[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34405-34406]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15237]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4421-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Iowa; Amendment No. 12 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4421-DR), dated March 23, 2019, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 2, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
March 23, 2019.

Floyd, Keokuk, and Wapello Counties for Public Assistance

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-15237 Filed 7-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67179-67185]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23292]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0423; FRL-9953-18-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Florida; Infrastructure Requirements for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions,
submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), on June 3, 2013, and supplemented on
January 8, 2014, for inclusion into the Florida SIP. This final action
pertains to the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP submission.'' FDEP certified
that the Florida SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in
Florida. EPA has determined that the Florida's infrastructure SIP
submissions, provided to EPA on June 3, 2013, and supplemented on
January 8, 2014, satisfy the required infrastructure elements for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule is effective October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0423. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Overview

    On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010), EPA promulgated a
revised primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts
per billion (ppb) based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. Pursuant to section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as
EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic
SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program
requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2,
2013.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In the proposed action, EPA incorrectly cited a date of June
22, 2013, for the due date of infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS. 80 FR 51158 (August 24, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Florida that address
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The requirement for states to
make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1).
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions
``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air
quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions
are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement''
of such NAAQS.
    In a proposed rulemaking published on August 24, 2015, EPA proposed
to approve Florida's June 3, 2013, and January 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submissions.\2\ See 80 FR
51157. The details of Florida's submissions and the rationale for EPA's
actions are explained in the proposed rulemaking. Comments on the
proposed rulemaking were due on or before September 23, 2015. EPA
received adverse comments on the proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Florida's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure
SIP submission dated June 3, 2013, and supplemented on January 8,
2014, are also collectively referred to as ``Florida's
SO2 infrastructure SIP'' in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received one set of comments on the August 24, 2015, proposed
rulemaking to approve Florida's 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submissions intended to meet the CAA requirements
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. A summary of the comments and
EPA's responses are provided below.\3\ A full set of these comments is
provided in the docket for today's final rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's responses to these comments are consistent with
actions taken on 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS infrastructure SIP
submissions for Virginia (80 FR 11557, March 4, 2015) at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-04/pdf/2015-04377.pdf and West
Virginia (79 FR 62022, October 16, 2014) at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-0-16/pdf/2014-24658.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Comments on Infrastructure SIP Requirements for Enforceable Emission
Limits

1. The Plain Language of the CAA
    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that the plain language of
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA requires the inclusion of enforceable
emission limits in an infrastructure SIP to prevent NAAQS exceedances
in areas not designated nonattainment. In support, the Commenter quotes
the language in section 110(a)(1) that requires states to adopt a plan
for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS and the
language in section 110(a)(2)(A) that requires SIPs to include
enforceable emissions limitations as well as schedules and timetables
for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of the CAA.

The Commenter then states that applicable requirements of the CAA
include requirements for the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS,
and that CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires infrastructure SIPs to
include enforceable emission limits to prevent exceedances of the
NAAQS. The Commenter claims that Florida's SIP submission does not meet
this asserted requirement. Thus, the Commenter asserts that EPA must
disapprove Florida's proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP
submission because it fails to include enforceable emission limitations
necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS as required
by CAA section 110(a)(2)(A). The Commenter then contends that the
Florida 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP submission fails
to comport with CAA requirements for SIPs to establish enforceable
emission limits that are adequate to prohibit NAAQS exceedances in
areas not designated nonattainment.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees that section 110 must be interpreted in
the manner suggested by the Commenter in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions. Section 110 is only one provision that is part of the
complicated structure governing implementation of the NAAQS program
under the CAA, as amended in 1990, and it must be interpreted in the
context of not only that structure, but also of the historical
evolution of that structure. In light of the revisions to section 110
since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more specific SIP planning
requirements of the CAA, EPA interprets the requirement in section
110(a)(1) that the plan provide for ``implementation, maintenance and
enforcement'' in conjunction with the requirements in section
110(a)(2)(A) to mean that the infrastructure SIP must contain
enforceable emission limits that will aid in attaining and/or
maintaining the NAAQS and that the state demonstrate that it has the
necessary tools to implement and enforce a NAAQS, such as adequate
state personnel and an enforcement program.
    With regard to the requirement for emission limitations in section
110(a)(2)(A), EPA has interpreted this to mean, for purposes of
infrastructure SIP submissions, that the state may rely on measures
already in place to address the pollutant at issue or any new control
measures that the state may elect to impose as part of such SIP
submission. As EPA stated in ``Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' dated September 13, 2013, (Infrastructure
SIP Guidance), ``[t]he conceptual purpose of an infrastructure SIP
submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP contains the
necessary structural requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, whether
by establishing that the SIP already contains the necessary provisions,
by making a substantive SIP revision to update the SIP, or both.
Overall, the infrastructure SIP submission process provides an
opportunity . . . to review the basic structural requirements of the
air agency's air quality management program in light of each new or
revised NAAQS.'' Infrastructure SIP Guidance at pp. 1-2. Florida
appropriately demonstrated that its SIP has SO2 emissions
limitations and the ``structural requirements'' to implement the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in its infrastructure SIP submission.
    The Commenter makes general allegations that Florida does not have
sufficient protective measures to prevent SO2 NAAQS
exceedances. EPA addressed the adequacy of Florida's infrastructure SIP
for 110(a)(2)(A) purposes in the proposed rule and explained why the
SIP includes enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures that aid in maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
throughout the State. These include State regulations which
collectively establish enforceable emissions limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques for activities that contribute to
SO2 concentrations in the ambient air, and provide authority
for FDEP to establish such limits and measures as well as schedules for
compliance through SIP-approved permits to meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA. See 80 FR 51161. EPA finds these provisions
adequately address section 110(a)(2)(A) to aid in attaining and/or
maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and finds Florida
demonstrated that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
2. The Legislative History of the CAA
    Comment 2: The Commenter cites two excerpts from the legislative
history of the 1970 CAA and claims that the ``legislative history of
infrastructure SIPs provides that states must include enforceable
emission limits in their infrastructure SIPs sufficient to ensure the
implementation, maintenance, and attainment of each NAAQS in all areas
of the State.''
    Response 2: As provided in the previous response, the CAA, as
enacted in 1970, including its legislative history, cannot be
interpreted in isolation from the later amendments that refined that
structure and deleted relevant language from section 110 concerning
attainment. In any event, the two excerpts of legislative history the
Commenter cites merely provide that states should include enforceable
emission limits in their SIPs and they do not mention or otherwise
address whether states are required to impose additional emission
limitations or control measures as part of the infrastructure SIP
submission, as opposed to requirements for other types of SIP
submissions such as attainment plans required under section
110(a)(2)(I). As provided in Response 1, the proposed rule explains why
the SIP includes sufficient enforceable emissions limitations for
purposes of the infrastructure SIP submission.
3. Case Law
    Comment 3: The Commenter also discusses several court decisions
concerning the CAA, which the Commenter claims support its contention
that courts have been clear that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
enforceable emissions limits in infrastructure SIP submissions to
prevent violations of the NAAQS. The Commenter first cites to language
in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), addressing the requirement
for ``emission limitations'' and stating that emission limitations
``are the specific rules to which operators of pollution sources are
subject, and which if enforced should result in ambient air which meets
the national standards.'' The Commenter also cites to Pennsylvania
Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for
the proposition that the CAA directs EPA to withhold approval of a SIP
where it does not ensure maintenance of the NAAQS, and to Mission
Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), which
quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA of 1970. The Commenter contends
that the 1990 Amendments do not alter how courts have interpreted the
requirements of section 110, quoting Alaska Dept. of Envtl.
Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in turn quoted
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also stated that ``SIPs must
include certain measures Congress specified'' to ensure attainment of
the NAAQS. The Commenter also quotes several additional opinions in
this vein. Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th
Cir. 2012) (``[t]he Clean Air Act directs states to develop
implementation plans--SIPs--that `assure' attainment and maintenance of
[NAAQS] through enforceable emissions limitations''); Mich. Dept. of
Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000) (``EPA's
deference to a state is conditioned on the state's submission

of a plan `which satisfies the standards of Sec.  110(a)(2)' and which
includes emission limitations that result in compliance with the
NAAQS''; and Hall v. EPA 273 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) for the
proposition that EPA may not approve a SIP revision that does not
demonstrate how the rules would not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response 3: None of the cases the Commenter cites support the
Commenter's contention that it is clear that section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires infrastructure SIP submissions to include detailed plans
providing for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of
the state, nor do they shed light on how EPA may reasonably interpret
section 110(a)(2)(A). With the exception of Train, none of the cases
the Commenter cites specifically concerned the interpretation of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 Act).
Rather, the other courts referenced section 110(a)(2)(A) (or section
110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the background section of
decisions in the context of a challenge to an EPA action on revisions
to a SIP that was required and approved as meeting other provisions of
the CAA or in the context of an enforcement action.
    In Train, 421 U.S. 60, the Court was addressing a state revision to
an attainment plan submission made pursuant to section 110 of the CAA,
the primary statutory provision at that time addressing such
submissions. The issue in that case concerned whether changes to
requirements that would occur before attainment was required were
variances that should be addressed pursuant to the provision governing
SIP revisions or were ``postponements'' that must be addressed under
section 110(f) of the CAA of 1970, which contained prescriptive
criteria. The Court concluded that EPA reasonably interpreted section
110(f) not to restrict a state's choice of the mix of control measures
needed to attain the NAAQS, so long as the state met other applicable
requirements of the CAA, and that revisions to SIPs that would not
impact attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment date were not subject
to the limits of section 110(f). Thus the issue was not whether the
specific SIP at issue needs to provide for attainment or whether
emissions limits are needed as part of the SIP; rather the issue was
which statutory provision governed when the state wanted to revise the
emission limits in its SIP if such revision would not impact attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources was also
decided based on a pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was whether
EPA properly rejected a revision to an approved SIP where the
inventories relied on by the state for the updated submission had gaps.
The Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of
EPA's disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that
provision. This decision did not address the question at issue in this
action, i.e., what a state must include in an infrastructure SIP
submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). Yet, even if the Court
had interpreted that provision, EPA notes that it was modified by
Congress in 1990; thus, this decision has little bearing on the issue
here.
    At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 F.2d 123, was the definition of
``emissions limitation'' not whether section 110 requires the state to
demonstrate how all areas of the state will attain and maintain the
NAAQS as part of their infrastructure SIPs. The language from the
opinion the Commenter quotes does not interpret but rather merely
describes section 110(a)(2)(A). The Commenter does not cite to this
case to assert that the measures relied on by the state in the
infrastructure SIP are not ``emissions limitations'' and the decision
in this case has no bearing here. In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666
F.3d 1174, the Court was reviewing a Federal implementation plan (FIP)
that EPA promulgated after a long history of the State failing to
submit an adequate SIP in response to EPA's finding under section
110(k)(5) that the previously approved SIP was substantially inadequate
to attain or maintain the NAAQS, which triggered the State's duty to
submit a new SIP to show how it would remedy that deficiency and attain
the NAAQS. The Court cited generally to sections 107 and 110(a)(2)(A)
of the CAA for the proposition that SIPs should assure attainment and
maintenance of NAAQS through emission limitations, but this language
was not part of the Court's holding in the case, which focused instead
on whether EPA's finding of SIP inadequacy and adoption of a remedial
FIP were lawful. The Commenter suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl.
Conservation, 540 U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that the 1990
CAA Amendments do not alter how courts interpret section 110. This
claim is inaccurate. Rather, the Court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A),
which, as noted previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that
provision and the court makes no mention of the changed language.
Furthermore, the Commenter also quotes the Court's statement that
``SIPs must include certain measures Congress specified,'' but that
statement specifically referenced the requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C), which requires an enforcement program and a program for
the regulation of the modification and construction of new sources.
Notably, at issue in that case was the State's ``new source''
permitting program, not what is required for purposes of an
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A).
    Two of the cases the Commenter cites, Mich. Dept. of Envtl.
Quality, 230 F.3d 185, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret CAA section
110(l), the provision governing ``revisions'' to plans. Neither case,
however, addressed the question at issue here, i.e, what states are
required to address for purposes of an infrastructure SIP submission
for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). In those cases, the courts cited
to section 110(a)(2)(A) solely for the purpose of providing a brief
background of the CAA.
    EPA does not believe any of these court decisions addressed
required measures for infrastructure SIPs and believes nothing in the
opinions addressed whether infrastructure SIP submissions must contain
emission limitations or measures to ensure attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS.
4. EPA Regulations, Such as 40 CFR 51.112(a)
    Comment 4: The Commenter cites to 40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that
``Each plan must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations
contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and
maintenance of the national standard that it implements.'' The
Commenter relies on a statement in the preamble to the 1986 action
restructuring and consolidating provisions in part 51, in which EPA
stated that ``[i]t is beyond the scope of th[is] rulemaking to address
the provisions of Part D of the Act . . .'' 51 FR 40656. Thus, the
Commenter contends that ``the provisions of 40 CFR 51.112 are not
limited to nonattainment SIPs; the regulation instead applies to
Infrastructure SIPs, which are required to attain and maintain the
NAAQS in all areas of a state, including those not designated
nonattainment.''
    Response 4: The Commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support
its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits
which ensure

attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS is incorrect. It is clear on
its face that 40 CFR 51.112 directly applies to state SIP submissions
for control strategy SIPs, i.e., plans that are specifically required
to attain and/or maintain the NAAQS. These regulatory requirements
apply when states are developing ``control strategy'' SIPs under other
provisions of the CAA, such as attainment plans required for the
various NAAQS in Part D and maintenance plans required in section 175A.
The Commenter's suggestion that 40 CFR 51.112 must apply to all SIP
submissions required by section 110 based on the preamble to EPA's
action ``restructuring and consolidating'' provisions in part 51, is
also incorrect.\4\ EPA's action in 1986 was not to establish new
substantive planning requirements, but rather was meant merely to
consolidate and restructure provisions that had previously been
promulgated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ EPA noted that it had already issued guidance addressing the
new ``Part D'' attainment planning obligations. Also, as to
maintenance regulations, EPA expressly stated that it was not making
any revisions other than to re-number those provisions. See 51 FR
40657.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements
interpreting the provisions of new ``Part D'' of the CAA, it is clear
that the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended
to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated
that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (``Control strategy:
SOX and PM (portion)''), 51.14 (``Control strategy: CO, HC,
OX and NO2 (portion)''), 51.80 (``Demonstration
of attainment: Pb (portion)''), and 51.82 (``Air quality data
(portion)''). Id. at 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112
contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy
SIPs, and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan.
5. EPA Interpretations in Other Rulemakings
    Comment 5: The Commenter also references a 2006 partial approval
and partial disapproval of revisions to Missouri's existing plan
addressing the SO2 NAAQS and claims it was an action in
which EPA relied on section 110(a)(2)(A) and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject an
infrastructure SIP. Specifically, the Commenter asserts that in that
action, EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A) as a basis for disapproving a
revision to the State plan on the basis that the State failed to
demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance
of the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an emission limit and
cited to 40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that a plan demonstrates the rules
in a SIP are adequate to attain the SO2 NAAQS.
    Response 5: EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval of
revisions to restrictions on emissions of sulfur compounds for the
Missouri SIP in 71 FR 12623 specifically addressed Missouri's
attainment SIP submission--not Missouri's infrastructure SIP
submission. It is clear from the final Missouri rule that EPA was not
reviewing an initial infrastructure SIP submission, but rather
reviewing proposed SIP revisions that would make an already approved
SIP designed to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS less stringent.
Therefore, EPA does not agree that the 2006 Missouri action referenced
by the Commenter establishes how EPA reviews infrastructure SIP
submissions for purpose of section 110(a)(2)(A).
    As discussed in the proposed rule, EPA finds that the Florida 2010
1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP meets the appropriate and
relevant structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA that
will aid in attaining and/or maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS and that the State demonstrated that it has the necessary tools
to implement and enforce the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's final action does not address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because Florida has not made a submission for
these elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments on Florida SIP SO2 Emission Limits

    Comment 6: The Commenter asserts that EPA may not approve the
Florida proposed SO2 infrastructure SIP because it fails to
include enforceable emission limitations with a 1-hour averaging time
that applies at all times. The Commenter cites to CAA section 302(k)
which requires that emission limits must limit the quantity, rate or
concentration of emissions and must apply on a continuous basis. The
Commenter states that ``[e]nforceable emission limitations contained in
the I-SIP must, therefore, be accompanied by proper averaging times;
otherwise an appropriate numerical emission limit could allow for peaks
that exceed the NAAQS and yet still be permitted since they would be
averaged with lower emissions at other times.'' The Commenter also
cites to recommended averaging times in EPA guidance providing that SIP
emissions limits, ``should not exceed the averaging time of the
applicable NAAQS that the limit is intended to help attain.'' EPA
Memorandum of Apr. 23, 2014, to Regional Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS Nonattainment
Area SIP Submissions, at 22, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf. The Commenter also notes that
this EPA guidance provides that `` `any emissions limits based on
averaging periods longer than 1 hour should be designed to have
comparable stringency to a 1-hour average limit at the critical
emission value.' ''
    The Commenter also cites to a February 3, 2011, EPA Region 7 letter
to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment regarding the need
for 1-hour SO2 emission limits in a prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) permit, an EPA Environmental Hearing
Board decision rejecting use of a 3-hour averaging time for a
SO2 limit in a PSD permit, and EPA's disapproval of a
Missouri SIP which relied on annual averaging for SO2
emission rates and claims EPA has stated that 1-hour averaging times
are necessary for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\6\ The
Commenter states, ``Therefore, in order to ensure that Florida's
Infrastructure SIP actually implements the SO2 NAAQS in
every area of the state, the I-SIP must contain enforceable emission
limits with one-hour averaging times, monitored continuously, for large
sources of SO2.'' The Commenter asserts that EPA must
disapprove Florida's infrastructure SIP because it fails to require
emission limits with adequate averaging times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commenter cited to In re: Mississippi Lime Co.,
PSDAPLPEAL 11-01, 2011 WL 3557194, at * 26-27 (EPA Aug. 9, 2011) and
71 FR 12623, 12624 (March 13, 2006) (EPA disapproval of a control
strategy SO2 SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 6: As explained in detail in previous responses, the
purpose of the infrastructure SIP is to ensure that a state has the
structural capability to implement and enforce the NAAQS and thus,
additional SO2 emission limitations to ensure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS are not required for such infrastructure
SIPs.\7\

EPA disagrees that it must disapprove the proposed Florida
infrastructure SIP submission merely because the SIP does not contain
enforceable SO2 emission limitations with 1-hour averaging
periods that apply at all times, as this issue is not appropriate for
resolution in this action in advance of EPA action on the State's
submissions of other required SIP submissions including an attainment
plan for two areas which are designated nonattainment pursuant to
section 107 of the CAA.\8\ Therefore, because EPA finds Florida's
SO2 infrastructure SIP approvable without the additional
SO2 emission limitations showing attainment of the NAAQS,
EPA finds the issue of appropriate averaging periods for such future
limitations not relevant at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a discussion on emission averaging times for emissions
limitations for SO2 attainment SIPs, see the April 23,
2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions. As
noted by the commenter, EPA explained that it is possible, in
specific cases, for states to develop control strategies that
account for variability in 1-hour emissions rates through emission
limits with averaging times that are longer than 1-hour, using
averaging times as long as 30-days, but still provide for attainment
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as long as the limits are of at
least comparable stringency to a 1-hour limit at the critical
emission value. EPA has not taken final action to approve any
specific submission of such a limit that a state has relied upon to
demonstrate NAAQS attainment, and Florida has not submitted such a
limit for that purpose here, so it is premature at this time to
evaluate whether any emission limit in Florida's SIP is in
accordance with the April 23, 2014, guidance. If and when Florida
submits an emission limitation that relies upon such a longer
averaging time to demonstrate NAAQS attainment, EPA will evaluate it
then.
    \8\ There are two designated nonattainment areas pursuant to CAA
section 107 for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in Florida and
the State has submitted attainment plans for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS for sections 172, 191 and 192. EPA believes the
appropriate time for examining the necessity of 1-hour
SO2 emission limits on specific sources is within the
attainment planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, Commenter's citation to a prior EPA discussion on emission
limitations required in PSD permits (from EPA's Environmental Appeals
Board decision and EPA's letter to Kansas' permitting authority)
pursuant to part C of the CAA is neither relevant nor applicable to
infrastructure SIP submissions under CAA section 110. In addition, and
as previously discussed, the EPA disapproval of the 2006 Missouri SIP
was a disapproval relating to an attainment plan SIP submission
required pursuant to part D attainment planning and is likewise not
relevant to the analysis of infrastructure SIP requirements.
    Comment 7: Citing to section 110(a)(1) and (a)(2)(A) of the CAA,
the Commenter contends that EPA may not approve Florida's
infrastructure SIP because it does not include enforceable 1-hour
emission limits for sources that the Commenter claims are currently
contributing to NAAQS exceedances. The Commenter asserts that emission
limits are especially important for meeting the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS because SO2 impacts are strongly source oriented. The
Commenter states that ``[d]espite the large contribution from coal-
fired EGUs [electricity generating units] to the State's SO2
pollution, Florida's I-SIP lacks enforceable emissions limitations
applicable to its coal-fired EGUs sufficient to ensure the
implementation, attainment, and maintenance of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.'' The Commenter refers to air dispersion modeling it conducted
for two power plants in Florida, the C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant and
the Crist Electric Generating Plant, which are located outside of the
State's two nonattainment areas, and claims that ``. . . the emission
limitations relied on for implementation of the NAAQS in the I-SIP are
insufficient to prevent exceedances of the NAAQS.'' Further, the
Commenter cites two court cases to support its statement that ``. . .
an agency may not ignore information put in front of it'' and that
thus, the Commenter contends that EPA must consider its expert air
dispersion modeling submitted over the years which demonstrate the
inadequacy of Florida's rules and regulations for SO2
emissions.'' The Commenter summarizes its modeling results for the C.D.
McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant and the Crist Electric Generating Plant,
stating that the data predict exceedances of the standard ``over wide
areas of the state.'' Thus, the Commenter contends that Florida's
infrastructure submissions are ``substantially inadequate to attain and
maintain the NAAQS which it implements as evidenced by expert air
dispersion modeling demonstrating that the emission limits under the
laws and regulations cited to in the SO2 I-SIP Certification
allow for exceedances of the NAAQS.'' Thus, the Commenter asserts that
EPA must disapprove Florida's SIP submissions, and must establish a FIP
``which incorporates necessary and appropriate source-specific
enforceable emission limitations (preferably informed by modeling) on
C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant and Crist Electric Generating Plant, as
well as any other major sources of SO2 pollution in the
State which are not presently located in nonattainment areas and have
modeled exceedances of the NAAQS.'' Further, the Commenter states that
``For C.D. McIntosh and Crist, enforceable emission limitations must be
at least as stringent as the modeling-based limits [provided by the
Commenter] in order to protect the one-hour SO2 NAAQS and
implement, maintain, and enforce the standard in Florida.''
    Response 7: As stated previously, EPA believes that the proper
inquiry is whether Florida has met the basic, structural SIP
requirements appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon the
infrastructure submissions. Emissions limitations and other control
measures, whether on coal-fired EGUs or other SO2 sources,
that may be needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS in areas designated
nonattainment for that NAAQS are due on a different schedule from the
section 110 infrastructure SIP submission. A state, like Florida, may
reference pre-existing SIP emission limits or other rules contained in
part D plans for previous NAAQS in an infrastructure SIP submission for
purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). For example, Florida submitted a list
of existing emission reduction measures in the SIP that control
emissions of SO2 as discussed above in response to a prior
comment and discussed in the proposed rulemaking on Florida's
SO2 infrastructure SIP. These provisions have the ability to
reduce SO2 overall. Although the Florida SIP relies on
measures and programs used to implement previous SO2 NAAQS,
these provisions are not limited to reducing SO2 levels to
meet one specific NAAQS and will continue to provide benefits for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    Regarding the air dispersion modeling conducted by the Commenter
pursuant to AERMOD for the C.D. McIntosh, Jr. Power Plant and the Crist
Electric Generating Plant, EPA is not in this action making a
determination regarding the air quality status in the area where these
EGUs are located, and is not evaluating whether emissions applicable to
these EGUs are adequate to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Consequently,
the EPA does not find the modeling information relevant for review of
an infrastructure SIP for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A). When
additional areas in Florida are designated under the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, and if any additional areas in Florida are
designated nonattainment in the future, any potential future modeling
submitted by the State with designations or attainment demonstrations
would need to account for any new emissions limitations Florida
develops to support such designation or demonstration, which at this
point is unknown. While EPA has extensively discussed the use of
modeling for attainment demonstration purposes and for designations,\9\
EPA has recommended that such modeling was not needed for the
SO2 infrastructure SIPs for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A), which are not actions in
which EPA makes determinations regarding current air quality status.
See April 12, 2012,

letters to states and 2012 Draft White Paper.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See for example, EPA's discussion of modeling for
characterizing air quality in the Agency's August 21, 2015, final
rule at 80 FR 51052 and for nonattainment planning in the April 23,
2014, Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions.
    \10\ Implementation of the 2010 Primary 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS, Draft
White Paper for Discussion, May 2012 (2012 Draft White Paper) and a
sample April 12, 2012, letter from EPA to states are available in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statements that
EPA must disapprove Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions because it
does not establish specific enforceable SO2 emission limits,
either on coal-fired EGUs or other large SO2 sources, in
order to demonstrate attainment and maintenance with the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS at this time.
    Comment 8: The Commenter alleges that the SO2
infrastructure SIP submittal does not address sources significantly
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in other states as required by section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, and asserts EPA must therefore
disapprove the infrastructure SIP and impose a FIP. The Commenter
states that ``Florida's reliance on a 2012 EPA memorandum in which EPA
stated that it did `not intend to make findings that states failed to
submit SIPs to comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)' is improper'',
and that such guidance contradicts the CAA. The Commenter notes that
the Supreme Court disapproved the view that states cannot address
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) until EPA resolves issues related to CSAPR and
that compliance with this provision is a ``mandatory duty'', citing to
Homer City, 696 F.3d 7, 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), rev'd, No. 12-1182, slip
op. at 27-28 (U.S. Apr. 29, 2014). The Commenter also highlights from
Order on Petition No. VI-2014-04 at 10 (citing EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014) that, ``[T]he Supreme Court
has affirmed that the EPA is not required to provide any implementation
guidance before states' interstate transport obligation can be
addressed.''
    Response 8: This action does not address whether sources in Florida
are significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in another state as
required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA (the good neighbor
provision). Thus, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that EPA
must disapprove the submitted 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure
SIP due to Florida's failure to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In
EPA's proposed rulemaking to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA clearly stated that it was
not taking any action with respect to the good neighbor provision in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Florida did not make a submission to
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS, and thus there is no such submission upon
which EPA proposed to take action on under section 110(k) of the CAA.
Similarly, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that EPA cannot
approve other elements of an infrastructure SIP submission without the
good neighbor provision. There is no basis for the contention that EPA
has triggered its obligation to issue a FIP to address the good
neighbor obligation under section 110(c), as EPA has neither found that
Florida failed to timely submit a required 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
submission for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS or found that such
a submission was incomplete, nor has EPA disapproved a SIP submission
addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA acknowledges the Commenter's concern for the interstate
transport of air pollutants and agrees in general with the Commenter
that sections 110(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the CAA generally require states
to submit, within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, a plan which addresses cross-state air pollution under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's
argument that EPA cannot approve an infrastructure SIP submission
without the good neighbor provision. Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA
authorizes EPA to approve a plan in full, disapprove it in full, or
approve it in part and disapprove it in part, depending on the extent
to which such plan meets the requirements of the CAA. This authority to
approve state SIP revisions in separable parts was included in the 1990
Amendments to the CAA to overrule a decision in the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit holding that EPA could not approve individual
measures in a plan submission without either approving or disapproving
the plan as a whole. See S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 22, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N.
3385, 3408 (discussing the express overruling of Abramowitz v. EPA, 832
F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1987)).
    EPA interprets its authority under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, as
affording EPA the discretion to approve, or conditionally approve,
individual elements of Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, separate and apart from any action
with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the
CAA with respect to that NAAQS. EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP
requirements, such as the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), as
severable from the other infrastructure elements and interprets section
110(k)(3) as allowing it to act on individual severable measures in a
plan submission. In short, EPA believes that even if Florida had made a
SIP submission for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS, which to date it has not, EPA would still
have discretion under section 110(k) of the CAA to act upon the various
individual elements of the State's infrastructure SIP submission,
separately or together, as appropriate.
    The Commenter raises no compelling legal or environmental rationale
for an alternate interpretation. Nothing in the Supreme Court's April
2014 decision in EME Homer City alters EPA's interpretation that EPA
may act on individual severable measures, including the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), in a SIP submission. See EPA v. EME Homer
City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (affirming a state's obligation
to submit a SIP revision addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
independent of EPA's action finding significant contribution or
interference with maintenance). In sum, the concerns raised by the
Commenter do not establish that it is inappropriate or unreasonable for
EPA to approve the portions of Florida's infrastructure SIP submission
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA has no obligation at this time to issue a FIP pursuant to
110(c)(1) to address Florida's obligations under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA first either finds Florida failed to make
a required submission addressing the element or the State has made such
a submission but it is incomplete, or EPA disapproves a SIP submission
addressing that element. Until either occurs, EPA does not have the
obligation to issue a FIP pursuant to section 110(c) with respect to
the good neighbor provision. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the
Commenter's contention that it must issue a FIP for Florida to address
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS at this
time.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's infrastructure
submissions submitted on June 3, 2013, and supplemented on January 8,
2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for the above described
infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is taking final action to approve
Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
SO2

NAAQS because the submissions are consistent with section 110 of the
CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 29, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 14, 2016.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

 PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520(e), is amended by adding the entry ``110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour SO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end of the table to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  State effective    EPA approval     Federal Register
            Provision                   date             date              notice              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure        6/3/2013        9/30/2016   [Insert Federal      With the exception of
 Requirements for the 2010 1-                                        Register citation].  section for provisions
 hour Primary SO2 National                                                                relating to
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                           110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                (prongs 1 and 2)
                                                                                concerning interstate
                                                                                transport
                                                                                requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-23292 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P