778 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1904 

[Docket No. OSHA–2013–0023] 

RIN 1218–AC49 

Improve Tracking of Workplace 

Injuries and Illnesses 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: OSHA is extending the 

comment period on the proposed rule 

entitled, ‘‘Improve Tracking of 

Workplace Injuries and Illnesses,’’ 

which would amend the recordkeeping 

regulations to add requirements for the 

electronic submission of injury and 

illness records employers are already 

required to keep under OSHA’s 

regulations for recording and reporting 

occupational injuries and illnesses. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published November 8, 

2013, at 78 FR 67254, is extended. 

Comments must be submitted 

(postmarked, sent or received) by March 

8, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. OSHA–2013– 

0023, by any one of the following 

methods: 

Electronically: You may submit 

comments and attachments 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov, the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions on-line for making 

electronic submissions. 

Fax: If your comments, including 

attachments, do not exceed 10 pages, 

you may fax them to the OSHA Docket 

Office at (202) 693–1648. 

Mail, hand delivery, express mail, 

messenger or courier service: You must 

submit three copies of your comments 

and attachments to the OSHA Docket 

Office, Docket No. OSHA–2013–0023, 

U.S. Department of Labor, Room N– 

2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 

693–2350 (OSHA’s TTY number is (877) 

889–5627). Deliveries (hand, express 

mail, messenger, and courier service) 

are accepted during the Department of 

Labor’s and Docket Office’s normal 

business hours, 8:15 a.m.–4:45 p.m., e.t. 

Instructions: All submission must 

include the docket number (Docket No. 

OSHA–2013–0023) or RIN number (RIN 

1218–AC49) for this rulemaking. 

Because of security-related procedures, 

submission by regular mail may result 

in significant delay. Please contact the 

OSHA Docket Office about security 

procedures for hand delivery, express 

delivery, messenger or courier. 

All comments, including any personal 

information you provide, are placed in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on http://

www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA 

cautions you about submitting personal 

information such as social security 

numbers and birthdates. 

Docket: To read or download 

submissions in response to the proposed 

rule, go to Docket No. OSHA–2013– 

0023 at: http://www.regulations.gov. All 

submissions are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index, however, 

some information (e.g., copyrighted 

material) is not publicly available to 

read or download through that Web 

page. All submissions, including 

copyrighted material, are available for 

inspections and copying at the OSHA 

Docket Office. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register document are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

document, as well as news releases and 

other relevant information, also are 

available at OSHA’s Web page at http:// 

www.osha.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Press inquiries: Frank Meilinger, 

Director, OSHA, Office of 

Communications, Room N–3647, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–1999; email: 

meilinger.francis2@dol.gov. 

For general and technical 

information: Miriam Schoenbaum, 

OSHA Office of Statistical Analysis, 

Room N–3507, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 

693–1841; email: schoenbaum.miriam@

dol.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On November 8, 2013, OSHA 

published a proposed rule to revise its 

regulation on Occupational Injury and 

Illness Recording and Reporting 

(Recordkeeping) (78 FR 67254). The 

proposal would amend the 

recordkeeping regulations to add 

requirements for the electronic 

submission of injury and illness 

information employers are already 

required to keep under OSHA’s 

regulations for recording and reporting 

occupational injuries and illnesses. The 

proposal set a February 6, 2014 deadline 

for submitting written comments. 

OSHA has received a request from the 

National Association of Home Builders 

(NAHB) to extend the comment period 

an additional 90 days. NAHB’s reasons 

for requesting an extension include the 

overlap with the proposed crystalline 

silica rulemaking, which will also affect 

the construction industry. Further, the 

request stated that informing home 

builders and coordinating their 

responses will take time and effort 

beyond the 90 days provided. 

OSHA has decided to extend the 

deadline for submitting comments to 

March 8, 2014, which provides 

stakeholders an additional 30 days. The 

extension ensures that stakeholders will 

have a full 120 days to submit 

comments, which OSHA believes is 

adequate for this limited rulemaking. 

The extension also ensures that 

stakeholders who attend the January 9, 

2014, public meeting on the proposed 

rule will have an opportunity to 

incorporate into their comments their 

views on relevant information presented 

at the meeting. 

Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under 

the direction of David Michaels, Ph.D., 

MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. It is 

issued under the authority of Sections 8 

and 24 of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 657, 673), 

5 U.S.C. 553, and Secretary of Labor’s 

Order No. 41–2012 (77 FR 3912). 

Signed at Washington, DC, on January 2, 

2014. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00010 Filed 1–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0760; FRL–9905–12– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of Florida 

New Source Review—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Florida State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP), 

Division of Air Resources Management, 

to EPA on December 19, 2013. The SIP 

revision modifies FDEP’s New Source 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 779 

1Throughout this document, where appropriate, 

EPA will use the acronyms ‘‘GHG’’ and ‘‘GHGs’’ to 

express the term greenhouse gas or greenhouse 

gases, respectively. 

2 ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ 

75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010) (GHG Tailoring Rule) 

3Throughout this rulemaking the acronym IBR 

means ‘‘incorporate by reference’’ or ‘‘incorporates 

by reference.’’ 

4 ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Operating Permit Greenhouse Gas (GHG) 

Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide 

Applicability Limits.’’ 77 FR 41051 (July 12, 2012) 

(Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule). 

Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permitting 

regulations to provide FDEP with the 

authority to issue PSD permits 

governing greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions, to establish appropriate 

emission thresholds for determining 

which new stationary sources and 

modifications to existing stationary 

sources become subject to Florida’s PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions, and to provide for the 

implementation of GHG Plantwide 

Applicability Limits (PALs) on a CO2e 

basis. EPA is proposing approval of 

Florida’s December 19, 2013, SIP 

revision because the Agency has 

determined that the SIP revision is in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA regulations regarding 

the PSD permitting program. EPA also is 

proposing that upon final approval of 

the December 19, 2013, SIP revision, 

EPA will rescind the GHG PSD Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Florida 

that was put in place to ensure the 

availability of a permitting authority for 

GHGs in Florida. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 6, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0760 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0760, 

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. Hand 

Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, 

Chief, 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. 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– 

0760.’’ 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 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: For 

information regarding the Florida SIP, 

contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 

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. Ms. 

Bradley’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9352; email address: 

bradley.twunjala@epa.gov. For 

information regarding NSR and GHG 

permitting, contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, 

Air Permits Section, at the same address 

above. Ms. Adams’ telephone number is 

(404) 562–9214; email address: 

adams.yolanda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

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

revision? 

IV. Proposed Actions 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On December 19, 2013, FDEP 

submitted a SIP revision to EPA for 

approval into the Florida SIP to adopt 

rules equivalent to Federal requirements 

for NSR PSD permitting. The SIP 

revision consists of changes to the FDEP 

Air Quality Regulations, at Chapter 62– 

210, Florida Administrative Code 

(F.A.C.), Stationary Sources—General 

Requirements, Section 200—Definitions 

(rule 62–210.200). The December 19, 

2013, SIP revision changes the 

definition of ‘‘PSD pollutant’’ to provide 

Florida with the authority to regulate 

GHGs 1 under its PSD program as well 

as to establish the appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to the State’s 

PSD permitting requirements for their 

GHG emissions as promulgated in the 

GHG Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31514 (June 

3, 2010).2 Florida’s December 19, 2013, 

submission also incorporates by 

reference 3 (IBR) the GHG PAL 

provisions that were promulgated in 

EPA’s July 12, 2012, Step 3 GHG 

Tailoring Rule.4 In addition, EPA is 

proposing that upon final approval of 

the December 19, 2013, SIP revision, 

EPA will rescind the GHG PSD FIP for 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
780 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5EPA also promulgated the GHG Tailoring Rule 

for the title V operating permit program in the 

rulemaking entitled ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority 

To Implement Title V Permitting Programs Under 

the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,’’ 75 FR 82254 

(December 30, 2010). However, today’s action does 

not affect Florida’s title V program. 

6 ‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act.’’ 74 FR 66496 

(December 15, 2009). 

7 ‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that Determine 

Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs.’’ 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

8 ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 25324 (May 7, 2010). 

9When Federal permitting requirements change, 

as they did when EPA’s GHG emissions standards 

for light-duty vehicles took effect on January 2011, 

states may need to modify their SIPs to meet the 

new requirements. Assuring that each state and 

local permitting agency has the authority to permit 

GHGs requires SIP changes in a number of states. 

In the final SIP call rule, EPA found that PSD 

permitting regulations in 15 state and local 

permitting agencies states do not meet CAA 

requirements because their programs at the time did 

not cover GHG emissions. In these states, at the 

time of the GHG SIP call, neither EPA nor the state 

had authority to issue a PSD permit to sources of 

GHG emissions. 

10 ‘‘Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,’’ 

Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010) 

(GHG SIP call). 

11 ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation 

Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,’’ 75 

FR 81874 (December 29, 2010). 

Florida that was put in place to ensure 

the availability of a permitting authority 

for GHGs in Florida. See 75 FR 82246 

(December 30, 2010). For more 

information on Florida’s FIP see section 

III of this rulemaking. EPA’s proposed 

approval of Florida’s December 19, 

2013, SIP revision includes approval of 

the GHG PSD Permit Transition Plan 

described in section IV.D. of this 

rulemaking. Pursuant to section 110 of 

the CAA, EPA is proposing to approve 

these changes into the Florida SIP.5

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

This section briefly summarizes EPA’s 

GHG-related actions that provide the 

background for this action. Please see 

the preambles for the identified GHGrelated rulemakings for more 

information. 

A. EPA’s GHG Tailoring Rule, SIP Call, 

and FIP 

Beginning in 2010, EPA promulgated 

a series of actions pertaining to the 

regulation of GHGs that, although for 

the most part are distinct from one 

another, established the overall 

framework for today’s proposed action 

on the Florida SIP. Four of these actions 

include, as they are commonly called, 

the ‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ and 

‘‘Cause or Contribute Finding,’’ (which 

EPA issued in a single final action); 6 the 

‘‘Johnson Memo Reconsideration;’’ 7 the 

‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Rule;’’ 8 and the 

GHG Tailoring Rule. Taken together and 

in conjunction with the CAA, these 

actions established regulatory 

requirements for GHGs emitted from 

new motor vehicles and new motor 

vehicle engines; determined that such 

regulations, when they took effect on 

January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs 

emitted from stationary sources to PSD 

requirements; and limited the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA 

took this last action in the GHG 

Tailoring Rule, which, more 

specifically, established appropriate 

GHG emission thresholds for 

determining the applicability of PSD 

requirements to GHG-emitting sources. 

In the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA tailored 

the applicability criteria that determine 

which GHG emission sources become 

subject to the PSD program of the CAA 

to relieve overwhelming permitting 

burdens that would, in the absence of 

the rule, fall on permitting authorities 

and sources. See 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 

2010). As EPA explained in the GHG 

Tailoring Rule, the threshold limitations 

are necessary because without them 

PSD would apply to all stationary 

sources that emit or have the potential 

to emit more than 100 or 250 tons of 

GHG per year as of January 2, 2011. 

January 2, 2011, was the date when 

EPA’s Light-Duty Vehicle Rule took 

effect, imposing control requirements 

for the first time on carbon dioxide and 

other GHGs. 

In the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA 

requested that permitting authorities 

confirm whether their SIPs provide 

authority to implement the GHG 

Tailoring Rule thresholds. See 75 FR at 

31582. FDEP provided a letter 

(commonly referred to as the 60-day 

letter) to EPA on July 2, 2010, 

explaining: ‘‘[F]lorida’s PSD permitting 

program is limited to those pollutants 

identified in our state rules as, ‘PSD 

pollutant,’ a term that does not include 

GHGs. In order to incorporate GHGs into 

our PSD permitting program, we will 

need to amend our state rules and 

submit a SIP revision to EPA.’’ See 

Docket ID: EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0760 

for a copy Florida’s 60-day letter. 

On September 2, 2010, EPA issued 

proposed findings of substantial 

inadequacy 9 and a proposed ‘‘SIP call’’ 

for Florida and other states with SIPapproved PSD programs that did not 

apply PSD to GHGs. See 75 FR 53883. 

The purpose of the SIP call was to 

require these states to revise their SIPs 

by a specific deadline to ensure that 

their PSD program covered GHGemitting sources. In the proposed SIP 

call, EPA requested that each SIP call 

state confirm to EPA that its SIP did not 

apply the PSD program to GHGs. Id. at 

53896. EPA further requested that each 

SIP call state identify the deadline that 

they would accept for submitting their 

corrective SIP revision. Id. In response, 

FDEP submitted a letter (referred to as 

the 30-day letter) to EPA on October 1, 

2010, reiterating that Florida’s SIP did 

not apply PSD permitting requirements 

to sources of GHG. See 75 FR 53883. 

Florida explained that PSD permitting 

applicability in the State was 

established based on the application of 

the terms ‘‘PSD pollutant,’’ ‘‘major 

stationary source,’’ ‘‘major 

modification’’ and ‘‘significant emission 

rates’’ (the key term being ‘‘PSD 

pollutant’’). The definition of ‘‘PSD 

pollutant’’ is limited by a state rule to 

a finite set of pollutants which did not 

include GHG. Florida also indicated it 

did not oppose the SIP call’s 

establishment of a December 22, 2013, 

deadline to submit a corrective SIP 

revision. See Docket ID: EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0760 for Florida’s 30-day 

letter. 

In December 2010, EPA promulgated 

additional rulemakings to implement 

the new GHG PSD SIP program. 

Recognizing that some states had SIPapproved PSD programs that did not 

apply PSD to GHGs, EPA finalized the 

findings of substantial inadequacy and 

GHG SIP call 10 for Florida and 14 other 

state and local permitting authorities 

where the existing SIP-approved PSD 

program did not provide authority to 

regulate GHGs. The SIP call required the 

15 state and local permitting authorities 

to revise their SIPs by a specific 

deadline to ensure that their PSD 

program covered GHG emitting sources. 

In the SIP call, EPA explained that if a 

state identified in the SIP call failed to 

submit the required corrective SIP 

revision by the applicable deadline, the 

Agency would promulgate a FIP under 

CAA section 110(c)(1)(A) for that state 

to govern PSD permitting for GHGs. 

FDEP, along with several other state 

and local permitting authorities, did not 

submit a corrective SIP revision to apply 

its PSD program to sources of GHG by 

the specified deadline cited in the SIP 

call. Therefore on December 29, 2010,11

EPA published a finding of failure to 

submit the required SIP revision by the 

specified deadline and then 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 781 

12 ‘‘Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits 

Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Federal Implementation Plan,’’ 75 FR 82246 

(December 30, 2010) (GHG PSD FIP). 13Under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, PSD 

requirements apply to sources’ GHG emissions if 

the sources were subject to PSD anyway due to their 

non-GHG regulated air pollutants (‘‘anyway’’ 

sources) and emit or have the potential to emit at 

least 75,000 tons per year (tpy) (not defined until 

the next page) CO2e not defined until the next page. 

For title V, existing sources with, or new sources 

obtaining, title V permits are required to address 

GHG emissions in those permits as necessary. 

14Under Step 2, PSD applies to the largest GHGemitting sources that are not ‘‘anyway’’ sources and 

that are either new sources that emit or have the 

potential to emit at least 100,000 tpy CO2e or 

existing sources that emit at that level and that 

undertake modifications that increase emissions by 

at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, and also emit at least 100/ 

250 tpy of GHGs on a mass basis. In addition, under 

Step 2, title V applies to existing sources that are 

not ‘‘anyway’’ sources that emit or have the 

potential to emit 100,000 tpy (CO2e). 

15CO2e is a common metric used to evaluate the 

six constituent gases (including carbon dioxide, 

methane, nitrous oxide, hydofluorocarbons, 

perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) and in 

the case of the GHG Tailoring rule to determine PSD 

applicability. A source’s GHG emissions are 

calculated on a CO2e basis by multiplying the mass 

emissions of any of the six GHGs that the source 

emits by that gas’s global warming potential and 

then summing the CO2e for each GHG emitted by 

the source. This sum, expressed in terms of tpy 

CO2e, is then compared to the applicable CO2ebased permitting threshold to determine whether 

the source is subject to PSD and title V 

requirements. 

16 ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and 

GHG Plant-wide Applicability Limits,’’ 77 FR 

41051, (July 12, 2012) (the Step 3 GHG Tailoring 

Rule). 

17Currently, new facilities with GHG emissions of 

at least 100,000 tpy CO2e and existing facilities with 

at least 100,000 tpy CO2e making changes that 

would increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 

tpy CO2e, are required to obtain PSD permits. 

Facilities that must obtain a PSD permit anyway, to 

cover other regulated pollutants, must also address 

GHG emissions increases of 75,000 tpy CO2e or 

more. New and existing sources with GHG 

emissions above 100,000 tpy CO2e must also obtain 

operating permits. 

18A PAL is an emissions limit applied sourcewide rather than to specific emissions points. With 

a PAL, a source can make changes to the facility 

without triggering PSD permitting requirements as 

long as emissions do not increase above the limit 

established by the PAL. This allows companies to 

respond rapidly to changing market conditions 

while protecting the environment. 

19Under EPA’s interpretation of the Federal PAL 

provisions, PALs are already available under PSD 

for non-GHG pollutants and for GHGs on a mass 

basis. The Step 3 Tailoring Rule revised the PALs 

regulations and subject to regulation provisions at 

40 CFR 52.21 to provide GHG sources with the 

same kind of flexibility sources currently had for 

other regulated NSR pollutants by allowing sources 

the option to establish a CO2e-based PAL using the 

CO2e-based emission. See 77 FR at 41060. 20EPA did not finalize its proposed streamlining 

measure of providing regulatory authority for the 

EPA or a delegated agency to issue synthetic minor 

limitations for GHG in areas subject to a PSD FIP 

for GHGs or other streamlining measures. 21Florida adopted into its SIP the term ‘‘PSD 

pollutant’’ (which references significant emissions 

Continued 

promulgated the GHG PSD FIP.12 EPA 

explained in the SIP call and GHG PSD 

FIP that the purpose of the two 

rulemakings and their expedited 

schedules was to ensure that GHGemitting sources in the affected states, 

including Florida, would have a 

permitting authority (i.e., EPA) to act on 

the GHG PSD permit applications by 

January 2, 2011 (date that GHGs became 

subject to PSD). EPA also emphasized 

that its ‘‘overarching goal is to assure 

that in every instance, it will be the state 

that will be the permitting authority,’’ 

and that as a result, EPA sought to 

return permitting authority to the states 

as soon as possible. See 75 FR at 77717. 

B. Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule 

In the June 3, 2010, GHG Tailoring 

Rule, EPA established a phased-in 

approach to implementing CAA 

permitting requirements to regulate 

GHG-emitting sources through the PSD 

program (referred to as Steps 1 and 2). 

See 75 FR 31514. Step 1,13 which took 

effect on January 2, 2011; and Step 2,14

which took effect on July 1, 2012, and 

incorporated Step 1, established the 

PSD and title V applicability thresholds 

at what EPA calls the 100,000/75,000 

levels, which refers to the number of 

tons per year (tpy) in carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2e) 15 basis. Also in the 

GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA made 

regulatory commitments for a 

subsequent action (or Step 3) to propose 

or solicit comment on lowering the 

100,000/75,000 threshold on the basis of 

three criteria that concerned whether 

the permitting authorities had the 

necessary time to develop greater 

administrative capacity due to an 

increase in resources or permitting 

experience, as well as whether the EPA 

and the permitting authorities had 

developed effective strategies to 

streamline the issuance of permits. 

However, after assessing the progress of 

GHG permitting, EPA determined that 

the three criteria mentioned above had 

not been met because neither the 

Agency nor the states have made 

sufficient progress developing sufficient 

capacity or streamlining mechanisms to 

handle a larger number of permits than 

Steps 1 and 2 require. As a result, on 

July 12, 2012, EPA finalized the Step 3 

GHG Tailoring Rule 16 determining not 

to lower the current, 100,000/75,000 

applicability thresholds to bring 

additional sources into the PSD and title 

V permitting programs (or apply PSD 

and title V permitting requirements to 

additional, smaller sources of GHG 

emissions).17 See 77 FR 41051. 

In the Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule, 

EPA also finalized an approach to assist 

state and local permitting authorities in 

streamlining the administration of PSD 

permits for GHGs through the PALs.18

This approach will improve the 

usefulness of PALs for GHG emissions 

by allowing GHG PALs to be established 

on a CO2e basis in addition to the 

already available mass-basis.19 EPA also 

revised its regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 

to allow a source that emits or has the 

potential to emit GHGs at levels above 

100,000 tpy CO2e but that has emissions 

of other regulated pollutants at minor 

source levels (or GHG-only source) to 

apply for a GHG PAL while still 

maintaining its minor source status.20

Florida’s December 19, 2013, SIP 

revision IBR EPA’s Step 3 Tailoring 

Rule related to the GHG PAL permitting 

regulations. See section IV for EPA’s 

analysis of Florida’s SIP submission. 

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

SIP revision? 

This section summarizes EPA’s 

analysis of the changes being proposed 

for inclusion into the Florida SIP. 

Chapter 62–210, F.A.C. entitled 

‘‘Stationary Sources—General 

Requirements,’’ contains definitions of 

terms (at Rule 62–210.200, F.A.C.) used 

in Chapter 62–212, F.A.C., as well as 

other stationary source rules. Chapter 

62–210, F.A.C., also establishes general 

permitting, public notice, reporting, and 

permit application requirements. 

Chapter 62–212, F.A.C., entitled 

‘‘Stationary Sources—Preconstruction 

Review’’ contains specific 

preconstruction permitting 

requirements for various types of air 

construction permits, including minor 

source permits, PSD permits, 

nonattainment new source review 

(NNSR) permits, and PAL permits. Rule 

62–212.400, F.A.C. contains the State’s 

PSD preconstruction review program as 

required under part C of title I of the 

CAA. The PSD program applies to major 

stationary sources or modifications 

constructing in areas that are designated 

as attainment or unclassifiable with 

respect to the national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). The current 

changes to Chapter 62– 210, F.A.C., 

which EPA is now proposing to approve 

into the Florida SIP, were submitted to 

update the existing Florida regulations 

to be consistent with the regulation of 

GHG-emitting sources under the Federal 

PSD permitting program. 

A. Florida’s PSD Permitting Program 

Florida’s NSR permitting program is 

based on the application of the term 

‘‘PSD pollutant’’ at Rule 62– 

210.200(234), F.A.C. Florida defines 

‘‘PSD pollutant’’ 21 as any pollutant 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
782 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

rate) to replace the term ‘‘NSR Pollutant’’ at Rule 

62–210.200, F.A.C. as part of its February 3, 2006, 

SIP submission to adopt the 2002 NSR Reform 

permitting provisions. See 73 FR 36435 (June 27, 

2008). FDEP provided an equivalency 

demonstration establishing the definitions of ‘‘PSD 

pollutant’’ and ‘‘significant emissions rate’’ as being 

equivalent to the Federal definition of ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant’’ since they included all pollutants 

for which a NAAQS had been promulgated thus far, 

all precursors for such pollutants which had thus 

far been identified by the Administrator, all 

pollutants subject to standards promulgated under 

section 111 of the Act, and all pollutants thus far 

regulated under the Act. Florida’s definitions 

however lacked the catch-all phrase ‘‘subject to 

regulation,’’ which is part of the Federal definition 

of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ Florida explained 

that any pollutant or precursor that needed to be 

identified as a PSD pollutant in the future, if a new 

pollutant became ‘‘subject to regulation,’’ would be 

adopted into the SIP soon after it became regulated. 

22EPA defined the phrase ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

so that the GHGs emitted by sources that fall below 

the thresholds or scope established in Steps 1 and 

2 are not treated as ‘‘subject to regulation,’’ and 

therefore do not trigger PSD for the sources that 

emit them. 

23When FDEP incorporates by reference a Federal 

regulation, any subsequent change to the Federal 

CFR is not automatically incorporated into Florida’s 

rules. See Section 120.54(1)(i)1., F.S. (‘‘A rule may 

incorporate material by reference but only as the 

material exists on the date the rule is adopted.’’). 

24The incorporation by reference of the CFR 

(such as 40 CFR 52.21) at 62.204.800 does not by 

itself make those regulations applicable within 

Florida’s SIP regulations; it’s the actual reference to 

State Rule 62.204.800 within Florida regulations 

that makes the Federal regulation applicable. In 

other words, Rule 62–204.800, F.A.C., is the 

mechanism Florida uses to make specific Federal 

requirement applicable within SIP-approved 

regulations. 

25Florida’s Rule 62–204.800, F.A.C., is a state 

law. Therefore the amendment to update the IBR 

date for 40 CFR 52.21 at 62–204.800 is not part of 

the State’s December 19, 2013, SIP revision. 

However, as noted, without it the reference to 40 

C.F.R. 52.21(b)(50) in the definition of ‘‘PSD 

pollutant’’ would be referring to an older version of 

40 CFR 52.21 which did not include the GHG 

Tailoring Rule’s regulatory amendments for 

regulated NSR pollutant and the inclusion of 

‘‘subject to regulation’’ (nor the Step 3 GHG 

Tailoring Rule). 

listed as having a ‘‘significant emission 

rate’’ as defined in Rule 62–210.200. 

Florida references the term ‘‘PSD 

pollutant’’ within many key NSR 

definitions in Rule 62–210.200, F.A.C., 

and its PSD rule, 62–212.400, F.A.C., to 

trigger program applicability, including: 

‘‘Baseline Actual Emissions,’’ ‘‘Major 

Modification,’’ ‘‘Major Stationary 

Source,’’ ‘‘Net Emissions Increase,’’ and 

‘‘Projected Actual Emissions.’’ The 

applicability of Florida’s SIP-approved 

PSD program depends on whether a 

new ‘‘major stationary source’’ or 

‘‘major modification’’ of any existing 

major stationary source will result in 

significant emissions of a ‘‘PSD 

pollutant.’’ The terms ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ and ‘‘major modification’’ 

defined in SIP Rule 62–210.200, F.A.C. 

references the term ‘‘PSD pollutant.’’ As 

mentioned above, Florida indicated in 

its October 1, 2010, correspondence to 

EPA that its PSD permitting program 

was limited to those pollutants 

identified in the State as a ‘‘PSD 

pollutant,’’ a term that does not include 

GHG. Florida went on to convey that 

because GHGs were not included in the 

SIP definition of ‘‘significant emissions 

rate,’’ they were not deemed qualified as 

a ‘‘PSD pollutant(s)’’ under Florida’s 

PSD program. Absent a corrective SIP 

revision, FDEP did not have the 

authority to apply PSD requirements to 

GHG emitting sources as they became 

‘‘subject to regulation’’ under the CAA 

on January 2, 2011. Florida did not 

make its December 22, 2010, GHG 

corrective SIP revision deadline 

resulting in EPA issuing a finding of 

failure to submit on December 29, 2010, 

and the GHG PSD FIP on December 30, 

2010, to ensure that GHG-emitting 

sources in Florida would have an 

available permitting authority (i.e., 

EPA). 

B. Florida’s Revision to PSD pollutant 

Under EPA’s PSD program, ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant’’ is defined as several 

categories of pollutants (including, in 

general, NAAQS pollutants and 

precursors, pollutants regulated under 

CAA section 111 New Source 

Performance Standards, Class I or II 

substances regulated under title VI of 

the CAA) and a catch-all category, 

‘‘[a]ny pollutant that otherwise is 

‘‘subject to regulation’’ under the Act.’’ 

E.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(iv). As part of 

the mechanism to implement the GHG 

tailoring approach for PSD, EPA 

promulgated a definition for this catchall phrase ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 22 in 

the GHG Tailoring Rule as found within 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ (which in 

turn is part of EPA’s definition for 

‘‘major stationary source’’ and ‘‘major 

modification,’’ central to PSD 

applicability). Therefore, the term 

‘‘subject to regulation’’ as referenced in 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(iv) 

triggers the circumstances under which 

GHGs are a ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ 

In addition to defining ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ for the PSD program, the 

GHG Tailoring Rule revised the term 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ at (40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)) to reference ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ at 40 CFR. 52.21(b)(49); and 

define (at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21) the 

terms ‘‘greenhouse gases,’’ and ‘‘tpy CO2

equivalent emissions.’’ The 2010 rule 

also specified the methodology for 

calculating an emissions increase for 

GHG, the applicable thresholds for GHG 

emissions subject to PSD and the 

schedule for when the applicability 

thresholds would take effect. See 75 FR 

at 31606–31607. 

Florida’s December 19, 2013, SIP 

submission revises the definition of 

‘‘PSD pollutant’’ at 62–210.200 to 

incorporate the term ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ as defined in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50), which in turn references 

the term ‘‘subject to regulation’’ (defined 

at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)) at 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(iv). This SIP revision 

became effective on October 23, 2013. 

Florida’s revision triggers the 

circumstances under which GHGs are a 

‘‘PSD pollutant’’ under the State’s PSD 

program. In relevant part, Florida’s 

revised definition of ‘‘PSD pollutant’’ 

provides: 

62–210.200—PSD pollutant—(a) Any 

pollutant listed as having a significant 

emission rate as defined in Rule 62– 

210.200, F.A.C.; and (b) Any Regulated 

NSR Pollutant as defined at 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50) and as adopted and 

incorporated by reference at Rule 62– 

204.800, F.A.C. 

C. Incorporation by Reference 

As Florida mentions in its December 

19, 2013, SIP submission, its 

amendment to ‘‘PSD pollutant’’ to IBR 

the phrase ‘‘Any Regulated NSR 

Pollutant’’ as defined at 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50) does not, in and of itself, 

provide Florida the authority to regulate 

GHGs in its PSD program. Florida’s 

State Rule 62–204.800, F.A.C., IBR the 

Federal Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) (including 40 CFR 52.21) into the 

Florida regulations.23 To ‘‘activate’’ the 

applicability of a Federal rule within 

Florida’s regulations, the state 

references Rule 62–204.800, F.A.C. 

within the state regulations (such as 62– 

210.200).24 The previous IBR of Federal 

provisions at 40 CFR 52.21 into State 

Rule 62–204.800, F.A.C. predated EPA’s 

adoption of the GHG Tailoring Rule and 

the Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule. In order 

for the IBR of EPA’s updated definition 

of ‘‘Any Regulated NSR Pollutant’’ at 40 

CFR 52.21(b)(50) to be applicable in 

Florida’s regulations, FDEP amended 

State Rule 62.204.800, F.A.C., to IBR 40 

CFR 52.21, Subpart A as of July 1, 2011, 

and July 12, 2012. This amendment to 

Rule 62–204.800 became state effective 

on December 17, 2013.25 This change 

incorporates into the F.A.C. the 

applicable GHG regulations established 

in the GHG Tailoring Rule and the Step 

3 GHG Tailoring Rule. Therefore, 

Florida’s amendment to the definition of 

‘‘PSD pollutant’’ at Rule 62–210.200, 

F.A.C., provides Florida the authority to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 783 

26EPA adopted the PAL regulations into the 

Florida SIP on June 27, 2008, at Rule 62–212.720, 

F.A.C., as part of the State’s February 3, 2006, SIP 

submission to adopt the 2002 NSR Reform 

permitting provisions. See 73 FR 36435. 

27Since the date of Florida’s GHG Permit 

Transition Plan, EPA Region 4 issued a second GHG 

permit on December 18, 2013 for a total of two GHG 

issued permits. 

28The GHG Tailoring Rule also applies to the title 

V program, which requires operating permits for 

existing sources. However, today’s action does not 

affect Florida’s title V program. 

regulate GHG under the PSD program 

and establishes in the Florida SIP the 

thresholds for GHG permitting. These 

changes also IBR the GHG PAL 

provisions established in the July 12, 

2012, Step 3 GHG Tailoring Rule 

allowing GHG PALs to be established on 

a CO2e basis in addition to the already 

available mass-basis and allow a GHGonly source to apply for a GHG PAL 

while still maintaining its minor source 

status.26

D. GHG PSD Permit Transition 

As explained in today’s proposed 

notice, Florida is subject to the FIP for 

PSD permitting of GHG emissions. EPA 

remains the sole PSD permitting 

authority for GHG-emitting sources in 

Florida until EPA finalizes its proposed 

approval of the December 19, 2013, SIP 

revision into the Florida SIP. EPA 

proposes that upon finalization of 

Florida’s GHG SIP revision, EPA will 

rescind the GHG PSD FIP for Florida at 

40 CFR 52.37. 

As part of Florida’s December 19, 

2013, SIP revision, Florida included a 

GHG PSD Permit Transition Plan. See 

GHG Transition Plan in Appendix B of 

Florida’s December 19, 2013, 

submission in the Docket for today’s 

proposed rulemaking using Docket ID: 

EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0760. 

Specifically, under FDEP’s Permit 

Transition Plan, FDEP would exercise 

its authority to administer and enforce 

GHG PSD permits issued by EPA under 

its FIP to sources located in the State of 

Florida. This would include authority 

for the general administration of these 

existing permits, authority to process 

and issue any and all subsequent PSD 

permit actions relating to such permits 

including, but not limited to, 

modifications, amendments, or 

revisions of any nature, and the 

authority to enforce such permits. 

Pursuant to the criteria under section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) of the CAA, we have 

determined that Florida has the 

authority, personnel, and funding to 

implement the PSD program for GHGs 

for existing EPA-issued permits. 

Therefore, EPA proposes that 

concurrent with EPA’s approval of 

Florida’s GHG PSD program into the 

SIP, EPA will transfer existing EPAissued GHG permits for Florida sources 

to FDEP for administration and 

enforcement. To date, EPA has issued 

two final PSD permits and has five 

pending PSD applications in various 

stages of processing. See Appendix B, 

Attachment 2 of Florida’s December 19, 

2013, SIP revision.27 EPA will provide 

a list of all EPA-issued permits and a 

copy of each permit record (if requested) 

to FDEP prior to the effective date of the 

final SIP approval. 

In order to promote an orderly 

transition of the GHG PSD program from 

the EPA to Florida, the efficient use of 

Florida’s and EPA’s resources, and 

certainty for the regulated community 

and the public, and consistent with 

FDEP’s proposed GHG PSD permit 

transition plan, EPA proposes to retain 

PSD permit implementation authority 

(under 40 CFR 52.21) for pending 

applications, draft permits, and final 

permits for which final agency action 

has not been taken or for which all 

administrative and judicial appeals 

processes pursuant to 40 CFR 124 

(including any associated remand 

actions) have not been completed by the 

effective date of EPA’s final action to 

approve FDEP’s SIP submittal. FDEP 

would assume full responsibility for the 

administration and implementation of 

such GHG PSD permits immediately 

upon notification from EPA that all 

administrative and judicial appeals 

processes and any associated remand 

actions have been completed or 

concluded for any such permit 

application. Applicants with pending 

GHG PSD permit applications before 

EPA, including those for which EPA has 

proposed draft permits or issued final 

permits that have not yet become 

effective or have not yet completed the 

appeals processes pursuant to 40 CFR 

part 124, may elect to withdraw their 

applications from EPA and resubmit to 

FDEP for review and processing. Upon 

the effective date of EPA’s final action 

to approve the SIP submittal, FDEP will 

immediately assume full responsibility 

for new GHG PSD applications for 

Florida sources. As such, new 

applications will be submitted to and 

processed by FDEP’s Division of Air 

Resource Management. 

IV. Proposed Actions 

Florida’s December 19, 2013, SIP 

submission amends the State’s 

definition of ‘‘PSD pollutant’’ to provide 

Florida with the authority to regulate 

GHG under its PSD program, to 

establish PSD applicability thresholds 

for GHG emissions at the same 

emissions thresholds and in the same 

timeframes as those specified by EPA in 

the GHG Tailoring Rule, and to provide 

for the implementation of GHG PALs on 

a CO2e basis. In today’s action, pursuant 

to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is 

proposing to approve these changes into 

the Florida SIP.28

In addition, EPA is proposing that 

upon finalization of Florida’s GHG SIP 

revision, EPA will rescind the Florida 

GHG FIP at 40 CFR 52.37. EPA notes 

that finalization of this portion of 

today’s proposal may follow our 

finalized approval of the SIP revisions 

via a separate Administrator-signed 

action. EPA remains the sole PSD 

permitting authority for GHG-emitting 

sources in Florida until EPA finalizes its 

proposed approval of the December 19, 

2013, SIP revision into the Florida SIP. 

EPA’s approval of Florida’s December 

19, 2013, SIP revision includes approval 

of FDEP’s GHG PSD Permit Transition 

Plan, under which EPA will transfer 

existing EPA-issued GHG permits for 

Florida sources to Florida for 

administration and enforcement. EPA 

proposes to retain PSD permit 

implementation authority (under 40 

CFR 52.21) for pending GHG permit 

applications, draft permits, and final 

permits for which final agency action 

has not been taken or for which all 

administrative and judicial appeals 

processes pursuant to 40 CFR part 124 

(including any associated remand 

actions) have not been completed by the 

effective date of EPA’s final action to 

approve Florida’s SIP submittal. Florida 

would assume full responsibility for the 

administration and implementation of 

such GHG PSD permits immediately 

upon notification from EPA that all 

administrative and judicial appeals 

processes and any associated remand 

actions have been completed or 

concluded for any such permit 

application. 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Florida’s December 

19, 2013, SIP revision is consistent with 

EPA’s PSD regulations for GHG-emitting 

sources as promulgated in the GHG 

Tailoring Rule, Step 3 GHG Tailoring 

Rule and section 110 of the CAA. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the GHG PSD permitting revision into 

the Florida SIP. 

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. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
784 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, these proposed 

actions merely approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, these proposed actions: 

• are 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); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• are 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.); 

• do 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); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are 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 

• do 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Greenhouse Gas, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: December 23, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00041 Filed 1–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of the Secretary 

45 CFR Part 164 

Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy 

Rule and the National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System (NICS) 

AGENCY: Office for Civil Rights, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS or ‘‘the 

Department’’) is issuing this notice of 

proposed rulemaking to modify the 

Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 

Privacy Rule to expressly permit certain 

HIPAA covered entities to disclose to 

the National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System (NICS) the 

identities of individuals who are subject 

to a Federal ‘‘mental health prohibitor’’ 

that disqualifies them from shipping, 

transporting, possessing, or receiving a 

firearm. The NICS is a national system 

maintained by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) to conduct 

background checks on persons who may 

be disqualified from receiving firearms 

based on federally prohibited categories 

or State law. Among the persons subject 

to the Federal mental health prohibitor 

are individuals who have been 

involuntarily committed to a mental 

institution; found incompetent to stand 

trial or not guilty by reason of insanity; 

or otherwise have been determined by a 

court, board, commission, or other 

lawful authority to be a danger to 

themselves or others or to lack the 

mental capacity to contract or manage 

their own affairs, as a result of marked 

subnormal intelligence or mental 

illness, incompetency, condition, or 

disease. Under this proposal, only 

covered entities with lawful authority to 

make adjudication or commitment 

decisions that make individuals subject 

to the Federal mental health prohibitor, 

or that serve as repositories of 

information for NICS reporting 

purposes, would be permitted to 

disclose the information needed for 

these purposes. This disclosure would 

be restricted to limited demographic 

and certain other information and 

would not include medical records, or 

any mental health information beyond 

the indication that the individual is 

subject to the Federal mental health 

prohibitor. HHS notes that the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) has 

proposed clarifications to the regulatory 

definitions relevant to the Federal 

mental health prohibitor. The DOJ 

proposal is published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register. While 

commenters should consider this 

proposed regulation in light of the 

clarifications proposed in DOJ’s 

proposal, we note that those 

clarifications would not change how 

this proposed HIPAA permission would 

operate. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

March 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through any of the methods 

specified below. Please do not submit 

duplicate comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: You 

may submit electronic comments at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting electronic 

comments. Attachments should be in 

Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; 

however, we prefer Microsoft Word. 

• Regular, Express, or Overnight Mail: 

You may mail written comments (one 

original and two copies) to the following 

address only: U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Office for Civil 

Rights, Attention: HIPAA Privacy Rule 

and NICS, Hubert H. Humphrey 

Building, Room 509F, 200 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20201. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: If you 

prefer, you may deliver (by hand or 

courier) your written comments (one 

original and two copies) to the following 

address only: Office for Civil Rights, 

Attention: HIPAA Privacy Rule and 

NICS, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 

Room 509F, 200 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20201. (Because 

access to the interior of the Hubert H. 

Humphrey Building is not readily 

available to persons without federal 

government identification, commenters 

are encouraged to leave their comments 

in the mail drop slots located in the 

main lobby of the building.) 

Inspection of Public Comments: All 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period will be available for 

public inspection, including any 

personally identifiable or confidential 

business information that is included in 

a comment. We will post comments 

received before the close of the 

comment period at http://

www.regulations.gov. Because 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS