### 51157 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. 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: August 10, 2015.

Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 2015–20769 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0423; FRL–9932–86– Region 4]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida;**  **Infrastructure Requirements for the**
**2010 Sulfur Dioxide 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) 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 proposal pertains to the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO 2) 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

SO 2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced,

and maintained in Florida. EPA is proposing to determine that 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 SO 2 NAAQS. **DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before September 23,

2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– OAR–2014–0423, by one of the following methods:

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.

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

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 0423,’’ 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.

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 0423. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be

made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless

the comment includes information

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your

name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or

viruses. For additional information about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http:// www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the

electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket

materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 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 the telephone number (404) 562–9031.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Overview II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)? III. What is EPA’s approach to the review of

infrastructure SIP submissions? IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how Florida

addressed the elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? V. Proposed Action VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Overview

On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary SO 2 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


### 51158 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / 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. Today’s 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 today’s proposed rulemaking. 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

SO 2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June

22, 2013. 1

Today’s action is proposing to approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP submissions for the applicable requirements of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. With respect 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 is not proposing any action at this time regarding these requirements. For the Florida submissions proposed for approval today, 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. In the

case of the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP

submissions in connection with earlier

versions of the SO 2 NAAQS.

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

submissions from Florida that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the

2010 1-hour SO 2 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 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


### 51159 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / 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 NOx 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. 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 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


### 51160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / 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. 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. 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 fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) 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 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


### 51161 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules

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). 18 On May 22, 2015, the EPA Administrator signed 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.’’ The prepublication version of this rule is available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/

emissions.html. 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 submissions address 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 SO 2 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 are adequate to protect the 2010 1-hour SO 2 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


### 51162 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules

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. 20 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)) can be found in EPA’s November 13, 2014 proposed rulemaking and March 18, 2015 final approval notices for these elements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008 lead NAAQS, and 2010 NO 2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP

submissions. See 79 FR 67398 and 80 FR 14019 respectively. For more information on the structural PSD program requirements that are relevant to

EPA’s review of infrastructure SIPs in connection

with the current PSD-related infrastructure SIP requirements, see the technical support document in the docket for today’s rulemaking. 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(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 agency’s ambient monitors and auxiliary support equipment. 19 On July 1, 2013, Florida submitted its plan for 2013 to EPA. On November 22, 2013, 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–0423. 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 2010 1-hour SO 2 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

2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS infrastructure

SIP submissions cited a number of SIP provisions to address these requirements. EPA’s rationale for itsproposed action regarding each subelement is described below. Specifically, FDEP cited Chapters 62– 204, 62–210, and 62–212, 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 2010 1-hour SO 2 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

SO 2 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 2010 1-hour

SO 2 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

submissions demonstrate 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 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 2010 1-

hour SO 2 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 2010 1-hour

SO 2 NAAQS.


### 51163 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules

21 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. 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) because Florida’s 2010

1-hour SO 2 NAAQS infrastructure submissions did not address prongs 1

and 2.

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 2010 1-hour

SO 2 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. EPA approved Florida’s regional haze SIP. 21 Florida’s supplemental submission on January 8, 2014, 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 2010 1-

hour SO 2 NAAQS. 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 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. 24 Thus, EPA has made the preliminary

determination that Florida’s

infrastructure SIP submissions for the

2010 1-hour SO 2 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 2010 1-hour SO 2 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 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(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. 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


### 51164 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules

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

evidence or information relevant’’ to demonstrate 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. 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 February 28, 2014, outlining 105 grant

commitments and current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2013. The

letter EPA submitted to FDEP can be

accessed at www.regulations.gov using
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014– 0423. 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 2013, therefore, FDEP’s grants were finalized and closed out. In addition, the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when EPA performs a completeness determination for each

SIP submittal. This determination ensures that each submittal provides evidence that adequate 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 for implementation of the

2010 1-hour SO 2 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. On July 30, 2012, EPA approved 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 SO 2 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 SO 2 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

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—NO X , SO 2 , 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 2010 1-hour SO 2 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


### 51165 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules

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

2010 1-hour SO 2 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. Florida has two nonattainment

areas for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS
for which the State must submit a SIP demonstrating future attainment and maintenance for these areas by April 4,

2015. See 78 FR 47191 (August 5, 2013).

One of the nonattainment areas encompasses a portion of Nassau County and the other area encompasses a portion of Hillsborough County. The State submitted the required SIPs for the Nassau County and Hillsborough County SO 2 nonattainment areas on April 3, 2015.

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 2010 1-hour SO 2 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 2010

1-hour SO 2 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): 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 Federal Land Managers), 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. These consultation procedures were developed in coordination with the transportation partners in the State and are consistent with the approaches used for development of mobile inventories for SIPs. 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 2010 1-hour SO 2 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 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. 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 interstate transport for PSD permitting of major sources and major

modifications related to the 2010 1-hour

SO 2 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 it does not need to address the visibility


### 51166 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules

protection element of section 110(a)(2)(J) in Florida’s infrastructure

SIP submissions related to the 2010 1-

hour SO 2 NAAQS.

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 SO 2 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 also

demonstrate that Florida has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 2010 1-hour

SO 2 NAAQS. Additionally, Florida supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including

the 2010 1-hour SO 2 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 2010 1-

hour SO 2 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. EPA has made the preliminary

determination that Florida’s State rules and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to the 2010 1-

hour SO 2 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:

Florida coordinates with local governments affected by the SIP. Florida’s SIP also 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 Federal Land Managers 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 state-wide 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 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

2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS when

necessary.
V. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s

infrastructure submissions submitted on June 3, 2013, and supplemented on January 8, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS for the above described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s

infrastructure SIP submissions for the

2010 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS because the

submissions are 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:


### 51167 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules

• 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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: August 12, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 2015–20748 Filed 8–21–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**

**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0440; FRL–9932–88– Region 4]** 

**Air Plan Approval; North Carolina;**

**Conflict of Interest Infrastructure Requirements** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve

revisions to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality (DAQ), on February 5, 2013, and supplemented on July 27, 2015. The submissions pertain to conflict of interest requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and were submitted to satisfy the

infrastructure SIP sub-element related to the State board for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2) NAAQS, 2008 8- hour Ozone NAAQS and 2008 Lead NAAQS. The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as an ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP,

which includes conflict of interest requirements. EPA is proposing to approve the portions of North Carolina’s

2010 NO 2 infrastructure SIP, 2010 SO 2 infrastructure SIP, 2008 8-hour ozone infrastructure SIP, and 2008 Lead infrastructure SIP as meeting these State board requirements. EPA is also proposing to convert conditional approvals related to the State board for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and the

1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS to full approval under the CAA. EPA notes that all other applicable North

Carolina infrastructure SIP elements for the above listed NAAQS have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before September 23,

2015. **ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2015–0440, by one of the following methods:

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.

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

3. Fax: 404–562–9019.

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0440’’ 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.

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2015– 0440’’. EPA’s policy is that all

comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless

the comment includes information

claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your

name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of