50554 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

to the network is authorized by the 

operator of the network. 

* * * * * 

(c) Persons who may initiate 

circumvention. To the extent authorized 

under paragraph (b) of this section, the 

circumvention of a technological 

measure that restricts wireless 

telephone handsets or other wireless 

devices from connecting to a wireless 

telecommunications network may be 

initiated by the owner of any such 

handset or other device, by another 

person at the direction of the owner, or 

by a provider of a commercial mobile 

radio service or a commercial mobile 

data service at the direction of such 

owner or other person, solely in order 

to enable such owner or a family 

member of such owner to connect to a 

wireless telecommunications network, 

when such connection is authorized by 

the operator of such network. 

Dated: August 18, 2014. 

James H. Billington, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20077 Filed 8–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814 & EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0692; FRL–9915–65–Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida; 

Infrastructure Requirement (Visibility) 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM, and 2008 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On April 18, 2008, and 

September 23, 2009, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) received state 

implementation plan (SIP) submissions 

from the State of Florida, through the 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP), regarding the 

infrastructure elements for the 1997 

annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, respectively. On October 31, 

2012, EPA received a SIP submission 

from FDEP regarding the infrastructure 

elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Additionally, on October 22, 

2013, FDEP supplemented the three 

aforementioned infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act) requires that each state adopt and 

submit a SIP for the implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of each 

NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These 

plans are commonly referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. Specifically, EPA 

is taking final action to approve the 

submissions for Florida as they relate to 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP requirements to 

protect visibility in other states. All 

other applicable infrastructure 

requirements for these NAAQS have 

been addressed in separate rulemakings. 

EPA is approving the elements of these 

infrastructure SIP submissions, as 

supplemented on October 22, 2013, as 

they relate to the protection of visibility 

in other states. 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

September 24, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0814 for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

SIP submissions and EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0692 for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

SIP submission. 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 Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning 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: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning 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) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at lakeman.sean@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA require states to address 

basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance for that new NAAQS. On 

July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA 

established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 

15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/

m3), based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24- 

hour NAAQS of 65 mg/m3. On October 

17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 

mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of 

annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and 

promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 

35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of 

the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. On March 27, 2008 (77 

FR 16436), EPA revised the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per 

million. On March 21, 2014, EPA 

proposed to approve SIP submissions 

from Florida as they relate to section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) infrastructure SIP 

requirements to protect visibility in 

other states for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A 

summary of the background for today’s 

final action is provided below. See 

EPA’s March 21, 2014, proposed 

rulemaking at 79 FR 15718 for more 

detail. 

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

components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes 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 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (prong 3) and to 

protect visibility in another state (prong 

4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs 

to include provisions ensuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act, relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

EPA has previously taken action to 

address SIP submissions from Florida 

related to prongs 1 through 3 of section 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 50555 

1See 77 FR 31240, 31251, 31260–31261 (May 25, 

2012). 

2 Id. at 31260. 

3 Id. at 31260–61; Letter from James P. Johnson, 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, to 

Thomas G. Rogers, FDEP (May 26, 2009) (attached 

as Exhibit 3 to Florida’s regional haze SIP and 

available in Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010– 

0935). 

4 77 FR at 31250–31251. 

5FDEP, Proposed Revision to State 

Implementation Plan, Number 2010–01, Regional 

Haze Plan (Amended), SIP Transmittal (August 31, 

2010), p.3. This document can be found in Docket 

ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0935. 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Today’s final rulemaking 

relates only to prong 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which as previously 

described, requires that infrastructure 

SIPs contain adequate provisions to 

protect visibility in other states. 

II. Response to Comments 

On March 21, 2014 (79 FR 15718), 

EPA published a proposed rule to 

approve SIP submissions from Florida 

as they relate to the section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) infrastructure SIP 

requirements to protect visibility in 

other states for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, 

and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

received comments and questions on 

the rulemaking from two members of 

the general public (collectively referred 

to as the ‘‘Commenter’’). A summary of 

these comments and EPA’s response is 

provided below. 

Comment: The Commenter contends 

that EPA must disapprove the 

infrastructure SIP submissions as they 

relate to prong 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) because, according to the 

Commenter, regional haze at the St. 

Marks Wildlife Refuge (St. Marks Class 

I Area) is caused by prescribed burning; 

the Smoke Management Plan (SMP) 

attached to Florida’s regional haze SIP 

submittal is ‘‘largely ignored’’ by the 

Florida Forest Service (FFS); the FFS 

has not designated the St. Marks Class 

I Area as a Smoke Sensitive Area/

Receptor and ‘‘regularly approves burns 

that engulf’’ the St. Marks Class I Area 

and the Gulf of Mexico; Georgia and 

Florida ‘‘regularly send smoke from 

prescribed burning to the other state;’’ 

the FFS should disapprove prescribed 

burns on days when the wind direction 

will likely send smoke in the direction 

of the St. Marks Class I Area; and 

Florida’s regional haze SIP is ‘‘never 

enforced.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees that the 

concerns raised by the Commenter 

require the Agency to disapprove 

Florida’s infrastructure SIP submissions 

under prong 4. The regional haze 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) 

require that each state consider smoke 

management techniques and plans for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes in developing the long-term 

strategy (LTS) included in its regional 

haze SIP. In reviewing Florida’s regional 

haze SIP, EPA agreed with the State’s 

determination that elemental carbon 

associated with prescribed fires was not 

a significant contributor to visibility in 

the Class I areas in Florida or Georgia.1

Florida evaluated the impact of 

emissions from within the State on 

Class I areas in neighboring states and 

consulted with those states through a 

regional planning process.2 In its formal 

correspondence with Florida, Georgia 

supported Florida’s approach to 

identifying and evaluating emissions 

sources that contribute significantly to 

visibility impairment in Georgia’s Class 

I areas and did not identify prescribed 

fires in Florida as a source that 

significantly impacts those areas.3 EPA 

concluded that Florida had satisfied the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) to consider the need 

for smoke management techniques in 

Florida’s LTS for ensuring reasonable 

progress towards improving visibility, 

but had reasonably concluded that such 

techniques were not needed in its 

regional haze SIP for the first planning 

period.4 We note that the Commenter 

has not provided any information 

unavailable at the time that EPA 

finalized action on Florida’s regional 

haze SIP that warrants a different 

conclusion. More importantly, given 

that the visibility requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) are directed 

toward the protection of visibility in 

downwind states, the comments do not 

show that the impacts from prescribed 

burning in Florida are interfering with 

the reasonable progress goals set by 

Georgia or other nearby states for their 

Class I areas. As such, the comments 

relating to visibility impacts at the St. 

Marks Class I Area in Florida do not 

provide a basis for disapproving FDEP’s 

SIP submissions addressing the 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to 

visibility. 

Regarding the comments concerning 

enforcement, the Commenter has not 

identified any specific instances in 

which the State has failed to implement 

or enforce any elements of its regional 

haze SIP. Florida included the SMP as 

Appendix N to its regional haze SIP 

submittal, but as noted in the 

transmittal document associated with 

Florida’s August 31, 2010 regional haze 

SIP submission, the appendices to that 

submission were included to provide 

background information and ‘‘were not 

proposed to be incorporated into the 

SIP.’’ 5 Because the SMP is not part of 

Florida’s SIP, it is not federally 

enforceable. Concerns regarding the 

implementation of the SMP by the FFS 

should be addressed to the State. 

III. Final Action 

As described above, EPA is approving 

the infrastructure SIP submissions from 

FDEP as addressing prong 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Specifically, EPA is approving FDEP’s 

April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009, 

submissions for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and FDEP’s October 31, 

2011, submission for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS, as supplemented on 

October 22, 2013, as they pertain to 

prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

because they 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 final 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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); 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
50556 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not 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 October 24, 2014. 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, Particulate Matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 14, 2014. 

Heather McTeer Tony, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart K—Florida 

■ 2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by 

adding three new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’, ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA 

approval 

date 

Federal Register notice Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

4/18/2008 8/25/2014 [Insert Federal Register citation].Addressing prong 4 of section 

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

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

9/23/2009 8/25/2014 [Insert Federal Register citation].Addressing prong 4 of section 

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

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards.

10/31/2011 8/25/2014 [Insert Federal Register citation].Addressing prong 4 of section 

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

[FR Doc. 2014–20053 Filed 8–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2014–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8347] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES