81_FR_67369 81 FR 67179 - Air Plan Approval; Florida; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

81 FR 67179 - Air Plan Approval; Florida; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 190 (September 30, 2016)

Page Range67179-67185
FR Document2016-23292

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action 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 final action pertains to the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) 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 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Florida. EPA has determined that the 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 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67179-67185]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23292]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0423; FRL-9953-18-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; Florida; Infrastructure Requirements for the 
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action 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 final action 
pertains to the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 
or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national 
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state 
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and 
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly 
referred to as an ``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 has determined that the 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: This rule is effective October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0423. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, 
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at 
[email protected] or via telephone at (404) 562-9031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Overview

    On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010), EPA promulgated a 
revised primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts 
per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th 
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. Pursuant to section 
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the 
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as 
EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic 
SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program 
requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment 
and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 
2013.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the proposed action, EPA incorrectly cited a date of June 
22, 2013, for the due date of infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS. 80 FR 51158 (August 24, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Florida that address 
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 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.
    In a proposed rulemaking published on August 24, 2015, EPA proposed 
to approve Florida's June 3, 2013, and January 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions.\2\ See 80 FR 
51157. The details of Florida's submissions and the rationale for EPA's 
actions are explained in the proposed rulemaking. Comments on the 
proposed rulemaking were due on or before September 23, 2015. EPA 
received adverse comments on the proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Florida's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure 
SIP submission dated June 3, 2013, and supplemented on January 8, 
2014, are also collectively referred to as ``Florida's 
SO2 infrastructure SIP'' in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received one set of comments on the August 24, 2015, proposed 
rulemaking to approve Florida's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
infrastructure SIP submissions intended to meet the CAA requirements 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. A summary of the comments and 
EPA's responses are provided below.\3\ A full set of these comments is 
provided in the docket for today's final rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's responses to these comments are consistent with 
actions taken on 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 
submissions for Virginia (80 FR 11557, March 4, 2015) at https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-04/pdf/2015-04377.pdf and West 
Virginia (79 FR 62022, October 16, 2014) at https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-0-16/pdf/2014-24658.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Comments on Infrastructure SIP Requirements for Enforceable Emission 
Limits

1. The Plain Language of the CAA
    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that the plain language of 
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires the inclusion of enforceable 
emission limits in an infrastructure SIP to prevent NAAQS exceedances 
in areas not designated nonattainment. In support, the Commenter quotes 
the language in section 110(a)(1) that requires states to adopt a plan 
for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS and the 
language in section 110(a)(2)(A) that requires SIPs to include 
enforceable emissions limitations as well as schedules and timetables 
for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the 
applicable requirements of the CAA.

[[Page 67180]]

The Commenter then states that applicable requirements of the CAA 
include requirements for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, 
and that CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires infrastructure SIPs to 
include enforceable emission limits to prevent exceedances of the 
NAAQS. The Commenter claims that Florida's SIP submission does not meet 
this asserted requirement. Thus, the Commenter asserts that EPA must 
disapprove Florida's proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP 
submission because it fails to include enforceable emission limitations 
necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS as required 
by CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). The Commenter then contends that the 
Florida 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP submission fails 
to comport with CAA requirements for SIPs to establish enforceable 
emission limits that are adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in 
areas not designated nonattainment.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees that section 110 must be interpreted in 
the manner suggested by the Commenter in the context of infrastructure 
SIP submissions. Section 110 is only one provision that is part of the 
complicated structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program 
under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be interpreted in the 
context of not only that structure, but also of the historical 
evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110 
since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific SIP planning 
requirements of the CAA, EPA interprets the requirement in section 
110(a)(1) that the plan provide for ``implementation, maintenance and 
enforcement'' in conjunction with the requirements in section 
110(a)(2)(A) to mean that the infrastructure SIP must contain 
enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or 
maintaining the NAAQS and that the state demonstrate that it has the 
necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate 
state personnel and an enforcement program.
    With regard to the requirement for emission limitations in section 
110(a)(2)(A), EPA has interpreted this to mean, for purposes of 
infrastructure SIP submissions, that the state may rely on measures 
already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control 
measures that the state may elect to impose as part of such SIP 
submission. As EPA stated in ``Guidance on Infrastructure State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' dated September 13, 2013, (Infrastructure 
SIP Guidance), ``[t]he conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP 
submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP contains the 
necessary structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether 
by establishing that the SIP already contains the necessary provisions, 
by making a substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both. 
Overall, the infrastructure SIP submission process provides an 
opportunity . . . to review the basic structural requirements of the 
air agency's air quality management program in light of each new or 
revised NAAQS.'' Infrastructure SIP Guidance at pp. 1-2. Florida 
appropriately demonstrated that its SIP has SO2 emissions 
limitations and the ``structural requirements'' to implement the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in its infrastructure SIP submission.
    The Commenter makes general allegations that Florida does not have 
sufficient protective measures to prevent SO2 NAAQS 
exceedances. EPA addressed the adequacy of Florida's infrastructure SIP 
for 110(a)(2)(A) purposes in the proposed rule and explained why the 
SIP includes enforceable emission limitations and other control 
measures that aid in maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 
throughout the State. These include State regulations which 
collectively establish enforceable emissions limitations and other 
control measures, means or techniques for activities that contribute to 
SO2 concentrations in the ambient air, and provide authority 
for 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. See 80 FR 51161. EPA finds these provisions 
adequately address section 110(a)(2)(A) to aid in attaining and/or 
maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and finds Florida 
demonstrated that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
2. The Legislative History of the CAA
    Comment 2: The Commenter cites two excerpts from the legislative 
history of the 1970 CAA and claims that the ``legislative history of 
infrastructure SIPs provides that states must include enforceable 
emission limits in their infrastructure SIPs sufficient to ensure the 
implementation, maintenance, and attainment of each NAAQS in all areas 
of the State.''
    Response 2: As provided in the previous response, the CAA, as 
enacted in 1970, including its legislative history, cannot be 
interpreted in isolation from the later amendments that refined that 
structure and deleted relevant language from section 110 concerning 
attainment. In any event, the two excerpts of legislative history the 
Commenter cites merely provide that states should include enforceable 
emission limits in their SIPs and they do not mention or otherwise 
address whether states are required to impose additional emission 
limitations or control measures as part of the infrastructure SIP 
submission, as opposed to requirements for other types of SIP 
submissions such as attainment plans required under section 
110(a)(2)(I). As provided in Response 1, the proposed rule explains why 
the SIP includes sufficient enforceable emissions limitations for 
purposes of the infrastructure SIP submission.
3. Case Law
    Comment 3: The Commenter also discusses several court decisions 
concerning the CAA, which the Commenter claims support its contention 
that courts have been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 
enforceable emissions limits in infrastructure SIP submissions to 
prevent violations of the NAAQS. The Commenter first cites to language 
in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), addressing the requirement 
for ``emission limitations'' and stating that emission limitations 
``are the specific rules to which operators of pollution sources are 
subject, and which if enforced should result in ambient air which meets 
the national standards.'' The Commenter also cites to Pennsylvania 
Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for 
the proposition that the CAA directs EPA to withhold approval of a SIP 
where it does not ensure maintenance of the NAAQS, and to Mission 
Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), which 
quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA of 1970. The Commenter contends 
that the 1990 Amendments do not alter how courts have interpreted the 
requirements of section 110, quoting Alaska Dept. of Envtl. 
Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in turn quoted 
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also stated that ``SIPs must 
include certain measures Congress specified'' to ensure attainment of 
the NAAQS. The Commenter also quotes several additional opinions in 
this vein. Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th 
Cir. 2012) (``[t]he Clean Air Act directs states to develop 
implementation plans--SIPs--that `assure' attainment and maintenance of 
[NAAQS] through enforceable emissions limitations''); Mich. Dept. of 
Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000) (``EPA's 
deference to a state is conditioned on the state's submission

[[Page 67181]]

of a plan `which satisfies the standards of Sec.  110(a)(2)' and which 
includes emission limitations that result in compliance with the 
NAAQS''; and Hall v. EPA 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) for the 
proposition that EPA may not approve a SIP revision that does not 
demonstrate how the rules would not interfere with attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response 3: None of the cases the Commenter cites support the 
Commenter's contention that it is clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) 
requires infrastructure SIP submissions to include detailed plans 
providing for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of 
the state, nor do they shed light on how EPA may reasonably interpret 
section 110(a)(2)(A). With the exception of Train, none of the cases 
the Commenter cites specifically concerned the interpretation of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 Act). 
Rather, the other courts referenced section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 
110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the background section of 
decisions in the context of a challenge to an EPA action on revisions 
to a SIP that was required and approved as meeting other provisions of 
the CAA or in the context of an enforcement action.
    In Train, 421 U.S. 60, the Court was addressing a state revision to 
an attainment plan submission made pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 
the primary statutory provision at that time addressing such 
submissions. The issue in that case concerned whether changes to 
requirements that would occur before attainment was required were 
variances that should be addressed pursuant to the provision governing 
SIP revisions or were ``postponements'' that must be addressed under 
section 110(f) of the CAA of 1970, which contained prescriptive 
criteria. The Court concluded that EPA reasonably interpreted section 
110(f) not to restrict a state's choice of the mix of control measures 
needed to attain the NAAQS, so long as the state met other applicable 
requirements of the CAA, and that revisions to SIPs that would not 
impact attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment date were not subject 
to the limits of section 110(f). Thus the issue was not whether the 
specific SIP at issue needs to provide for attainment or whether 
emissions limits are needed as part of the SIP; rather the issue was 
which statutory provision governed when the state wanted to revise the 
emission limits in its SIP if such revision would not impact attainment 
or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources was also 
decided based on a pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was whether 
EPA properly rejected a revision to an approved SIP where the 
inventories relied on by the state for the updated submission had gaps. 
The Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of 
EPA's disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that 
provision. This decision did not address the question at issue in this 
action, i.e., what a state must include in an infrastructure SIP 
submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). Yet, even if the Court 
had interpreted that provision, EPA notes that it was modified by 
Congress in 1990; thus, this decision has little bearing on the issue 
here.
    At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 F.2d 123, was the definition of 
``emissions limitation'' not whether section 110 requires the state to 
demonstrate how all areas of the state will attain and maintain the 
NAAQS as part of their infrastructure SIPs. The language from the 
opinion the Commenter quotes does not interpret but rather merely 
describes section 110(a)(2)(A). The Commenter does not cite to this 
case to assert that the measures relied on by the state in the 
infrastructure SIP are not ``emissions limitations'' and the decision 
in this case has no bearing here. In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 
F.3d 1174, the Court was reviewing a Federal implementation plan (FIP) 
that EPA promulgated after a long history of the State failing to 
submit an adequate SIP in response to EPA's finding under section 
110(k)(5) that the previously approved SIP was substantially inadequate 
to attain or maintain the NAAQS, which triggered the State's duty to 
submit a new SIP to show how it would remedy that deficiency and attain 
the NAAQS. The Court cited generally to sections 107 and 110(a)(2)(A) 
of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs should assure attainment and 
maintenance of NAAQS through emission limitations, but this language 
was not part of the Court's holding in the case, which focused instead 
on whether EPA's finding of SIP inadequacy and adoption of a remedial 
FIP were lawful. The Commenter suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl. 
Conservation, 540 U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that the 1990 
CAA Amendments do not alter how courts interpret section 110. This 
claim is inaccurate. Rather, the Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), 
which, as noted previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that 
provision and the court makes no mention of the changed language. 
Furthermore, the Commenter also quotes the Court's statement that 
``SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified,'' but that 
statement specifically referenced the requirement in section 
110(a)(2)(C), which requires an enforcement program and a program for 
the regulation of the modification and construction of new sources. 
Notably, at issue in that case was the State's ``new source'' 
permitting program, not what is required for purposes of an 
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A).
    Two of the cases the Commenter cites, Mich. Dept. of Envtl. 
Quality, 230 F.3d 185, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret CAA section 
110(l), the provision governing ``revisions'' to plans. Neither case, 
however, addressed the question at issue here, i.e, what states are 
required to address for purposes of an infrastructure SIP submission 
for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). In those cases, the courts cited 
to section 110(a)(2)(A) solely for the purpose of providing a brief 
background of the CAA.
    EPA does not believe any of these court decisions addressed 
required measures for infrastructure SIPs and believes nothing in the 
opinions addressed whether infrastructure SIP submissions must contain 
emission limitations or measures to ensure attainment and maintenance 
of the NAAQS.
4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR 51.112(a)
    Comment 4: The Commenter cites to 40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that 
``Each plan must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations 
contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and 
maintenance of the national standard that it implements.'' The 
Commenter relies on a statement in the preamble to the 1986 action 
restructuring and consolidating provisions in part 51, in which EPA 
stated that ``[i]t is beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address 
the provisions of Part D of the Act . . .'' 51 FR 40656. Thus, the 
Commenter contends that ``the provisions of 40 CFR 51.112 are not 
limited to nonattainment SIPs; the regulation instead applies to 
Infrastructure SIPs, which are required to attain and maintain the 
NAAQS in all areas of a state, including those not designated 
nonattainment.''
    Response 4: The Commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support 
its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits 
which ensure

[[Page 67182]]

attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS is incorrect. It is clear on 
its face that 40 CFR 51.112 directly applies to state SIP submissions 
for control strategy SIPs, i.e., plans that are specifically required 
to attain and/or maintain the NAAQS. These regulatory requirements 
apply when states are developing ``control strategy'' SIPs under other 
provisions of the CAA, such as attainment plans required for the 
various NAAQS in Part D and maintenance plans required in section 175A. 
The Commenter's suggestion that 40 CFR 51.112 must apply to all SIP 
submissions required by section 110 based on the preamble to EPA's 
action ``restructuring and consolidating'' provisions in part 51, is 
also incorrect.\4\ EPA's action in 1986 was not to establish new 
substantive planning requirements, but rather was meant merely to 
consolidate and restructure provisions that had previously been 
promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA noted that it had already issued guidance addressing the 
new ``Part D'' attainment planning obligations. Also, as to 
maintenance regulations, EPA expressly stated that it was not making 
any revisions other than to re-number those provisions. See 51 FR 
40657.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements 
interpreting the provisions of new ``Part D'' of the CAA, it is clear 
that the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended 
to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated 
that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (``Control strategy: 
SOX and PM (portion)''), 51.14 (``Control strategy: CO, HC, 
OX and NO2 (portion)''), 51.80 (``Demonstration 
of attainment: Pb (portion)''), and 51.82 (``Air quality data 
(portion)''). Id. at 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112 
contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy 
SIPs, and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan.
5. EPA Interpretations in Other Rulemakings
    Comment 5: The Commenter also references a 2006 partial approval 
and partial disapproval of revisions to Missouri's existing plan 
addressing the SO2 NAAQS and claims it was an action in 
which EPA relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject an 
infrastructure SIP. Specifically, the Commenter asserts that in that 
action, EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) as a basis for disapproving a 
revision to the State plan on the basis that the State failed to 
demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance 
of the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an emission limit and 
cited to 40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that a plan demonstrates the rules 
in a SIP are adequate to attain the SO2 NAAQS.
    Response 5: EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval of 
revisions to restrictions on emissions of sulfur compounds for the 
Missouri SIP in 71 FR 12623 specifically addressed Missouri's 
attainment SIP submission--not Missouri's infrastructure SIP 
submission. It is clear from the final Missouri rule that EPA was not 
reviewing an initial infrastructure SIP submission, but rather 
reviewing proposed SIP revisions that would make an already approved 
SIP designed to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS less stringent. 
Therefore, EPA does not agree that the 2006 Missouri action referenced 
by the Commenter establishes how EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 
submissions for purpose of section 110(a)(2)(A).
    As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA finds that the Florida 2010 
1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP meets the appropriate and 
relevant structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA that 
will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS and that the State demonstrated that it has the necessary tools 
to implement and enforce the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's final action does not address CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because Florida has not made a submission for 
these elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments on Florida SIP SO2 Emission Limits

    Comment 6: The Commenter asserts that EPA may not approve the 
Florida proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP because it fails to 
include enforceable emission limitations with a 1-hour averaging time 
that applies at all times. The Commenter cites to CAA section 302(k) 
which requires that emission limits must limit the quantity, rate or 
concentration of emissions and must apply on a continuous basis. The 
Commenter states that ``[e]nforceable emission limitations contained in 
the I-SIP must, therefore, be accompanied by proper averaging times; 
otherwise an appropriate numerical emission limit could allow for peaks 
that exceed the NAAQS and yet still be permitted since they would be 
averaged with lower emissions at other times.'' The Commenter also 
cites to recommended averaging times in EPA guidance providing that SIP 
emissions limits, ``should not exceed the averaging time of the 
applicable NAAQS that the limit is intended to help attain.'' EPA 
Memorandum of Apr. 23, 2014, to Regional Air Division Directors, 
Regions 1-10, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Nonattainment 
Area SIP Submissions, at 22, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf. The Commenter also notes that 
this EPA guidance provides that `` `any emissions limits based on 
averaging periods longer than 1 hour should be designed to have 
comparable stringency to a 1-hour average limit at the critical 
emission value.' ''
    The Commenter also cites to a February 3, 2011, EPA Region 7 letter 
to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment regarding the need 
for 1-hour SO2 emission limits in a prevention of 
significant deterioration (PSD) permit, an EPA Environmental Hearing 
Board decision rejecting use of a 3-hour averaging time for a 
SO2 limit in a PSD permit, and EPA's disapproval of a 
Missouri SIP which relied on annual averaging for SO2 
emission rates and claims EPA has stated that 1-hour averaging times 
are necessary for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\6\ The 
Commenter states, ``Therefore, in order to ensure that Florida's 
Infrastructure SIP actually implements the SO2 NAAQS in 
every area of the state, the I-SIP must contain enforceable emission 
limits with one-hour averaging times, monitored continuously, for large 
sources of SO2.'' The Commenter asserts that EPA must 
disapprove Florida's infrastructure SIP because it fails to require 
emission limits with adequate averaging times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commenter cited to In re: Mississippi Lime Co., 
PSDAPLPEAL 11-01, 2011 WL 3557194, at * 26-27 (EPA Aug. 9, 2011) and 
71 FR 12623, 12624 (March 13, 2006) (EPA disapproval of a control 
strategy SO2 SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 6: As explained in detail in previous responses, the 
purpose of the infrastructure SIP is to ensure that a state has the 
structural capability to implement and enforce the NAAQS and thus, 
additional SO2 emission limitations to ensure attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS are not required for such infrastructure 
SIPs.\7\

[[Page 67183]]

EPA disagrees that it must disapprove the proposed Florida 
infrastructure SIP submission merely because the SIP does not contain 
enforceable SO2 emission limitations with 1-hour averaging 
periods that apply at all times, as this issue is not appropriate for 
resolution in this action in advance of EPA action on the State's 
submissions of other required SIP submissions including an attainment 
plan for two areas which are designated nonattainment pursuant to 
section 107 of the CAA.\8\ Therefore, because EPA finds Florida's 
SO2 infrastructure SIP approvable without the additional 
SO2 emission limitations showing attainment of the NAAQS, 
EPA finds the issue of appropriate averaging periods for such future 
limitations not relevant at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a discussion on emission averaging times for emissions 
limitations for SO2 attainment SIPs, see the April 23, 
2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions. As 
noted by the commenter, EPA explained that it is possible, in 
specific cases, for states to develop control strategies that 
account for variability in 1-hour emissions rates through emission 
limits with averaging times that are longer than 1-hour, using 
averaging times as long as 30-days, but still provide for attainment 
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as long as the limits are of at 
least comparable stringency to a 1-hour limit at the critical 
emission value. EPA has not taken final action to approve any 
specific submission of such a limit that a state has relied upon to 
demonstrate NAAQS attainment, and Florida has not submitted such a 
limit for that purpose here, so it is premature at this time to 
evaluate whether any emission limit in Florida's SIP is in 
accordance with the April 23, 2014, guidance. If and when Florida 
submits an emission limitation that relies upon such a longer 
averaging time to demonstrate NAAQS attainment, EPA will evaluate it 
then.
    \8\ There are two designated nonattainment areas pursuant to CAA 
section 107 for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Florida and 
the State has submitted attainment plans for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS for sections 172, 191 and 192. EPA believes the 
appropriate time for examining the necessity of 1-hour 
SO2 emission limits on specific sources is within the 
attainment planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, Commenter's citation to a prior EPA discussion on emission 
limitations required in PSD permits (from EPA's Environmental Appeals 
Board decision and EPA's letter to Kansas' permitting authority) 
pursuant to part C of the CAA is neither relevant nor applicable to 
infrastructure SIP submissions under CAA section 110. In addition, and 
as previously discussed, the EPA disapproval of the 2006 Missouri SIP 
was a disapproval relating to an attainment plan SIP submission 
required pursuant to part D attainment planning and is likewise not 
relevant to the analysis of infrastructure SIP requirements.
    Comment 7: Citing to section 110(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) of the CAA, 
the Commenter contends that EPA may not approve Florida's 
infrastructure SIP because it does not include enforceable 1-hour 
emission limits for sources that the Commenter claims are currently 
contributing to NAAQS exceedances. The Commenter asserts that emission 
limits are especially important for meeting the 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS because SO2 impacts are strongly source oriented. The 
Commenter states that ``[d]espite the large contribution from coal-
fired EGUs [electricity generating units] to the State's SO2 
pollution, Florida's I-SIP lacks enforceable emissions limitations 
applicable to its coal-fired EGUs sufficient to ensure the 
implementation, attainment, and maintenance of the 2010 SO2 
NAAQS.'' The Commenter refers to air dispersion modeling it conducted 
for two power plants in Florida, the C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant and 
the Crist Electric Generating Plant, which are located outside of the 
State's two nonattainment areas, and claims that ``. . . the emission 
limitations relied on for implementation of the NAAQS in the I-SIP are 
insufficient to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS.'' Further, the 
Commenter cites two court cases to support its statement that ``. . . 
an agency may not ignore information put in front of it'' and that 
thus, the Commenter contends that EPA must consider its expert air 
dispersion modeling submitted over the years which demonstrate the 
inadequacy of Florida's rules and regulations for SO2 
emissions.'' The Commenter summarizes its modeling results for the C.D. 
McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant and the Crist Electric Generating Plant, 
stating that the data predict exceedances of the standard ``over wide 
areas of the state.'' Thus, the Commenter contends that Florida's 
infrastructure submissions are ``substantially inadequate to attain and 
maintain the NAAQS which it implements as evidenced by expert air 
dispersion modeling demonstrating that the emission limits under the 
laws and regulations cited to in the SO2 I-SIP Certification 
allow for exceedances of the NAAQS.'' Thus, the Commenter asserts that 
EPA must disapprove Florida's SIP submissions, and must establish a FIP 
``which incorporates necessary and appropriate source-specific 
enforceable emission limitations (preferably informed by modeling) on 
C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant and Crist Electric Generating Plant, as 
well as any other major sources of SO2 pollution in the 
State which are not presently located in nonattainment areas and have 
modeled exceedances of the NAAQS.'' Further, the Commenter states that 
``For C.D. McIntosh and Crist, enforceable emission limitations must be 
at least as stringent as the modeling-based limits [provided by the 
Commenter] in order to protect the one-hour SO2 NAAQS and 
implement, maintain, and enforce the standard in Florida.''
    Response 7: As stated previously, EPA believes that the proper 
inquiry is whether Florida has met the basic, structural SIP 
requirements appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon the 
infrastructure submissions. Emissions limitations and other control 
measures, whether on coal-fired EGUs or other SO2 sources, 
that may be needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS in areas designated 
nonattainment for that NAAQS are due on a different schedule from the 
section 110 infrastructure SIP submission. A state, like Florida, may 
reference pre-existing SIP emission limits or other rules contained in 
part D plans for previous NAAQS in an infrastructure SIP submission for 
purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). For example, Florida submitted a list 
of existing emission reduction measures in the SIP that control 
emissions of SO2 as discussed above in response to a prior 
comment and discussed in the proposed rulemaking on Florida's 
SO2 infrastructure SIP. These provisions have the ability to 
reduce SO2 overall. Although the Florida SIP relies on 
measures and programs used to implement previous SO2 NAAQS, 
these provisions are not limited to reducing SO2 levels to 
meet one specific NAAQS and will continue to provide benefits for the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    Regarding the air dispersion modeling conducted by the Commenter 
pursuant to AERMOD for the C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant and the Crist 
Electric Generating Plant, EPA is not in this action making a 
determination regarding the air quality status in the area where these 
EGUs are located, and is not evaluating whether emissions applicable to 
these EGUs are adequate to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Consequently, 
the EPA does not find the modeling information relevant for review of 
an infrastructure SIP for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). When 
additional areas in Florida are designated under the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS, and if any additional areas in Florida are 
designated nonattainment in the future, any potential future modeling 
submitted by the State with designations or attainment demonstrations 
would need to account for any new emissions limitations Florida 
develops to support such designation or demonstration, which at this 
point is unknown. While EPA has extensively discussed the use of 
modeling for attainment demonstration purposes and for designations,\9\ 
EPA has recommended that such modeling was not needed for the 
SO2 infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A), which are not actions in 
which EPA makes determinations regarding current air quality status. 
See April 12, 2012,

[[Page 67184]]

letters to states and 2012 Draft White Paper.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See for example, EPA's discussion of modeling for 
characterizing air quality in the Agency's August 21, 2015, final 
rule at 80 FR 51052 and for nonattainment planning in the April 23, 
2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions.
    \10\ Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS, Draft 
White Paper for Discussion, May 2012 (2012 Draft White Paper) and a 
sample April 12, 2012, letter from EPA to states are available in 
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statements that 
EPA must disapprove Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions because it 
does not establish specific enforceable SO2 emission limits, 
either on coal-fired EGUs or other large SO2 sources, in 
order to demonstrate attainment and maintenance with the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS at this time.
    Comment 8: The Commenter alleges that the SO2 
infrastructure SIP submittal does not address sources significantly 
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in other states as required by section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, and asserts EPA must therefore 
disapprove the infrastructure SIP and impose a FIP. The Commenter 
states that ``Florida's reliance on a 2012 EPA memorandum in which EPA 
stated that it did `not intend to make findings that states failed to 
submit SIPs to comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)' is improper'', 
and that such guidance contradicts the CAA. The Commenter notes that 
the Supreme Court disapproved the view that states cannot address 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) until EPA resolves issues related to CSAPR and 
that compliance with this provision is a ``mandatory duty'', citing to 
Homer City, 696 F.3d 7, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev'd, No. 12-1182, slip 
op. at 27-28 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2014). The Commenter also highlights from 
Order on Petition No. VI-2014-04 at 10 (citing EPA v. EME Homer City 
Generation, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014) that, ``[T]he Supreme Court 
has affirmed that the EPA is not required to provide any implementation 
guidance before states' interstate transport obligation can be 
addressed.''
    Response 8: This action does not address whether sources in Florida 
are significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with 
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state as 
required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA (the good neighbor 
provision). Thus, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that EPA 
must disapprove the submitted 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure 
SIP due to Florida's failure to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In 
EPA's proposed rulemaking to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP for 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA clearly stated that it was 
not taking any action with respect to the good neighbor provision in 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Florida did not make a submission to 
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS, and thus there is no such submission upon 
which EPA proposed to take action on under section 110(k) of the CAA. 
Similarly, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that EPA cannot 
approve other elements of an infrastructure SIP submission without the 
good neighbor provision. There is no basis for the contention that EPA 
has triggered its obligation to issue a FIP to address the good 
neighbor obligation under section 110(c), as EPA has neither found that 
Florida failed to timely submit a required 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 
submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS or found that such 
a submission was incomplete, nor has EPA disapproved a SIP submission 
addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA acknowledges the Commenter's concern for the interstate 
transport of air pollutants and agrees in general with the Commenter 
that sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the CAA generally require states 
to submit, within three years of promulgation of a new or revised 
NAAQS, a plan which addresses cross-state air pollution under section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's 
argument that EPA cannot approve an infrastructure SIP submission 
without the good neighbor provision. Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA 
authorizes EPA to approve a plan in full, disapprove it in full, or 
approve it in part and disapprove it in part, depending on the extent 
to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to 
approve state SIP revisions in separable parts was included in the 1990 
Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of Appeals 
for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve individual 
measures in a plan submission without either approving or disapproving 
the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 
3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 
F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).
    EPA interprets its authority under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, as 
affording EPA the discretion to approve, or conditionally approve, 
individual elements of Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, separate and apart from any action 
with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the 
CAA with respect to that NAAQS. EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP 
requirements, such as the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as 
severable from the other infrastructure elements and interprets section 
110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on individual severable measures in a 
plan submission. In short, EPA believes that even if Florida had made a 
SIP submission for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which to date it has not, EPA would still 
have discretion under section 110(k) of the CAA to act upon the various 
individual elements of the State's infrastructure SIP submission, 
separately or together, as appropriate.
    The Commenter raises no compelling legal or environmental rationale 
for an alternate interpretation. Nothing in the Supreme Court's April 
2014 decision in EME Homer City alters EPA's interpretation that EPA 
may act on individual severable measures, including the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in a SIP submission. See EPA v. EME Homer 
City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (affirming a state's obligation 
to submit a SIP revision addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
independent of EPA's action finding significant contribution or 
interference with maintenance). In sum, the concerns raised by the 
Commenter do not establish that it is inappropriate or unreasonable for 
EPA to approve the portions of Florida's infrastructure SIP submission 
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA has no obligation at this time to issue a FIP pursuant to 
110(c)(1) to address Florida's obligations under section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA first either finds Florida failed to make 
a required submission addressing the element or the State has made such 
a submission but it is incomplete, or EPA disapproves a SIP submission 
addressing that element. Until either occurs, EPA does not have the 
obligation to issue a FIP pursuant to section 110(c) with respect to 
the good neighbor provision. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the 
Commenter's contention that it must issue a FIP for Florida to address 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at this 
time.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action 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 taking final action to approve 
Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2

[[Page 67185]]

NAAQS because the submissions are consistent with section 110 of the 
CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by November 29, 2016. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 14, 2016.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

 PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520(e), is amended by adding the entry ``110(a)(1) and 
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end of the table to 
read as follows:


Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  State effective    EPA approval     Federal Register
            Provision                   date             date              notice              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure        6/3/2013        9/30/2016   [Insert Federal      With the exception of
 Requirements for the 2010 1-                                        Register citation].  section for provisions
 hour Primary SO2 National                                                                relating to
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                           110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                          (prongs 1 and 2)
                                                                                          concerning interstate
                                                                                          transport
                                                                                          requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-23292 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P



                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                             67179

                                                  respecting significant portion of income                available only in hard copy form.                     submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such
                                                  for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.                          Publicly available docket materials are               shorter period as the Administrator may
                                                  [FR Doc. 2016–23598 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am]             available either electronically through               prescribe) after the promulgation of a
                                                  BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
                                                                                                          www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at                national primary ambient air quality
                                                                                                          the Air Regulatory Management Section,                standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and
                                                                                                          Air Planning and Implementation                       these SIP submissions are to provide for
                                                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                                Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics                    the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
                                                  AGENCY                                                  Management Division, U.S.                             enforcement’’ of such NAAQS.
                                                                                                          Environmental Protection Agency,                        In a proposed rulemaking published
                                                  40 CFR Part 52                                          Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,                      on August 24, 2015, EPA proposed to
                                                                                                          Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA                      approve Florida’s June 3, 2013, and
                                                  [EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0423; FRL–9953–18–
                                                                                                          requests that if at all possible, you                 January 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2
                                                  Region 4]
                                                                                                          contact the person listed in the FOR                  NAAQS infrastructure SIP
                                                  Air Plan Approval; Florida;                             FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to                submissions.2 See 80 FR 51157. The
                                                  Infrastructure Requirements for the                     schedule your inspection. The Regional                details of Florida’s submissions and the
                                                  2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient                    Office’s official hours of business are               rationale for EPA’s actions are explained
                                                  Air Quality Standard                                    Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to                   in the proposed rulemaking. Comments
                                                                                                          4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.                on the proposed rulemaking were due
                                                  AGENCY:  Environmental Protection                       FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                      on or before September 23, 2015. EPA
                                                  Agency.                                                 Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory                    received adverse comments on the
                                                  ACTION: Final rule.                                     Management Section, Air Planning and                  proposed action.
                                                                                                          Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides                II. Response to Comments
                                                  SUMMARY:   The Environmental Protection                 and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
                                                  Agency (EPA) is taking final action to                                                                           EPA received one set of comments on
                                                                                                          Environmental Protection Agency,
                                                  approve the State Implementation Plan                                                                         the August 24, 2015, proposed
                                                                                                          Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
                                                  (SIP) submissions, submitted by the                                                                           rulemaking to approve Florida’s 2010 1-
                                                                                                          Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms.
                                                  State of Florida, through the Florida                                                                         hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP
                                                                                                          Notarianni can be reached via electronic
                                                  Department of Environmental Protection                                                                        submissions intended to meet the CAA
                                                                                                          mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov or
                                                  (FDEP), on June 3, 2013, and                                                                                  requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
                                                                                                          via telephone at (404) 562–9031.
                                                  supplemented on January 8, 2014, for                                                                          NAAQS. A summary of the comments
                                                                                                          SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                            and EPA’s responses are provided
                                                  inclusion into the Florida SIP. This final
                                                  action pertains to the infrastructure                   I. Background and Overview                            below.3 A full set of these comments is
                                                  requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA                                                                        provided in the docket for today’s final
                                                                                                             On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520, June
                                                  or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur                                                                            rulemaking action.
                                                                                                          22, 2010), EPA promulgated a revised
                                                  dioxide (SO2) national ambient air                      primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly                        A. Comments on Infrastructure SIP
                                                  quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA                       standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb)                Requirements for Enforceable Emission
                                                  requires that each state adopt and                      based on a 3-year average of the annual               Limits
                                                  submit a SIP for the implementation,                    99th percentile of 1-hour daily
                                                  maintenance and enforcement of each                                                                           1. The Plain Language of the CAA
                                                                                                          maximum concentrations. Pursuant to
                                                  NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is                      section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are                 Comment 1: The Commenter contends
                                                  commonly referred to as an                              required to submit SIPs meeting the                   that the plain language of section
                                                  ‘‘infrastructure SIP submission.’’ FDEP                 applicable requirements of section                    110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires the
                                                  certified that the Florida SIP contains                 110(a)(2) within three years after                    inclusion of enforceable emission limits
                                                  provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour                  promulgation of a new or revised                      in an infrastructure SIP to prevent
                                                  SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced,                     NAAQS or within such shorter period                   NAAQS exceedances in areas not
                                                  and maintained in Florida. EPA has                      as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2)               designated nonattainment. In support,
                                                  determined that the Florida’s                           requires states to address basic SIP                  the Commenter quotes the language in
                                                  infrastructure SIP submissions,                         elements such as requirements for                     section 110(a)(1) that requires states to
                                                  provided to EPA on June 3, 2013, and                    monitoring, basic program requirements                adopt a plan for implementation,
                                                  supplemented on January 8, 2014,                        and legal authority that are designed to              maintenance, and enforcement of the
                                                  satisfy the required infrastructure                     assure attainment and maintenance of                  NAAQS and the language in section
                                                  elements for the 2010 1-hour SO2                        the NAAQS. States were required to                    110(a)(2)(A) that requires SIPs to
                                                  NAAQS.                                                  submit such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour                  include enforceable emissions
                                                                                                          SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June                   limitations as well as schedules and
                                                  DATES:   This rule is effective October 31,
                                                                                                          2, 2013.1                                             timetables for compliance, as may be
                                                  2016.
                                                                                                             EPA is acting upon the SIP                         necessary or appropriate to meet the
                                                  ADDRESSES:    EPA has established a                                                                           applicable requirements of the CAA.
                                                  docket for this action under Docket                     submissions from Florida that address
                                                  Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–                         the infrastructure requirements of CAA
                                                                                                                                                                  2 Florida’s 2010 1-hour SO NAAQS
                                                  2014–0423. All documents in the docket                  sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the                                             2
                                                                                                                                                                infrastructure SIP submission dated June 3, 2013,
                                                  are listed on the www.regulations.gov                   2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The                            and supplemented on January 8, 2014, are also
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  Web site. Although listed in the index,                 requirement for states to make a SIP                  collectively referred to as ‘‘Florida’s SO2
                                                                                                          submission of this type arises out of                 infrastructure SIP’’ in this action.
                                                  some information is not publicly                                                                                3 EPA’s responses to these comments are
                                                  available, i.e., Confidential Business                  CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to
                                                                                                                                                                consistent with actions taken on 2010 1-hour SO2
                                                  Information or other information whose                  section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP               NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions for Virginia
                                                  disclosure is restricted by statute.                                                                          (80 FR 11557, March 4, 2015) at https://
                                                                                                            1 In the proposed action, EPA incorrectly cited a   www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-04/pdf/2015-
                                                  Certain other material, such as                         date of June 22, 2013, for the due date of            04377.pdf and West Virginia (79 FR 62022, October
                                                  copyrighted material, is not placed on                  infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.    16, 2014) at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
                                                  the Internet and will be publicly                       80 FR 51158 (August 24, 2015).                        2014-0-16/pdf/2014-24658.pdf.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:28 Sep 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00089   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM   30SER1


                                                  67180            Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  The Commenter then states that                          Guidance), ‘‘[t]he conceptual purpose of              from section 110 concerning attainment.
                                                  applicable requirements of the CAA                      an infrastructure SIP submission is to                In any event, the two excerpts of
                                                  include requirements for the attainment                 assure that the air agency’s SIP contains             legislative history the Commenter cites
                                                  and maintenance of the NAAQS, and                       the necessary structural requirements                 merely provide that states should
                                                  that CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires                  for the new or revised NAAQS, whether                 include enforceable emission limits in
                                                  infrastructure SIPs to include                          by establishing that the SIP already                  their SIPs and they do not mention or
                                                  enforceable emission limits to prevent                  contains the necessary provisions, by                 otherwise address whether states are
                                                  exceedances of the NAAQS. The                           making a substantive SIP revision to                  required to impose additional emission
                                                  Commenter claims that Florida’s SIP                     update the SIP, or both. Overall, the                 limitations or control measures as part
                                                  submission does not meet this asserted                  infrastructure SIP submission process                 of the infrastructure SIP submission, as
                                                  requirement. Thus, the Commenter                        provides an opportunity . . . to review               opposed to requirements for other types
                                                  asserts that EPA must disapprove                        the basic structural requirements of the              of SIP submissions such as attainment
                                                  Florida’s proposed SO2 infrastructure                   air agency’s air quality management                   plans required under section
                                                  SIP submission because it fails to                      program in light of each new or revised               110(a)(2)(I). As provided in Response 1,
                                                  include enforceable emission                            NAAQS.’’ Infrastructure SIP Guidance                  the proposed rule explains why the SIP
                                                  limitations necessary to ensure                         at pp. 1–2. Florida appropriately                     includes sufficient enforceable
                                                  attainment and maintenance of the                       demonstrated that its SIP has SO2                     emissions limitations for purposes of
                                                  NAAQS as required by CAA section                        emissions limitations and the                         the infrastructure SIP submission.
                                                  110(a)(2)(A). The Commenter then                        ‘‘structural requirements’’ to implement
                                                                                                                                                                3. Case Law
                                                  contends that the Florida 2010 1-hour                   the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in its
                                                  SO2 infrastructure SIP submission fails                 infrastructure SIP submission.                           Comment 3: The Commenter also
                                                  to comport with CAA requirements for                       The Commenter makes general                        discusses several court decisions
                                                  SIPs to establish enforceable emission                  allegations that Florida does not have                concerning the CAA, which the
                                                  limits that are adequate to prohibit                    sufficient protective measures to                     Commenter claims support its
                                                  NAAQS exceedances in areas not                          prevent SO2 NAAQS exceedances. EPA                    contention that courts have been clear
                                                  designated nonattainment.                               addressed the adequacy of Florida’s                   that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
                                                     Response 1: EPA disagrees that                       infrastructure SIP for 110(a)(2)(A)                   enforceable emissions limits in
                                                  section 110 must be interpreted in the                  purposes in the proposed rule and                     infrastructure SIP submissions to
                                                  manner suggested by the Commenter in                    explained why the SIP includes                        prevent violations of the NAAQS. The
                                                  the context of infrastructure SIP                       enforceable emission limitations and                  Commenter first cites to language in
                                                  submissions. Section 110 is only one                    other control measures that aid in                    Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975),
                                                  provision that is part of the complicated               maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2                       addressing the requirement for
                                                  structure governing implementation of                   NAAQS throughout the State. These                     ‘‘emission limitations’’ and stating that
                                                  the NAAQS program under the CAA, as                     include State regulations which                       emission limitations ‘‘are the specific
                                                  amended in 1990, and it must be                         collectively establish enforceable                    rules to which operators of pollution
                                                  interpreted in the context of not only                  emissions limitations and other control               sources are subject, and which if
                                                  that structure, but also of the historical              measures, means or techniques for                     enforced should result in ambient air
                                                  evolution of that structure. In light of                activities that contribute to SO2                     which meets the national standards.’’
                                                  the revisions to section 110 since 1970                 concentrations in the ambient air, and                The Commenter also cites to
                                                  and the later-promulgated and more                      provide authority for FDEP to establish               Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources
                                                  specific SIP planning requirements of                   such limits and measures as well as                   v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991)
                                                  the CAA, EPA interprets the                             schedules for compliance through SIP-                 for the proposition that the CAA directs
                                                  requirement in section 110(a)(1) that the               approved permits to meet the applicable               EPA to withhold approval of a SIP
                                                  plan provide for ‘‘implementation,                      requirements of the CAA. See 80 FR                    where it does not ensure maintenance of
                                                  maintenance and enforcement’’ in                        51161. EPA finds these provisions                     the NAAQS, and to Mission Industrial,
                                                  conjunction with the requirements in                    adequately address section 110(a)(2)(A)               Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir.
                                                  section 110(a)(2)(A) to mean that the                   to aid in attaining and/or maintaining                1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B)
                                                  infrastructure SIP must contain                         the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and finds                   of the CAA of 1970. The Commenter
                                                  enforceable emission limits that will aid               Florida demonstrated that it has the                  contends that the 1990 Amendments do
                                                  in attaining and/or maintaining the                     necessary tools to implement and                      not alter how courts have interpreted
                                                  NAAQS and that the state demonstrate                    enforce the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.                    the requirements of section 110, quoting
                                                  that it has the necessary tools to                                                                            Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v.
                                                                                                          2. The Legislative History of the CAA                 EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in
                                                  implement and enforce a NAAQS, such
                                                  as adequate state personnel and an                         Comment 2: The Commenter cites two                 turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the
                                                  enforcement program.                                    excerpts from the legislative history of              CAA and also stated that ‘‘SIPs must
                                                     With regard to the requirement for                   the 1970 CAA and claims that the                      include certain measures Congress
                                                  emission limitations in section                         ‘‘legislative history of infrastructure               specified’’ to ensure attainment of the
                                                  110(a)(2)(A), EPA has interpreted this to               SIPs provides that states must include                NAAQS. The Commenter also quotes
                                                  mean, for purposes of infrastructure SIP                enforceable emission limits in their                  several additional opinions in this vein.
                                                  submissions, that the state may rely on                 infrastructure SIPs sufficient to ensure              Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666
                                                  measures already in place to address the                the implementation, maintenance, and                  F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (‘‘[t]he
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  pollutant at issue or any new control                   attainment of each NAAQS in all areas                 Clean Air Act directs states to develop
                                                  measures that the state may elect to                    of the State.’’                                       implementation plans—SIPs—that
                                                  impose as part of such SIP submission.                     Response 2: As provided in the                     ‘assure’ attainment and maintenance of
                                                  As EPA stated in ‘‘Guidance on                          previous response, the CAA, as enacted                [NAAQS] through enforceable emissions
                                                  Infrastructure State Implementation                     in 1970, including its legislative history,           limitations’’); Mich. Dept. of Envtl.
                                                  Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act                 cannot be interpreted in isolation from               Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th
                                                  Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ dated               the later amendments that refined that                Cir. 2000) (‘‘EPA’s deference to a state
                                                  September 13, 2013, (Infrastructure SIP                 structure and deleted relevant language               is conditioned on the state’s submission


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:28 Sep 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00090   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM   30SER1


                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                        67181

                                                  of a plan ‘which satisfies the standards                   The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of              version of that provision and the court
                                                  of § 110(a)(2)’ and which includes                      Envtl. Resources was also decided based               makes no mention of the changed
                                                  emission limitations that result in                     on a pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At                language. Furthermore, the Commenter
                                                  compliance with the NAAQS’’; and Hall                   issue was whether EPA properly                        also quotes the Court’s statement that
                                                  v. EPA 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) for                rejected a revision to an approved SIP                ‘‘SIPs must include certain measures
                                                  the proposition that EPA may not                        where the inventories relied on by the                Congress specified,’’ but that statement
                                                  approve a SIP revision that does not                    state for the updated submission had                  specifically referenced the requirement
                                                  demonstrate how the rules would not                     gaps. The Court quoted section                        in section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires
                                                  interfere with attainment and                           110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in                   an enforcement program and a program
                                                  maintenance of the NAAQS.                               support of EPA’s disapproval, but did                 for the regulation of the modification
                                                     Response 3: None of the cases the                    not provide any interpretation of that                and construction of new sources.
                                                  Commenter cites support the                             provision. This decision did not address              Notably, at issue in that case was the
                                                  Commenter’s contention that it is clear                 the question at issue in this action, i.e.,           State’s ‘‘new source’’ permitting
                                                  that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires                      what a state must include in an                       program, not what is required for
                                                  infrastructure SIP submissions to                       infrastructure SIP submission for                     purposes of an infrastructure SIP
                                                  include detailed plans providing for                    purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). Yet,                submission for purposes of section
                                                  attainment and maintenance of the                       even if the Court had interpreted that                110(a)(2)(A).
                                                  NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do                 provision, EPA notes that it was                         Two of the cases the Commenter cites,
                                                  they shed light on how EPA may                          modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this              Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 230 F.3d
                                                  reasonably interpret section                            decision has little bearing on the issue              185, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret
                                                  110(a)(2)(A). With the exception of                     here.                                                 CAA section 110(l), the provision
                                                  Train, none of the cases the Commenter                                                                        governing ‘‘revisions’’ to plans. Neither
                                                                                                             At issue in Mision Industrial, 547
                                                  cites specifically concerned the                                                                              case, however, addressed the question at
                                                                                                          F.2d 123, was the definition of
                                                  interpretation of CAA section                                                                                 issue here, i.e, what states are required
                                                                                                          ‘‘emissions limitation’’ not whether
                                                  110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of                                                                      to address for purposes of an
                                                                                                          section 110 requires the state to
                                                  the pre-1990 Act). Rather, the other                                                                          infrastructure SIP submission for
                                                                                                          demonstrate how all areas of the state
                                                  courts referenced section 110(a)(2)(A)                                                                        purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). In
                                                                                                          will attain and maintain the NAAQS as
                                                                                                                                                                those cases, the courts cited to section
                                                  (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990                part of their infrastructure SIPs. The                110(a)(2)(A) solely for the purpose of
                                                  CAA) in the background section of                       language from the opinion the                         providing a brief background of the
                                                  decisions in the context of a challenge                 Commenter quotes does not interpret                   CAA.
                                                  to an EPA action on revisions to a SIP                  but rather merely describes section                      EPA does not believe any of these
                                                  that was required and approved as                       110(a)(2)(A). The Commenter does not                  court decisions addressed required
                                                  meeting other provisions of the CAA or                  cite to this case to assert that the                  measures for infrastructure SIPs and
                                                  in the context of an enforcement action.                measures relied on by the state in the                believes nothing in the opinions
                                                     In Train, 421 U.S. 60, the Court was                 infrastructure SIP are not ‘‘emissions                addressed whether infrastructure SIP
                                                  addressing a state revision to an                       limitations’’ and the decision in this                submissions must contain emission
                                                  attainment plan submission made                         case has no bearing here. In Mont.                    limitations or measures to ensure
                                                  pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the                 Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174,                   attainment and maintenance of the
                                                  primary statutory provision at that time                the Court was reviewing a Federal                     NAAQS.
                                                  addressing such submissions. The issue                  implementation plan (FIP) that EPA
                                                  in that case concerned whether changes                  promulgated after a long history of the               4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR
                                                  to requirements that would occur before                 State failing to submit an adequate SIP               51.112(a)
                                                  attainment was required were variances                  in response to EPA’s finding under                       Comment 4: The Commenter cites to
                                                  that should be addressed pursuant to                    section 110(k)(5) that the previously                 40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that ‘‘Each
                                                  the provision governing SIP revisions or                approved SIP was substantially                        plan must demonstrate that the
                                                  were ‘‘postponements’’ that must be                     inadequate to attain or maintain the                  measures, rules, and regulations
                                                  addressed under section 110(f) of the                   NAAQS, which triggered the State’s                    contained in it are adequate to provide
                                                  CAA of 1970, which contained                            duty to submit a new SIP to show how                  for the timely attainment and
                                                  prescriptive criteria. The Court                        it would remedy that deficiency and                   maintenance of the national standard
                                                  concluded that EPA reasonably                           attain the NAAQS. The Court cited                     that it implements.’’ The Commenter
                                                  interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict              generally to sections 107 and                         relies on a statement in the preamble to
                                                  a state’s choice of the mix of control                  110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the                       the 1986 action restructuring and
                                                  measures needed to attain the NAAQS,                    proposition that SIPs should assure                   consolidating provisions in part 51, in
                                                  so long as the state met other applicable               attainment and maintenance of NAAQS                   which EPA stated that ‘‘[i]t is beyond
                                                  requirements of the CAA, and that                       through emission limitations, but this                the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address
                                                  revisions to SIPs that would not impact                 language was not part of the Court’s                  the provisions of Part D of the Act . . .’’
                                                  attainment of the NAAQS by the                          holding in the case, which focused                    51 FR 40656. Thus, the Commenter
                                                  attainment date were not subject to the                 instead on whether EPA’s finding of SIP               contends that ‘‘the provisions of 40 CFR
                                                  limits of section 110(f). Thus the issue                inadequacy and adoption of a remedial                 51.112 are not limited to nonattainment
                                                  was not whether the specific SIP at                     FIP were lawful. The Commenter                        SIPs; the regulation instead applies to
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  issue needs to provide for attainment or                suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl.                  Infrastructure SIPs, which are required
                                                  whether emissions limits are needed as                  Conservation, 540 U.S. 461, stands for                to attain and maintain the NAAQS in all
                                                  part of the SIP; rather the issue was                   the proposition that the 1990 CAA                     areas of a state, including those not
                                                  which statutory provision governed                      Amendments do not alter how courts                    designated nonattainment.’’
                                                  when the state wanted to revise the                     interpret section 110. This claim is                     Response 4: The Commenter’s
                                                  emission limits in its SIP if such                      inaccurate. Rather, the Court quoted                  reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its
                                                  revision would not impact attainment or                 section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as noted                 argument that infrastructure SIPs must
                                                  maintenance of the NAAQS.                               previously, differs from the pre-1990                 contain emission limits which ensure


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:28 Sep 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00091   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM   30SER1


                                                  67182            Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  attainment and maintenance of the                       51.112 as requiring that a plan                       Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, at
                                                  NAAQS is incorrect. It is clear on its                  demonstrates the rules in a SIP are                   22, available at https://www.epa.gov/
                                                  face that 40 CFR 51.112 directly applies                adequate to attain the SO2 NAAQS.                     sites/production/files/2016-06/
                                                  to state SIP submissions for control                      Response 5: EPA’s partial approval                  documents/20140423guidance_
                                                  strategy SIPs, i.e., plans that are                     and partial disapproval of revisions to               nonattainment_sip.pdf. The Commenter
                                                  specifically required to attain and/or                  restrictions on emissions of sulfur                   also notes that this EPA guidance
                                                  maintain the NAAQS. These regulatory                    compounds for the Missouri SIP in 71                  provides that ‘‘ ‘any emissions limits
                                                  requirements apply when states are                      FR 12623 specifically addressed                       based on averaging periods longer than
                                                  developing ‘‘control strategy’’ SIPs                    Missouri’s attainment SIP submission—                 1 hour should be designed to have
                                                  under other provisions of the CAA, such                 not Missouri’s infrastructure SIP                     comparable stringency to a 1-hour
                                                  as attainment plans required for the                    submission. It is clear from the final                average limit at the critical emission
                                                  various NAAQS in Part D and                             Missouri rule that EPA was not                        value.’ ’’
                                                  maintenance plans required in section                   reviewing an initial infrastructure SIP                  The Commenter also cites to a
                                                  175A. The Commenter’s suggestion that                   submission, but rather reviewing                      February 3, 2011, EPA Region 7 letter to
                                                  40 CFR 51.112 must apply to all SIP                     proposed SIP revisions that would make                the Kansas Department of Health and
                                                  submissions required by section 110                     an already approved SIP designed to                   Environment regarding the need for 1-
                                                  based on the preamble to EPA’s action                   demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS                   hour SO2 emission limits in a
                                                  ‘‘restructuring and consolidating’’                     less stringent. Therefore, EPA does not               prevention of significant deterioration
                                                  provisions in part 51, is also incorrect.4              agree that the 2006 Missouri action                   (PSD) permit, an EPA Environmental
                                                  EPA’s action in 1986 was not to                         referenced by the Commenter                           Hearing Board decision rejecting use of
                                                  establish new substantive planning                      establishes how EPA reviews                           a 3-hour averaging time for a SO2 limit
                                                  requirements, but rather was meant                      infrastructure SIP submissions for                    in a PSD permit, and EPA’s disapproval
                                                  merely to consolidate and restructure                   purpose of section 110(a)(2)(A).                      of a Missouri SIP which relied on
                                                  provisions that had previously been                       As discussed in the proposed rule,                  annual averaging for SO2 emission rates
                                                  promulgated.                                            EPA finds that the Florida 2010 1-hour                and claims EPA has stated that 1-hour
                                                     Although EPA was explicit that it was                SO2 infrastructure SIP meets the                      averaging times are necessary for the
                                                  not establishing requirements                           appropriate and relevant structural                   2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.6 The
                                                  interpreting the provisions of new ‘‘Part               requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the              Commenter states, ‘‘Therefore, in order
                                                  D’’ of the CAA, it is clear that the                    CAA that will aid in attaining and/or                 to ensure that Florida’s Infrastructure
                                                  regulations being restructured and                      maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2                       SIP actually implements the SO2
                                                  consolidated were intended to address                   NAAQS and that the State demonstrated                 NAAQS in every area of the state, the
                                                  control strategy plans. In the preamble,                that it has the necessary tools to                    I–SIP must contain enforceable emission
                                                  EPA clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112                   implement and enforce the 2010 1-hour                 limits with one-hour averaging times,
                                                  was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (‘‘Control                   SO2 NAAQS.5                                           monitored continuously, for large
                                                  strategy: SOX and PM (portion)’’), 51.14                                                                      sources of SO2.’’ The Commenter asserts
                                                  (‘‘Control strategy: CO, HC, OX and NO2                 B. Comments on Florida SIP SO2
                                                                                                          Emission Limits                                       that EPA must disapprove Florida’s
                                                  (portion)’’), 51.80 (‘‘Demonstration of                                                                       infrastructure SIP because it fails to
                                                  attainment: Pb (portion)’’), and 51.82                     Comment 6: The Commenter asserts                   require emission limits with adequate
                                                  (‘‘Air quality data (portion)’’). Id. at                that EPA may not approve the Florida                  averaging times.
                                                  40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR                     proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP because                  Response 6: As explained in detail in
                                                  51.112 contains consolidated provisions                 it fails to include enforceable emission              previous responses, the purpose of the
                                                  that are focused on control strategy SIPs,              limitations with a 1-hour averaging time              infrastructure SIP is to ensure that a
                                                  and the infrastructure SIP is not such a                that applies at all times. The Commenter              state has the structural capability to
                                                  plan.                                                   cites to CAA section 302(k) which                     implement and enforce the NAAQS and
                                                  5. EPA Interpretations in Other                         requires that emission limits must limit              thus, additional SO2 emission
                                                  Rulemakings                                             the quantity, rate or concentration of                limitations to ensure attainment and
                                                                                                          emissions and must apply on a                         maintenance of the NAAQS are not
                                                     Comment 5: The Commenter also                        continuous basis. The Commenter states                required for such infrastructure SIPs.7
                                                  references a 2006 partial approval and                  that ‘‘[e]nforceable emission limitations
                                                  partial disapproval of revisions to                     contained in the I–SIP must, therefore,                  6 The Commenter cited to In re: Mississippi Lime
                                                  Missouri’s existing plan addressing the                 be accompanied by proper averaging                    Co., PSDAPLPEAL 11–01, 2011 WL 3557194, at
                                                  SO2 NAAQS and claims it was an action                   times; otherwise an appropriate                       * 26–27 (EPA Aug. 9, 2011) and 71 FR 12623, 12624
                                                  in which EPA relied on section                                                                                (March 13, 2006) (EPA disapproval of a control
                                                                                                          numerical emission limit could allow                  strategy SO2 SIP).
                                                  110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject                for peaks that exceed the NAAQS and                      7 For a discussion on emission averaging times for
                                                  an infrastructure SIP. Specifically, the                yet still be permitted since they would               emissions limitations for SO2 attainment SIPs, see
                                                  Commenter asserts that in that action,                  be averaged with lower emissions at                   the April 23, 2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2
                                                  EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) as a basis               other times.’’ The Commenter also cites
                                                                                                                                                                Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions. As noted by
                                                  for disapproving a revision to the State                                                                      the commenter, EPA explained that it is possible,
                                                                                                          to recommended averaging times in EPA                 in specific cases, for states to develop control
                                                  plan on the basis that the State failed to              guidance providing that SIP emissions                 strategies that account for variability in 1-hour
                                                  demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to                   limits, ‘‘should not exceed the averaging             emissions rates through emission limits with
                                                  ensure attainment and maintenance of                    time of the applicable NAAQS that the
                                                                                                                                                                averaging times that are longer than 1-hour, using
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an                                                                            averaging times as long as 30-days, but still provide
                                                                                                          limit is intended to help attain.’’ EPA               for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as long as
                                                  emission limit and cited to 40 CFR                      Memorandum of Apr. 23, 2014, to                       the limits are of at least comparable stringency to
                                                                                                          Regional Air Division Directors, Regions              a 1-hour limit at the critical emission value. EPA
                                                    4 EPA noted that it had already issued guidance                                                             has not taken final action to approve any specific
                                                  addressing the new ‘‘Part D’’ attainment planning       1–10, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS                   submission of such a limit that a state has relied
                                                  obligations. Also, as to maintenance regulations,                                                             upon to demonstrate NAAQS attainment, and
                                                  EPA expressly stated that it was not making any           5 EPA’s final action does not address CAA section   Florida has not submitted such a limit for that
                                                  revisions other than to re-number those provisions.     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because Florida has not made a     purpose here, so it is premature at this time to
                                                  See 51 FR 40657.                                        submission for these elements.                        evaluate whether any emission limit in Florida’s



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:28 Sep 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00092   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM   30SER1


                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                                67183

                                                  EPA disagrees that it must disapprove                   maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.’’                  NAAQS in areas designated
                                                  the proposed Florida infrastructure SIP                 The Commenter refers to air dispersion                nonattainment for that NAAQS are due
                                                  submission merely because the SIP does                  modeling it conducted for two power                   on a different schedule from the section
                                                  not contain enforceable SO2 emission                    plants in Florida, the C.D. McIntosh, Jr.             110 infrastructure SIP submission. A
                                                  limitations with 1-hour averaging                       Power Plant and the Crist Electric                    state, like Florida, may reference pre-
                                                  periods that apply at all times, as this                Generating Plant, which are located                   existing SIP emission limits or other
                                                  issue is not appropriate for resolution in              outside of the State’s two nonattainment              rules contained in part D plans for
                                                  this action in advance of EPA action on                 areas, and claims that ‘‘. . . the                    previous NAAQS in an infrastructure
                                                  the State’s submissions of other required               emission limitations relied on for                    SIP submission for purposes of section
                                                  SIP submissions including an                            implementation of the NAAQS in the I–                 110(a)(2)(A). For example, Florida
                                                  attainment plan for two areas which are                 SIP are insufficient to prevent                       submitted a list of existing emission
                                                  designated nonattainment pursuant to                    exceedances of the NAAQS.’’ Further,                  reduction measures in the SIP that
                                                  section 107 of the CAA.8 Therefore,                     the Commenter cites two court cases to                control emissions of SO2 as discussed
                                                  because EPA finds Florida’s SO2                         support its statement that ‘‘. . . an                 above in response to a prior comment
                                                  infrastructure SIP approvable without                   agency may not ignore information put                 and discussed in the proposed
                                                  the additional SO2 emission limitations                 in front of it’’ and that thus, the                   rulemaking on Florida’s SO2
                                                  showing attainment of the NAAQS, EPA                    Commenter contends that EPA must                      infrastructure SIP. These provisions
                                                  finds the issue of appropriate averaging                consider its expert air dispersion                    have the ability to reduce SO2 overall.
                                                  periods for such future limitations not                 modeling submitted over the years                     Although the Florida SIP relies on
                                                  relevant at this time.                                  which demonstrate the inadequacy of                   measures and programs used to
                                                     Further, Commenter’s citation to a                   Florida’s rules and regulations for SO2               implement previous SO2 NAAQS, these
                                                  prior EPA discussion on emission                        emissions.’’ The Commenter                            provisions are not limited to reducing
                                                  limitations required in PSD permits                     summarizes its modeling results for the               SO2 levels to meet one specific NAAQS
                                                  (from EPA’s Environmental Appeals                       C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant and the                and will continue to provide benefits for
                                                  Board decision and EPA’s letter to                      Crist Electric Generating Plant, stating              the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
                                                  Kansas’ permitting authority) pursuant                  that the data predict exceedances of the                 Regarding the air dispersion modeling
                                                  to part C of the CAA is neither relevant                standard ‘‘over wide areas of the state.’’            conducted by the Commenter pursuant
                                                  nor applicable to infrastructure SIP                    Thus, the Commenter contends that                     to AERMOD for the C.D. McIntosh, Jr.
                                                  submissions under CAA section 110. In                   Florida’s infrastructure submissions are              Power Plant and the Crist Electric
                                                  addition, and as previously discussed,                  ‘‘substantially inadequate to attain and              Generating Plant, EPA is not in this
                                                  the EPA disapproval of the 2006                         maintain the NAAQS which it                           action making a determination regarding
                                                  Missouri SIP was a disapproval relating                 implements as evidenced by expert air                 the air quality status in the area where
                                                  to an attainment plan SIP submission                    dispersion modeling demonstrating that                these EGUs are located, and is not
                                                  required pursuant to part D attainment                  the emission limits under the laws and                evaluating whether emissions
                                                  planning and is likewise not relevant to                regulations cited to in the SO2 I–SIP                 applicable to these EGUs are adequate to
                                                  the analysis of infrastructure SIP                      Certification allow for exceedances of                attain and maintain the NAAQS.
                                                  requirements.                                           the NAAQS.’’ Thus, the Commenter                      Consequently, the EPA does not find the
                                                     Comment 7: Citing to section 110(a)(1)
                                                                                                          asserts that EPA must disapprove                      modeling information relevant for
                                                  and (a)(2)(A) of the CAA, the
                                                                                                          Florida’s SIP submissions, and must                   review of an infrastructure SIP for
                                                  Commenter contends that EPA may not
                                                                                                          establish a FIP ‘‘which incorporates                  purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). When
                                                  approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP
                                                                                                          necessary and appropriate source-                     additional areas in Florida are
                                                  because it does not include enforceable
                                                                                                          specific enforceable emission                         designated under the 2010 1-hour SO2
                                                  1-hour emission limits for sources that
                                                                                                          limitations (preferably informed by                   NAAQS, and if any additional areas in
                                                  the Commenter claims are currently
                                                                                                          modeling) on C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power                 Florida are designated nonattainment in
                                                  contributing to NAAQS exceedances.
                                                                                                          Plant and Crist Electric Generating                   the future, any potential future
                                                  The Commenter asserts that emission
                                                                                                          Plant, as well as any other major sources             modeling submitted by the State with
                                                  limits are especially important for
                                                                                                          of SO2 pollution in the State which are               designations or attainment
                                                  meeting the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS because
                                                                                                          not presently located in nonattainment                demonstrations would need to account
                                                  SO2 impacts are strongly source                         areas and have modeled exceedances of                 for any new emissions limitations
                                                  oriented. The Commenter states that                     the NAAQS.’’ Further, the Commenter                   Florida develops to support such
                                                  ‘‘[d]espite the large contribution from                 states that ‘‘For C.D. McIntosh and Crist,            designation or demonstration, which at
                                                  coal-fired EGUs [electricity generating                 enforceable emission limitations must                 this point is unknown. While EPA has
                                                  units] to the State’s SO2 pollution,                    be at least as stringent as the modeling-             extensively discussed the use of
                                                  Florida’s I–SIP lacks enforceable                       based limits [provided by the                         modeling for attainment demonstration
                                                  emissions limitations applicable to its                 Commenter] in order to protect the one-               purposes and for designations,9 EPA has
                                                  coal-fired EGUs sufficient to ensure the                hour SO2 NAAQS and implement,
                                                  implementation, attainment, and                                                                               recommended that such modeling was
                                                                                                          maintain, and enforce the standard in                 not needed for the SO2 infrastructure
                                                                                                          Florida.’’                                            SIPs for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
                                                  SIP is in accordance with the April 23, 2014,
                                                  guidance. If and when Florida submits an emission          Response 7: As stated previously, EPA              for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A),
                                                  limitation that relies upon such a longer averaging     believes that the proper inquiry is                   which are not actions in which EPA
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  time to demonstrate NAAQS attainment, EPA will          whether Florida has met the basic,                    makes determinations regarding current
                                                  evaluate it then.
                                                     8 There are two designated nonattainment areas       structural SIP requirements appropriate               air quality status. See April 12, 2012,
                                                  pursuant to CAA section 107 for the 2010 1-hour         at the point in time EPA is acting upon
                                                  SO2 NAAQS in Florida and the State has submitted        the infrastructure submissions.                         9 See for example, EPA’s discussion of modeling

                                                  attainment plans for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS          Emissions limitations and other control               for characterizing air quality in the Agency’s August
                                                  for sections 172, 191 and 192. EPA believes the                                                               21, 2015, final rule at 80 FR 51052 and for
                                                  appropriate time for examining the necessity of 1-
                                                                                                          measures, whether on coal-fired EGUs                  nonattainment planning in the April 23, 2014,
                                                  hour SO2 emission limits on specific sources is         or other SO2 sources, that may be                     Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
                                                  within the attainment planning process.                 needed to attain and maintain the                     Submissions.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:28 Sep 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00093   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM   30SER1


                                                  67184            Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

                                                  letters to states and 2012 Draft White                  to the good neighbor provision in                     such as the requirements of
                                                  Paper.10                                                section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Florida did not           110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from the
                                                     In conclusion, EPA disagrees with the                make a submission to address the                      other infrastructure elements and
                                                  Commenter’s statements that EPA must                    requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)            interprets section 110(k)(3) as allowing
                                                  disapprove Florida’s infrastructure SIP                 for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and                    it to act on individual severable
                                                  submissions because it does not                         thus there is no such submission upon                 measures in a plan submission. In short,
                                                  establish specific enforceable SO2                      which EPA proposed to take action on                  EPA believes that even if Florida had
                                                  emission limits, either on coal-fired                   under section 110(k) of the CAA.                      made a SIP submission for section
                                                  EGUs or other large SO2 sources, in                     Similarly, EPA disagrees with the                     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010
                                                  order to demonstrate attainment and                     Commenter’s assertion that EPA cannot                 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which to date it
                                                  maintenance with the 2010 1-hour SO2                    approve other elements of an                          has not, EPA would still have discretion
                                                  NAAQS at this time.                                     infrastructure SIP submission without                 under section 110(k) of the CAA to act
                                                     Comment 8: The Commenter alleges                     the good neighbor provision. There is no              upon the various individual elements of
                                                  that the SO2 infrastructure SIP submittal               basis for the contention that EPA has                 the State’s infrastructure SIP
                                                  does not address sources significantly                  triggered its obligation to issue a FIP to            submission, separately or together, as
                                                  contributing to nonattainment or                        address the good neighbor obligation                  appropriate.
                                                  interfering with maintenance of the                     under section 110(c), as EPA has neither                 The Commenter raises no compelling
                                                  2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in other states                   found that Florida failed to timely                   legal or environmental rationale for an
                                                  as required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)               submit a required 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP              alternate interpretation. Nothing in the
                                                  of the CAA, and asserts EPA must                        submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2                    Supreme Court’s April 2014 decision in
                                                  therefore disapprove the infrastructure                 NAAQS or found that such a                            EME Homer City alters EPA’s
                                                  SIP and impose a FIP. The Commenter                     submission was incomplete, nor has                    interpretation that EPA may act on
                                                  states that ‘‘Florida’s reliance on a 2012              EPA disapproved a SIP submission                      individual severable measures,
                                                  EPA memorandum in which EPA stated                      addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect            including the requirements of section
                                                  that it did ‘not intend to make findings                to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.                         110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in a SIP submission.
                                                  that states failed to submit SIPs to                       EPA acknowledges the Commenter’s                   See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation,
                                                  comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’ is              concern for the interstate transport of air           L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (affirming a state’s
                                                  improper’’, and that such guidance                      pollutants and agrees in general with                 obligation to submit a SIP revision
                                                  contradicts the CAA. The Commenter                      the Commenter that sections 110(a)(1)                 addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                  notes that the Supreme Court                            and (a)(2) of the CAA generally require
                                                                                                                                                                independent of EPA’s action finding
                                                  disapproved the view that states cannot                 states to submit, within three years of
                                                                                                                                                                significant contribution or interference
                                                  address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) until EPA               promulgation of a new or revised
                                                  resolves issues related to CSAPR and                                                                          with maintenance). In sum, the
                                                                                                          NAAQS, a plan which addresses cross-
                                                  that compliance with this provision is a                                                                      concerns raised by the Commenter do
                                                                                                          state air pollution under section
                                                  ‘‘mandatory duty’’, citing to Homer City,                                                                     not establish that it is inappropriate or
                                                                                                          110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, EPA
                                                  696 F.3d 7, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev’d,                                                                       unreasonable for EPA to approve the
                                                                                                          disagrees with the Commenter’s
                                                  No. 12–1182, slip op. at 27–28 (U.S.                                                                          portions of Florida’s infrastructure SIP
                                                                                                          argument that EPA cannot approve an
                                                  Apr. 29, 2014). The Commenter also                                                                            submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2
                                                                                                          infrastructure SIP submission without
                                                  highlights from Order on Petition No.                   the good neighbor provision. Section                  NAAQS.
                                                  VI–2014–04 at 10 (citing EPA v. EME                     110(k)(3) of the CAA authorizes EPA to                   EPA has no obligation at this time to
                                                  Homer City Generation, 134 S. Ct. 1584,                 approve a plan in full, disapprove it in              issue a FIP pursuant to 110(c)(1) to
                                                  1601 (2014) that, ‘‘[T]he Supreme Court                 full, or approve it in part and                       address Florida’s obligations under
                                                  has affirmed that the EPA is not                        disapprove it in part, depending on the               section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA first
                                                  required to provide any implementation                  extent to which such plan meets the                   either finds Florida failed to make a
                                                  guidance before states’ interstate                      requirements of the CAA. This authority               required submission addressing the
                                                  transport obligation can be addressed.’’                to approve state SIP revisions in                     element or the State has made such a
                                                     Response 8: This action does not                     separable parts was included in the                   submission but it is incomplete, or EPA
                                                  address whether sources in Florida are                  1990 Amendments to the CAA to                         disapproves a SIP submission
                                                  significantly contributing to                           overrule a decision in the Court of                   addressing that element. Until either
                                                  nonattainment or interfering with                       Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding                 occurs, EPA does not have the
                                                  maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2                      that EPA could not approve individual                 obligation to issue a FIP pursuant to
                                                  NAAQS in another state as required by                   measures in a plan submission without                 section 110(c) with respect to the good
                                                  section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA (the              either approving or disapproving the                  neighbor provision. Therefore, EPA
                                                  good neighbor provision). Thus, EPA                     plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101–                 disagrees with the Commenter’s
                                                  disagrees with the Commenter’s                          228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385,                   contention that it must issue a FIP for
                                                  statement that EPA must disapprove the                  3408 (discussing the express overruling               Florida to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
                                                  submitted 2010 1-hour SO2                               of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071                   the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at this
                                                  infrastructure SIP due to Florida’s                     (9th Cir. 1987)).                                     time.
                                                  failure to address section                                 EPA interprets its authority under                 III. Final Action
                                                  110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In EPA’s proposed                   section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, as
                                                  rulemaking to approve Florida’s                         affording EPA the discretion to approve,                EPA is taking final action to approve
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  infrastructure SIP for the 2010 1-hour                  or conditionally approve, individual                  Florida’s infrastructure submissions
                                                  SO2 NAAQS, EPA clearly stated that it                   elements of Florida’s infrastructure SIP              submitted on June 3, 2013, and
                                                  was not taking any action with respect                  submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2                   supplemented on January 8, 2014, for
                                                                                                          NAAQS, separate and apart from any                    the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the
                                                    10 Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour
                                                                                                          action with respect to the requirements               above described infrastructure SIP
                                                  SO2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper for Discussion, May
                                                  2012 (2012 Draft White Paper) and a sample April
                                                                                                          of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA              requirements. EPA is taking final action
                                                  12, 2012, letter from EPA to states are available in    with respect to that NAAQS. EPA views                 to approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP
                                                  the docket for this action.                             discrete infrastructure SIP requirements,             submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:28 Sep 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00094   Fmt 4700   Sfmt 4700   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM   30SER1


                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations                                              67185

                                                  NAAQS because the submissions are                          • is not a significant regulatory action            action must be filed in the United States
                                                  consistent with section 110 of the CAA.                 subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR                Court of Appeals for the appropriate
                                                                                                          28355, May 22, 2001);                                  circuit by November 29, 2016. Filing a
                                                  IV. Statutory and Executive Order                          • is not subject to requirements of                 petition for reconsideration by the
                                                  Reviews                                                 Section 12(d) of the National                          Administrator of this final rule does not
                                                     Under the CAA, the Administrator is                  Technology Transfer and Advancement                    affect the finality of this action for the
                                                  required to approve a SIP submission                    Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because               purposes of judicial review nor does it
                                                  that complies with the provisions of the                application of those requirements would                extend the time within which a petition
                                                  Act and applicable Federal regulations.                 be inconsistent with the CAA; and                      for judicial review may be filed, and
                                                  See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).                    • does not provide EPA with the                     shall not postpone the effectiveness of
                                                  Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,                     discretionary authority to address, as                 such rule or action. This action may not
                                                  EPA’s role is to approve state choices,                 appropriate, disproportionate human                    be challenged later in proceedings to
                                                  provided that they meet the criteria of                 health or environmental effects, using                 enforce its requirements. See section
                                                  the CAA. Accordingly, this action                       practicable and legally permissible                    307(b)(2).
                                                  merely approves state law as meeting                    methods, under Executive Order 12898
                                                                                                          (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).                       List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
                                                  Federal requirements and does not
                                                                                                             In addition, the SIP is not approved
                                                  impose additional requirements beyond                                                                            Environmental protection, Air
                                                                                                          to apply on any Indian reservation land
                                                  those imposed by state law. For that                                                                           pollution control, Incorporation by
                                                                                                          or in any other area where EPA or an
                                                  reason, this action:                                                                                           reference, Intergovernmental relations,
                                                                                                          Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
                                                     • Is not a significant regulatory action             tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
                                                                                                                                                                 Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
                                                  subject to review by the Office of                      Indian country, the rule does not have                 recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
                                                  Management and Budget under                             tribal implications as specified by                    organic compounds.
                                                  Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,                    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,                      Dated: September 14, 2016.
                                                  October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,                 November 9, 2000), nor will it impose                  V. Anne Heard,
                                                  January 21, 2011);                                      substantial direct costs on tribal                     Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
                                                     • does not impose an information                     governments or preempt tribal law.
                                                  collection burden under the provisions                     The Congressional Review Act, 5                         40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
                                                  of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44                      U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
                                                  U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);                                   Business Regulatory Enforcement                        PART 52—APPROVAL AND
                                                                                                          Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides               PROMULGATION OF
                                                     • is certified as not having a                                                                              IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
                                                  significant economic impact on a                        that before a rule may take effect, the
                                                  substantial number of small entities                    agency promulgating the rule must
                                                                                                          submit a rule report, which includes a                 ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
                                                  under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5                                                                        continues to read as follows:
                                                  U.S.C. 601 et seq.);                                    copy of the rule, to each House of the
                                                                                                          Congress and to the Comptroller General                    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
                                                     • does not contain any unfunded
                                                                                                          of the United States. EPA will submit a
                                                  mandate or significantly or uniquely                                                                           Subpart K—Florida
                                                                                                          report containing this action and other
                                                  affect small governments, as described
                                                                                                          required information to the U.S. Senate,
                                                  in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act                                                                            ■ 2. Section 52.520(e), is amended by
                                                                                                          the U.S. House of Representatives, and
                                                  of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);                                                                                       adding the entry ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2)
                                                                                                          the Comptroller General of the United
                                                     • does not have Federalism                           States prior to publication of the rule in             Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010
                                                  implications as specified in Executive                  the Federal Register. A major rule                     1-hour SO2 National Ambient Air
                                                  Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,                    cannot take effect until 60 days after it              Quality Standards’’ at the end of the
                                                  1999);                                                  is published in the Federal Register.                  table to read as follows:
                                                     • is not an economically significant                 This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
                                                                                                                                                                 § 52.520    Identification of plan.
                                                  regulatory action based on health or                    defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
                                                  safety risks subject to Executive Order                    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,                 *       *    *      *      *
                                                  13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);                    petitions for judicial review of this                      (e) * * *
                                                                                              EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
                                                                                                          State                 EPA            Federal Register
                                                                    Provision                                                                                                         Explanation
                                                                                                      effective date        approval date           notice


                                                           *                    *                           *                       *                        *                   *                  *
                                                  110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Require-              6/3/2013            9/30/2016       [Insert Federal Reg-      With the exception of section for provi-
                                                    ments for the 2010 1-hour Primary SO2                                                       ister citation].        sions relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                    National Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                                             (prongs 1 and 2) concerning interstate
                                                                                                                                                                        transport requirements.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES




                                                  [FR Doc. 2016–23292 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am]
                                                  BILLING CODE 6560–50–P




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:28 Sep 29, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00095    Fmt 4700   Sfmt 9990   E:\FR\FM\30SER1.SGM   30SER1



Document Created: 2018-02-09 13:33:45
Document Modified: 2018-02-09 13:33:45
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionRules and Regulations
ActionFinal rule.
DatesThis rule is effective October 31, 2016.
ContactMichele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at [email protected] or via telephone at (404) 562-9031.
FR Citation81 FR 67179 
CFR AssociatedEnvironmental 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