### 47094 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Unfunded Mandates

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private

sector.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

There are no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs numbers and titles associated with this proposed
rule.

Signing Authority

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, to sign and submit the
document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 14, 2016 for publication.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 14

Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Courts, Foreign relations, Government employees, Lawyers, Legal services, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Trusts and
trustees, Veterans.

Dated: July 14, 2016.
Janet J. Coleman,
Chief, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part
14 as follows:

**PART 14—LEGAL SERVICES, GENERAL COUNSEL, AND** 
**MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 14
continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 2671– 2680; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 512, 515, 5502, 5901– 5905; 28 CFR part 14, appendix to part 14,

unless otherwise noted.

■ 2. Amend § 14.627 by adding paragraph (r) to read as follows: **§ 14.627 Definitions.**

* * * * *

(r) Tribal government means the Federally recognized governing body of any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or Regional or Village Corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because
of their status as Indians.

* * * * *

■ 3. Amend § 14.628 by:

■ a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (b)(1) and adding paragraph (b)(2); and

■ b. In the parenthetical at the end of the section, removing ‘‘2900–0439’’ and adding, in its place, 2900–XXXX’’.

The addition reads as follows:

**§ 14.628 Recognition of organizations.**

* * * * *

(b)(1) State organization. * * *

(2) Tribal organization. For the purposes of 38 CFR 14.626 through 14.637, an organization that is a legally established organization that is primarily funded and controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by one or more tribal governments and that has a primary purpose of serving the needs of Native American veterans. Only one tribal organization may be recognized for each tribal government. If a tribal organization is created and funded by more than one tgovernment, the approval of each tribal government must be obtained prior to applying for VA recognition. If one of the supporting tribal governments withdraws from the tribal organization, the tribal organization must notify VA of the withdrawal and certify that the tribal organization continues to meet the recognition requirements in paragraph (d) of this section.

* * * * *

**§ 14.629 [Amended]**

■ 4. Amend § 14.629 by:

■ a. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text, removing ‘‘county veteran’s service officer’’ and adding in its place ‘‘county veterans’ service officer’’;

■ b. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text, adding ‘‘or tribal veterans’ service officer’’ immediately following ‘‘county veterans’ service officer’’; and

■ c. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), adding ‘‘or tribal government’’ immediately following ‘‘county’’. **§ 14.635 [Amended]**

■ 5. Amend § 14.635 by adding, in the introductory paragraph, ‘‘or tribal’’ immediately following ‘‘State’’.

[FR Doc. 2016–17052 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 8320–01–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0507; FRL–9949–30– Region 4]** 

**Air Plan Approval; Florida; Infrastructure Requirements for the**  **2010 Nitrogen 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) submission, submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), on January 22, 2013, 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 nitrogen dioxide (NO 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

NO 2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced,
and maintained in Florida. With the exception of provisions pertaining to the ambient air quality monitoring and data system, prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting and interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states, EPA is proposing to find that Florida’s infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on January 22, 2013, satisfies certain required infrastructure elements
for the 2010 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS.

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before August 19, 2016.

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

OAR–2014–0507 at http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be


### 47095 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules

1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions States generally certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes, someof which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term

‘‘Florida Administrative Code’’ or ‘‘F.A.C.’’ indicates that the cited regulation has been approved into Florida’s federally-approved SIP. The

term ‘‘Florida statute’’ or ‘‘F.S.’’ 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 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. edited or removed from Regulations.gov

. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. , on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Richard Wong, 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. Mr. Wong
can be reached via electronic mail at wong.richard@epa.gov or via telephone at (404) 562–8726.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
I. Background and Overview

On February 9, 2010, EPA published a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO 2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1- hour daily maximum concentrations.

See 75 FR 6474. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit
such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January

22, 2013. 1 In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP submission for the applicable requirements of the 2010 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS, with the exception of the ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B), the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) and the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the
contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in other states of prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). On March 18, 2015, EPA approved Florida’s January 22, 2013 infrastructure SIP submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) for the 2010 1-
hour NO 2 NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. Therefore, EPA is not proposing any action today pertaining to sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J). Additionally, EPA is not proposing action related to the ambient air quality monitoring and data system of section 110(a)(2)(B) and prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA will act on these provisions in a separate action. For the aspects of Florida’s submittal 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 NO 2 NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP
submissions in connection with previous 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 SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed
to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking are listed 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 (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 PSD and Visibility

Protection


### 47096 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules

5 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

6 See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;

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

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

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

for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS. 8 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM 2.5 NSR rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS).

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

submittal. • 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling

and Submission of Modeling Data

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and

Participation by Affected Local

Entities

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

EPA is acting upon the SIP
submission from Florida that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the

2010 NO 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 permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

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

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

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

Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS.
The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore


### 47097 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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. 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. 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 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 NSR pollutants, including GHGs. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM 2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA
considers irrelevant in the context of an
infrastructure SIP action.

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA’s review of a state’s
infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state’s implementation plan 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 new source review 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


### 47098 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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

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

16 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

17 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director’s discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions). 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 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 implementation plan 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?

Below is a discussion of the Florida submission organized by each of the sub-elements found in sections 110(a)(1) and (2).

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. There are several regulations within Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) relevant to air quality control regulations which
include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures. Chapters 62–204, F.A.C., Air Pollution Control Provisions; 62–210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—General Requirements; 62–212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—Preconstruction Review; 62–296, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—Emissions Standards; and 62–

297, F.A.C., Stationary Sources— Emissions Monitoring, establish
emission limits for NO 2 and address the


### 47099 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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

See 80 FR 33840. 19 See 77 FR 71111 (November 29, 2012); 78 FR 53250 (August 29, 2013).

20 See 40 CFR 51.308(d). required control measures, means and techniques for compliance with the
2010 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS respectively. 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 chapters satisfy section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2010 1-hour

NO 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) of 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 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: With respect to
Florida’s infrastructure SIP submission related to the ambient air quality monitoring and data system, EPA is not proposing any action today regarding these requirements and instead will act on this portion of the submission in a separate action.

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). As discussed further below, in this action EPA is only proposing to approve the enforcement and the regulation of minor
sources and minor modifications aspects of Florida’s section 110(a)(2)(C)
infrastructure SIP submission.

Enforcement: Florida cites to Section 403.061(6), Florida Statutes, which 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 NO 2 emission limits and control measures.

Preconstruction PSD Permitting for Major Sources: With respect to Florida’s January 22, 2013, infrastructure SIP
submission related to the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA took final action to approve these provisions for
the 2010 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS on March

18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019.

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 NO 2 NAAQS. FDEP’s SIPapproved rule Chapters 62–204, F.A.C., Air Pollution Control Provisions, 62– 210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources— General Requirements, 62–212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—Preconstruction

Review apply to minor sources and minor modifications as well as major stationary sources and modifications.

EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Florida’s SIP is adequate for program enforcement of control measures and regulation of
minor sources and modifications related
to the 2010 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS.

4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate pollution transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components have 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 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 NO 2 NAAQS infrastructure submission did not address prongs 1
and 2.

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With respect to Florida’s infrastructure SIP
submission related to the interstate transport requirements for PSD of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3), EPA took final action to approve Florida’s January 22, 2013, infrastructure SIP submission regarding prong 3 of D(i) for
the 2010 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS on March

18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019.

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. In its submittal, Florida cited to EPA’s proposed approval of the State’s regional haze SIP, which EPA fully approved. 19 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. 20 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


### 47100 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules

21 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.

22 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. process. 21 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

NO 2 NAAQS. 22 Thus, EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s
infrastructure SIP submission for the
2010 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS meets 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, F.A.C., Air Pollution
Control Provisions ; 62–210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—General Requirements, and 62–212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—Preconstruction

Review of the Florida SIP outlines how Florida will notify neighboring states of potential impacts from new or modified sources. EPA is unaware of any pending obligations for the State of Florida pursuant to sections 115 or 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Florida’s SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international pollution abatement for
the 2010 1-hour NO 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 SIP as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E). EPA’s rationale for today’s proposal respecting each requirement of section 110(a)(2)(E) is
described in turn below.

In support of EPA’s proposal to approve sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), FDEP’s infrastructure submission demonstrates that FDEP is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards, general policies, a system of permits,
and 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 403.061(35), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to exercise the duties, powers, and responsibilities required of
the state under the federal CAA. Section 403.182, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to approve local pollution control programs, and provides for the State air pollution control program administered by FDEP to supersede a local program if FDEP determines that an approved local program is inadequate and the locality fails to take the necessary corrective actions. Section 320.03(6), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to
establish an Air Pollution Control Trust Fund and use a $1 fee on every motor vehicle license registration sold in the State for air pollution control purposes. As evidence of the adequacy of FDEP’s resources, EPA submitted a letter to Florida on April 19, 2016, outlining section 105 grant commitments and the
current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2015. The letter EPA
submitted to Florida can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID

No. EPA–R04–OAR–2014–0507. Annually, states update these grant
commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. Florida satisfactorily met all commitments agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year 2013, therefore Florida’s grants were finalized. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida has adequate resources and authority for implementation of the 2010 1-hour NO 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. Appeals of final administrative orders and permits are available only through the judicial appellate process described at Florida
Statute 120.68, F.S., Judicial review. 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.

Regarding section 128(a)(2), on July 30, 2012, EPA approved Florida statutes into the SIP to comply with section 128 respecting state boards. See 77 FR 44485. Specifically, the following provisions of Florida Statutes, 112.3143(4), F.S., Voting conflicts and
112.3144, F.S, Full and public disclosure of financial interests were incorporated into the SIP to satisfy the conflict of interest provisions applicable to the head of FDEP and all public officers within the Department. 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 submission 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)


### 47101 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules

23 ‘‘ 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. 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 submission
describes 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
submission also describes 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 NO 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 NO 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. 23 Additionally, Florida is required to
submit emissions data to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA’s central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The
AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year
to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA’s online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and the precursors that form them—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Florida made its latest update to the NEI on November 5, 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 NO 2 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).

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 submission identifies air pollution emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies as outlined in Florida Statutes 403.131, Injunctive relief, remedies, and 120.569(2)(n), Decisions which affect substantial

interests. Section 403.131 authorizes FDEP to enforce compliance with any rule, regulation or permit, order, to enjoin any violation specified in Section 403.061(1) or Florida Statutes. Section 403.061(1) authorizes 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) authorizes FDEP to issue emergency orders to address immediate dangers to public health, safety or welfare. These
statutes were submitted for inclusion into the SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA and were approved by EPA on July 30, 2012.

See 77 FR 44485. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP and practices are adequate for emergency powers related to the 2010
1-hour NO 2 NAAQS.

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. FDEP is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as
needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS in Florida. Florida Statutes subsection 403.061(35) grants FDEP the broad authority to implement the CAA; also, subsection 403.061(9), F.S., authorizes FDEP to adopt 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. FDEP 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 does not have any
nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-hour

NO 2 NAAQS but has made an
infrastructure submission for this standard, which is the subject of this rulemaking. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP and practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to provide
future SIP revisions related to the 2010
1-hour NO 2 NAAQS when necessary.

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 submission
for the 2010 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that provides for meeting the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127; and visibility protection requirements of


### 47102 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules

24 Title V program regulations are federallyapproved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. part C of the Act. With respect to
Florida’s infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction PSD permitting requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J), EPA took final action to approve Florida’s January 22, 2013,
2010 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP for theses requirements on March

18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019. EPA’s rationale for its proposed action regarding applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, and visibility protection requirements is
described below.

Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments, designated organizations and federal land managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant
to section 121 relative to consultation. Chapters 62–204, F.A.C., Air Pollution Control Provisions, 62–210, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—General Requirements and 62–212, F.A.C., Stationary Sources—Preconstruction Review, as well as Florida’s Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which
allows for consultation between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the corresponding FLMs), provide for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development activities. Florida adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity. Implementation of transportation conformity as outlined in the consultation procedures requires FDEP to consult with federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the development of motor vehicle emissions budgets for the SIP. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Florida’s SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials
related to the 2010 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS when necessary.

Public notification (127 public notification): Section 403.061(21),
Florida Statutes authorizes FDEP to advise, consult cooperate, and enter into agreements with other entities affected by the provisions of this act, rules, or policies of the department. Section 403.061(20) Florida Statues authorizes
FDEP to collect and disseminate information relating to pollution. FDEP has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of NO 2 and other pollutant forecasting, including an air quality monitoring Web site providing alerts, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/ air

_quality/countyaqi.htm. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida’s SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State’s ability to provide public notification
related to the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS when

necessary.

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 the visibility protection element of section 110(a)(2)(J) is approvable and that Florida does not need to rely on its regional haze program for this element.

11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality modeling and submission of modeling data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of emissions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and
submission of such data to the EPA can be made. Chapter 62–204.800, F.A.C., Federal Regulations Adopted by Reference, incorporates by reference 40 CFR 52.21(l), which specifies that air modeling be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models.’’ Chapters 62–210 and 62–212 require use of EPA approved modeling related to

NO 2 concentrations in ambient air. Florida Statute 403.061(13) authorizes FDEP to require persons to file reports which may contain information used for modeling and 403.061(18) authorizes FDEP to encourage and conduct studies related to pollution. FDEP has the technical capability to conduct or review all air quality modeling associated with the NSR program and SIP related modeling, except photo chemical grid modeling which is contracted out. Additionally, Florida supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for NO X , which includes NO 2. Taken as a whole, Florida’s air quality regulations and statutes demonstrate that FDEP has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS. 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 NO 2 NAAQS when necessary.

12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: This element necessitates that the SIP require 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.

Funding for review of PSD and NNSR permits comes from a processing fee, submitted by permit applicants, required by paragraph 403.087(6)(a) of
the Florida Statute.

These regulations demonstrate that Florida has the authority to provide
FDEP ensures this is sufficient for the reasonable cost of reviewing and acting upon PSD and NNSR permits. Additionally, Florida has a fully approved title V operating permit program at Chapter 62–213.300 F.A.C. 24 that covers the cost of implementation
and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have been issued. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Florida’s SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees related to the 2010 NO 2 NAAQS, when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).

13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation and participation by affected local entities: This element requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Florida statute 403.061(21) authorizes FDEP to ‘‘[a]dvise, consult, cooperate and enter into agreements with other agencies of


### 47103 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Proposed Rules

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.’’ Furthermore, FDEP has demonstrated consultation with, and participation by, affected local entities through its work with local political subdivisions during the developing of its Transportation Conformity SIP and Regional Haze Implementation Plan. 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

NO 2 NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

With the exception of the elements related to the ambient air quality monitoring and data system of section 110(a)(2)(B), the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J), and the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the
contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in other states of prongs 1 and 2 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s January 22, 2013, SIP submission to incorporate provisions
into the Florida SIP to address infrastructure requirements for the 2010
1-hour NO 2 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve portions of Florida’s
infrastructure submission for the 2010
1-hour NO 2 NAAQS because this
submission is consistent with section
110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

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

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

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

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);

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

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

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

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

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

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: July 8, 2016.

Heather McTeer Toney,

Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 2016–17055 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am]

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

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R10–OAR–2016–0133, FRL–9949–33– Region 10]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska:**  **Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and 2010 Sulfur** 
**Dioxide Standards**

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

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  Whenever a new or revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is promulgated, states must submit a plan for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of such standard, commonly referred to as infrastructure requirements. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the May 12, 2015 Alaska State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission as meeting the infrastructure requirements for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) NAAQS.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2016.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2016–0133, at http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from http:// www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment
is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets.

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