state Florida, must include all measures NAAQS.
from interfering with measures required needed to achieve its apportionment of 6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources
to prevent significant deterioration of air emissions reduction obligations agreed and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and
quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or upon through that process.23 EPA’s Oversight of Local Governments and
to protect visibility in another state approval of Florida’s regional haze SIP Regional Agencies: Section 110(a)(2)(E)
(‘‘prong 4’’). therefore ensures that emissions from requires that each implementation plan
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: Florida are not interfering with provide (i) necessary assurances that the
EPA is not proposing any action in this measures to protect visibility in other state will have adequate personnel,
rulemaking related to the interstate states, satisfying the requirements of funding, and authority under state law
transport provisions pertaining to the prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for to carry out its implementation plan, (ii)
contribution to nonattainment or the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.24 Thus, that the state comply with the
interference with maintenance in other EPA has made the preliminary requirements respecting state boards
states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) determination that Florida’s pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and
(prongs 1 and 2) because Florida’s 2010 infrastructure SIP submissions for the (iii) necessary assurances that, where
1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS meet the the state has relied on a local or regional
submissions did not address prongs 1 requirements of prong 4 of section government, agency, or instrumentality
and 2. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). for the implementation of any plan
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution provision, the state has responsibility
regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the Abatement and International Air for ensuring adequate implementation
PSD element, referred to as prong 3, Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of such plan provisions. EPA is
may be met by a state’s confirmation in requires SIPs to include provisions proposing to approve Florida’s
an infrastructure SIP submission that infrastructure SIP submission as
new major sources and major 21 See 77 FR 71111 (November 29, 2012); 78 FR meeting the requirements of sub-
modifications in the state are subject to: 53250 (August 29, 2013). elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii).
22 See 40 CFR 51.308(d).
A PSD program meeting all the current 23 See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Florida
In support of EPA’s proposal to
structural requirements of part C of title participated in the Visibility Improvement State
approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and
I of the CAA, or (if the state contains a and Tribal Association of the Southeast regional (iii), FDEP’s infrastructure submissions
nonattainment area for the relevant planning organization, a collaborative effort of state demonstrate that it is responsible for
pollutant), a NNSR program that governments, tribal governments, and various promulgating rules and regulations for
Federal agencies established to initiate and
implements NAAQS for the relevant coordinate activities associated with the
the NAAQS, emissions standards and
pollutant. As discussed in more detail management of regional haze, visibility, and other general policies, a system of permits, fee
above under section 110(a)(2)(C), air quality issues in the Southeastern United States. schedules for the review of plans, and
Florida’s SIP contains provisions for the Member state and tribal governments included: other planning needs. Section
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
State’s PSD program that reflects the North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
403.061(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes
required structural PSD requirements to Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the FDEP to ‘‘[h]ire only such employees as
satisfy prong 3 of section Cherokee Indians. may be necessary to effectuate the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Florida addresses 24 See EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance
responsibilities of the department.’’
prong 3 through F.A.C. 62–204, 62–210, document entitled ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure Section 403.061(4), Florida Statutes,
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under
and 62–212 for the PSD and NNSR Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ at authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[s]ecure necessary
programs. EPA has made the pp. 32–35, available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/ scientific, technical, research,
preliminary determination that Florida’s urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html; see also administrative, and operational services
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SIP and practices are adequate for memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, by interagency agreement, by contract,
Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality
interstate transport for PSD permitting Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division
or otherwise.’’ Section 403.182, Florida
of major sources and major Directors, entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Statutes, authorizes FDEP to approve
modifications related to the 2010 1-hour Required Under Sections 110(1)(1) and (2) for the local pollution control programs.
SO2 NAAQS for section 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Section 320.03(6), Florida Statutes,
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3). (September 25, 2009) at pp. 5–6, available at:
authorizes FDEP to establish an Air
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: Section http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/ Pollution Control Trust Fund and use a
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that the SIP 20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf. $1 fee on every motor vehicle license
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51320/page/7.svg)
![51164 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
registration sold in the State for air that the State has adequately addressed Environmental Protection Agency
pollution control purposes. As evidence the requirements of section 128(a)(2), pursuant to federal law. . . .’’
of the adequacy of FDEP’s resources and accordingly has met the Section 90.401, Florida Statutes,
with respect to sub-elements (i) and (iii), requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) defines relevant evidence as evidence
EPA submitted a letter to FDEP on with respect to infrastructure SIP tending to prove or disprove a material
February 28, 2014, outlining 105 grant requirements. fact. Section 90.402, Florida Statutes,
commitments and current status of these Therefore, EPA is proposing to states that all relevant evidence is
commitments for fiscal year 2013. The approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP admissible except as provided by law.
letter EPA submitted to FDEP can be submissions as meeting the EPA is unaware of any provision
accessed at www.regulations.gov using requirements of sub-elements preventing the use of credible evidence
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii). in the Florida SIP.25
0423. Annually, states update these 7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Additionally, Florida is required to
grant commitments based on current SIP Monitoring and Reporting: Section submit emissions data to EPA for
requirements, air quality planning, and 110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet purposes of the National Emissions
applicable requirements related to the applicable requirements addressing (i) Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s
NAAQS. There were no outstanding the installation, maintenance, and central repository for air emissions data.
issues in relation to the SIP for fiscal replacement of equipment, and the EPA published the Air Emissions
year 2013, therefore, FDEP’s grants were implementation of other necessary Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5,
finalized and closed out. In addition, steps, by owners or operators of 2008, which modified the requirements
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and stationary sources to monitor emissions for collecting and reporting air
(iii) are met when EPA performs a from such sources, (ii) periodic reports emissions data (73 FR 76539). The
completeness determination for each on the nature and amounts of emissions AERR shortened the time states had to
SIP submittal. This determination and emissions related data from such report emissions data from 17 to 12
ensures that each submittal provides sources, and (iii) correlation of such months, giving states one calendar year
evidence that adequate personnel, reports by the state agency with any to submit emissions data. All states are
funding, and legal authority under state emission limitations or standards required to submit a comprehensive
law has been used to carry out the established pursuant to this section, emissions inventory every three years
state’s implementation plan and related which reports shall be available at and report emissions for certain larger
issues. FDEP’s authority is included in reasonable times for public inspection. sources annually through EPA’s online
all prehearings and final SIP submittal FDEP’s infrastructure SIP submissions Emissions Inventory System. States
packages for approval by EPA. FDEP is describe the establishment of report emissions data for the six criteria
requirements for compliance testing by pollutants and the precursors that form
responsible for submitting all revisions
emissions sampling and analysis, and them—NOX, SO2, ammonia, lead,
to the Florida SIP to EPA for approval.
for emissions and operation monitoring carbon monoxide, particulate matter,
EPA has made the preliminary
to ensure the quality of data in the State. and volatile organic compounds. Many
determination that Florida has adequate
The Florida infrastructure SIP states also voluntarily report emissions
resources for implementation of the
submissions also describe how the of hazardous air pollutants. Florida
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
major source and minor source emission made its latest update to the NEI on
Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that inventory programs collect emission
the state comply with section 128 of the December 17, 2014. EPA compiles the
data throughout the State and ensure the emissions data, supplementing it where
CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP quality of such data. Florida meets these
provide: (1) The majority of members of necessary, and releases it to the general
requirements through Chapters 62–204,
the state board or body which approves public through the Web site http://
62–210, 62–212, 62–296, and 62–297,
permits or enforcement orders represent www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
F.A.C., which require emissions
the public interest and do not derive eiinformation.html. EPA has made the
monitoring and reporting for activities
any significant portion of their income preliminary determination that Florida’s
that contribute to SO2 concentrations in
from persons subject to permitting or SIP and practices are adequate for the
the air, including requirements for the
enforcement orders under the CAA; and stationary source monitoring systems
installation, calibration, maintenance,
(2) any potential conflicts of interest by related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
and operation of equipment for
such board or body, or the head of an 8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers:
continuously monitoring or recording
executive agency with similar powers be This section requires that states
emissions, or provide authority for
adequately disclosed. For purposes of demonstrate authority comparable with
FDEP to establish such emissions
section 128(a)(1), Florida has no boards section 303 of the CAA and adequate
monitoring and reporting requirements
or bodies with authority over air contingency plans to implement such
through SIP-approved permits and
pollution permits or enforcement authority. Florida’s infrastructure SIP
require reporting of SO2 emissions.
actions. Such matters are instead The following sections of the Florida submissions identify air pollution
handled by an appointed Secretary. As Statutes provide FDEP the authority to emergency episodes and preplanned
such, a ‘‘board or body’’ is not conduct certain actions in support of abatement strategies as outlined in the
responsible for approving permits or this infrastructure element. Section Florida Statutes Sections 403.131 and
enforcement orders in Florida, and the 403.061(13) authorizes FDEP to 120.569(2)(n). These sections of the
requirements of section 128(a)(1) are not ‘‘[r]equire persons engaged in operations Florida Statutes were submitted for
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
applicable. Florida is only subject to the which may result in pollution to file 25 ‘‘Credible Evidence’’ makes allowances for
requirements of 128(a)(2) and submitted reports which may contain . . . any owners and/or operators to utilize ‘‘any credible
the applicable statutes for incorporation other such information as the evidence or information relevant’’ to demonstrate
into Florida SIP. On July 30, 2012, EPA department shall prescribe . . .’’. compliance with applicable requirements if the
approved Florida statutes into the SIP to Section 403.8055 authorizes FDEP to appropriate performance or compliance test had
been performed, for the purpose of submitting
comply with section 128 respecting ‘‘[a]dopt rules substantively identical to compliance certification and can be used to
state boards. See 77 FR 44485. EPA has regulations adopted in the Federal establish whether or not an owner or operator has
made the preliminary determination Register by the United States violated or is in violation of any rule or standard.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51320/page/8.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51165
inclusion in the SIP to address the FDEP to ‘‘[a]dopt a comprehensive related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) of program for the prevention, control, and when necessary.
the CAA and have been approved by abatement of pollution of the air . . . of Public notification (127 public
EPA into Florida’s SIP. Section 403.131 the state, and from time to time review notification): FDEP has public notice
authorizes FDEP to: Seek injunctive and modify such programs as mechanisms in place to notify the
relief to enforce compliance with this necessary.’’ EPA has made the public of instances or areas exceeding
chapter or any rule, regulation or permit preliminary determination that Florida the NAAQS along with associated
certification, or order; to enjoin any adequately demonstrates a commitment health effects through the Air Quality
violation specified in Section to provide future SIP revisions related to Index reporting system in required
403.061(1); and to seek injunctive relief the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when areas. Section 403.061(20), Florida
to prevent irreparable injury to the air, necessary. Accordingly, EPA is Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[c]ollect
waters, and property, including animal, proposing to approve Florida’s and disseminate information . . .
plant, and aquatic life, of the State and infrastructure SIP submissions with relating to pollution’’ and Florida
to protect human health, safety, and respect to section 110(a)(2)(H). implements an Air Quality Index
welfare caused or threatened by any 10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with reporting system to notify the public in
violation. Section 120.569(2)(n), Florida government officials, public impacted areas. Accordingly, EPA is
Statutes, authorizes FDEP to issue notification, and PSD and visibility proposing to approve Florida’s
emergency orders to address immediate protection: EPA is proposing to approve infrastructure SIP submissions with
dangers to the public health, safety, or Florida’s infrastructure SIP for the 2010 respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public
welfare. EPA has made the preliminary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with respect to the notification.
determination that Florida’s SIP, State general requirement in section PSD: With regard to the PSD element
laws, and practices are adequate to of section 110(a)(2)(J), this requirement
110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the
satisfy the infrastructure SIP obligations may be met by a state’s confirmation in
SIP that complies with the applicable
for emergency powers related to the an infrastructure SIP submission that
consultation requirements of section
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, new major sources and major
121, the public notification
EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s modifications in the state are subject to
requirements of section 127, PSD and
infrastructure SIP submissions with a PSD program meeting all the current
visibility protection. EPA’s rationale for
respect to section 110(a)(2)(G). structural requirements of part C of title
each sub-element is described below.
9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP Revisions: Section I of the CAA. As discussed in more
110(a)(2)(H), in summary, requires each Consultation with government detail above under the section
SIP to provide for revisions of such plan officials (121 consultation): Florida’s discussing 110(a)(2)(C), Florida’s SIP
(i) as may be necessary to take account SIP-approved Chapters 62–204, 62–210, contains provisions for the State’s PSD
of revisions of such national primary or and 62–212, as well as its Regional Haze program that reflect the relevant SIP
secondary ambient air quality standard Implementation Plan (which allows for revisions pertaining to the required
or the availability of improved or more continued consultation with appropriate structural PSD requirements to satisfy
expeditious methods of attaining such state, local, and tribal air pollution the requirement of the PSD element of
standard, and (ii) whenever the control agencies as well as the section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA has made the
Administrator finds that the plan is corresponding Federal Land Managers), preliminary determination that Florida’s
substantially inadequate to attain the provide for consultation with SIP and practices are adequate for
NAAQS or to otherwise comply with government officials whose jurisdictions interstate transport for PSD permitting
any additional applicable requirements. might be affected by SIP development of major sources and major
As previously discussed, FDEP is activities. Specifically, Florida adopted modifications related to the 2010 1-hour
responsible for adopting air quality state-wide consultation procedures for SO2 NAAQS for the PSD element of
rules and revising SIPs as needed to the implementation of transportation section 110(a)(2)(J).
attain or maintain the NAAQS. Florida conformity which includes the Visibility protection: EPA’s 2013
has the ability and authority to respond development of mobile inventories for Guidance notes that it does not treat the
to calls for SIP revisions, and has SIP development. These consultation visibility protection aspects of section
provided a number of SIP revisions over procedures were developed in 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of
the years for implementation of the coordination with the transportation the infrastructure SIP approval process.
NAAQS. Florida has two nonattainment partners in the State and are consistent FDEP referenced its regional haze
areas for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS with the approaches used for program as germane to the visibility
for which the State must submit a SIP development of mobile inventories for component of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA
demonstrating future attainment and SIPs. Required partners covered by recognizes that states are subject to
maintenance for these areas by April 4, Florida’s consultation procedures visibility protection and regional haze
2015. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013). include Federal, state and local program requirements under part C of
One of the nonattainment areas transportation and air quality agency the Act (which includes sections 169A
encompasses a portion of Nassau officials. Also, Section 403.061(21), and 169B). However, there are no newly
County and the other area encompasses Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to applicable visibility protection
a portion of Hillsborough County. The ‘‘[a]dvise, consult, cooperate, and enter obligations after the promulgation of a
State submitted the required SIPs for the into agreements with other agencies of new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has
Nassau County and Hillsborough the state, the Federal Government, other determined that states do not need to
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
County SO2 nonattainment areas on states, interstate agencies, groups, address the visibility component of
April 3, 2015. political subdivisions, and industries 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP
The following sections of the Florida affected by the provisions of this act, submittals so FDEP does not need to
Statutes provide FDEP the authority to rules, or policies of the department’’. rely on its regional haze program to
conduct certain actions in support of EPA has made the preliminary fulfill its obligations under section
this element. Section 403.061(35) gives determination that Florida’s SIP and 110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the
FDEP the broad authority to implement practices adequately demonstrate preliminary determination that it does
the CAA. Section 403.061(9) authorizes consultation with government officials not need to address the visibility
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51320/page/9.svg)
![51166 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules
protection element of section Administrator upon request. EPA has Section 403.061(21), Florida Statutes, is
110(a)(2)(J) in Florida’s infrastructure made the preliminary determination one way that the State meets the
SIP submissions related to the 2010 1- that Florida’s SIP and practices requirements of this element as
hour SO2 NAAQS. adequately demonstrate the State’s described further below. More
11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling ability to provide for air quality specifically, Florida adopted state-wide
and Submission of Modeling Data: modeling, along with analysis of the consultation procedures for the
Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires associated data, related to the 2010 1- implementation of transportation
that SIPs provide for performing air hour SO2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is conformity which includes the
quality modeling so that effects on air proposing to approve Florida’s development of mobile inventories for
quality of emissions from NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions with SIP development and the requirements
pollutants can be predicted and respect to section 110(a)(2)(K). that link transportation planning and air
submission of such data to the EPA can 12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: This quality planning in nonattainment and
be made. SIP-approved sections of section requires the owner or operator of maintenance areas. Required partners
Chapter 62–204, 62–210, and 62–212, each major stationary source to pay to covered by Florida’s consultation
F.A.C., require use of EPA-approved the permitting authority, as a condition procedures include Federal, state and
modeling of pollutant-emitting sources of any permit required under the CAA, local transportation and air quality
that contribute to SO2 concentrations in a fee sufficient to cover (i) the agency officials. The state and local
the ambient air. Also, the following reasonable costs of reviewing and acting transportation agency officials are most
sections of the Florida Statutes provide upon any application for such a permit, directly impacted by transportation
and (ii) if the owner or operator receives conformity requirements and are
FDEP the authority to conduct actions
a permit for such source, the reasonable required to provide public involvement
in support of this element. Section
costs of implementing and enforcing the for their activities including the analysis
403.061(13), Florida Statutes, authorizes
terms and conditions of any such permit demonstrating how they meet
FDEP to ‘‘[r]equire persons engaged in
(not including any court costs or other transportation conformity requirements.
operations which may result in
costs associated with any enforcement Also, FDEP has agreements with eight
pollution to file reports which may
action), until such fee requirement is county air pollution control agencies
contain information relating to
superseded with respect to such sources (Duval, Orange, Hillsborough, Pinellas,
locations, size of outlet, height of outlet,
by the Administrator’s approval of a fee Sarasota, Palm Beach, Broward, and
rate and period of emission, and
program under title V. Section Miami-Dade) that delineate the
composition and concentration of 403.087(6)(a), Florida Statutes, directs
effluent and such other information as responsibilities of each county in
FDEP to ‘‘require a processing fee in an carrying out Florida’s air program,
the department shall prescribe to be amount sufficient, to the greatest extent
filed . . .’’ Section 403.061(18), Florida including the Florida SIP. EPA has
possible, to cover the costs of reviewing made the preliminary determination
Statutes, authorizes FDEP to and acting upon any application for a
‘‘[e]ncourage and conduct studies, that Florida’s SIP and practices
permit . . .’’. Florida’s Air Pollution adequately demonstrate consultation
investigations, and research relating to Control Trust Fund is the depository for
pollution and its causes, effects, with affected local entities related to the
all funds for the operation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS when
prevention, abatement, and control.’’ Division of Air Resource Management.
These regulations and State statutes also necessary.
Within the fund is an account that
demonstrate that Florida has the contains all fees under the title V V. Proposed Action
authority to provide relevant data for program. EPA has made the preliminary
the purpose of predicting the effect on determination that Florida’s State rules EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s
ambient air quality of the 2010 1-hour and practices adequately provide for infrastructure submissions submitted on
SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, Florida permitting fees related to the 2010 1- June 3, 2013, and supplemented on
supports a regional effort to coordinate hour SO2 NAAQS, when necessary. January 8, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO2
the development of emissions Accordingly, EPA is proposing to NAAQS for the above described
inventories and conduct regional approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is
modeling for several NAAQS, including submissions with respect to section proposing to approve Florida’s
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, for the 110(a)(2)(L). infrastructure SIP submissions for the
Southeastern states. Florida notes in its 13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation and 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS because the
SIP submissions that the FDEP has the Participation by Affected Local Entities: submissions are consistent with section
technical capability to conduct or Florida coordinates with local 110 of the CAA.
review all air quality modeling governments affected by the SIP. VI. Statutory and Executive Order
associated with the NSR program and Florida’s SIP also includes a description Reviews
all SIP-related modeling, except of the public participation process for
photochemical grid modeling which is SIP development. Florida has consulted Under the CAA, the Administrator is
performed for FDEP under contract. All with local entities for the development required to approve a SIP submission
such modeling is conducted in of transportation conformity and has that complies with the provisions of the
accordance with the provisions of 40 worked with the Federal Land Managers Act and applicable Federal regulations.
CFR part 51, Appendix W, ‘‘Guideline as a requirement of the regional haze See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
on Air Quality Models.’’ Taken as a rule. Section 403.061(21), Florida Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
whole, Florida’s air quality regulations Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[a]dvise, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
and practices demonstrate that FDEP consult, cooperate and enter into provided that they meet the criteria of
has the authority to provide relevant agreements with other agencies of the the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
data for the purpose of predicting the state, the Federal Government, other action merely approves state law as
effect on ambient air quality of any states, interstate agencies, groups, meeting Federal requirements and does
emissions of any pollutant for which a political subdivisions, and industries not impose additional requirements
NAAQS had been promulgated, and to affected by the provisions of this act, beyond those imposed by state law. For
provide such information to the EPA rules, or policies of the department.’’ that reason, this proposed action:
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51320/page/10.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51167
• Is not a significant regulatory action Dated: August 12, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
subject to review by the Office of Heather McTeer Toney, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
Management and Budget under Regional Administrator, Region 4. OAR–2015–0440, by one of the
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, [FR Doc. 2015–20748 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am] following methods:
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
January 21, 2011); on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• does not impose an information 2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov.
collection burden under the provisions ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY 3. Fax: 404–562–9019.
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0440’’
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Air Regulatory Management Section, Air
40 CFR Part 52
• is certified as not having a Planning and Implementation Branch,
significant economic impact on a [EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0440; FRL–9932–88– Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
substantial number of small entities Region 4] Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street
Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Conflict of Interest Infrastructure 5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
• does not contain any unfunded Requirements Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory
mandate or significantly or uniquely Management Section, Air Planning and
affect small governments, as described AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); ACTION: Proposed rule. Environmental Protection Agency,
• does not have Federalism SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
implications as specified in Executive Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, revisions to the North Carolina State deliveries are only accepted during the
1999); Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
• is not an economically significant by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, hours of business are Monday through
regulatory action based on health or Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
safety risks subject to Executive Order Division of Air Quality (DAQ), on
February 5, 2013, and supplemented on Federal holidays.
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Instructions: Direct your comments to
July 27, 2015. The submissions pertain
• is not a significant regulatory action Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2015–
to conflict of interest requirements of
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 0440’’. EPA’s policy is that all
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and comments received will be included in
28355, May 22, 2001);
were submitted to satisfy the the public docket without change and
• is not subject to requirements of infrastructure SIP sub-element related to
Section 12(d) of the National may be made available online at
the State board for the 2010 Nitrogen www.regulations.gov, including any
Technology Transfer and Advancement Dioxide (NO2) National Ambient Air
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because personal information provided, unless
Quality Standards (NAAQS), 2010 the comment includes information
application of those requirements would Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, 2008 8- claimed to be Confidential Business
be inconsistent with the CAA; and hour Ozone NAAQS and 2008 Lead Information (CBI) or other information
• does not provide EPA with the NAAQS. The CAA requires that each whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
discretionary authority to address, as state adopt and submit a SIP for the Do not submit through
appropriate, disproportionate human implementation, maintenance, and www.regulations.gov or email,
health or environmental effects, using enforcement of each NAAQS information that you consider to be CBI
practicable and legally permissible promulgated by EPA, commonly or otherwise protected. The
methods, under Executive Order 12898 referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP, www.regulations.gov Web site is an
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). which includes conflict of interest ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
requirements. EPA is proposing to means EPA will not know your identity
In addition, the SIP is not approved approve the portions of North Carolina’s
to apply on any Indian reservation land or contact information unless you
2010 NO2 infrastructure SIP, 2010 SO2 provide it in the body of your comment.
or in any other area where EPA or an infrastructure SIP, 2008 8-hour ozone
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a If you send an email comment directly
infrastructure SIP, and 2008 Lead to EPA without going through
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of infrastructure SIP as meeting these State
Indian country, the rule does not have www.regulations.gov, your email
board requirements. EPA is also address will be automatically captured
tribal implications as specified by proposing to convert conditional
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, and included as part of the comment
approvals related to the State board for that is placed in the public docket and
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the
substantial direct costs on tribal made available on the Internet. If you
1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter submit an electronic comment, EPA
governments or preempt tribal law. (PM2.5) and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS recommends that you include your
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 to full approval under the CAA. EPA name and other contact information in
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
notes that all other applicable North the body of your comment and with any
Environmental protection, Air Carolina infrastructure SIP elements for disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
pollution control, Incorporation by the above listed NAAQS have been or cannot read your comment due to
reference, Intergovernmental relations, will be addressed in separate technical difficulties and cannot contact
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and rulemakings. you for clarification, EPA may not be
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile DATES: Written comments must be able to consider your comment.
organic compounds. received on or before September 23, Electronic files should avoid the use of
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 2015. special characters, any form of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:29 Aug 21, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM 24AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_51320/page/11.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 10:54:58
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 10:54:58
| 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 September 23, 2015. | |
| Contact | Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected] or the telephone number (404) 562-9031. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 51157 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR