32702 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1 40 CFR part 51, subpart P. 

2On August 29, 2013, EPA fully approved 

Florida’s regional haze plan (as amended on August 

31, 2010, and September 17, 2012). See 78 FR 

53250. 

TABLE TO § 165.151—Continued 

• Location: Waters of Long Island Sound off the Creek Golf Course, 

Lattingtown, NY in approximate position 40°54′13′′ N., 073°35′58′′ W. 

(NAD 83). 

9.4 Bridgeport Bluefish September Fireworks ....................................... • Date: A day in September determined annually. 

• Rain Date: A day in September determined annually. 

• Time (Approximate): 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 

• Location: Waters of the Pequannock River’s Lower Reach surrounding Steel Point in Bridgeport, CT in approximate position 

41°10′35′′ N., 073°10′58′′ W. (NAD 83). 

11 November 

11.1 Christmas Boat Parade Fireworks ................................................. • Date: A day during the third or fourth weekend in November. 

• Time (Approximate): 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. 

• Location: Waters of Patchogue Bay off ‘‘Lombardi’s on the Bay’’ restaurant Patchogue, NY in approximate positions: 

• Barge 1: 41°45′25.78′′ N., 073°01′06.5′′ W. (NAD 83). 

• Barge 2: 41°45′12.88′′ N., 073°01′04.2′′ W. (NAD 83). 

• Barge 3: 41°44′58.18′′ N., 073°01′2.66′′ W. (NAD 83). 

11.2 Connetquot River Fall Fireworks ................................................... • Date: A day during the last weekend of November. 

• Time (Approximate): 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. 

• Location: Waters of the Connetquot River off Snapper Inn Restaurant, Oakdale, NY in approximate position 40°43′32.38′′ N., 

073°09′02.64′′ W. (NAD 83). 

Dated: April 19, 2016. 

E.J. Cubanski, III, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Sector Long Island Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2016–12001 Filed 5–23–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0361; FRL–9946–81– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Florida; Regional 

Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Florida through the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on 

March 10, 2015. Florida’s March 10, 

2015, SIP revision (Progress Report) 

addresses requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s rules that 

require states to submit periodic reports 

describing progress towards reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs) established for 

regional haze and a determination of the 

adequacy of a state’s existing SIP 

addressing regional haze (regional haze 

plan). EPA is proposing to approve 

Florida’s Progress Report on the basis 

that it addresses the progress report and 

adequacy determination requirements 

for the first implementation period for 

regional haze. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 23, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0361 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, 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. Mr. 

Lakeman can be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9043 and via electronic mail 

at lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Under the Regional Haze Rule,1 each 

state is required to submit a progress 

report in the form of a SIP revision 

every five years that evaluates progress 

towards the RPGs for each mandatory 

Class I Federal area (also referred to as 

Class I area in this rulemaking) within 

the state and for each mandatory Class 

I Federal area outside the state which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

Each state is also required to submit, at 

the same time as the progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing regional haze plan. See 

40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress 

report is due five years after submittal 

of the initial regional haze plan. On 

March 19, 2010, FDEP submitted the 

State’s first regional haze plan in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b).2

On March 10, 2015, FDEP submitted 

its regional haze progress report, 

reporting progress made in the first 

implementation period towards RPGs 

for Class I areas in the State and for 

Class I areas outside the State that are 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules 32703 

affected by emissions from sources 

within Florida. This submittal also 

includes a negative declaration pursuant 

to 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) that the State’s 

regional haze plan requires no 

substantive revision to achieve the 

established regional haze visibility 

improvement goals for 2018. EPA is 

proposing to approve Florida’s progress 

report on the basis that it satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h). 

II. What are the requirements for the 

regional haze progress report and 

adequacy determinations? 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must 

submit a regional haze progress report 

as a SIP revision every five years and 

must address, at a minimum, the seven 

elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As 

described in further detail in section III 

below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A 

description of the status of measures in 

the approved regional haze plan; (2) a 

summary of emissions reductions 

achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility 

conditions for each Class I area in the 

state; (4) an analysis of changes in 

emissions from sources and activities 

within the state; (5) an assessment of 

any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have limited or 

impeded progress in Class I areas 

impacted by the state’s sources; (6) an 

assessment of the sufficiency of the 

approved regional haze plan; and (7) a 

review of the state’s visibility 

monitoring strategy. 

B. Adequacy Determinations of the 

Current Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to submit, at the same time as 

the progress report, a determination of 

the adequacy of their existing regional 

haze plan and to take one of four 

possible actions based on information in 

the progress report. As described in 

further detail in section III below, 40 

CFR 51.308(h) requires states to: (1) 

Submit a negative declaration to EPA 

that no further substantive revision to 

the state’s existing regional haze plan is 

needed; (2) provide notification to EPA 

(and to other state(s) that participated in 

the regional planning process) if the 

state determines that its existing 

regional haze plan is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 

progress at one or more Class I areas due 

to emissions from sources in other 

state(s) that participated in the regional 

planning process, and collaborate with 

these other state(s) to develop additional 

strategies to address deficiencies; (3) 

provide notification with supporting 

information to EPA if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze plan is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress at one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources in another country; or (4) revise 

its regional haze plan to address 

deficiencies within one year if the state 

determines that its existing regional 

haze plan is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress in one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources within the state. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s 

regional haze progress report and 

adequacy determination? 

On March 10, 2015, FDEP submitted 

a revision to Florida’s regional haze 

plan to address progress made towards 

the RPGs for Class I areas in the State 

and for Class I areas outside the State 

that are affected by emissions from 

sources within Florida. This submittal 

also includes a determination of the 

adequacy of the State’s existing regional 

haze plan. Florida has three mandatory 

Class I areas within its borders: 

Everglades National Park, 

Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, and 

St. Marks Wilderness Area. In Florida’s 

regional haze plan, the State also 

determined that emissions sources 

located in Florida may have significant 

sulfate visibility impacts on the 

following Class I areas in neighboring 

states: Okefenokee Wilderness Area and 

Wolf Island Wilderness Area in Georgia, 

and Breton Wilderness Area in 

Louisiana. 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report 

The following sections summarize: (1) 

Each of the seven elements that must be 

addressed by a progress report under 40 

CFR 51.308(g); (2) how Florida’s 

Progress Report addressed each element; 

and (3) EPA’s analysis and proposed 

determination as to whether the State 

satisfied each element. 

1. Status of Control Measures 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a 

description of the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the regional haze plan for 

achieving RPGs for Class I areas both 

within and outside the state. 

The State evaluated the status of all 

measures included in its regional haze 

plan in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1). Specifically, in its Progress 

Report, Florida summarizes the status of 

the emissions reduction measures that 

were included in the final iteration of 

the Visibility Improvement State and 

Tribal Association of the Southeast 

(VISTAS) regional haze emissions 

inventory and RPG modeling used by 

the State in developing its regional haze 

plan. These measures include, among 

other things, applicable federal 

programs (e.g., mobile source rules, 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standards), federal 

and state consent agreements, and 

federal and state control strategies for 

electric generating units (EGUs). The 

State also addresses the status of Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

and reasonable progress controls 

included in the regional haze plan and 

discusses the status of several measures 

that were not included in the final 

VISTAS emissions inventory and were 

not relied upon in the initial regional 

haze plan to meet RPGs. The State notes 

that the emissions reductions from these 

recent measures will help ensure Class 

I areas impacted by Florida sources 

achieve their RPGs. In aggregate, as 

noted in sections III.A.2 and III.A.6 of 

this notice, the emissions reductions 

from the identified measures are 

expected to exceed the emissions 

projections in Florida’s regional haze 

plan. 

In its regional haze plan, Florida 

identified sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions from coal-fired EGUs as a key 

contributor to regional haze in the 

VISTAS region, with the EGU sector as 

a major contributor to visibility 

impairment at all Class I areas in the 

VISTAS region. The State’s Progress 

Report provides additional information 

on EGU control strategies and the status 

of existing and future expected controls 

for EGUs in Florida, with updated 

actual SO2 emissions data for the years 

2007–2013. 

EPA proposes to find that Florida’s 

analysis adequately addresses 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(1). The State documents the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze plan in addition to 

describing additional measures not 

originally accounted for in the final 

VISTAS emissions inventory that came 

into effect since the VISTAS analyses 

for the regional haze plan were 

completed. 

2. Emissions Reductions and Progress 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a 

summary of the emissions reductions 

achieved in the state through 

implementing measures described in 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(1). 

In its Progress Report, Florida 

evaluated the emissions reductions 

associated with the implementation of 

many measures identified in its regional 

haze plan, including the emissions 

reductions associated with sources 

subject to BART or reasonable progress 

control determinations. As described 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

32704 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3The ‘‘most impaired days’’ and ‘‘least impaired 

days’’ in the Regional Haze Rule refers to the 

average visibility impairment (measured in 

deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days 

in a calendar year with the highest and lowest 

amount of visibility impairment, respectively, 

averaged over a five-year period. 40 CFR 51.301. 

4For the first regional haze plan, ‘‘baseline’’ 

conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time 

period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999). 

below, Florida included nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and SO2 emissions data for EGUs 

in Florida from 2002–2013 and annual 

SO2 emissions data from point sources 

in the State from 2000–2013. In its 

regional haze plan, Florida states that 

ammonium sulfate is the largest 

contributor to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas throughout the 

southeastern United States during the 

baseline period from 2000–2004. 

Emissions sensitivity modeling 

performed by VISTAS determined that 

the most effective ways to reduce 

ammonium sulfate were to reduce SO2

emissions from coal-fired EGUs and, 

with an important but smaller impact, to 

reduce SO2 emissions from non-utility 

industrial point sources. SO2 reductions 

from point sources were therefore 

identified as the focus of Florida’s longterm strategy for visibility improvement. 

In its Progress Report, Florida examined 

pollutants affecting visibility in Class I 

areas in Florida to ascertain whether it 

is still appropriate to focus on SO2

emissions to improve visibility in Class 

I areas impacted by sources in Florida. 

Using updated data for the 2006–2010 

time period, the State concludes that 

ammonium sulfate continues to be the 

largest contributor to visibility 

impairment in these areas. 

The data from EPA’s Clean Air 

Markets Division included in the 

Progress Report for Acid Rain Program 

units from 2002–2013 show that SO2

emissions from EGUs in Florida and in 

the VISTAS region have declined during 

this time period even though heat input 

to these units remains fairly steady. See 

Figure 4–2 in Florida’s submittal. 

Between 2002 and 2013, heat input to 

these units decreased from 

approximately 1,597,000,000 (million 

British Thermal Units) MMBtu to 

1,548,000,000 MMBtu, a decrease of 

three percent. SO2 emissions from these 

units decreased from 466,904 tons 

annually in 2002 to 88,004 tons 

annually in 2013, a decrease of 81.2 

percent, and the average SO2 emission 

rate from these units decreased from 

0.603 pounds per MMBtu (lbs/MMBtu) 

in 2002 to 0.114 lbs/MMBtu in 2013, a 

decrease of 81.1 percent. Over the same 

time period, NOX emissions from these 

units decreased from 258,378 tons in 

2002 to 54,398 tons in 2013, a decrease 

of 78.9 percent. Florida states that the 

SO2 and NOX emissions reductions are 

due to the installation of controls and 

the use of cleaner burning fuels. Florida 

also identifies the shut-down of eight 

BART sources and three reasonable 

progress sources. 

Florida’s Progress Report also 

includes SO2 and NOX emissions and 

heat input trends for Acid Rain Program 

units in the VISTAS region. See Figure 

4–3 in Florida’s submittal. Between 

2002 and 2011, heat input to these units 

decreased from 7,645,295,464 MMBtu to 

7,336,055,333 MMBtu, a decrease of 

four percent. SO2 emissions from these 

units decreased from 3,713,262 tons 

annually in 2002 to 1,166,572 tons 

annually in 2011, a decrease of 69.9 

percent, and the average SO2 emission 

rate from these units decreased from 

0.971 lbs/MMBtu in 2002 to 0.318 lbs/ 

MMBtu in 2011, a decrease of 67.3 

percent. Over the same time period, 

NOX emissions decreased from 

1,498,143 tons in 2002 to 464,129 tons 

in 2011, a decrease of 69 percent. 

Between 2009 and 2011, the total 

VISTAS states’ heat input for Acid Rain 

Program units increased from 

6,966,765,915 MMBtu to 7,336,055,333 

MMBtu. However, emissions from these 

units declined from 1,619,348 tons of 

SO2 in 2009 to 1,166,572 tons of SO2 in 

2011, and the emission rates of SO2

decreased from 0.465 lbs/MMBtu to 

0.318 lbs/MMBtu. 

Florida believes that the reductions in 

SO2 and NOX described above are a 

result of many factors, including 

permanent changes at EGUs through the 

use of control technology and fuel 

switching. In Florida and the VISTAS 

region, Florida concluded that these 

emissions reductions have been 

achieved even though heat input to 

these units remains fairly steady. Thus, 

the State believes that the visibility 

improvements from the reductions in 

SO2 and NOX should continue into the 

future even though demand for power 

and heat input to these units may have 

moderate increases. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Florida has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(2). As discussed above, 

the State provides emissions reduction 

estimates, and where available, actual 

emissions reductions of visibilityimpairing pollutants resulting from the 

measures relied upon in its regional 

haze plan. The State appropriately 

focused on SO2 emissions from EGUs in 

its Progress Report because the State 

had previously identified these 

emissions as the most significant 

contributors to visibility impairment at 

Florida’s Class I areas and those Class I 

areas that Florida sources impact. 

3. Visibility Progress 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that 

states with Class I areas provide the 

following information for the most 

impaired and least impaired days for 

each area, with values expressed in 

terms of five-year averages of these 

annual values: 3

(i) Current visibility conditions; 

(ii) the difference between current 

visibility conditions and baseline 

visibility conditions; and 

(iii) the change in visibility 

impairment over the past five years. 

The State provides figures with the 

latest supporting data available at the 

time of plan development that address 

the three requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(3) for Class I areas in Florida. 

Table 1, below, shows the current 

visibility conditions and the difference 

between current visibility conditions 

and baseline visibility conditions. 

Florida reported current conditions as 

the 2009–2013 five-year period and 

used the 2000–2004 baseline period for 

its Class I areas.4

TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, AND VISIBILITY CHANGES IN CLASS I AREAS IN FLORIDA

Class I area 

Baseline 

average 

(2000–2004) 

Current 

average 

(2009–2013) 

Change 

(current– 

baseline) 

20% Worst Days: 

Chassahowitzka .................................................................................................................... 25.75 21.33 ¥4.42 

Everglades ............................................................................................................................ 22.30 18.14 ¥4.16 

St. Marks .............................................................................................................................. 26.31 22.22 ¥4.09 

20% Best Days: 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules 32705 

TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, AND VISIBILITY CHANGES IN CLASS I AREAS IN FLORIDA—Continued 

Class I area 

Baseline 

average 

(2000–2004) 

Current 

average 

(2009–2013) 

Change 

(current– 

baseline) 

Chassahowitzka .................................................................................................................... 15.51 13.74 ¥1.77 

Everglades ............................................................................................................................ 11.69 11.21 ¥0.48 

St. Marks .............................................................................................................................. 14.37 13.33 ¥1.04 

The data summarized above shows 

that all Class I areas in the State saw an 

improvement in visibility (i.e., reduced 

impairment) on the 20 percent worst 

days and on the 20 percent best days. 

For the 20 percent worst days, the 

current observed five-year average 

values for all three areas are below the 

2013 glide path values and the 

corresponding 2018 RPG. See Table 3– 

1 in Florida’s submittal. For the 20 

percent best days, the current observed 

five-year average values for all three 

areas are below baseline visibility 

conditions. Florida’s submittal also 

includes the change in visibility 

impairment for the 20 percent worst and 

20 percent best days from the 2001– 

2005 time period through the 2009– 

2013 time period in five-year average 

increments. See Table 3–2 of Florida’s 

submittal. The data also shows that all 

three Class I areas saw an improvement 

in visibility on the 20 percent worst 

days and on the 20 percent best days. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Florida has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(3) because the State 

provides the information regarding 

visibility conditions and visibility 

changes necessary to meet the 

requirements of the regulation. The 

Progress Report includes current 

conditions based on the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring 

data for the years 2009–2013, the 

difference between current visibility 

conditions and baseline visibility 

conditions, and the change in visibility 

impairment over the most recent fiveyear period for which data were 

available at the time of Progress Report 

development (i.e., 2009–2013). 

4. Emission Tracking 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an 

analysis tracking emissions changes of 

visibility-impairing pollutants from the 

state’s sources by type or category over 

the past five years based on the most 

recent updated emissions inventory. 

In its Progress Report, Florida 

includes an analysis tracking the change 

over a five-year period in emissions of 

pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment from the following source 

categories: point, area, non-road mobile, 

and on-road mobile. The State evaluated 

emissions trends in SO2, NOX, and fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) with a focus 

on SO2 because, as noted above, Florida 

concludes that ammonium sulfate 

continues to be the largest contributor to 

visibility impairment in Class I areas in 

Florida. 

In its evaluation of NOX, PM2.5, and 

SO2 emissions trends, Florida used the 

2002 actual and 2009 and 2018 

projected inventories from its regional 

haze plan as well as the Southeastern 

Modeling, Analysis, and Planning 

Project (SEMAP) 2007 actual emissions 

inventory, the 2011 National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI) actual emissions 

inventory, and the State’s Annual 

Operation Report point source data 

collected each year. See Tables 4–1 

through 4–3 in Florida’s submittal. For 

NOX emissions, there were large 

decreases in point and area emissions 

and some increases in on-road mobile 

emissions in 2007. The State asserts that 

the decreases in point source NOX were 

due to emissions controls that were 

installed and that the decrease in area 

source NOX is primarily due to the 

removal of coal and wood combustion 

boilers from the area source inventory to 

avoid double counting with the point 

source category. Florida also believes 

that the increase in on-road mobile NOX

is due to the use of the MOVES2010a 

model, rather than MOBILE6.2, for the 

2007 inventory. If a consistent on-road 

model had been used for 2002, 2007, 

and 2009, the SEMAP 2007 NOX

emissions would have been lower than 

the VISTAS 2002 actual and VISTAS 

2009 projected emissions. However, 

NOX emissions have continued to 

decline between 2002 and 2011 by over 

370,000 tons. Regarding PM2.5, the 2007 

SEMAP and 2011 NEI PM2.5 emissions 

are different from the VISTAS emissions 

due to methodology changes to reflect 

up-to-date emission calculations. For 

example, Florida believes that the 

increase in on-road mobile PM2.5 is due 

to the switch in model used. Regardless, 

overall PM2.5 emissions have decreased 

slightly between 2002 and 2011. 

Regarding SO2, the inventory analysis 

shows that overall emissions have 

decreased significantly from 2002 to 

2011, with point source reductions 

dominating. Florida’s Progress Report 

also evaluates the trend from 2000 

through 2013 in SO2 point source 

emissions, demonstrating a decrease of 

over 480,000 tons during this time 

period. See Figure 4–1 in Florida’s 

submittal. 

Also, as discussed in section III.A.2. 

of this notice, the Progress Report 

documents reductions in NOX and SO2

emissions that occurred between 2002– 

2013 at EGUs in Florida. The State 

believes that these reductions are a 

result of permanent changes at EGUs in 

the State through the use of control 

technology, fuel switching, and the 

shut-down of eight BART sources and 

three reasonable progress sources. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Florida has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(4). Florida tracked 

changes in emissions of visibilityimpairing pollutants from 2002–2011 

for all source categories and analyzed 

trends in SO2 and NOX emissions from 

EGUs in the State from 2002–2013, the 

most current quality-assured data 

available for these units at the time of 

progress report development. While 

ideally the five-year period to be 

analyzed for emissions inventory 

changes is the time period since the 

current regional haze plan was 

submitted, there is an inevitable time 

lag in developing and reporting 

complete emissions inventories once 

quality-assured emissions data becomes 

available. Therefore, EPA believes that 

there is some flexibility in the five-year 

time period that states can select. 

5. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an 

assessment of any significant changes in 

anthropogenic emissions within or 

outside the state that have occurred over 

the past five years that have limited or 

impeded progress in reducing pollutant 

emissions and improving visibility in 

Class I areas impacted by the state’s 

sources. 

The Progress Report demonstrates that 

there are no significant changes in 

emissions of SO2, PM, or NOX that have 

impeded progress in reducing emissions 

and improving visibility in Class I areas 

impacted by Florida sources. As 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

32706 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

discussed above, Florida documents 

that sulfates continue to be the biggest 

single contributor to regional haze in 

Class I areas in the State and focused its 

analysis on addressing large SO2

emissions from point sources. In 

addressing the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(5), Florida references its 

analysis showing that SO2 emissions 

from stationary point sources have 

decreased significantly from 2002 to 

2013 and are well below the projections 

for these sources made in Florida’s 

regional haze plan. Regarding EGUs, the 

State documented significant decreases 

in SO2 emissions despite the fact that 

power generation has remained fairly 

constant during the same period. 

Furthermore, the Progress Report shows 

that the State is on track to meeting its 

2018 RPGs for Class I areas in Florida. 

For these reasons, EPA proposed to 

conclude that Florida’s Progress Report 

has adequately addressed 40 CFR 

51.308(g)(5). 

6. Assessment of Current Strategy 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an 

assessment of whether the current 

regional haze plan is sufficient to enable 

the state, or other states, to meet the 

RPGs for Class I areas affected by 

emissions from the state. 

In its Progress Report, Florida states 

its belief that the elements and strategies 

outlined in its regional haze plan are 

sufficient for Class I areas impacted by 

emissions sources in Florida to meet 

their RPGs. To support this conclusion, 

Florida notes the following: Speciated 

data collected for the period 2006–2010 

shows that sulfates continue to be the 

most significant contributor to visibility 

impairment, supporting SO2 reduction 

as the appropriate control strategy; the 

SO2 controls in the State’s regional haze 

plan have been implemented; a 71 

percent reduction in the overall SO2

emissions inventory from 2002 through 

2011 verifies that Florida’s SO2

reduction program is achieving the 

reductions that were projected in the 

regional haze plan; current visibility 

impairment values for the 20 percent 

worst days are lower than the 2018 

RPGs and lower than the 2013 glide 

path values for the Class I areas in 

Florida; current visibility impairment 

values for the 20 percent best days are 

below baseline visibility conditions for 

all Class I areas in Florida; and visibility 

data through 2010 show that the 2010 

five-year average visibility impairment 

on the 20 percent worst days in the 

three Class I areas outside of the State 

impacted by emissions sources in 

Florida is at or below the glide path. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Florida has adequately addressed 40 

CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this 

requirement as a qualitative assessment 

that should evaluate emissions and 

visibility trends and other readily 

available information, including 

expected emissions reductions 

associated with measures with 

compliance dates that have not yet 

become effective. The State referenced 

the improving visibility trends and the 

downward emissions trends in the 

State, with a focus on SO2 emissions 

from Florida EGUs. These trends 

support the State’s determination that 

the State’s regional haze plan is 

sufficient to meet RPGs for Class I areas 

within and outside the State impacted 

by Florida sources. 

7. Review of Current Monitoring 

Strategy 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review 

of the state’s visibility monitoring 

strategy and an assessment of whether 

any modifications to the monitoring 

strategy are necessary. 

In its Progress Report, Florida 

summarizes the existing visibility 

monitoring network in Class I areas in 

Florida and notes that the Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network is the primary monitoring 

network for regional haze. There is 

currently one IMPROVE site in each 

Florida Class I area (SAMA1, CHAS1, 

and EVER1) operated by the responsible 

Federal Land Manager. Florida intends 

to continue to rely on the IMPROVE 

network for complying with regional 

haze monitoring requirements and on 

the Visibility Information and Exchange 

Web System (VIEWS) to access 

IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. 

Florida concludes that the existing 

network is adequate and that no 

modifications to the State’s visibility 

monitoring strategy are necessary at this 

time. 

EPA proposes to conclude that 

Florida has adequately addressed the 

sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as 

required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7). The 

State reaffirmed its continued reliance 

upon the IMPROVE monitoring 

network, explained the importance of 

the IMPROVE monitoring network for 

tracking visibility trends in Class I areas 

in Florida, and determined that no 

changes to its visibility monitoring 

strategy are necessary. 

B. Determination of Adequacy of 

Existing Regional Haze Plan 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to take one of four possible 

actions based on the information 

gathered and conclusions made in the 

progress report. The following section 

summarizes: (1) The action taken by 

Florida under 40 CFR 51.308(h); (2) 

Florida’s rationale for the selected 

action; and (3) EPA’s analysis and 

proposed determination regarding the 

State’s action. 

In its Progress Report, Florida took the 

action provided for by 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to 

submit a negative declaration to EPA if 

the state determines that the existing 

regional haze plan requires no further 

substantive revision at this time to 

achieve the RPGs for Class I areas 

affected by the state’s sources. The 

State’s negative declaration is based on 

its findings in the Progress Report. EPA 

proposes to conclude that Florida has 

adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) 

because the visibility trends at the Class 

I areas impacted by the State’s sources 

and the emissions trends of the State’s 

largest emitters of visibility-impairing 

pollutants indicate that the RPGs for 

Class I areas impacted by sources in 

Florida will be met or exceeded. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s 

Regional Haze Progress Report, SIP 

revision, submitted by the State on 

March 10, 2015, as meeting the 

applicable regional haze requirements 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

51.308(h). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely proposes to approve 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.); 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2016 / Proposed Rules 32707 

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 federallyContinued 

• 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 SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 12, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–12113 Filed 5–23–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0751; FRL–9946–83– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval/Disapproval; 

Mississippi Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

in part, and disapprove in part, portions 

of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission, submitted by the State of 

Mississippi, through the Mississippi 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) on February 28, 2013, to 

demonstrate that the State meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1- 

hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 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 the EPA, which is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. MDEQ certified 

that the Mississippi SIP contains 

provisions that ensure the 2010 NO2

NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and 

maintained in Mississippi. With the 

exception of the state board majority 

requirements respecting significant 

portion of income, for which EPA is 

proposing to disapprove, EPA is 

proposing to determine that portions of 

Mississippi’s infrastructure submission, 

submitted to EPA on February 28, 2013, 

satisfies certain required infrastructure 

elements for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 23, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2014–0751 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Wong, 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) 562–8726. 

Mr. Wong can be reached via electronic 

mail at wong.richard@epa.gov. 

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 

Mississippi addressed the elements of 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On February 9, 2010, EPA 

promulgated a new 1-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts 

per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of the 

yearly distribution of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 

6474. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of 

the CAA, states are required to submit 

SIPs meeting the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 

requires states to address basic SIP 

elements such as requirements for 

monitoring, basic program requirements 

and legal authority that are designed to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the NAAQS. States were required to 

submit such SIPs for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS to EPA no later than January 

22, 2013.1

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS