### 50416 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse

comment.

For additional information, see the
direct final rule which is located in the
Rules Section of this Federal Register

.

Dated: July 20, 2016.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

[FR Doc. 2016–18157 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0262; FRL–9948–09– Region 9]** 

**Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, Placer County Air Pollution**  **Control District and Ventura County**
**Air Pollution Control District**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) and carbon monoxide emissions from stationary gas turbines, boilers, steam generators, and process heaters. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

**DATES :**  Any comments on this proposal must arrive by August 31, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–

OAR–2016–0262 at http:// www.regulations.gov, or via email to Andrew Steckel, Rules Office Chief, at Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov , follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the 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. The 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, please contact the person identified in the **FOR**

**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section. For 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 :**  Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–

3073, Gong.Kevin@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses the following local rules: PCAPCD Rule 250, ‘‘Stationary Gas Turbines,’’ and VCAPCD Rule 74.15.1, ‘‘Boilers, Steam Generators, and

Process Heaters.’’ In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register , we are approving these local

rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these

SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that

if we receive adverse comment on a particular rule, we may adopt as final the rule that is not the subject of an

adverse comment.

We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this

time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please

see the direct final action.

Dated: June 14, 2016.

Alexis Strauss,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 2016–17905 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION** 
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0192; FRL–9949–91– Region 4]** 

**Air Quality Plans; Florida; Infrastructure Requirements for the** 

**2012 PM** 2.5 **National Ambient Air Quality Standard** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), on December 14, 2015, for inclusion into the Florida SIP. This proposal pertains to the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure SIP submission.’’ FDEP
certified that the Florida SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2012 Annual

PM 2.5 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Florida. EPA is proposing to determine that Florida’s infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on December 14, 2015, satisfies certain required infrastructure
elements for the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS.

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before August 31, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–

OAR–2016–0192 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


### 50417 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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, someof which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Florida’s existing SIP consists largely of Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) rules adopted by FDEP and approved by EPA through the SIP revision process. However, there are some F.A.C. state regulations that are not part of the Florida federally-approved SIP. Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term ‘‘F.A.C.’’, ‘‘Rule’’, or ‘‘Chapter’’ indicate that the cited regulation has been approved into Florida’s federally-approved SIP. The term

‘‘Florida Statutes’’ indicates cited Florida state statutes, which are not a part of the SIP unless

otherwise indicated. 2 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D, title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. This proposed rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).

3 This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element as they relate to attainment areas.

4 As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to this proposed rulemaking. 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 :**  Tiereny Bell, 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) 562–9088.
Ms. Bell can also be reached via
electronic mail at bell.tiereny@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
I. Background

On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), EPA promulgated a revised primary annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. The standard was strengthened from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ( m g/

m 3 ) to 12.0 m g/m 3 . Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to
address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit
such SIPs for the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December

14, 2015. 1

This rulemaking is proposing to approve portions of Florida’s PM 2.5 infrastructure SIP submission for the applicable requirements of the 2012
Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, with the exception of the interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2), for which EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking regarding these requirements. For the aspects of Florida’s submittal proposed for approval in this rulemaking, EPA notes that the Agency is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that Florida’s already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon
the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops
and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state’s existing SIP already contains.

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must
meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements
include 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. The requirements are
summarized below and in EPA’s September 13, 2013, memorandum
entitled ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 2 • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and
Other Control Measures

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

• 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for
Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources 3

• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport

• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution
Abatement and International Air
Pollution

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers

• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions

• 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for

Nonattainment Areas 4

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility Protection

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local

Entities

III. What is EPA’s approach to the
review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?

EPA is acting upon the SIP
submission from Florida that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and these SIP submissions are to provide for the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA’s taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of


### 50418 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

5 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies. 6 See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;

Revisions to the NO X SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

7 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note,

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

for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

8 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM 2.5 NSR rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS).

9 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007,

submittal.

10 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS. specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ submission must address.

EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA,
such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part

D. Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions. 5 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for
inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.

The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that
‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent
and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically
address nonattainment SIP requirements. 6 Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions
to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated. 7 This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular
infrastructure SIP submission.

Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to
whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action. 8 Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to
allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive
infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent
action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to
act at different times on various
elements and sub-elements of the same
infrastructure SIP submission. 9

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS.
The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants because the content and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS. 10

EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the ‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits
and control measures and section


### 50419 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

11 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.

12 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13,

2013. 13 EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state’s CAA obligations. On March 17, 2016, EPA released a memorandum titled, ‘‘Information on the Interstate Transport ‘Good Neighbor’ Provision for

the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’’ to provide guidance to states for interstate transport requirements specific to the

PM 2.5 NAAQS. 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not
others.

Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.

Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to
individual SIP submissions for particular elements. 11 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance). 12 EPA developedthis document to provide states with upto-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of
states to make infrastructure SIP
submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are
relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions. 13 The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that
infrastructure SIP submissions need to
address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA
reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or
enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP
submissions to ensure that the state’s implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA’s interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on
the structure of an individual state’s permitting or enforcement program ( e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included
in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP
submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section

128. As another example, EPA’s review of
infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA’s PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHG). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012

PM 2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in
the context of an infrastructure SIP

action.

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA’s review of a state’s
infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state’s SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state’s existing minor source program ( i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA’s regulations that pertain to such

programs.

With respect to certain other issues,
EPA does not believe that an action on
a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies addressing such excess emissions (‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related
to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s discretion’’ that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with


### 50420 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

14 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the

action on the infrastructure SIP. 15 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).

16 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See,

e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

17 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director’s discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions. 14 It is important to note that EPA’s approval of
a state’s infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just
described.

EPA’s approach to review of
infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state’s existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure
SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to
focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides
other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes
EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency determines that a state’s SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA. 15 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions. 16 Significantly, EPA’s determination that
an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of
the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director’s discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent

action. 17 IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how
Florida addressed the elements of the sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions?

The Florida infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.

1. 110(a)(2)(A) Emission Limits and
Other Control Measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that each implementation plan include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements. Several regulations within Florida’s SIP are relevant to air quality control regulations. The regulations described
below include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures. Chapters 62–204, Air Pollution Control—General Provisions; 62–210, Stationary Sources—General Requirements; 62–212, Stationary Sources—Preconstruction Review; 62–
296, Stationary Sources—Emissions Standards; and 62–297, Stationary Sources—Emissions Monitoring collectively establish enforceable
emissions limitations and other control measures, means or techniques for
activities that contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations in the ambient air, and provide authority for FDEP to establish
such limits and measures as well asschedules for compliance through SIPapproved permits to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA.

Additionally, the following sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure element. Section 403.061(9), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[a]dopt a comprehensive program for the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution of the air . . . of the state,’’ and section 403.8055, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[a]dopt rules substantively identical to regulations adopted in the Federal Register by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to federal law . . .’’

EPA has made the preliminary determination that the provisions contained in these State regulations and sections of the Florida Statutes, and Florida’s practices satisfy section


### 50421 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

18 On June 12, 2015, EPA published a final action entitled, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA’s SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.’’

See 80 FR 33840. 19 On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS
in the State.

In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during start up, shut down, and malfunction (SSM) operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and the Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate action. 18

Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove that any existing state rules with regard
to director’s discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to take
action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director’s discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make
such data available to the Administrator. SIP-approved rules at Chapters 62–204, 62–210, and 62–212 of the F.A.C. require the use of Federal Reference Method or equivalent monitors and also provide authority for FDEP to establish monitoring requirements through SIP-approved permits. Additionally, the following
three sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to take specific actions in support of this
infrastructure element: Section 403.061(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[a]pprove and promulgate current and long-range plans developed to provide for air quality and control and pollution abatement.; Section 403.061(9), Florida Statues, which authorizes DEP to [a]dopt a comprehensive program for the prevention, control and abatement of pollution of the air . . . of the State; and Section 403.061(11), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[e]stablish ambient air quality . . . standards for the state as a whole or for any part thereof.’’ Annually, states develop and submit to EPA for approval statewide ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan involves an evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring network, includes the annual ambient monitoring network design plan, and includes a
certified evaluation of the state’s ambient monitors and auxiliary support equipment. 19 In May 2015, Florida submitted its plan for 2014 to EPA. On October 29, 2015, EPA approved Florida’s monitoring network plan. Florida’s approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2016–0192. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system related to
the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS.

3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: This element
consists of three sub-elements: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of
new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources, and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C ( i.e., the major source PSD program). FDEP’s
2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submission cited a number of SIP provisions to address these requirements. EPA’s rationale forits proposed action regarding each subelement is described below. Specifically, FDEP cited Chapters 62–

204, 62–210, 62–212, 62–243, 62–252, 62–256, 62–296 and 62–297 F.A.C. Collectively, these provisions of Florida’s SIP regulate the construction of any new major stationary source or any modification at an existing major stationary source in an area designated
as nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable. These regulations enable FDEP to regulate sources contributing to
the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Additionally, the following two sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to take specific actions in support of this infrastructure element. Section 403.061(6), Florida Statutes, requires FDEP to ‘‘[e]xercise general supervision of the
administration and enforcement of the laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to air and water pollution.’’ Section 403.121, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to seek judicial and administrative remedies, including civil penalties, injunctive relief, and criminal prosecution for violations of any FDEP rule or permit.

Enforcement: Section 403.061(6), Florida Statutes, requires FDEP to ‘‘[e]xercise general supervision of the
administration and enforcement of the laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to air and water pollution.’’ Section 403.121, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to seek judicial and administrative remedies, including civil penalties, injunctive relief, and criminal prosecution for violations of any FDEP rule or permit. These provisions provide FDEP with authority for enforcement of

PM 2.5 emission limits and control

measures.

PSD Permitting for Major Sources: EPA interprets the PSD sub-element to require that a state’s infrastructure SIP submission for a particular NAAQS
demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD permitting program in place covering the structural PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. A state’s PSD permittingprogram is complete for this subelement (and prong 3 of D(i) and J related to PSD) if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously approving the state’s SIP with respect to all structural PSD requirements that are due under the EPA regulations or the
CAA on or before the date of the EPA’s proposed action on the infrastructure
SIP submission. For the 2012 Annual

PM 2.5 NAAQS, Florida’s authority to regulate new and modified sources to assist in the protection of air quality in
attainment or unclassifiable areas is
established in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62–210, Stationary Sources—General Requirements, Section 200—Definitions, and 62–212, Stationary Sources—Preconstruction Review, Section 400—Prevention of Significant Deterioration, of the Florida
SIP. Florida’s infrastructure SIP
submission demonstrates that new major sources and major modifications in areas of the State designated
attainment or unclassifiable for the specified NAAQS are subject to a federally-approved PSD permitting program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title


### 50422 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

20 For more information concerning how the Florida infrastructure SIP submission currently meets applicable requirements for the PSD elements (110(a)(2)(C); (D)(i)(I), prong 3; and (J)), see the technical support document in the docket for today’s rulemaking. 21 EPA approved Florida’s regional haze SIP— see 77 FR 71111 (November 29, 2012); 78 FR 53250 (August 29, 2013).

22 See 40 CFR 51.308(d).

23 See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Florida participated in the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast regional planning organization, a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies established to initiate and

coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality issues in the Southeastern United States. Member state and tribal governments included: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the

Cherokee Indians.

24 See EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance

document entitled ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)’’ at pp. 32–35, available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/ urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html; see also memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(1)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (September 25, 2009) at pp. 5–6, available at: http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925

_ harnett

_ pm25

_ sip

_ 110a12.pdf

. I of the CAA to satisfy the infrastructure
SIP PSD elements. 20

Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor source program that regulates emissions of the 2012
Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. Florida’s SIPapproved rules, 62–210.300, F.A.C., and 62–212.300, F.A.C., collectively govern the preconstruction permitting of
modifications and construction of minor stationary sources, and minor modifications of major stationary

sources.

EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Florida’s SIP and practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures, regulation of minor sources and modifications, and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major
modifications related to the 2012
Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS.

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate Pollution Transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components has two subparts resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in
infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or to protect visibility in another state (‘‘prong 4’’).

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the
contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2). EPA will consider these requirements in relation to
Florida’s 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS infrastructure submission in a separate rulemaking. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the PSD element, referred to as prong 3, may be met by a state’s confirmation in
an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to: A PSD program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the state contains a
nonattainment area for the relevant pollutant), a NNSR program that implements NAAQS for the relevant pollutant. As discussed in more detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), Florida’s SIP contains provisions for the State’s PSD program that reflects the required structural PSD requirements to satisfy prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Florida addresses prong 3 through F.A.C. 62–204, 62–210,
and 62–212 for the PSD and NNSR programs. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP and practices are adequate for interstate transport for PSD permitting of major sources and major
modifications related to the 2012
Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3).

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that the SIP contain adequate provisions to protect visibility in other states. Florida’s submission relied on EPA’s approval of the State’s regional haze SIP submission and incorporation of all relevant portions of Florida’s visibility program into the State’s implementation plan to address the prong 4 requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012
Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. 21 Federal regulations require that a state’s regional haze SIP contain a long-term strategy to address regional haze visibility impairment in each Class I area within
the state and each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by
emissions from the state. 22 A state participating in a regional planning process, such as Florida, must include
all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emissions reduction obligations agreed upon through that

process. 23 EPA’s approval of Florida’s regional haze SIP therefore ensures that
emissions from Florida are not interfering with measures to protect visibility in other states, satisfying the requirements of prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2012 Annual

PM 2.5 NAAQS. 24 Thus, EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Florida’s infrastructure SIP submissions
for the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS meet the requirements of prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution
Abatement and International Air
Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. Chapters 62–204, 62–210, and 62–212 of the F.A.C. require any new major source or major modification to undergo PSD or NNSR permitting and thereby provide notification to other potentially affected Federal, state, and local government agencies. Additionally, Florida does not have any pending obligation under
sections 115 and 126 of the CAA relating to international or interstate pollution abatement. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP and practices are adequate for ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international pollution
abatement for the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS.

6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality


### 50423 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

25 ‘‘ Credible Evidence’’ makes allowances for owners and/or operators to utilize ‘‘any credible

evidence or information relevant’’ to demonstrate

Continued for the implementation of any plan provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provisions. EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s
infrastructure SIP submission asmeeting the requirements of subelements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii), and (iii).

In support of EPA’s proposal to approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), FDEP’s infrastructure submissions demonstrate that it is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards and general policies, a system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs. Section 403.061(35), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to exercise the duties, powers, and responsibilities required of the state
under the federal CAA. Section 403.061(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[h]ire only such employees as may be necessary to effectuate the responsibilities of the department.’’ Section 403.061(4), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[s]ecure necessary scientific, technical, research, administrative, and operational services by interagency agreement, by contract, or otherwise.’’ Section 403.182, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to approve local pollution control programs, and provides for the State air pollution control program administered by FDEP to supersede a local program if FDEP determines that an approved local program is inadequate and the locality fails to take the necessary corrective actions. Section 320.03(6), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to establish
an Air Pollution Control Trust Fund and use a $1 fee on every motor vehicle license registration sold in the State for air pollution control purposes. As evidence of the adequacy of FDEP’s resources with respect to sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to FDEP on April 19, 2016, outlining 105 grant commitments and current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2015.
The letter EPA submitted to FDEP can
be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR– 2016–0192. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no outstanding issues in relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2015, therefore, FDEP’s grants were finalized and closed out. In addition, the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are evaluated when EPA performs a completeness
determination for each SIP submittal. A completeness determination ensures
that each submittal includes information to address the adequacy of personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law has been used to carry out the state’s implementation plan and related issues. FDEP’s authority is included in all prehearings and final SIP submittal packages for approval by EPA. FDEP is responsible for submitting all
revisions to the Florida SIP to EPA for approval. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida has adequate resources and authority for implementation of the 2012 Annual

PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP provide: (1) The majority of members of the state board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. For purposes of section 128(a)(1), Florida has no boards or bodies with authority over air pollution permits or enforcement
actions. Such matters are instead handled by an appointed Secretary. As such, a ‘‘board or body’’ is not responsible for approving permits or enforcement orders in Florida, and the requirements of section 128(a)(1) are not applicable. Florida is only subject to the requirements of 128(a)(2) and submitted the applicable statutes for incorporation into Florida SIP. Florida Statutes, specifically subsections 112.3143(4),
F.S., Voting conflicts and 112.3144, F.S, Full and public disclosure of financial

interests address the conflict of interest provisions applicable to the head of FDEP and all public officers within the Department. On July 30, 2012, EPA approved these Florida statutes into the SIP to comply with section 128 respecting state boards. See 77 FR 44485. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that the State has adequately addressed the requirements of section 128(a)(2), and accordingly has met the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements.

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP submissions as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii).

7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements addressing (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports
on the nature and amounts of emissions
and emissions related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any
emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this section, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
FDEP’s infrastructure SIP submissions
describe the establishment of requirements for compliance testing by emissions sampling and analysis, and for emissions and operation monitoring to ensure the quality of data in the State.
The Florida infrastructure SIP
submissions also describe how the major source and minor source emission inventory programs collect emission data throughout the State and ensure the quality of such data. Florida meets these requirements through Chapters 62–204, 62–210, 62–212, 62–296, and 62–297, F.A.C., which require emissions monitoring and reporting for activities
that contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations in the air, including requirements for the installation, calibration, maintenance, and operation of equipment for continuously monitoring or recording emissions, or provide authority for FDEP to establish such emissions monitoring and reporting requirements through SIP-approved permits and require reporting of PM 2.5 emissions.

The following sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to conduct certain actions in support of
this infrastructure element. Section 403.061(13) authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[r]equire persons engaged in operations which may result in pollution to file reports which may contain . . . any
other such information as the department shall prescribe . . .’’.
Section 403.8055 authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[a]dopt rules substantively identical to regulations adopted in the Federal Register by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to federal law. . . .’’

Section 90.401, Florida Statutes,
defines relevant evidence as evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact. Section 90.402, Florida Statutes,
states that all relevant evidence is admissible except as provided by law. EPA is unaware of any provision preventing the use of credible evidence
in the Florida SIP. 25


### 50424 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed, for the purpose of submitting compliance certification and can be used to establish whether or not an owner or operator has violated or is in violation of any rule or standard.

Additionally, Florida is required to
submit emissions data to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The
AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year
to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA’s online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and the precursors that form them—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Florida made its latest update to the NEI on December 17, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ eiinformation.html . EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP and practices are adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems
related to the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS.

8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: This section requires that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Florida’s infrastructure SIP submissions identify air pollution emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies as outlined in the
Florida Statutes Sections 403.131 and 120.569(2)(n). These sections of the
Florida Statutes were submitted for
inclusion in the SIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA and have been approved by
EPA into Florida’s SIP. Section 403.131 authorizes FDEP to: Seek injunctive relief to enforce compliance with this chapter or any rule, regulation or permit certification, or order; to enjoin any violation specified in Section 403.061(1); and to seek injunctive relief to prevent irreparable injury to the air, waters, and property, including animal, plant, and aquatic life, of the State and to protect human health, safety, and welfare caused or threatened by any violation. Section 120.569(2)(n), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to issue emergency orders to address immediate dangers to the public health, safety, or welfare. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP, State laws, and practices are adequate to satisfy the infrastructure SIP obligations for emergency powers related to the
2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(G).

9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP Revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary, requires each SIP to provide for revisions of such plan (i) as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii) whenever the Administrator finds that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any additional applicable requirements. As previously discussed, FDEP is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS. Florida has the ability and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS.

The following sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to conduct certain actions in support of this element. Section 403.061(35) gives FDEP the broad authority to implement the CAA. Section 403.061(9) authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[a]dopt a comprehensive program for the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution of the air . . . of the state, and from time to time review and modify such programs as necessary.’’ EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida adequately demonstrates a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to
the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s
infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(H).

10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with government officials, public notification, and PSD and visibility protection: EPA is proposing to approve
Florida’s infrastructure SIP for the 2012
Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that complies with the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, PSD and visibility protection. EPA’s rationale for
each sub-element is described below.

Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments, designated organizations and federal land managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant
to section 121 relative to consultation. Florida’s SIP-approved Chapters 62– 204, 62–210, and 62–212, as well as its Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for continued consultation with appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the corresponding FLMs), provide for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development activities. Specifically, Florida adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity which includes the development of mobile inventories for SIP development. Required partners covered by Florida’s consultation procedures include Federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency officials. Also, Section 403.061(21), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[a]dvise, consult, cooperate, and enter into agreements with other agencies of the state, the Federal Government, other states, interstate agencies, groups, political subdivisions, and industries affected by the provisions of this act, rules, or policies of the department’’. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate consultation with government officials related to the 2012
Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS when necessary.

Public notification (127 public notification): FDEP has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of instances or areas exceeding the NAAQS along with associated health effects through the Air Quality Index reporting system in required areas. Section 403.061(20), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[c]ollect
and disseminate information . . . relating to pollution’’ and Florida implements an Air Quality Index reporting system to notify the public in impacted areas. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s
infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public
notification.

PSD: With regard to the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J), this requirement
is met when a state demonstrates in an
infrastructure SIP submission that its


### 50425 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

26 Title V program regulations are federallyapproved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. PSD program meets all the current structural requirements of part C of title
I of the CAA. As discussed in more
detail above under the section discussing 110(a)(2)(C), Florida’s SIP contains provisions for the State’s PSD program that reflect the relevant SIP revisions pertaining to the required structural PSD requirements to satisfy the requirement of the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP and practices are adequate for PSD permitting of major sources and major
modifications related to the 2012
Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS for the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J).

Visibility protection: EPA’s 2013
Guidance notes that it does not treat the visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process. FDEP referenced its regional haze program as germane to the visibility component of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility protection and regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B). However, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has
determined that states do not need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP
submittals so FDEP does not need to rely on its regional haze program to fulfill its obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s
infrastructure SIP submissions are approvable for section 110(a)(2)(J) in
related to the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS and that Florida does not need to rely on its regional haze program to
address this element.

11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of emissions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and
submission of such data to the EPA can be made. SIP-approved sections of Chapter 62–204, 62–210, and 62–212, F.A.C., require use of EPA-approved modeling of pollutant-emitting sources
that contribute to PM 2.5 concentrations in the ambient air. Also, the following sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to conduct actions in support of this element. Section 403.061(13), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[r]equire persons engaged in operations which may result in pollution to file reports which may contain information relating to locations, size of outlet, height of outlet, rate and period of emission, and composition and concentration of
effluent and such other information as the department shall prescribe to be filed. . . .’’ Section 403.061(18), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[e]ncourage and conduct studies, investigations, and research relating to pollution and its causes, effects, prevention, abatement, and control.’’ These regulations and State statutes
demonstrate that Florida has the authority to conduct modeling and provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, Florida participates in a regional effort to coordinate the development of
emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, for the Southeastern states.
Florida notes in its SIP submissions that the FDEP has the technical capability to conduct or review all air quality modeling associated with the NSR program and all SIP-related modeling, except photochemical grid modeling which is performed for FDEP under contract. All such modeling is
conducted in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models.’’ Taken as a whole, Florida’s air quality regulations and practices demonstrate that FDEP has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any pollutant for which a NAAQS had been promulgated, and to provide such
information to the EPA Administrator upon request. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State’s ability to provide for air quality modeling, along with analysis of the associated data,
related to the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(K).

12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: This section requires the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator’s approval of a fee program under title V. Section 403.087(6)(a), Florida Statutes, directs FDEP to ‘‘require a processing fee in an amount sufficient, to the greatest extent possible, to cover the costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for a permit. . . .’’. Florida’s Air Pollution Control Trust Fund is the depository for all funds for the operation of the Division of Air Resource Management.
Within the fund is an account that
contains all fees under the title V program. Additionally, Florida has a fully approved title V operating permit program at Chapter 62–213 F.A.C. 26 and Section 403.0872, Florida Statutes, that covers the cost of implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s State rules and practices adequately provide for permitting fees
related to the 2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s
infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).

13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities: This element requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Florida coordinates with local governments affected by the SIP. Florida’s SIP submission includes a description of the public participation process for SIP development. Florida has consulted with local entities for the development of transportation conformity and has worked with the FLMs as a requirement of the regional haze rule. Section 403.061(21), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[a]dvise, consult, cooperate and enter into agreements with other agencies of the state, the Federal Government, other states, interstate agencies, groups, political subdivisions, and industries affected by the provisions of this act, rules, or policies of the department.’’ Section 403.061(21), Florida Statutes, is one way that the State meets the requirements of this
element as described further below.More specifically, Florida adopted statewide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity which includes the development of mobile inventories for SIP development and the requirements that link transportation planning and air


### 50426 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 147 / Monday, August 1, 2016 / Proposed Rules

quality planning in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Required partners covered by Florida’s consultation procedures include Federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency officials. The state and local transportation agency officials are most directly impacted by transportation conformity requirements and are required to provide public involvement for their activities including the analysis demonstrating how they meet transportation conformity requirements. Also, FDEP has agreements with eight county air pollution control agencies (Duval, Orange, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Sarasota, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade) that delineate the responsibilities of each county in carrying out Florida’s air program, including the Florida SIP. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation
with affected local entities related to the
2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS when

necessary.
V. Proposed Action

With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to the
contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in other states and visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 and 2). EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s
infrastructure submission submitted on December 14, 2015, for the 2012 Annual

PM 2.5 NAAQS for the above described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s
infrastructure SIP submission for the
2012 Annual PM 2.5 NAAQS because the
submission is consistent with section
110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations.

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 approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

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

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

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

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

Dated: July 20, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 2016–18013 Filed 7–29–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION** 
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R01–OAR–2014–0291, FRL–9949–57– Region 1]** 

**Air Plan Approval; Maine: Prevention of Significant Deterioration; PM**  2.5

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine relating to the regulation of fine particulate matter (that is, particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometer, generally referred to as ‘‘PM 2.5 ’’) within
the context of Maine’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. EPA is also proposing to approve other minor changes to Maine’s PSD program. Actions related to this proposed rule are being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before August 31, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01–

OAR–2014–0291 at http:// www.regulations.gov, or via email bird.patrick@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov , follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the 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. The 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, please contact the person identified in the **FOR**

**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section. For 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.