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

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 (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 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 SO2

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 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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, some 

of 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. 

2Two 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). 

3This rulemaking only addresses requirements 

for this element as they relate to attainment areas. 

4As 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 

SO2 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 SO2

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 SO2 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 SO2 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 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. 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51159 

5For 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. 

6See, 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)). 

7EPA 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. 

8See, 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 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 

4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

9On 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. 

10For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51160 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

11EPA 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. 

13EPA’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. 

14By 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 developed 

this 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51161 

15For 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). 

16EPA 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). 

17See, 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). 

18On 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 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. 

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 SO2 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51162 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

19On occasion, proposed changes to the 

monitoring network are evaluated outside of the 

network plan approval process in accordance with 

40 CFR part 58. 

20More 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 NO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 NAAQS infrastructure 

SIP submissions cited a number of SIP 

provisions to address these 

requirements. EPA’s rationale for its 

proposed 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 SO2 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 

SO2 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 permitting 

program 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 

SO2 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 SO2 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 

SO2 NAAQS. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51163 

21See 77 FR 71111 (November 29, 2012); 78 FR 

53250 (August 29, 2013). 

22See 40 CFR 51.308(d). 

23See, 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. 

24See 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 (PM2.5) 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 SO2 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 

SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 NAAQS.24 Thus, 

EPA has made the preliminary 

determination that Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 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 SO2

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 as 

meeting 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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—NOX, SO2, 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 SO2 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51165 

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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 

SO2 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 SO2 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 SO2 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 

SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2

NAAQS for the above described 

infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is 

proposing to approve Florida’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 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: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 163 / Monday, August 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 51167 

• 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 (NO2) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 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 NO2 infrastructure SIP, 2010 SO2

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 

(PM2.5) and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS