Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67179 

1 In the proposed action, EPA incorrectly cited a 

date of June 22, 2013, for the due date of 

infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

80 FR 51158 (August 24, 2015). 

2Florida’s 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

infrastructure SIP submission dated June 3, 2013, 

and supplemented on January 8, 2014, are also 

collectively referred to as ‘‘Florida’s SO2

infrastructure SIP’’ in this action. 

3EPA’s responses to these comments are 

consistent with actions taken on 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions for Virginia 

(80 FR 11557, March 4, 2015) at https://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-04/pdf/2015- 

04377.pdf and West Virginia (79 FR 62022, October 

16, 2014) at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2014-0-16/pdf/2014-24658.pdf. 

respecting significant portion of income 

for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2016–23598 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0423; FRL–9953–18– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Florida; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submissions, submitted by the 

State of Florida, through the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP), on June 3, 2013, and 

supplemented on January 8, 2014, for 

inclusion into the Florida SIP. This final 

action pertains to the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) national ambient air 

quality standard (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 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, 

and maintained in Florida. EPA has 

determined that the Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions, 

provided to EPA on June 3, 2013, and 

supplemented on January 8, 2014, 

satisfy the required infrastructure 

elements for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 31, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2014–0423. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Notarianni, 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. Ms. 

Notarianni can be reached via electronic 

mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov or 

via telephone at (404) 562–9031. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Overview 

On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520, June 

22, 2010), EPA promulgated a revised 

primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly 

standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) 

based on a 3-year average of the annual 

99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. 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 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 

2, 2013.1

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Florida that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

2010 1-hour SO2 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. 

In a proposed rulemaking published 

on August 24, 2015, EPA proposed to 

approve Florida’s June 3, 2013, and 

January 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

submissions.2 See 80 FR 51157. The 

details of Florida’s submissions and the 

rationale for EPA’s actions are explained 

in the proposed rulemaking. Comments 

on the proposed rulemaking were due 

on or before September 23, 2015. EPA 

received adverse comments on the 

proposed action. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received one set of comments on 

the August 24, 2015, proposed 

rulemaking to approve Florida’s 2010 1- 

hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

submissions intended to meet the CAA 

requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. A summary of the comments 

and EPA’s responses are provided 

below.3 A full set of these comments is 

provided in the docket for today’s final 

rulemaking action. 

A. Comments on Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for Enforceable Emission 

Limits 

1. The Plain Language of the CAA 

Comment 1: The Commenter contends 

that the plain language of section 

110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires the 

inclusion of enforceable emission limits 

in an infrastructure SIP to prevent 

NAAQS exceedances in areas not 

designated nonattainment. In support, 

the Commenter quotes the language in 

section 110(a)(1) that requires states to 

adopt a plan for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS and the language in section 

110(a)(2)(A) that requires SIPs to 

include enforceable emissions 

limitations as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of the CAA. 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
67180 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

The Commenter then states that 

applicable requirements of the CAA 

include requirements for the attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS, and 

that CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

infrastructure SIPs to include 

enforceable emission limits to prevent 

exceedances of the NAAQS. The 

Commenter claims that Florida’s SIP 

submission does not meet this asserted 

requirement. Thus, the Commenter 

asserts that EPA must disapprove 

Florida’s proposed SO2 infrastructure 

SIP submission because it fails to 

include enforceable emission 

limitations necessary to ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS as required by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A). The Commenter then 

contends that the Florida 2010 1-hour 

SO2 infrastructure SIP submission fails 

to comport with CAA requirements for 

SIPs to establish enforceable emission 

limits that are adequate to prohibit 

NAAQS exceedances in areas not 

designated nonattainment. 

Response 1: EPA disagrees that 

section 110 must be interpreted in the 

manner suggested by the Commenter in 

the context of infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Section 110 is only one 

provision that is part of the complicated 

structure governing implementation of 

the NAAQS program under the CAA, as 

amended in 1990, and it must be 

interpreted in the context of not only 

that structure, but also of the historical 

evolution of that structure. In light of 

the revisions to section 110 since 1970 

and the later-promulgated and more 

specific SIP planning requirements of 

the CAA, EPA interprets the 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) that the 

plan provide for ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance and enforcement’’ in 

conjunction with the requirements in 

section 110(a)(2)(A) to mean that the 

infrastructure SIP must contain 

enforceable emission limits that will aid 

in attaining and/or maintaining the 

NAAQS and that the state demonstrate 

that it has the necessary tools to 

implement and enforce a NAAQS, such 

as adequate state personnel and an 

enforcement program. 

With regard to the requirement for 

emission limitations in section 

110(a)(2)(A), EPA has interpreted this to 

mean, for purposes of infrastructure SIP 

submissions, that the state may rely on 

measures already in place to address the 

pollutant at issue or any new control 

measures that the state may elect to 

impose as part of such SIP submission. 

As EPA stated in ‘‘Guidance on 

Infrastructure State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act 

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ dated 

September 13, 2013, (Infrastructure SIP 

Guidance), ‘‘[t]he conceptual purpose of 

an infrastructure SIP submission is to 

assure that the air agency’s SIP contains 

the necessary structural requirements 

for the new or revised NAAQS, whether 

by establishing that the SIP already 

contains the necessary provisions, by 

making a substantive SIP revision to 

update the SIP, or both. Overall, the 

infrastructure SIP submission process 

provides an opportunity . . . to review 

the basic structural requirements of the 

air agency’s air quality management 

program in light of each new or revised 

NAAQS.’’ Infrastructure SIP Guidance 

at pp. 1–2. Florida appropriately 

demonstrated that its SIP has SO2

emissions limitations and the 

‘‘structural requirements’’ to implement 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in its 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

The Commenter makes general 

allegations that Florida does not have 

sufficient protective measures to 

prevent SO2 NAAQS exceedances. EPA 

addressed the adequacy of Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP for 110(a)(2)(A) 

purposes in the proposed rule and 

explained why the SIP includes 

enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures that aid in 

maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS throughout the State. These 

include State regulations which 

collectively establish enforceable 

emissions limitations and other control 

measures, means or techniques for 

activities that contribute to SO2

concentrations in the ambient air, and 

provide authority for FDEP to establish 

such limits and measures as well as 

schedules for compliance through SIPapproved permits to meet the applicable 

requirements of the CAA. See 80 FR 

51161. EPA finds these provisions 

adequately address section 110(a)(2)(A) 

to aid in attaining and/or maintaining 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and finds 

Florida demonstrated that it has the 

necessary tools to implement and 

enforce the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

2. The Legislative History of the CAA 

Comment 2: The Commenter cites two 

excerpts from the legislative history of 

the 1970 CAA and claims that the 

‘‘legislative history of infrastructure 

SIPs provides that states must include 

enforceable emission limits in their 

infrastructure SIPs sufficient to ensure 

the implementation, maintenance, and 

attainment of each NAAQS in all areas 

of the State.’’ 

Response 2: As provided in the 

previous response, the CAA, as enacted 

in 1970, including its legislative history, 

cannot be interpreted in isolation from 

the later amendments that refined that 

structure and deleted relevant language 

from section 110 concerning attainment. 

In any event, the two excerpts of 

legislative history the Commenter cites 

merely provide that states should 

include enforceable emission limits in 

their SIPs and they do not mention or 

otherwise address whether states are 

required to impose additional emission 

limitations or control measures as part 

of the infrastructure SIP submission, as 

opposed to requirements for other types 

of SIP submissions such as attainment 

plans required under section 

110(a)(2)(I). As provided in Response 1, 

the proposed rule explains why the SIP 

includes sufficient enforceable 

emissions limitations for purposes of 

the infrastructure SIP submission. 

3. Case Law 

Comment 3: The Commenter also 

discusses several court decisions 

concerning the CAA, which the 

Commenter claims support its 

contention that courts have been clear 

that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

enforceable emissions limits in 

infrastructure SIP submissions to 

prevent violations of the NAAQS. The 

Commenter first cites to language in 

Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), 

addressing the requirement for 

‘‘emission limitations’’ and stating that 

emission limitations ‘‘are the specific 

rules to which operators of pollution 

sources are subject, and which if 

enforced should result in ambient air 

which meets the national standards.’’ 

The Commenter also cites to 

Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources 

v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) 

for the proposition that the CAA directs 

EPA to withhold approval of a SIP 

where it does not ensure maintenance of 

the NAAQS, and to Mission Industrial, 

Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 

1976), which quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) 

of the CAA of 1970. The Commenter 

contends that the 1990 Amendments do 

not alter how courts have interpreted 

the requirements of section 110, quoting 

Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. 

EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in 

turn quoted section 110(a)(2)(A) of the 

CAA and also stated that ‘‘SIPs must 

include certain measures Congress 

specified’’ to ensure attainment of the 

NAAQS. The Commenter also quotes 

several additional opinions in this vein. 

Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 

F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (‘‘[t]he 

Clean Air Act directs states to develop 

implementation plans—SIPs—that 

‘assure’ attainment and maintenance of 

[NAAQS] through enforceable emissions 

limitations’’); Mich. Dept. of Envtl. 

Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th 

Cir. 2000) (‘‘EPA’s deference to a state 

is conditioned on the state’s submission 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67181 

of a plan ‘which satisfies the standards 

of § 110(a)(2)’ and which includes 

emission limitations that result in 

compliance with the NAAQS’’; and Hall 

v. EPA 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) for 

the proposition that EPA may not 

approve a SIP revision that does not 

demonstrate how the rules would not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

Response 3: None of the cases the 

Commenter cites support the 

Commenter’s contention that it is clear 

that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires 

infrastructure SIP submissions to 

include detailed plans providing for 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do 

they shed light on how EPA may 

reasonably interpret section 

110(a)(2)(A). With the exception of 

Train, none of the cases the Commenter 

cites specifically concerned the 

interpretation of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of 

the pre-1990 Act). Rather, the other 

courts referenced section 110(a)(2)(A) 

(or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 

CAA) in the background section of 

decisions in the context of a challenge 

to an EPA action on revisions to a SIP 

that was required and approved as 

meeting other provisions of the CAA or 

in the context of an enforcement action. 

In Train, 421 U.S. 60, the Court was 

addressing a state revision to an 

attainment plan submission made 

pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the 

primary statutory provision at that time 

addressing such submissions. The issue 

in that case concerned whether changes 

to requirements that would occur before 

attainment was required were variances 

that should be addressed pursuant to 

the provision governing SIP revisions or 

were ‘‘postponements’’ that must be 

addressed under section 110(f) of the 

CAA of 1970, which contained 

prescriptive criteria. The Court 

concluded that EPA reasonably 

interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict 

a state’s choice of the mix of control 

measures needed to attain the NAAQS, 

so long as the state met other applicable 

requirements of the CAA, and that 

revisions to SIPs that would not impact 

attainment of the NAAQS by the 

attainment date were not subject to the 

limits of section 110(f). Thus the issue 

was not whether the specific SIP at 

issue needs to provide for attainment or 

whether emissions limits are needed as 

part of the SIP; rather the issue was 

which statutory provision governed 

when the state wanted to revise the 

emission limits in its SIP if such 

revision would not impact attainment or 

maintenance of the NAAQS. 

The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of 

Envtl. Resources was also decided based 

on a pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At 

issue was whether EPA properly 

rejected a revision to an approved SIP 

where the inventories relied on by the 

state for the updated submission had 

gaps. The Court quoted section 

110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in 

support of EPA’s disapproval, but did 

not provide any interpretation of that 

provision. This decision did not address 

the question at issue in this action, i.e., 

what a state must include in an 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). Yet, 

even if the Court had interpreted that 

provision, EPA notes that it was 

modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this 

decision has little bearing on the issue 

here. 

At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 

F.2d 123, was the definition of 

‘‘emissions limitation’’ not whether 

section 110 requires the state to 

demonstrate how all areas of the state 

will attain and maintain the NAAQS as 

part of their infrastructure SIPs. The 

language from the opinion the 

Commenter quotes does not interpret 

but rather merely describes section 

110(a)(2)(A). The Commenter does not 

cite to this case to assert that the 

measures relied on by the state in the 

infrastructure SIP are not ‘‘emissions 

limitations’’ and the decision in this 

case has no bearing here. In Mont. 

Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, 

the Court was reviewing a Federal 

implementation plan (FIP) that EPA 

promulgated after a long history of the 

State failing to submit an adequate SIP 

in response to EPA’s finding under 

section 110(k)(5) that the previously 

approved SIP was substantially 

inadequate to attain or maintain the 

NAAQS, which triggered the State’s 

duty to submit a new SIP to show how 

it would remedy that deficiency and 

attain the NAAQS. The Court cited 

generally to sections 107 and 

110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the 

proposition that SIPs should assure 

attainment and maintenance of NAAQS 

through emission limitations, but this 

language was not part of the Court’s 

holding in the case, which focused 

instead on whether EPA’s finding of SIP 

inadequacy and adoption of a remedial 

FIP were lawful. The Commenter 

suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl. 

Conservation, 540 U.S. 461, stands for 

the proposition that the 1990 CAA 

Amendments do not alter how courts 

interpret section 110. This claim is 

inaccurate. Rather, the Court quoted 

section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as noted 

previously, differs from the pre-1990 

version of that provision and the court 

makes no mention of the changed 

language. Furthermore, the Commenter 

also quotes the Court’s statement that 

‘‘SIPs must include certain measures 

Congress specified,’’ but that statement 

specifically referenced the requirement 

in section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires 

an enforcement program and a program 

for the regulation of the modification 

and construction of new sources. 

Notably, at issue in that case was the 

State’s ‘‘new source’’ permitting 

program, not what is required for 

purposes of an infrastructure SIP 

submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(A). 

Two of the cases the Commenter cites, 

Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality, 230 F.3d 

185, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret 

CAA section 110(l), the provision 

governing ‘‘revisions’’ to plans. Neither 

case, however, addressed the question at 

issue here, i.e, what states are required 

to address for purposes of an 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). In 

those cases, the courts cited to section 

110(a)(2)(A) solely for the purpose of 

providing a brief background of the 

CAA. 

EPA does not believe any of these 

court decisions addressed required 

measures for infrastructure SIPs and 

believes nothing in the opinions 

addressed whether infrastructure SIP 

submissions must contain emission 

limitations or measures to ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR 

51.112(a) 

Comment 4: The Commenter cites to 

40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that ‘‘Each 

plan must demonstrate that the 

measures, rules, and regulations 

contained in it are adequate to provide 

for the timely attainment and 

maintenance of the national standard 

that it implements.’’ The Commenter 

relies on a statement in the preamble to 

the 1986 action restructuring and 

consolidating provisions in part 51, in 

which EPA stated that ‘‘[i]t is beyond 

the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address 

the provisions of Part D of the Act . . .’’ 

51 FR 40656. Thus, the Commenter 

contends that ‘‘the provisions of 40 CFR 

51.112 are not limited to nonattainment 

SIPs; the regulation instead applies to 

Infrastructure SIPs, which are required 

to attain and maintain the NAAQS in all 

areas of a state, including those not 

designated nonattainment.’’ 

Response 4: The Commenter’s 

reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support its 

argument that infrastructure SIPs must 

contain emission limits which ensure 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
67182 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

4EPA noted that it had already issued guidance 

addressing the new ‘‘Part D’’ attainment planning 

obligations. Also, as to maintenance regulations, 

EPA expressly stated that it was not making any 

revisions other than to re-number those provisions. 

See 51 FR 40657. 

5EPA’s final action does not address CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because Florida has not made a 

submission for these elements. 

6The Commenter cited to In re: Mississippi Lime 

Co., PSDAPLPEAL 11–01, 2011 WL 3557194, at 

* 26–27 (EPA Aug. 9, 2011) and 71 FR 12623, 12624 

(March 13, 2006) (EPA disapproval of a control 

strategy SO2 SIP). 

7For a discussion on emission averaging times for 

emissions limitations for SO2 attainment SIPs, see 

the April 23, 2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2

Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions. As noted by 

the commenter, EPA explained that it is possible, 

in specific cases, for states to develop control 

strategies that account for variability in 1-hour 

emissions rates through emission limits with 

averaging times that are longer than 1-hour, using 

averaging times as long as 30-days, but still provide 

for attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as long as 

the limits are of at least comparable stringency to 

a 1-hour limit at the critical emission value. EPA 

has not taken final action to approve any specific 

submission of such a limit that a state has relied 

upon to demonstrate NAAQS attainment, and 

Florida has not submitted such a limit for that 

purpose here, so it is premature at this time to 

evaluate whether any emission limit in Florida’s 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS is incorrect. It is clear on its 

face that 40 CFR 51.112 directly applies 

to state SIP submissions for control 

strategy SIPs, i.e., plans that are 

specifically required to attain and/or 

maintain the NAAQS. These regulatory 

requirements apply when states are 

developing ‘‘control strategy’’ SIPs 

under other provisions of the CAA, such 

as attainment plans required for the 

various NAAQS in Part D and 

maintenance plans required in section 

175A. The Commenter’s suggestion that 

40 CFR 51.112 must apply to all SIP 

submissions required by section 110 

based on the preamble to EPA’s action 

‘‘restructuring and consolidating’’ 

provisions in part 51, is also incorrect.4

EPA’s action in 1986 was not to 

establish new substantive planning 

requirements, but rather was meant 

merely to consolidate and restructure 

provisions that had previously been 

promulgated. 

Although EPA was explicit that it was 

not establishing requirements 

interpreting the provisions of new ‘‘Part 

D’’ of the CAA, it is clear that the 

regulations being restructured and 

consolidated were intended to address 

control strategy plans. In the preamble, 

EPA clearly stated that 40 CFR 51.112 

was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (‘‘Control 

strategy: SOX and PM (portion)’’), 51.14 

(‘‘Control strategy: CO, HC, OX and NO2

(portion)’’), 51.80 (‘‘Demonstration of 

attainment: Pb (portion)’’), and 51.82 

(‘‘Air quality data (portion)’’). Id. at 

40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 

51.112 contains consolidated provisions 

that are focused on control strategy SIPs, 

and the infrastructure SIP is not such a 

plan. 

5. EPA Interpretations in Other 

Rulemakings 

Comment 5: The Commenter also 

references a 2006 partial approval and 

partial disapproval of revisions to 

Missouri’s existing plan addressing the 

SO2 NAAQS and claims it was an action 

in which EPA relied on section 

110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject 

an infrastructure SIP. Specifically, the 

Commenter asserts that in that action, 

EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) as a basis 

for disapproving a revision to the State 

plan on the basis that the State failed to 

demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to 

ensure attainment and maintenance of 

the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an 

emission limit and cited to 40 CFR 

51.112 as requiring that a plan 

demonstrates the rules in a SIP are 

adequate to attain the SO2 NAAQS. 

Response 5: EPA’s partial approval 

and partial disapproval of revisions to 

restrictions on emissions of sulfur 

compounds for the Missouri SIP in 71 

FR 12623 specifically addressed 

Missouri’s attainment SIP submission— 

not Missouri’s infrastructure SIP 

submission. It is clear from the final 

Missouri rule that EPA was not 

reviewing an initial infrastructure SIP 

submission, but rather reviewing 

proposed SIP revisions that would make 

an already approved SIP designed to 

demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS 

less stringent. Therefore, EPA does not 

agree that the 2006 Missouri action 

referenced by the Commenter 

establishes how EPA reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions for 

purpose of section 110(a)(2)(A). 

As discussed in the proposed rule, 

EPA finds that the Florida 2010 1-hour 

SO2 infrastructure SIP meets the 

appropriate and relevant structural 

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

CAA that will aid in attaining and/or 

maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS and that the State demonstrated 

that it has the necessary tools to 

implement and enforce the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS.5

B. Comments on Florida SIP SO2

Emission Limits 

Comment 6: The Commenter asserts 

that EPA may not approve the Florida 

proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP because 

it fails to include enforceable emission 

limitations with a 1-hour averaging time 

that applies at all times. The Commenter 

cites to CAA section 302(k) which 

requires that emission limits must limit 

the quantity, rate or concentration of 

emissions and must apply on a 

continuous basis. The Commenter states 

that ‘‘[e]nforceable emission limitations 

contained in the I–SIP must, therefore, 

be accompanied by proper averaging 

times; otherwise an appropriate 

numerical emission limit could allow 

for peaks that exceed the NAAQS and 

yet still be permitted since they would 

be averaged with lower emissions at 

other times.’’ The Commenter also cites 

to recommended averaging times in EPA 

guidance providing that SIP emissions 

limits, ‘‘should not exceed the averaging 

time of the applicable NAAQS that the 

limit is intended to help attain.’’ EPA 

Memorandum of Apr. 23, 2014, to 

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions 

1–10, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS 

Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions, at 

22, available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2016-06/ 

documents/20140423guidance_

nonattainment_sip.pdf. The Commenter 

also notes that this EPA guidance 

provides that ‘‘ ‘any emissions limits 

based on averaging periods longer than 

1 hour should be designed to have 

comparable stringency to a 1-hour 

average limit at the critical emission 

value.’ ’’ 

The Commenter also cites to a 

February 3, 2011, EPA Region 7 letter to 

the Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment regarding the need for 1- 

hour SO2 emission limits in a 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) permit, an EPA Environmental 

Hearing Board decision rejecting use of 

a 3-hour averaging time for a SO2 limit 

in a PSD permit, and EPA’s disapproval 

of a Missouri SIP which relied on 

annual averaging for SO2 emission rates 

and claims EPA has stated that 1-hour 

averaging times are necessary for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.6 The 

Commenter states, ‘‘Therefore, in order 

to ensure that Florida’s Infrastructure 

SIP actually implements the SO2

NAAQS in every area of the state, the 

I–SIP must contain enforceable emission 

limits with one-hour averaging times, 

monitored continuously, for large 

sources of SO2.’’ The Commenter asserts 

that EPA must disapprove Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP because it fails to 

require emission limits with adequate 

averaging times. 

Response 6: As explained in detail in 

previous responses, the purpose of the 

infrastructure SIP is to ensure that a 

state has the structural capability to 

implement and enforce the NAAQS and 

thus, additional SO2 emission 

limitations to ensure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS are not 

required for such infrastructure SIPs.7


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67183 

SIP is in accordance with the April 23, 2014, 

guidance. If and when Florida submits an emission 

limitation that relies upon such a longer averaging 

time to demonstrate NAAQS attainment, EPA will 

evaluate it then. 

8There are two designated nonattainment areas 

pursuant to CAA section 107 for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS in Florida and the State has submitted 

attainment plans for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

for sections 172, 191 and 192. EPA believes the 

appropriate time for examining the necessity of 1- 

hour SO2 emission limits on specific sources is 

within the attainment planning process. 

9See for example, EPA’s discussion of modeling 

for characterizing air quality in the Agency’s August 

21, 2015, final rule at 80 FR 51052 and for 

nonattainment planning in the April 23, 2014, 

Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP 

Submissions. 

EPA disagrees that it must disapprove 

the proposed Florida infrastructure SIP 

submission merely because the SIP does 

not contain enforceable SO2 emission 

limitations with 1-hour averaging 

periods that apply at all times, as this 

issue is not appropriate for resolution in 

this action in advance of EPA action on 

the State’s submissions of other required 

SIP submissions including an 

attainment plan for two areas which are 

designated nonattainment pursuant to 

section 107 of the CAA.8 Therefore, 

because EPA finds Florida’s SO2

infrastructure SIP approvable without 

the additional SO2 emission limitations 

showing attainment of the NAAQS, EPA 

finds the issue of appropriate averaging 

periods for such future limitations not 

relevant at this time. 

Further, Commenter’s citation to a 

prior EPA discussion on emission 

limitations required in PSD permits 

(from EPA’s Environmental Appeals 

Board decision and EPA’s letter to 

Kansas’ permitting authority) pursuant 

to part C of the CAA is neither relevant 

nor applicable to infrastructure SIP 

submissions under CAA section 110. In 

addition, and as previously discussed, 

the EPA disapproval of the 2006 

Missouri SIP was a disapproval relating 

to an attainment plan SIP submission 

required pursuant to part D attainment 

planning and is likewise not relevant to 

the analysis of infrastructure SIP 

requirements. 

Comment 7: Citing to section 110(a)(1) 

and (a)(2)(A) of the CAA, the 

Commenter contends that EPA may not 

approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP 

because it does not include enforceable 

1-hour emission limits for sources that 

the Commenter claims are currently 

contributing to NAAQS exceedances. 

The Commenter asserts that emission 

limits are especially important for 

meeting the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS because 

SO2 impacts are strongly source 

oriented. The Commenter states that 

‘‘[d]espite the large contribution from 

coal-fired EGUs [electricity generating 

units] to the State’s SO2 pollution, 

Florida’s I–SIP lacks enforceable 

emissions limitations applicable to its 

coal-fired EGUs sufficient to ensure the 

implementation, attainment, and 

maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.’’ 

The Commenter refers to air dispersion 

modeling it conducted for two power 

plants in Florida, the C.D. McIntosh, Jr. 

Power Plant and the Crist Electric 

Generating Plant, which are located 

outside of the State’s two nonattainment 

areas, and claims that ‘‘. . . the 

emission limitations relied on for 

implementation of the NAAQS in the I– 

SIP are insufficient to prevent 

exceedances of the NAAQS.’’ Further, 

the Commenter cites two court cases to 

support its statement that ‘‘. . . an 

agency may not ignore information put 

in front of it’’ and that thus, the 

Commenter contends that EPA must 

consider its expert air dispersion 

modeling submitted over the years 

which demonstrate the inadequacy of 

Florida’s rules and regulations for SO2

emissions.’’ The Commenter 

summarizes its modeling results for the 

C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant and the 

Crist Electric Generating Plant, stating 

that the data predict exceedances of the 

standard ‘‘over wide areas of the state.’’ 

Thus, the Commenter contends that 

Florida’s infrastructure submissions are 

‘‘substantially inadequate to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS which it 

implements as evidenced by expert air 

dispersion modeling demonstrating that 

the emission limits under the laws and 

regulations cited to in the SO2 I–SIP 

Certification allow for exceedances of 

the NAAQS.’’ Thus, the Commenter 

asserts that EPA must disapprove 

Florida’s SIP submissions, and must 

establish a FIP ‘‘which incorporates 

necessary and appropriate sourcespecific enforceable emission 

limitations (preferably informed by 

modeling) on C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power 

Plant and Crist Electric Generating 

Plant, as well as any other major sources 

of SO2 pollution in the State which are 

not presently located in nonattainment 

areas and have modeled exceedances of 

the NAAQS.’’ Further, the Commenter 

states that ‘‘For C.D. McIntosh and Crist, 

enforceable emission limitations must 

be at least as stringent as the modelingbased limits [provided by the 

Commenter] in order to protect the onehour SO2 NAAQS and implement, 

maintain, and enforce the standard in 

Florida.’’ 

Response 7: As stated previously, EPA 

believes that the proper inquiry is 

whether Florida has met the basic, 

structural SIP requirements appropriate 

at the point in time EPA is acting upon 

the infrastructure submissions. 

Emissions limitations and other control 

measures, whether on coal-fired EGUs 

or other SO2 sources, that may be 

needed to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS in areas designated 

nonattainment for that NAAQS are due 

on a different schedule from the section 

110 infrastructure SIP submission. A 

state, like Florida, may reference preexisting SIP emission limits or other 

rules contained in part D plans for 

previous NAAQS in an infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(A). For example, Florida 

submitted a list of existing emission 

reduction measures in the SIP that 

control emissions of SO2 as discussed 

above in response to a prior comment 

and discussed in the proposed 

rulemaking on Florida’s SO2

infrastructure SIP. These provisions 

have the ability to reduce SO2 overall. 

Although the Florida SIP relies on 

measures and programs used to 

implement previous SO2 NAAQS, these 

provisions are not limited to reducing 

SO2 levels to meet one specific NAAQS 

and will continue to provide benefits for 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

Regarding the air dispersion modeling 

conducted by the Commenter pursuant 

to AERMOD for the C.D. McIntosh, Jr. 

Power Plant and the Crist Electric 

Generating Plant, EPA is not in this 

action making a determination regarding 

the air quality status in the area where 

these EGUs are located, and is not 

evaluating whether emissions 

applicable to these EGUs are adequate to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS. 

Consequently, the EPA does not find the 

modeling information relevant for 

review of an infrastructure SIP for 

purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). When 

additional areas in Florida are 

designated under the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS, and if any additional areas in 

Florida are designated nonattainment in 

the future, any potential future 

modeling submitted by the State with 

designations or attainment 

demonstrations would need to account 

for any new emissions limitations 

Florida develops to support such 

designation or demonstration, which at 

this point is unknown. While EPA has 

extensively discussed the use of 

modeling for attainment demonstration 

purposes and for designations,9 EPA has 

recommended that such modeling was 

not needed for the SO2 infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS 

for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A), 

which are not actions in which EPA 

makes determinations regarding current 

air quality status. See April 12, 2012, 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
67184 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

10 Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour 

SO2 NAAQS, Draft White Paper for Discussion, May 

2012 (2012 Draft White Paper) and a sample April 

12, 2012, letter from EPA to states are available in 

the docket for this action. 

letters to states and 2012 Draft White 

Paper.10

In conclusion, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s statements that EPA must 

disapprove Florida’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions because it does not 

establish specific enforceable SO2

emission limits, either on coal-fired 

EGUs or other large SO2 sources, in 

order to demonstrate attainment and 

maintenance with the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS at this time. 

Comment 8: The Commenter alleges 

that the SO2 infrastructure SIP submittal 

does not address sources significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or 

interfering with maintenance of the 

2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in other states 

as required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

of the CAA, and asserts EPA must 

therefore disapprove the infrastructure 

SIP and impose a FIP. The Commenter 

states that ‘‘Florida’s reliance on a 2012 

EPA memorandum in which EPA stated 

that it did ‘not intend to make findings 

that states failed to submit SIPs to 

comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)’ is 

improper’’, and that such guidance 

contradicts the CAA. The Commenter 

notes that the Supreme Court 

disapproved the view that states cannot 

address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) until EPA 

resolves issues related to CSAPR and 

that compliance with this provision is a 

‘‘mandatory duty’’, citing to Homer City, 

696 F.3d 7, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev’d, 

No. 12–1182, slip op. at 27–28 (U.S. 

Apr. 29, 2014). The Commenter also 

highlights from Order on Petition No. 

VI–2014–04 at 10 (citing EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 

1601 (2014) that, ‘‘[T]he Supreme Court 

has affirmed that the EPA is not 

required to provide any implementation 

guidance before states’ interstate 

transport obligation can be addressed.’’ 

Response 8: This action does not 

address whether sources in Florida are 

significantly contributing to 

nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS in another state as required by 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA (the 

good neighbor provision). Thus, EPA 

disagrees with the Commenter’s 

statement that EPA must disapprove the 

submitted 2010 1-hour SO2

infrastructure SIP due to Florida’s 

failure to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking to approve Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS, EPA clearly stated that it 

was not taking any action with respect 

to the good neighbor provision in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Florida did not 

make a submission to address the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and 

thus there is no such submission upon 

which EPA proposed to take action on 

under section 110(k) of the CAA. 

Similarly, EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter’s assertion that EPA cannot 

approve other elements of an 

infrastructure SIP submission without 

the good neighbor provision. There is no 

basis for the contention that EPA has 

triggered its obligation to issue a FIP to 

address the good neighbor obligation 

under section 110(c), as EPA has neither 

found that Florida failed to timely 

submit a required 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 

submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS or found that such a 

submission was incomplete, nor has 

EPA disapproved a SIP submission 

addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect 

to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA acknowledges the Commenter’s 

concern for the interstate transport of air 

pollutants and agrees in general with 

the Commenter that sections 110(a)(1) 

and (a)(2) of the CAA generally require 

states to submit, within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, a plan which addresses crossstate air pollution under section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, EPA 

disagrees with the Commenter’s 

argument that EPA cannot approve an 

infrastructure SIP submission without 

the good neighbor provision. Section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA authorizes EPA to 

approve a plan in full, disapprove it in 

full, or approve it in part and 

disapprove it in part, depending on the 

extent to which such plan meets the 

requirements of the CAA. This authority 

to approve state SIP revisions in 

separable parts was included in the 

1990 Amendments to the CAA to 

overrule a decision in the Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding 

that EPA could not approve individual 

measures in a plan submission without 

either approving or disapproving the 

plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101– 

228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 

3408 (discussing the express overruling 

of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 

(9th Cir. 1987)). 

EPA interprets its authority under 

section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, as 

affording EPA the discretion to approve, 

or conditionally approve, individual 

elements of Florida’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS, separate and apart from any 

action with respect to the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA 

with respect to that NAAQS. EPA views 

discrete infrastructure SIP requirements, 

such as the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as severable from the 

other infrastructure elements and 

interprets section 110(k)(3) as allowing 

it to act on individual severable 

measures in a plan submission. In short, 

EPA believes that even if Florida had 

made a SIP submission for section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 

1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which to date it 

has not, EPA would still have discretion 

under section 110(k) of the CAA to act 

upon the various individual elements of 

the State’s infrastructure SIP 

submission, separately or together, as 

appropriate. 

The Commenter raises no compelling 

legal or environmental rationale for an 

alternate interpretation. Nothing in the 

Supreme Court’s April 2014 decision in 

EME Homer City alters EPA’s 

interpretation that EPA may act on 

individual severable measures, 

including the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in a SIP submission. 

See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (affirming a state’s 

obligation to submit a SIP revision 

addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

independent of EPA’s action finding 

significant contribution or interference 

with maintenance). In sum, the 

concerns raised by the Commenter do 

not establish that it is inappropriate or 

unreasonable for EPA to approve the 

portions of Florida’s infrastructure SIP 

submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 

EPA has no obligation at this time to 

issue a FIP pursuant to 110(c)(1) to 

address Florida’s obligations under 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA first 

either finds Florida failed to make a 

required submission addressing the 

element or the State has made such a 

submission but it is incomplete, or EPA 

disapproves a SIP submission 

addressing that element. Until either 

occurs, EPA does not have the 

obligation to issue a FIP pursuant to 

section 110(c) with respect to the good 

neighbor provision. Therefore, EPA 

disagrees with the Commenter’s 

contention that it must issue a FIP for 

Florida to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at this 

time. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

Florida’s infrastructure submissions 

submitted on June 3, 2013, and 

supplemented on January 8, 2014, for 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the 

above described infrastructure SIP 

requirements. EPA is taking final action 

to approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 190 / Friday, September 30, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 67185 

NAAQS because the submissions are 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 29, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See section 

307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: September 14, 2016. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart K—Florida 

■ 2. Section 52.520(e), is amended by 

adding the entry ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 

1-hour SO2 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State 

effective date 

EPA 

approval date 

Federal Register 

notice Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour Primary SO2

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

6/3/2013 9/30/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation].With the exception of section for provisions relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

(prongs 1 and 2) concerning interstate 

transport requirements. 

[FR Doc. 2016–23292 Filed 9–29–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES