29592 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Revise § 165.901 to read as follows: 

§ 165.901 Great Lakes—regulated 

navigation areas and safety zones. 

(a) The following are safety zones: 

(1) Lake Erie. The U.S. waters of Lake 

Erie at the intersection of the 

International Border at 082°55′00′′ W., 

following the International Border 

eastward to the intersection of the 

International Border at 082°35′00′′ W., 

moving straight south to position 

41°25′00′′ N., 082°35′00′′ W., continuing 

west to position 41°25′00′′ N., 

082°55′00′′ W., and ending north at the 

International Border and 082°55′00′′ W. 

(2) Lake Huron. (i) The waters of Lake 

Huron known as South Channel 

between Bois Blanc Island and 

Cheboygan, Michigan; bounded by a 

line north from the mainland at 

45°39′48′′ N., 84°27′36′′ W.; to Bois 

Blanc Island at 45°43′42′′ N., 84°27′36′′ 

W.; and a line north from the mainland 

at 45°43′00′′ N., 84°35′30′′ W.; to the 

western tangent of Bois Blanc Island at 

45°48′42′′ N., 84°35′30′′ W. 

(ii) The waters of Lake Huron between 

Mackinac Island and St. Ignace, 

Michigan, bounded by a line east from 

position 45°52′12′′ N., 84°43′00′′ W.; to 

Mackinac Island at 45°52′12′′ N., 

84°39′00′′ W.; and a line east from the 

mainland at 45°53′12′′ N., 84°43′30′′ W.; 

to the northern tangent of Mackinac 

Island at 45°53′12′′ N., 84°38′48′′ W. 

(iii) The waters of Lake Huron known 

as Saginaw Bay, Michigan; bounded by 

a line from Port Austin Reef Light (LL– 

10275) at 44°04′55′′ N., 082°58′57′′ W.; 

to Tawas Light (LL–11240) at 44°15′13′′ 

N., 083°26′58′′ W.; to Saginaw Bay 

Range Front Light (LL–10550) at 

43°38′54′′ N., 083°51′06′′ W.; then to the 

point of beginning. 

(3) Lake Michigan. The waters of Lake 

Michigan known as Gray’s Reef Passage 

bounded by a line from Gray’s Reef 

Light (LL–2006) at 45°46′00′′ N., 

85°09′12′′ W.; to White Shoals Light 

(LL–2003) at 45°50′30′′ N., 85°08′06′′ W.; 

to a point at 45°49′12′′ N., 85°04′48′′ W.; 

then to a point at 45°45′42′′ N., 

85°08′42′′ W.; then to the point of 

beginning. 

(b) Regulations. The District 

Commander or respective Captain of the 

Port (COTP) will enforce these safety 

zones as ice conditions dictate. Under 

normal seasonal conditions, only one 

closing each winter and one opening 

each spring are anticipated. Prior to 

closing or opening these safety zones, 

the District Commander or respective 

COTP will give the public advance 

notice, not less than 72 hours prior to 

the closure. The general regulations in 

33 CFR 165.23 apply. The District 

Commander or respective COTP retains 

the discretion to permit vessels to enter/ 

transit a closed safety zone under 

certain circumstances. 

(c) The following are regulated 

navigation areas (RNAs): 

(1) Lake Erie. The waters of Lake Erie 

known as the Maumee Bay Entrance 

Channel between Maumee Bay Entrance 

Channel Light at 41°49′32′′ N., 

083°11′37′′ W.; and Grassy Island at 

41°42′23′′ N., 083°26′49′′ W. 

(2) Straits of Mackinac. The waters 

connecting Lake Huron to Lake 

Michigan known as the Straits of 

Mackinac from Lansing Shoal Light at 

45°54′8′′ N., 085°33′25′′ W. southwest to 

45°50′7′′ N., 085°34′3′′ W. to Old 

Mackinac Point Lighthouse at 45°47′36′′ 

N., 084°44′23′′ W. eastward to Bois 

Blanc Island at 45°49′7′′ N., 084°34′28′′ 

W. then northwest to Mackinaw Island 

at 45°51′5′′ N., 084°36′19′′ W., 

encompassing Round Island, westward 

to the northern point of the Mackinaw 

Bridge at 45°50′57′′ N., 084°43′47′′ W. 

and returning to the beginning at 

Lansing Shoal Light. 

(3) Green Bay. The waters of Lake 

Michigan known as Green Bay from 

Rock Island Passage or Porte Des Morts 

Passage north to Escanaba Light at 

45°44′48′′ N., 087°02′14′′ W.; south to 

the Fox River Entrance at 44°32′22′′ N., 

088°00′19′′ W., to the Sturgeon Bay Ship 

Canal from Sherwood Point Light at 

44°53′34′′ N., 087°26′00′′ W.; to Sturgeon 

Bay Ship Canal Light at 44°47′42′′ N., 

087°18′48′′ W.; and then to the point of 

beginning. 

(d) Regulations. In the RNAs under 

paragraph (c) of this section, the District 

Commander or respective COTP may 

issue orders to control vessel traffic for 

reasons which include but are not 

limited to: channel obstructions, winter 

navigation, unusual weather conditions, 

or unusual water levels. Prior to issuing 

these orders, the District Commander or 

respective COTP will provide advance 

notice as reasonably practicable under 

the circumstances. The general 

regulations in 33 CFR 165.13 apply. The 

District Commander or respective COTP 

retains the discretion to authorize 

vessels to operate outside of issued 

orders. 

Dated: May 4, 2015. 

F. M. Midgette, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Ninth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11804 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0040; FRL– 9928–05- 

Region-4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of the October 14, 2011, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, 

provided by the State of Florida, 

through the Department of 

Environmental Protection (FL DEP) for 

inclusion into the Florida SIP. This 

proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 Lead national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 

The CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. FL DEP certified 

that the Florida SIP contains provisions 

that ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is 

implemented, enforced, and maintained 

in Florida. With the exception of 

provisions pertaining to prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) 

permitting, EPA is proposing to approve 

Florida’s infrastructure submission, 

provided to EPA on October 14, 2011, 

as satisfying the required infrastructure 

elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 22, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29593 

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions states 

generally certify evidence of compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a 

combination of state regulations and statutes, some 

of which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be 

appropriate for demonstrating compliance with 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this 

rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, regulations 

referenced herein as the ‘‘Florida Administrative 

Code (F.A.C.)’’ have been approved into Florida’s 

federally-approved SIP. Florida state statutes, 

referenced as ‘‘Florida Statue (F.S.)’’ herein are not 

a part of the SIP unless otherwise indicated. 

OAR–2013–0040, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0040,’’ Air Regulatory Management 

Section, (formerly the Regulatory 

Development Section), Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, (formerly the 

Air Planning Branch), Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0040. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri 

Farngalo, Air Regulatory Management 

Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9152. 

Mr. Farngalo can be reached via 

electronic mail at farngalo.zuri@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What elements are required under sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how Florida 

addressed the elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On October 5, 1978, EPA promulgated 

primary and secondary NAAQS for Lead 

under section 109 of the Act. See 43 FR 

46246. Both primary and secondary 

standards were set at a level of 1.5 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m 3), 

measured as Lead in total suspended 

particulate matter (Pb-TSP), not to be 

exceeded by the maximum arithmetic 

mean concentration averaged over a 

calendar quarter. This standard was 

based on the 1977 Air Quality Criteria 

for Lead (USEPA, August 7, 1977). On 

November 12, 2008 (75 FR 81126), EPA 

issued a final rule to revise the primary 

and secondary Lead NAAQS. The 

primary and secondary Lead NAAQS 

were revised to 0.15 mg/m 3. By statute, 

SIPs meeting the requirements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be 

submitted by states within three years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

require states to address basic SIP 

requirements, including emissions 

inventories, monitoring, and modeling 

to assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. States were required to 

submit such SIPs to EPA no later than 

October 15, 2011, for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS.1

Today’s action is proposing to 

approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the applicable 

requirements of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 

with the exception of the 

preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), 

and (J). With respect to Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the provisions pertaining to the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 

of D(i), and (J), EPA’s approval of these 

elements was published on March 18, 

2015 (80 FR 14019). For the aspects of 

Florida’s submittal proposed for 

approval today, EPA notes that the 

Agency is not approving any specific 

rule, but rather proposing that Florida’s 

already approved SIP meets certain 

CAA requirements. 

II. What elements are required under 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29594 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are 

not governed by the three year submission deadline 

of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating 

necessary local nonattainment area controls are not 

due within three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the 

nonattainment area plan requirements are due 

pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) 

Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the 

extent that subsection refers to a permit program as 

required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) 

submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which 

pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements 

of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed 

rulemaking does not address infrastructure 

elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

110(a)(2)(C). 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4As mentioned above, this element is not 

relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking. 

5For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

6See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

obligation upon states to make a SIP 

submission to EPA for a new or revised 

NAAQS, but the contents of that 

submission may vary depending upon 

the facts and circumstances. In 

particular, the data and analytical tools 

available at the time the state develops 

and submits the SIP for a new or revised 

NAAQS affects the content of the 

submission. The contents of such SIP 

submissions may also vary depending 

upon what provisions the state’s 

existing SIP already contains. In the 

case of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, states 

typically have met the basic program 

elements required in section 110(a)(2) 

through earlier SIP submissions in 

connection with the 1978 Lead NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific 

elements that states must meet for 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements 

related to a newly established or revised 

NAAQS. As mentioned above, these 

requirements include SIP infrastructure 

elements such as modeling, monitoring, 

and emissions inventories that are 

designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The 

requirements that are the subject of this 

proposed rulemaking are listed below 2

and in EPA’s October 14, 2011, 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2011 

Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance). 

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and 

other control measures. 

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system. 

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement, prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) and new source 

review (NSR).3

• 110(a)(2)(D): Interstate and 

international transport provisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority. 

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source 

monitoring and reporting. 

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers. 

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions. 

• 110(a)(2)(I): Nonattainment area 

plan or plan revision under part D.4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with 

government officials, public 

notification, and PSD and visibility 

protection. 

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/

data. 

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees. 

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

III. What is EPA’s approach to the 

review of infrastructure SIP 

submissions? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from Florida that addresses 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS. Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘each such plan’’ 

submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions, and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.5 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the Act, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.6 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years, or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29595 

7EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

8See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

9On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

11EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

12 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required 

under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 

110(a)(2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ Memorandum 

from Stephen D. Page, October 14, 2011. 

13Although not intended to provide guidance for 

purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA notes, that following the 

2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance, EPA issued 

the ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. This 2013 guidance provides 

recommendations for air agencies’ development and 

the EPA’s review of infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 

Continued 

promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a 

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with 

respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to 

whether states must meet all of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements in a 

single SIP submission, and whether EPA 

must act upon such SIP submission in 

a single action. Although section 

110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a 

plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow states to 

make multiple SIP submissions 

separately addressing infrastructure SIP 

elements for the same NAAQS. If states 

elect to make such multiple SIP 

submissions to meet the infrastructure 

SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act 

on such submissions either individually 

or in a larger combined action.8

Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to 

allow it to take action on the individual 

parts of one larger, comprehensive 

infrastructure SIP submission for a 

given NAAQS without concurrent 

action on the entire submission. For 

example, EPA has sometimes elected to 

act at different times on various 

elements and sub-elements of the same 

infrastructure SIP submission.9

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) may also arise with 

respect to infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants because the content 

and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission to meet this element might 

be very different for an entirely new 

NAAQS than for a minor revision to an 

existing NAAQS.10

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submissions. 

For example, section 172(c)(7) requires 

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment 

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD 

program required in part C of title I of 

the CAA, because PSD does not apply 

to a pollutant for which an area is 

designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.11 EPA issued the 

2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance 12 to provide states with up-todate guidance for Lead infrastructure 

SIPs. Within this guidance, EPA 

describes the duty of states to make 

infrastructure SIP submissions to meet 

basic structural SIP requirements within 

three years of promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions. The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets sections 

110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that 

infrastructure SIP submissions need to 

address certain issues and need not 

address others. Accordingly, EPA 

reviews each infrastructure SIP 

submission for compliance with the 

applicable statutory provisions of 

section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.13


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29596 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ozone primary and secondary NAAQS, the 2010 

primary nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, the 2010 

primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS, and the 2012 

primary fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, as 

well as infrastructure SIPs for new or revised 

NAAQS promulgated in the future. 

14For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 

(April 18, 2011). 

15EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 

(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

16See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 

(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s 

discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) 

(final disapproval of such provisions). 

17On February 22, 2013, EPA published a 

proposed action in the Federal Register entitled, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition 

for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial 

Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions 

Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed 

Rule.’’ 78 FR 12459. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely 

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) 

and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides 

other avenues and mechanisms to 

address specific substantive deficiencies 

in existing SIPs. These other statutory 

tools allow EPA to take appropriately 

tailored action, depending upon the 

nature and severity of the alleged SIP 

deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes 

EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the 

Agency determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.14 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.15

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.16

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how 

Florida addressed the elements of 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

The Florida infrastructure submission 

addresses the provisions of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) as described below. 

1. 110(a)(2)(A)—Emission limits and 

other control measures: Florida’s 

infrastructure submission cites 

provisions of the Florida Administrative 

Code (F.A.C.) that provide FL DEP with 

the necessary authority to adopt and 

enforce air quality controls, which 

include enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures. 

Chapters 62–204, F.A.C., Air Pollution 

Control Provisions; 62–210, F.A.C., 

Stationary Sources—General 

Requirements; 62–212,F.A.C. Stationary 

Source-Preconstruction Review; 62–296, 

F.A.C., Stationary Sources—Emissions 

Standards; and 62–297, F.A.C., 

Stationary Sources—Emissions 

Monitoring, establish emission limits for 

Lead and address the required control 

measures, means and techniques for 

compliance with the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

respectively. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that the 

above provisions and Florida’s practices 

are adequate to protect the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS in the State. Accordingly, EPA 

is proposing to approve Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(A). 

In this action, EPA is not proposing to 

approve or disapprove any existing 

State provisions with regard to excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction (SSM) of operations at 

a facility. EPA believes that a number of 

states have SSM provisions which are 

contrary to the CAA and existing EPA 

guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and 

the Agency plans to address such state 

regulations in the future.17 In the 

meantime, EPA encourages any state 

having a deficient SSM provision to take 

steps to correct it as soon as possible. 

Additionally, in this action, EPA is 

not proposing to approve or disapprove 

any existing State rules with regard to 

director’s discretion or variance 

provisions. In the meantime, EPA 

encourages any state having a director’s 

discretion or variance provision which 

is contrary to the CAA and EPA 

guidance to take steps to correct the 

deficiency as soon as possible. 

2. 110(a)(2)(B)—Ambient air quality 

monitoring/data system: SIPs are 

required to provide for the 

establishment and operation of ambient 

air quality monitors; the compilation 

and analysis of ambient air quality data; 

and the submission of these data to EPA 

upon request. Chapters 62–204, F.A.C., 

Air Pollution Control Provisions, 62– 

210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources— 

General Requirements, and 62–212, 

F.A.C., Stationary Sources— 

Preconstruction Review of the Florida 

SIP, along with the Florida Network 

Description and Ambient Air 

Monitoring Network Plan, provide for 

an ambient air quality monitoring 

system in the State. Annually, States 

develop and submit to EPA for approval 

statewide ambient monitoring network 

plans consistent with the requirements 

of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The 

annual network plan involves an 

evaluation of any proposed changes to 

the monitoring network, and includes 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29597 

18On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

19There are two facilities in Florida that have 

Lead emissions greater than 0.5 tpy. The facilities 

are EnviroFocus Technologies and GulfPower 

Company Crist power plant. EnviroFocus 

Technologies is located at 1901 N 66th St, Tampa, 

FL 33619, which about 150 miles from the border 

of Georgia. GulfPower Company Crist power plant 

is located in Escambia County 11999 Pate Street, 

Pensacola, FL, approximately 10 miles from 

Alabama. 

the annual ambient monitoring network 

design plan and a certified evaluation of 

the agency’s ambient monitors and 

auxiliary support equipment.18 The 

latest monitoring network plan for 

Florida was submitted to EPA in May 

2014 and on November 7, 2014, EPA 

approved this plan. Florida’s approved 

monitoring network plan can be 

accessed at www.regulations.gov using 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0040. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Florida’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for the ambient 

air quality monitoring and data system 

requirements related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

3. 110(a)(2)(C)—Program for 

enforcement, Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) and new source 

review (NSR): This element consists of 

three sub-elements; enforcement, statewide regulation of new and modified 

minor sources and minor modifications 

of major sources; and preconstruction 

permitting of major sources and major 

modifications in areas designated 

attainment or unclassifiable for the 

subject NAAQS as required by CAA title 

I part C (i.e., the major source PSD 

program). In this action EPA is 

proposing to approve Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to the 

general requirement of 110(a)(2)(C) to 

include a program in the SIP that 

provides for enforcement of emission 

limits and control measures and 

regulation of minor sources and minor 

modifications as well as the 

enforcement of lead emission limits to 

assist in the protection of air quality in 

nonattainment, attainment or 

unclassifiable areas. This is established 

in Chapters 62–210, F.A.C., Stationary 

Sources—General Requirements, 

Section 200—Definitions; and 62–212, 

F.A.C., Stationary Sources— 

Preconstruction Review, Section 400— 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration.. 

Enforcement: FL DEP’s SIP approved 

regulations provide for enforcement of 

lead emission limits and control 

measures and construction permitting 

for new or modified stationary lead 

sources. 

Preconstruction PSD Permitting for 

Major Sources: With respect to Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP submission related to 

the preconstruction PSD permitting 

requirements for major sources of 

section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA approved this 

element at 80 FR 14019, published on 

March 18, 2015, and thus is not 

proposing any action today regarding 

these requirements. 

Regulation of minor sources and 

modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also 

requires the regulation of new and 

modified minor sources and minor 

modifications. FL DEP’s SIP-approved 

rule chapters 62–204, 62–210, and 62– 

212, F.A.C., collectively establish a 

preconstruction, new source permitting 

program that meets the NNSR 

requirements under parts C and D of the 

CAA for pollutant-emitting activities 

that contribute to lead concentrations in 

the ambient air and also provide for the 

enforcement of lead emission limits and 

control measures. FL DEP’s SIPapproved preconstruction review 

program applies to minor sources and 

modifications as well as major 

stationary sources and modifications (as 

discussed above). 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Florida’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for enforcement 

of control measures and regulation of 

minor sources and modifications related 

to the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate and 

International transport provisions: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two 

components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these 

components have two subparts resulting 

in four distinct components, commonly 

referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that must be 

addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that 

prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

from interfering with measures required 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or 

to protect visibility in another state 

(‘‘prong 4’’). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) 

Intestate and International transport 

provisions requires SIPs to include 

provisions insuring compliance with 

sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating 

to interstate and international pollution 

abatement. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires 

infrastructure SIP submissions to 

include provisions prohibiting any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity in one state from contributing 

significantly to nonattainment, or 

interfering with maintenance, of the 

NAAQS in another state. 

The physical properties of lead 

prevent lead emissions from 

experiencing that same travel or 

formation phenomena as PM2.5 and 

ozone for interstate transport as outlined 

in prongs 1 and 2. More specifically, 

there is a sharp decrease in the lead 

concentrations, at least in the coarse 

fraction, as the distance from a lead 

source increases. EPA believes that the 

requirements of prongs 1 and 2 can be 

satisfied through a state’s assessment as 

to whether a lead source located within 

its State in close proximity to a state 

border has emissions that contribute 

significantly to the nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 

NAAQS in the neighboring state. For 

example, EPA’s experience with the 

initial lead designations suggests that 

sources that emit less than 0.5 tpy 

generally appear unlikely to contribute 

significantly to the nonattainment in 

another state. EPA’s experience also 

suggest that sources located more than 

two miles from the state border 

generally appear unlikely to contribute 

significantly to the nonattainment in 

another state. Florida has two lead 

sources that have emissions of lead over 

0.5 tons per year (tpy) but these sources 

are located well beyond two miles from 

the State border.19 Thus, EPA believes 

there are no sources in Florida that are 

likely to contribute significantly to the 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state. Therefore, EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that Florida’s 

SIP meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With 

respect to Florida’s infrastructure SIP 

submission related to the interstate 

transport requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), EPA 

approved this element at 80 FR 14019, 

published on March 18, 2015, and thus 

is not proposing any action today 

regarding these requirements. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: With 

regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the 

visibility sub-element, referred to as 

prong 4, significant impacts from lead 

emissions from stationary sources are 

expected to be limited to short distances 

from the source. The 2011 Lead 

Infrastructure SIP Guidance notes that 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29598 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the lead constituent of PM would likely 

not travel far enough to affect Class I 

areas and that the visibility provisions 

of the CAA do not directly regulate lead. 

Lead stationary sources in Florida are 

located distances from Class I areas such 

that visibility impacts are negligible. In 

addition, Florida’s Regional Haze SIP, 

which addresses visibility protection, 

was approved on August 29, 2013 (78 

FR 53250). Accordingly, EPA has 

preliminarily determined that the 

Florida SIP meets the relevant visibility 

requirements. 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii)—Interstate and 

International transport provisions: 

Chapters 62–204, 62–210, and 62–212, 

F.A.C. require that any new major 

source or major modification undergo 

PSD or NNSR permitting and thereby 

provide notification to other potentially 

affected federal, state, and local 

government agencies. EPA is unaware of 

any pending obligations for the State of 

Florida pursuant to sections 115 and 

126. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Florida’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for insuring 

compliance with the applicable 

requirements relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

5. 110(a)(2)(E)—Adequate personnel, 

funding, and authority. Section 

110(a)(2)(E) requires that each 

implementation plan provide (i) 

necessary assurances that the State will 

have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authority under state law to carry out its 

implementation plan, (ii) that the State 

comply with the requirements 

respecting State Boards pursuant to 

section 128 of the Act, and (iii) 

necessary assurances that, where the 

State has relied on a local or regional 

government, agency, or instrumentality 

for the implementation of any plan 

provision, the State has responsibility 

for ensuring adequate implementation 

of such plan provisions. EPA is 

proposing to approve Florida’s SIP as 

meeting the requirements of subelements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) through (iii). 

EPA’s rationale for today’s proposal 

respecting sub-element (i) through (iii) 

is described in turn below. 

To satisfy the requirements of sections 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP submission describes 

that rules regarding emissions standards 

general policies, a system of permits, 

and fee schedules for the review of 

plans, and other planning needs. 

403.601 (2),F.S., 403.601(4), F.S., 

section 403 .182, F.S., are the statutes 

that Florida relies on to meet this 

element. As evidence of the adequacy of 

FL DEP’s resources, EPA submitted a 

letter to Florida on March 6, 2015, 

outlining 105 grant commitments and 

the current status of these commitments 

for fiscal year 2014. The letter EPA 

submitted to Florida can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID 

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0040. 

Annually, states update these grant 

commitments based on current SIP 

requirements, air quality planning, and 

applicable requirements related to the 

NAAQS. Florida satisfactorily met all 

commitments agreed to in the Air 

Planning Agreement for fiscal year 2014, 

therefore Florida’s grants were finalized 

and closed out. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that Florida 

has adequate resources for 

implementation of the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

The section 128(a)(1) State Board 

requirements—as applicable to the 

infrastructure SIP pursuant to section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii)—provide that each SIP 

shall require that any board or body 

which approves permits or enforcement 

orders shall be subject to the described 

public interest and income restrictions 

therein. Subsection 128(a)(2), also 

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), 

requires that any board or body, or the 

head of an executive agency with 

similar power to approve permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA, 

shall also be subject to conflict of 

interest disclosure requirements. 

For purposes of section 128(a)(1), 

Florida has no boards or bodies with 

authority over air pollution permits or 

enforcement actions. Such matters are 

instead handled by an appointed 

Secretary. Appeals of final 

administrative orders and permits are 

available only through the judicial 

appellate process described at Florida 

Statute 120.68. As such, a ‘‘board or 

body’’ is not responsible for approving 

permits or enforcement orders in 

Florida, and the requirements of section 

128(a)(1) are not applicable. 

With respect to section 128(a)(2), FL 

DEP previously submitted the relevant 

provisions of Florida Statutes, 

specifically subsections 112.3143(4) and 

112.3144, F.S., for incorporation into 

the Florida SIP in its infrastructure 

submittal for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

EPA approved these conflict of interest 

provisions for inclusion in the Florida 

SIP on July 30, 2012. See 77 FR 44485. 

These provisions of the Florida SIP are 

sufficient to satisfy the conflict of 

interest provisions applicable to the 

head of FL DEP and all public officers 

within the Department. Thus, EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Florida’s SIP and practices are 

adequate for insuring compliance with 

the applicable requirements relating to 

state boards for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

6. 110(a)(2)(F)—Stationary source 

monitoring system: Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP submission describes 

how the State establishes requirements 

for emissions compliance testing and 

utilizes emissions sampling and 

analysis. It further describes how the 

State ensures the quality of its data 

through observing emissions and 

monitoring operations. FL DEP uses 

these data to track progress towards 

maintaining the NAAQS, develop 

control and maintenance strategies, 

identify sources and general emission 

levels, and determine compliance with 

emission regulations and additional 

EPA requirements. These requirements 

are provided in Chapters 62–204, Air 

Pollution Control Provisions; 62–210, 

F.A.C., Stationary Sources—General 

Requirements; 62–212, F.A.C., 

Stationary Sources—Preconstruction 

Review; 62–296, F.A.C., Stationary 

Sources—Emissions Standards: and 62– 

297, F.A.C., Stationary Sources— 

Emissions Monitoring. 

Additionally, Florida is required to 

submit emissions data to EPA for 

purposes of the National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s 

central repository for air emissions data. 

EPA published the Air Emissions 

Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 

2008, which modified the requirements 

for collecting and reporting air 

emissions data (73 FR 76539). The 

AERR shortened the time states had to 

report emissions data from 17 to 12 

months, giving states one calendar year 

to submit emissions data. All states are 

required to submit a comprehensive 

emissions inventory every three years 

and report emissions for certain larger 

sources annually through EPA’s online 

Emissions Inventory System. States 

report emissions data for the six criteria 

pollutants and the precursors that form 

them—NOX, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, 

Lead, carbon monoxide, particulate 

matter, and volatile organic compounds. 

Many states also voluntarily report 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants. 

Florida made its latest update to the 

2013 NEI on December 24, 2014. EPA 

compiles the emissions data, 

supplementing it where necessary, and 

releases it to the general public through 

the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Florida’s SIP and practices are adequate 

for the stationary source monitoring 

systems related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

7. 110(a)(2)(G)—Emergency Powers: 

This section of the CAA requires that 

states demonstrate authority comparable 

with section 303 of the CAA and 

adequate contingency plans to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 29599 

implement such authority. This section 

of Florida’s infrastructure SIP 

submission identifies Florida Statutes 

subsections 403.131 and 120.569(2)(n), 

F.S which authorize DEP to ‘‘[s]eek 

injunctive relief to prevent irreparable 

injury to the air, waters, and property, 

including animal, plant, and aquatic 

life, of the state and to protect human 

health, safety, and welfare caused or 

threatened by any violation’’; and to 

issue emergency orders to address 

immediate dangers to the public health, 

safety, or welfare. These statutes were 

incorporated into the SIP to address the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) of 

the CAA in an EPA action approving 

certain portions of Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS on July 30, 2012. See 77 FR 

44485. EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Florida’s SIP and 

practices are adequate for emergency 

powers related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. 

8. 110(a)(2)(H)—Future SIP revisions: 

FL DEP is responsible for adopting air 

quality rules and revising SIPs as 

needed to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS in Florida. Florida Statutes 

Subsection 403.061(35) grants FL DEP 

the broad authority to implement the 

CAA; also, subsection 403.061(9), F.S., 

which authorizes FL DEP to adopt a 

comprehensive program for the 

prevention, control, and abatement of 

pollution of the air of the state, and from 

time to time review and modify such 

programs as necessary. FL DEP has the 

ability and authority to respond to calls 

for SIP revisions, and has provided a 

number of SIP revisions over the years 

for implementation of the NAAQS. 

Florida has one nonattainment area for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS in Hillsborough 

County related to the EnviroFocus 

Technologies, LLC facility. On June 29, 

2012, FL DEP submitted the required 

attainment demonstration for this Area. 

EPA approved this SIP revision on April 

16, 2015. See 80 FR 6485. EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that 

Florida’s SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate a commitment to provide 

future SIP revisions related to the 2008 

Lead NAAQS, when necessary. 

9. 110(a)(2)(J): EPA is proposing to 

approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS with respect to 

the general requirement in section 

110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the 

SIP that provides for meeting the 

applicable consultation requirements of 

section 121, the public notification 

requirements of section 127; and 

visibility protection requirements of 

part C of the Act. With respect to 

Florida’s infrastructure SIP submission 

related to the preconstruction PSD 

permitting, EPA approved this subelement of 110(a)(2)(J) on March 18, 

2015, and thus is not proposing any 

action today regarding these 

requirements. See 80 FR 14019. EPA’s 

rationale for its proposed action 

regarding applicable consultation 

requirements of section 121, the public 

notification requirements of section 127, 

and visibility protection requirements is 

described below. 

110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) 

Consultation with government officials: 

Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires 

states to provide a process for 

consultation with local governments, 

designated organizations and federal 

land managers (FLMs) carrying out 

NAAQS implementation requirements 

pursuant to section 121 relative to 

consultation. Chapters 62–204, F.A.C., 

Air Pollution Control Provisions; 62– 

210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources— 

General Requirements, and 62–212, 

F.A.C., Stationary Sources— 

Preconstruction Review, as well as 

Florida’s Regional Haze Implementation 

Plan (which allows for consultation 

between appropriate state, local, and 

tribal air pollution control agencies as 

well as the corresponding Federal Land 

Managers), provide for consultation 

with government officials whose 

jurisdictions might be affected by SIP 

development activities. Florida adopted 

state-wide consultation procedures for 

the implementation of transportation 

conformity. These consultation 

procedures include considerations 

associated with the development of 

mobile inventories for SIPs. 

Implementation of transportation 

conformity as outlined in the 

consultation procedures requires FL 

DEP to consult with federal, state and 

local transportation and air quality 

agency officials on the development of 

motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA 

approved Florida’s consultation 

procedures on August 11, 2003. See 68 

FR 47468. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that Florida’s 

SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate that the State meets 

applicable requirements related to 

consultation with government officials 

related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS, when 

necessary. 

110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) 

Public notification: To meet the public 

notification requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(J), Florida has state statutes, 

subsections 403.061(20) Department; 

powers and duties which provides FL 

DEP with the authority ‘‘to control and 

prohibit pollution of air and water in 

accordance with the law and rules 

adopted and promulgated by it and, for 

this purpose, to: collect and disseminate 

information and conduct educational 

and training programs relating to 

pollution.’’ Along with 403.061 (21), 

F.S. which states that the FL DEP also 

can advise, consult, cooperate, and enter 

into agreements with other agencies of 

the state, the Federal Government, other 

states, interstate agencies, groups, 

political subdivisions, and industries 

affected by the provisions of this act, 

rules, or policies of the department. 

Chapters 62–204, F.A.C., Air Pollution 

Control Provisions; 62–210, F.A.C., 

Stationary Sources—General 

Requirements, and 62–212, F.A.C., 

Stationary Sources—Preconstruction 

Review also include public notice 

requirements for the State’s permitting 

program. Additionally, Notification to 

the public of instances or areas 

exceeding the NAAQS and associated 

health effects is provided through 

implementation of the Air Quality Index 

reporting system in all required areas. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Florida’s SIP and 

practices adequately demonstrate the 

State’s ability to provide public 

notification related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, 

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP submission with 

respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public 

notification. 

110(a)(2)(J) Visibility Protection: The 

2011 Lead Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

notes that EPA does not generally treat 

the visibility protection aspects of 

section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for 

purposes of the infrastructure SIP 

approval process. EPA recognizes that 

states are subject to visibility protection 

and regional haze program requirements 

under Part C of the Act (which includes 

sections 169A and 169B). However, in 

the event of the establishment of a new 

primary NAAQS, the visibility 

protection and regional haze program 

requirements under part C do not 

change. Thus, EPA concludes there are 

no new applicable visibility protection 

obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J) as 

a result of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, and 

as such, EPA is proposing to approve 

section 110(a)(2)(J) of FL DEP’s 

infrastructure SIP submission as it 

relates to visibility protection. 

10. 110(a)(2)(K)—Air quality and 

modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of 

the CAA requires that SIPs provide for 

performing air quality modeling so that 

effects on air quality of emissions from 

NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and 

submission of such data to the USEPA 

can be made. Chapter 62–204.800, 

F.A.C., Air Pollution Control Provisions; 

62–210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources— 

General Requirements, and 62–212, 

F.A.C., Stationary Sources— 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29600 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 99 / Friday, May 22, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Preconstruction Review, incorporates by 

reference 40 CFR 52.21(l), which 

specifies that air modeling be conducted 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix W ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality 

Models.’’ These regulations demonstrate 

that Florida has the authority to provide 

relevant data for the purpose of 

predicting the effect on ambient air 

quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

Additionally, Florida supports a 

regional effort to coordinate the 

development of emissions inventories 

and conduct regional modeling for 

several NAAQS, including the 2008 

Lead NAAQS, for the Southeastern 

states. Taken as a whole, Florida’s air 

quality regulations demonstrate that FL 

DEP has the authority to provide 

relevant data for the purpose of 

predicting the effect on ambient air 

quality of the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that Florida’s SIP and practices 

adequately demonstrate the State’s 

ability to provide for air quality and 

modeling, along with analysis of the 

associated data, related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS when necessary. 11. 110(a)(2)(L)—Permitting fees: This 

element necessitates that the SIP require 

the owner or operator of each major 

stationary source to pay to the 

permitting authority, as a condition of 

any permit required under the CAA, a 

fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable 

costs of reviewing and acting upon any 

application for such a permit, and (ii) if 

the owner or operator receives a permit 

for such source, the reasonable costs of 

implementing and enforcing the terms 

and conditions of any such permit (not 

including any court costs or other costs 

associated with any enforcement 

action), until such fee requirement is 

superseded with respect to such sources 

by the Administrator’s approval of a fee 

program under title V. Florida statute 

subsection 403.087(6)(a), F.S., Permit 

Fees directs FL DEP to require a 

processing fee in an amount sufficient 

for the reasonable cost of reviewing and 

acting upon PSD and NNSR permits. 

The local air program costs are covered 

by the Air Pollution Control Trust Fund 

which is comprised of various funding 

sources. Additionally, Florida has a 

fully approved title V operating permit 

program at subsection 403.0872, F.S., 

Annual Emissions Fee. and Chapter 

62.213, F.A.C. Operation Permits For 

Major Sources of Air Pollution that 

covers the cost of implementation and 

enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits 

after they have been issued. EPA has 

made the preliminary determination 

that Florida’s statues and practices 

adequately provide for permitting fees 

related to the 2008 Lead NAAQS, when 

necessary. 

12. 110(a)(2)(M)—Consultation/

participation by affected local entities: 

This element requires states to provide 

for consultation and participation in SIP 

development by local political 

subdivisions affected by the SIP. 

Chapter 62–204, Air Pollution Control 

Provisions, requires that SIPs be 

submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart F. Florida statute 

subsection 403.061(21), F.S. authorizes 

FDEP to ‘‘advise, consult, cooperate and 

enter into agreements with other 

agencies of the state, the Federal 

Government, other states, interstate 

agencies, groups, political subdivisions, 

and industries affected by the 

provisions of this act, rules, or policies 

of the department.’’ EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that Florida’s 

SIP and practices adequately 

demonstrate consultation with affected 

local entities related to the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, when necessary. 

V. Proposed Action 

With the exception of the PSD 

permitting requirements for major 

sources contained in sections 

110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J), EPA 

is proposing to approve Florida’s 

October 14, 2011, SIP submission to 

incorporate provisions into the Florida 

SIP to address infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to approve these 

portions of Florida’s infrastructure 

submission for the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

because this submission is consistent 

with section 110 of the CAA. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The Florida SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: May 12, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12350 Filed 5–21–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 

45 CFR Parts 1610, 1627, and 1630 

Use of Non-LSC Funds, Transfer of 

LSC Funds, Program Integrity; 

Subgrants and Membership Fees or 

Dues; Cost Standards and 

Procedures—Extension of Comment 

Period 

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS