[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 147 (Monday, August 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50416-50426]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18013]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0192; FRL-9949-91-Region 4]

Air Quality Plans; Florida; Infrastructure Requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 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 December 14, 2015, for inclusion into the Florida
SIP. This proposal pertains to the infrastructure requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (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 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is implemented,
enforced, and maintained in Florida. EPA is proposing to determine that
Florida's infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on December
14, 2015, satisfies certain required infrastructure elements for the
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0192 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be 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: Tiereny Bell, 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. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Bell can also
be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), EPA
promulgated a revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The
standard was strengthened from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\) to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\. 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 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions states generally
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes,
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections
110(a)(1) and (2). Florida's existing SIP consists largely of
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) rules adopted by FDEP and
approved by EPA through the SIP revision process. However, there are
some F.A.C. state regulations that are not part of the Florida
federally-approved SIP. Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise
indicated, the term ``F.A.C.'', ``Rule'', or ``Chapter'' indicate
that the cited regulation has been approved into Florida's
federally-approved SIP. The term ``Florida Statutes'' indicates
cited Florida state statutes, which are not a part of the SIP unless
otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rulemaking is proposing to approve portions of Florida's
PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission for the applicable
requirements of the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, with the
exception of the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2), for which EPA is not proposing any
action in this rulemaking regarding these requirements. For the aspects
of Florida's submittal proposed for approval in this rulemaking, 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.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
requirements are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013,
memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2).'' \2\

    \2\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time the nonattainment
area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D, title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. This proposed rulemaking
does not address infrastructure elements related to section
110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to this
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public
Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Visibility Protection
 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling
Data
 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local
Entities

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

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Florida that addresses
the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)
for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states
to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section
110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of

specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to
address the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \7\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants
because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP
submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely
new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 developed this document to provide states
with up-to-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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. On
March 17, 2016, EPA released a memorandum titled, ``Information on
the Interstate Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' to provide guidance to
states for interstate transport requirements specific to the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's
implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR)
pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHG). By contrast, structural
PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not
required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely
available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide
grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are
types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an
infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program
addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of
acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think
it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a
state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing
SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's
regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with

current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR
80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007)
(``NSR Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure
SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP
for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the
submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\14\ It is
important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP
submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval
of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the
three specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\15\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\16\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Florida addressed the elements of the
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?

    The Florida infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A) Emission Limits and Other Control Measures: Section
110(a)(2)(A) requires that each implementation plan include enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques
(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and
auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable
requirements. Several regulations within Florida's SIP are relevant to
air quality control regulations. The regulations described below
include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures.
Chapters 62-204, Air Pollution Control--General Provisions; 62-210,
Stationary Sources--General Requirements; 62-212, Stationary Sources--
Preconstruction Review; 62-296, Stationary Sources--Emissions
Standards; and 62-297, Stationary Sources--Emissions Monitoring
collectively establish enforceable emissions limitations and other
control measures, means or techniques for activities that contribute to
PM2.5 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.
    Additionally, the following sections of the Florida Statutes
provide FDEP the authority to conduct certain actions in support of
this infrastructure element. Section 403.061(9), Florida Statutes,
authorizes FDEP to ``[a]dopt a comprehensive program for the
prevention, control, and abatement of pollution of the air . . . of the
state,'' and section 403.8055, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to
``[a]dopt rules substantively identical to regulations adopted in the
Federal Register by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
pursuant to federal law . . .''
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that the provisions
contained in these State regulations and sections of the Florida
Statutes, and Florida's practices satisfy section

110(a)(2)(A) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during start
up, shut down, and malfunction (SSM) operations at a facility. EPA
believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary
to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, ``State Implementation Plans:
Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the Agency is addressing such
state regulations in a separate action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove that any existing state rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System: Section
110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation
of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to
(i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii)
upon request, make such data available to the Administrator. SIP-
approved rules at Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212 of the F.A.C.
require the use of Federal Reference Method or equivalent monitors and
also provide authority for FDEP to establish monitoring requirements
through SIP-approved permits. Additionally, the following three
sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to take
specific actions in support of this infrastructure element: Section
403.061(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[a]pprove and
promulgate current and long-range plans developed to provide for air
quality and control and pollution abatement.; Section 403.061(9),
Florida Statues, which authorizes DEP to [a]dopt a comprehensive
program for the prevention, control and abatement of pollution of the
air . . . of the State; and Section 403.061(11), Florida Statutes,
authorizes FDEP to ``[e]stablish ambient air quality . . . standards
for the state as a whole or for any part thereof.'' Annually, states
develop and submit to EPA for approval statewide ambient monitoring
network plans consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR parts 50, 53,
and 58. The annual network plan involves an evaluation of any proposed
changes to the monitoring network, includes the annual ambient
monitoring network design plan, and includes a certified evaluation of
the state's ambient monitors and auxiliary support equipment.\19\ In
May 2015, Florida submitted its plan for 2014 to EPA. On October 29,
2015, EPA approved Florida's monitoring network plan. Florida's
approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov
using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0192. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Florida's SIP and practices are adequate for the
ambient air quality monitoring and data system related to the 2012
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are
evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and
for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: This element
consists of three sub-elements: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of
new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major
sources, and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major
modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the
subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source
PSD program). FDEP's 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure
SIP submission cited a number of SIP provisions to address these
requirements. EPA's rationale for its proposed action regarding each
sub-element is described below. Specifically, FDEP cited Chapters 62-
204, 62-210, 62-212, 62-243, 62-252, 62-256, 62-296 and 62-297 F.A.C.
Collectively, these provisions of Florida's SIP regulate the
construction of any new major stationary source or any modification at
an existing major stationary source in an area designated as
nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable. These regulations enable
FDEP to regulate sources contributing to the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Additionally, the following two sections of the Florida Statutes
provide FDEP the authority to take specific actions in support of this
infrastructure element. Section 403.061(6), Florida Statutes, requires
FDEP to ``[e]xercise general supervision of the administration and
enforcement of the laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to air and
water pollution.'' Section 403.121, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP
to seek judicial and administrative remedies, including civil
penalties, injunctive relief, and criminal prosecution for violations
of any FDEP rule or permit.
    Enforcement: Section 403.061(6), Florida Statutes, requires FDEP to
``[e]xercise general supervision of the administration and enforcement
of the laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to air and water
pollution.'' Section 403.121, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to seek
judicial and administrative remedies, including civil penalties,
injunctive relief, and criminal prosecution for violations of any FDEP
rule or permit. These provisions provide FDEP with authority for
enforcement of PM2.5 emission limits and control measures.
    PSD Permitting for Major Sources: EPA interprets the PSD sub-
element to require that a state's infrastructure SIP submission for a
particular NAAQS demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD
permitting program in place covering the structural PSD requirements
for all regulated NSR pollutants. A state's PSD permitting program is
complete for this sub-element (and prong 3 of D(i) and J related to
PSD) if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously approving the
state's SIP with respect to all structural PSD requirements that are
due under the EPA regulations or the CAA on or before the date of the
EPA's proposed action on the infrastructure SIP submission. For the
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, Florida's authority to regulate new
and modified sources to assist in the protection of air quality in
attainment or unclassifiable areas is established in Florida
Administrative Code Chapters 62-210, Stationary Sources--General
Requirements, Section 200--Definitions, and 62-212, Stationary
Sources--Preconstruction Review, Section 400--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration, of the Florida SIP. Florida's infrastructure SIP
submission demonstrates that new major sources and major modifications
in areas of the State designated attainment or unclassifiable for the
specified NAAQS are subject to a federally-approved PSD permitting
program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of
title

I of the CAA to satisfy the infrastructure SIP PSD elements.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For more information concerning how the Florida
infrastructure SIP submission currently meets applicable
requirements for the PSD elements (110(a)(2)(C); (D)(i)(I), prong 3;
and (J)), see the technical support document in the docket for
today's rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Florida's SIP-approved rules, 62-210.300,
F.A.C., and 62-212.300, F.A.C., collectively govern the preconstruction
permitting of modifications and construction of minor stationary
sources, and minor modifications of major stationary sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and
practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures,
regulation of minor sources and modifications, and preconstruction
permitting of major sources and major modifications related to the 2012
Annual PM2.5 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 has two subparts
resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as
``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions.
The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment
of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 2''). The third and
fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration
of air quality in another state (``prong 3''), or to protect visibility
in another state (``prong 4'').
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action
in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions
pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and
2). EPA will consider these requirements in relation to Florida's 2012
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure submission in a separate
rulemaking.
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With regard to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the PSD element, referred to as prong 3, may be
met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that
new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to:
A PSD program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C
of title I of the CAA, or (if the state contains a nonattainment area
for the relevant pollutant), a NNSR program that implements NAAQS for
the relevant pollutant. As discussed in more detail above under section
110(a)(2)(C), Florida's SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD
program that reflects the required structural PSD requirements to
satisfy prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Florida addresses prong
3 through F.A.C. 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212 for the PSD and NNSR
programs. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP
and practices are adequate for interstate transport for PSD permitting
of major sources and major modifications related to the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3).
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires
that the SIP contain adequate provisions to protect visibility in other
states. Florida's submission relied on EPA's approval of the State's
regional haze SIP submission and incorporation of all relevant portions
of Florida's visibility program into the State's implementation plan to
address the prong 4 requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\21\ Federal regulations require
that a state's regional haze SIP contain a long-term strategy to
address regional haze visibility impairment in each Class I area within
the state and each Class I area outside the state that may be affected
by emissions from the state.\22\ A state participating in a regional
planning process, such as Florida, must include all measures needed to
achieve its apportionment of emissions reduction obligations agreed
upon through that process.\23\ EPA's approval of Florida's regional
haze SIP therefore ensures that emissions from Florida are not
interfering with measures to protect visibility in other states,
satisfying the requirements of prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.\24\ Thus, EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions
for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS meet the requirements of
prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA approved Florida's regional haze SIP--see 77 FR 71111
(November 29, 2012); 78 FR 53250 (August 29, 2013).
    \22\ See 40 CFR 51.308(d).
    \23\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Florida participated in
the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast regional planning organization, a collaborative effort of
state governments, tribal governments, and various Federal agencies
established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with
the management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality
issues in the Southeastern United States. Member state and tribal
governments included: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
West Virginia, and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.
    \24\ See EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance document entitled
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' at
pp. 32-35, available at: http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/infrastructure.html; see also memorandum from William T. Harnett,
Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, entitled
``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(1)(1) and (2)
for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (September 25, 2009) at pp. 5-
6, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and
International Air Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212 of the F.A.C. require any new major
source or major modification to undergo PSD or NNSR permitting and
thereby provide notification to other potentially affected Federal,
state, and local government agencies. Additionally, Florida does not
have any pending obligation under sections 115 and 126 of the CAA
relating to international or interstate pollution abatement. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices are
adequate for ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements
relating to interstate and international pollution abatement for the
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of
Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies:
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide (i)
necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation
plan, (ii) that the state comply with the requirements respecting state
boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary
assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality

for the implementation of any plan provision, the state has
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan
provisions. EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP
submission as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i),
(ii), and (iii).
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), FDEP's infrastructure submissions
demonstrate that it is responsible for promulgating rules and
regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards and general policies, a
system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other
planning needs. Section 403.061(35), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP
to exercise the duties, powers, and responsibilities required of the
state under the federal CAA. Section 403.061(2), Florida Statutes,
authorizes FDEP to ``[h]ire only such employees as may be necessary to
effectuate the responsibilities of the department.'' Section
403.061(4), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[s]ecure necessary
scientific, technical, research, administrative, and operational
services by interagency agreement, by contract, or otherwise.'' Section
403.182, Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to approve local pollution
control programs, 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 with respect
to sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to FDEP on April
19, 2016, outlining 105 grant commitments and current status of these
commitments for fiscal year 2015. The letter EPA submitted to FDEP can
be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2016-0192. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on
current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no outstanding issues in
relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2015, therefore, FDEP's grants were
finalized and closed out. In addition, the requirements of
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are evaluated when EPA performs a
completeness determination for each SIP submittal. A completeness
determination ensures that each submittal includes information to
address the adequacy of personnel, funding, and legal authority under
state law has been used to carry out the state's implementation plan
and related issues. FDEP's authority is included in all prehearings and
final SIP submittal packages for approval by EPA. FDEP is responsible
for submitting all revisions to the Florida SIP to EPA for approval.
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida has adequate
resources and authority for implementation of the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with
section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP provide: (1)
The majority of members of the state board or body which approves
permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not
derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to
permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential
conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an
executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. For
purposes of section 128(a)(1), Florida has no boards or bodies with
authority over air pollution permits or enforcement actions. Such
matters are instead handled by an appointed Secretary. As such, a
``board or body'' is not responsible for approving permits or
enforcement orders in Florida, and the requirements of section
128(a)(1) are not applicable. Florida is only subject to the
requirements of 128(a)(2) and submitted the applicable statutes for
incorporation into Florida SIP. Florida Statutes, specifically
subsections 112.3143(4), F.S., Voting conflicts and 112.3144, F.S, Full
and public disclosure of financial interests address the conflict of
interest provisions applicable to the head of FDEP and all public
officers within the Department. On July 30, 2012, EPA approved these
Florida statutes into the SIP to comply with section 128 respecting
state boards. See 77 FR 44485. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that the State has adequately addressed the requirements
of section 128(a)(2), and accordingly has met the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to infrastructure SIP
requirements.
    Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP
submissions as meeting the requirements of sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i), (ii) and (iii).
    7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting: Section
110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements addressing
(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and
the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii)
periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions
related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports
by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards
established pursuant to this section, which reports shall be available
at reasonable times for public inspection. FDEP's infrastructure SIP
submissions describe the establishment of requirements for compliance
testing by emissions sampling and analysis, and for emissions and
operation monitoring to ensure the quality of data in the State. The
Florida infrastructure SIP submissions also describe how the major
source and minor source emission inventory programs collect emission
data throughout the State and ensure the quality of such data. Florida
meets these requirements through Chapters 62-204, 62-210, 62-212, 62-
296, and 62-297, F.A.C., which require emissions monitoring and
reporting for activities that contribute to PM2.5
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 PM2.5
emissions.
    The following sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the
authority to conduct certain actions in support of this infrastructure
element. Section 403.061(13) authorizes FDEP to ``[r]equire persons
engaged in operations which may result in pollution to file reports
which may contain . . . any other such information as the department
shall prescribe . . .''. Section 403.8055 authorizes FDEP to ``[a]dopt
rules substantively identical to regulations adopted in the Federal
Register by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant
to federal law. . . .''
    Section 90.401, Florida Statutes, defines relevant evidence as
evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact. Section 90.402,
Florida Statutes, states that all relevant evidence is admissible
except as provided by law. EPA is unaware of any provision preventing
the use of credible evidence in the Florida SIP.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ ``Credible Evidence'' makes allowances for owners and/or
operators to utilize ``any credible evidence or information
relevant'' to demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements if
the appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed,
for the purpose of submitting compliance certification and can be
used to establish whether or not an owner or operator has violated
or is in violation of any rule or standard.

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

    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
December 17, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it
where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web
site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices are adequate
for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: This section requires that states
demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and
adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Florida's
infrastructure SIP submissions identify air pollution emergency
episodes and preplanned abatement strategies as outlined in the Florida
Statutes Sections 403.131 and 120.569(2)(n). These sections of the
Florida Statutes were submitted for inclusion in the SIP to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA and have been approved
by EPA into Florida's SIP. Section 403.131 authorizes FDEP to: Seek
injunctive relief to enforce compliance with this chapter or any rule,
regulation or permit certification, or order; to enjoin any violation
specified in Section 403.061(1); and to seek injunctive relief to
prevent irreparable injury to the air, waters, and property, including
animal, plant, and aquatic life, of the State and to protect human
health, safety, and welfare caused or threatened by any violation.
Section 120.569(2)(n), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to issue
emergency orders to address immediate dangers to the public health,
safety, or welfare. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Florida's SIP, State laws, and practices are adequate to satisfy the
infrastructure SIP obligations for emergency powers related to the 2012
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve
Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section
110(a)(2)(G).
    9. 110(a)(2)(H) SIP Revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary,
requires each SIP to provide for revisions of such plan (i) as may be
necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved
or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii)
whenever the Administrator finds that the plan is substantially
inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any
additional applicable requirements. As previously discussed, FDEP is
responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed
to attain or maintain the NAAQS. Florida has the ability and authority
to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a number of SIP
revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS.
    The following sections of the Florida Statutes provide FDEP the
authority to conduct certain actions in support of this element.
Section 403.061(35) gives FDEP the broad authority to implement the
CAA. Section 403.061(9) authorizes FDEP to ``[a]dopt a comprehensive
program for the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution of the
air . . . of the state, and from time to time review and modify such
programs as necessary.'' EPA has made the preliminary determination
that Florida adequately demonstrates a commitment to provide future SIP
revisions related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when
necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's
infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(H).
    10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with government officials, public
notification, and PSD and visibility protection: EPA is proposing to
approve Florida's infrastructure SIP for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that complies with
the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public
notification requirements of section 127, PSD and visibility
protection. EPA's rationale for each sub-element is described below.
    Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): 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.
Florida's SIP-approved Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, as well as
its Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for continued
consultation with appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution
control agencies as well as the corresponding FLMs), provide for
consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be
affected by SIP development activities. Specifically, Florida adopted
state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of
transportation conformity which includes the development of mobile
inventories for SIP development. Required partners covered by Florida's
consultation procedures include Federal, state and local transportation
and air quality agency officials. Also, Section 403.061(21), Florida
Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[a]dvise, consult, cooperate, and enter
into agreements with other agencies of the state, the Federal
Government, other states, interstate agencies, groups, political
subdivisions, and industries affected by the provisions of this act,
rules, or policies of the department''. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Florida's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate
consultation with government officials related to the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.
    Public notification (127 public notification): FDEP has public
notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of instances or areas
exceeding the NAAQS along with associated health effects through the
Air Quality Index reporting system in required areas. Section
403.061(20), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to ``[c]ollect and
disseminate information . . . relating to pollution'' and Florida
implements an Air Quality Index reporting system to notify the public
in impacted areas. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's
infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J)
public notification.
    PSD: With regard to the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J), this
requirement is met when a state demonstrates in an infrastructure SIP
submission that its

PSD program meets all the current structural requirements of part C of
title I of the CAA. As discussed in more detail above under the section
discussing 110(a)(2)(C), Florida's SIP contains provisions for the
State's PSD program that reflect the relevant SIP revisions pertaining
to the required structural PSD requirements to satisfy the requirement
of the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices are adequate
for PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications related to
the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the PSD element of section
110(a)(2)(J).
    Visibility protection: EPA's 2013 Guidance notes that it does not
treat the visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as
applicable for purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process.
FDEP referenced its regional haze program as germane to the visibility
component of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA recognizes that states are
subject to visibility protection and regional haze program requirements
under part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B).
However, there are no newly applicable visibility protection
obligations after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA
has determined that states do not need to address the visibility
component of 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP submittals so FDEP does
not need to rely on its regional haze program to fulfill its
obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions
are approvable for section 110(a)(2)(J) in related to the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and that Florida does not need to rely on its
regional haze program to address 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. SIP-approved sections of Chapter 62-204,
62-210, and 62-212, F.A.C., require use of EPA-approved modeling of
pollutant-emitting sources that contribute to PM2.5
concentrations in the ambient air. Also, the following sections of the
Florida Statutes provide FDEP the authority to conduct actions in
support of this element. Section 403.061(13), Florida Statutes,
authorizes FDEP to ``[r]equire persons engaged in operations which may
result in pollution to file reports which may contain information
relating to locations, size of outlet, height of outlet, rate and
period of emission, and composition and concentration of effluent and
such other information as the department shall prescribe to be filed. .
. .'' Section 403.061(18), Florida Statutes, authorizes FDEP to
``[e]ncourage and conduct studies, investigations, and research
relating to pollution and its causes, effects, prevention, abatement,
and control.'' These regulations and State statutes demonstrate that
Florida has the authority to conduct modeling and provide relevant data
for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, Florida participates
in a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions
inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including
the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, for the Southeastern states.
Florida notes in its SIP submissions that the FDEP has the technical
capability to conduct or review all air quality modeling associated
with the NSR program and all SIP-related modeling, except photochemical
grid modeling which is performed for FDEP under contract. All such
modeling is conducted in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part
51, Appendix W, ``Guideline on Air Quality Models.'' Taken as a whole,
Florida's air quality regulations and practices demonstrate that FDEP
has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of
predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any
pollutant for which a NAAQS had been promulgated, and to provide such
information to the EPA Administrator upon request. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality modeling,
along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve
Florida's infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to section
110(a)(2)(K).
    12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting Fees: This section requires the owner
or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting
authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, a fee
sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting
upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or
operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of
implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit
(not including any court costs or other costs associated with any
enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with
respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee
program under title V. Section 403.087(6)(a), Florida Statutes, directs
FDEP to ``require a processing fee in an amount sufficient, to the
greatest extent possible, to cover the costs of reviewing and acting
upon any application for a permit. . . .''. Florida's Air Pollution
Control Trust Fund is the depository for all funds for the operation of
the Division of Air Resource Management. Within the fund is an account
that contains all fees under the title V program. Additionally, Florida
has a fully approved title V operating permit program at Chapter 62-213
F.A.C.\26\ and Section 403.0872, Florida Statutes, 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 State rules and practices adequately provide for permitting
fees related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, when necessary.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure SIP
submissions with respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Title V program regulations are federally-approved but not
incorporated into the federally-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 coordinates with local governments
affected by the SIP. Florida's SIP submission includes a description of
the public participation process for SIP development. Florida has
consulted with local entities for the development of transportation
conformity and has worked with the FLMs as a requirement of the
regional haze rule. Section 403.061(21), Florida Statutes, authorizes
FDEP to ``[a]dvise, consult, cooperate and enter into agreements with
other agencies of the state, the Federal Government, other states,
interstate agencies, groups, political subdivisions, and industries
affected by the provisions of this act, rules, or policies of the
department.'' Section 403.061(21), Florida Statutes, is one way that
the State meets the requirements of this element as described further
below. More specifically, Florida adopted state-wide consultation
procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity which
includes the development of mobile inventories for SIP development and
the requirements that link transportation planning and air

quality planning in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Required
partners covered by Florida's consultation procedures include Federal,
state and local transportation and air quality agency officials. The
state and local transportation agency officials are most directly
impacted by transportation conformity requirements and are required to
provide public involvement for their activities including the analysis
demonstrating how they meet transportation conformity requirements.
Also, FDEP has agreements with eight county air pollution control
agencies (Duval, Orange, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Sarasota, Palm Beach,
Broward, and Miami-Dade) that delineate the responsibilities of each
county in carrying out Florida's air program, including the Florida
SIP. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and
practices adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local
entities related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when
necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to
the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in
other states and visibility protection requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 and 2). EPA is proposing to
approve Florida's infrastructure submission submitted on December 14,
2015, for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the above
described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve
Florida's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS because the 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).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 20, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-18013 Filed 7-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 42844]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17282]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 34b-1; SEC File No. 270-305, OMB Control No. 3235-0346.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 34b-1 under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.34b-1)
governs sales material that accompanies or follows the delivery of a
statutory prospectus (``sales literature''). Rule 34b-1 deems to be
materially misleading any investment company (``fund'') sales
literature required to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') by Section 24(b) of the Investment Company
Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-24(b)) that includes performance data, unless the
sales literature also includes the appropriate uniformly computed data
and the legend disclosure required in investment company advertisements
by rule 482 under the Securities Act of 1933 (17 CFR 230.482).
Requiring the inclusion of such standardized performance data in sales
literature is designed to prevent misleading performance claims by
funds and to enable investors to make meaningful comparisons among
funds.
    The Commission estimates that on average approximately 130
respondents file 13,685 \1\ responses that include the information
required by rule 34b-1 each year. The burden resulting from the
collection of information requirements of rule 34b-1 is estimated to be
2 hours per response. The total annual burden hours for rule 34b-1 is
approximately 27,370 hours per year in the aggregate.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The estimated number of responses to rule 34b-1 is composed
of 13,378 responses filed with FINRA and 307 responses filed with
the Commission in 2013.
    \2\ 13,685 responses x 2 hours per response = 27,370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information under rule 34b-1 is mandatory. The
information provided under rule 34b-1 is not kept confidential. The
Commission may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proposed performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 17, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-17282 Filed 7-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P