[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 55388]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24081]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4399-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Florida; Amendment No. 3 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 Florida (FEMA-4399-DR), dated October 11, 2018, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 16, 2018.

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 Florida is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of October 11, 2018.

Leon County for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris
removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B],
including direct federal assistance under the Public Assistance
program).

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.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-24081 Filed 11-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 148 (Thursday, August 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36078-36080]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16284]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0355; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-12]

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Mosinee, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending up to 700 feet
above the surface at Central Wisconsin Airport, Mosinee, WI, to
accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures for instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action is necessary
due to the decommissioning of the Mosinee outer marker (OM) and DANCI
locator outer marker (LOM) and cancellation of the associated
approaches, and enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of the
airport and the Wausau VHF Omni-Directional Radio Range and Collocated
Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC). This proposal also updates the
geographic coordinates in Class D and Class E surface area airspace,
and makes an editorial change in the legal description by replacing
Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Tweedy (prepared by Ron
Laster), Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group,
Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class D airspace, Class E extension area airspace, and
Class E airspace extending upward 700 feet above the surface at Central
Wisconsin Airport, Mosinee, WI, to support IFR operations at the
airport.

History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 22090, May 12,
2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0355, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
to modify Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace and
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Central
Wisconsin Airport, Mosinee, WI. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August
3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 7-mile radius of Central Wisconsin Airport, with a
segment 3.3 miles each side of the 350[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.3 miles north of the airport.
    The segment within 4 miles each side of the Wausau VORTAC 039[deg]
radial extending from the 7-mile radius to 10.9 miles northeast of the
airport would be removed due to the decommissioning of the Mosinee OM
and DANCI LOM and cancellation of the associated approaches. This
action enhances the safety and management of the standard instrument
approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport. This action will
also update the geographic coordinates of the airport and the Wausau
VORTAC.
    Additionally, this action replaces the outdated term Airport/
Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in Class D and Class
E surface area airspace, as well as updates the airport coordinates for
Central Wisconsin Airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL WI D Mosinee, WI [Amended]

Central Wisconsin Airport, WI
    (Lat. 44[deg]46'39'' N., long. 89[deg]40'00'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,800 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of Central Wisconsin
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AGL WI E2 Mosinee, WI [Amended]

Central Wisconsin Airport, WI
    (Lat. 44[deg]46'39'' N., long. 89[deg]40'00'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.5-
mile radius of Central Wisconsin Airport. This Class E airspace area
is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Mosinee, WI [Amended]

Central Wisconsin Airport, WI
    (Lat. 44[deg]46'39'' N., long. 89[deg]40'00'' W.)
Wausau VORTAC
    (Lat. 44[deg]50'48'' N., long. 89[deg]35'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of the Central Wisconsin Airport, and within
3.3 miles each side of the 350[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.3 miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on July 27, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-16284 Filed 8-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4252-4254]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01277]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96701; File No. SR-NYSE-2023-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Rule 7.31

January 18, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 4, 2023, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31 regarding MPL-IOC Orders.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.31 regarding MPL-IOC Orders.
    Rule 7.31(d)(3) defines a Mid-Point Liquidity Order (``MPL Order'')
as a Limit Order to buy (sell) that is not displayed and does not
route, with a working price at the lower (higher) of the midpoint of
the PBBO or its limit price. An MPL Order may be entered during any
Exchange trading session, is ranked Priority 3--Non-Display Orders, and
does not participate in auctions. An MPL Order to buy (sell) must be
designated with a limit price in the minimum price variation for the
security and will be eligible to trade at its working price.\3\ If
there is no PBB or PBO, or if the PBBO is locked or crossed, an
arriving or resting MPL Order will not be eligible to trade until the
PBBO is not locked or crossed. If a resting MPL Order to buy (sell)
trades with another MPL Order to sell (buy) after the PBBO is unlocked
or uncrossed, the MPL Order with the later working time will be the
liquidity-removing order.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 7.31(d)(3)(A).
    \4\ See Rule 7.31(d)(3)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An Aggressing MPL Order to buy (sell) will trade at the working
price of resting orders to sell (buy) when such resting orders have a
working price at or below (above) the working price of the MPL Order.
Resting MPL Orders to buy (sell) will trade against all Aggressing
Orders to sell (buy) priced at or below (above) the working price of
the MPL Order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 7.31(d)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Rule 7.31(d)(3)(D) provides that an MPL Order may be
designated with an Immediate-or-Cancel (``IOC'') Modifier (an ``MPL-IOC
Order''). An MPL Order designated IOC will be traded in whole or in
part on the Exchange as soon as such order is received, and any
untraded quantity will be cancelled.\6\ Rule 7.31(d)(3)(D) further
provides that, subject to the IOC Modifier, an MPL-IOC Order follows
the same trading and priority rules as an MPL Order (as described
above), except that an MPL-IOC Order will be rejected if (i) the order
entry size is less than one round lot or (ii) there is no PBBO or the
PBBO is locked or crossed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Rule 7.31(b)(2) (defining IOC Modifier).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to modify Rule 7.31(d)(3)(D) to permit MPL-
IOC Orders to be entered in any size and thus proposes to eliminate
rule text currently providing that an MPL-IOC Order would be rejected
if entered in a quantity less than one round lot. The Exchange believes
that requiring MPL-IOC Orders to be entered in round lots is
unnecessary and that providing member organizations with the option to
enter MPL-IOC Orders in odd lots could increase liquidity and enhance
opportunities for order execution on the Exchange. The Exchange notes
that permitting odd-lot order quantities is not novel on the Exchange
or other cash equity exchanges and believes that this proposed change
would align the Exchange's handling of MPL-IOC Orders with the
treatment of equivalent order types on other cash equity exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., Members Exchange Rules 11.8(c)(1) and (2)
(providing that a Midpoint Peg Order may be designated IOC and may
be entered as an odd lot, round lot, or mixed lot); Cboe EDGX
Exchange, Inc. Rules 11.8(d)(1) and (2) (providing that a MidPoint
Peg Order may have an IOC instruction and may be entered as an odd
lot, round lot, or mixed lot); Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. Rules
11.8(d)(1) and (2) (same). The Exchange also notes that the rules of
the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.
(``BZX''), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'') appear to permit
orders, including orders analogous to MPL-IOC Orders, to be entered
in any size. See Nasdaq Rule 4703(b) (providing that an order may be
entered in any whole share size, except as otherwise provided); BZX
Rule 11.2 (providing that orders are eligible for odd-lot, round-
lot, and mixed-lot executions unless otherwise indicated); BYX Rule
11.2 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of the technology changes associated with this proposed
rule change, the Exchange will announce the implementation date by
Trader Update, which, subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule
change, will be in the first quarter of 2023.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\9\
in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would promote just
and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect
the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system,
and protect investors and the public interest because it would provide
member organizations with the option to enter MPL-IOC Orders in odd-lot
sized orders, which could encourage order flow to the Exchange and
promote opportunities for order execution on the Exchange, to the
benefit of all market participants. The Exchange notes that the
proposed change would not otherwise impact the operation of MPL-IOC
Orders as provided under current Exchange rules. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed change would align Exchange rules with the
treatment of orders analogous to MPL-IOC Orders on other cash equity
exchanges, thereby removing impediments to, and perfecting the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See note 7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to accept
MPL-IOC Orders of any size and align the Exchange's handling of such
orders with other cash equity exchanges' handling of similar order
types,\11\ thereby promoting competition among exchanges by offering
member organizations options available on other cash equity exchanges.
The Exchange also believes that, to the extent the proposed change
would increase opportunities for order execution, the proposed change
would promote competition by making the Exchange a more attractive
venue for order flow and enhancing market quality for all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.

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

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay to allow the
Exchange to implement the proposal as soon as possible. The Exchange
states that the proposed change would align the Exchange's treatment of
MPL-IOC Orders with treatment of similar order types on other cash
equity exchanges and allow the Exchange to accept MPL-IOC Orders of any
size as soon as the technology associated with the proposed change is
available, which is anticipated to be less than 30 days from the date
of this filing. The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because the proposal does not raise any new or novel
issues. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative
delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2023-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2023-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2023-03 and should be
submitted on or before February 14, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01277 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29306-29314]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11868]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692; FRL-9814-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part, and disapprove in part,
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State
of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) on October 31, 2011, to demonstrate that the State meets the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the
2008 8-hour ozone 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 the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP.
FDEP certified that the Florida SIP contains provisions that ensure the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in
Florida (hereafter referred to as ``infrastructure submission''). EPA
is now taking two related actions on FDEP's infrastructure submission
for Florida. First, EPA is proposing to disapprove in part portions of
Florida's infrastructure submission as it relates to the regulation of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Second, EPA is proposing to determine
that Florida's infrastructure submission, addresses all other required
infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the
exception of the aforementioned portions and the requirement that the
SIP include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures to
protect visibility in another state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0692, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0692. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly

to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
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: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning 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. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background and Overview
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Florida addressed the elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' Provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Overview

    On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based
on 8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 77 FR 16436. 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 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than
March 2011.
    Florida's infrastructure submission was received by EPA on October
31, 2011, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. FDEP's October 31, 2011,
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS also
addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which requires that SIPs
contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to
nonattainment maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. On April 30,
2013, following the recent EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696
F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) decision, Florida withdrew its submission for
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This decision addressed the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and provided that a section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
submission cannot be considered a ``required'' SIP submission until EPA
has defined a state's obligations pursuant to that section. See EME
Homer City, 696 F.3d at 32 (``A SIP logically cannot be deemed to lack
a `required submission' or deemed to be deficient for failure to meet
the good neighbor obligation before EPA quantifies the good neighbor
obligation.'') EPA historically has interpreted section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA as establishing the required submittal date for SIPs addressing
all of the ``interstate transport'' requirements in section
110(a)(2)(D), including the provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
regarding significant contribution to nonattainment and interference
with maintenance. However, at this time in light of the EME Homer City
opinion, EPA is not treating the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
submission from FDEP as a required SIP submission. The EME Homer City
opinion provides that EPA does not have authority to promulgate Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the requirements of section
110(a)(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA has identified emissions in a state
that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state and given the state an
opportunity to submit a SIP to address those emissions. EME Homer City,
696 F.3d at 28.
    Additionally, Florida did not submit a SIP revision to adopt the
appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new stationary
sources and modification projects become subject to PSD permitting
requirements for their GHG emissions as promulgated in the GHG
Tailoring Rule. See 75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010. Therefore, Florida's
federally-approved SIP does not address or provide adequate legal
authority for, the implementation of a GHG PSD program in Florida.
Approval of a revision to address GHG is required to meet sections
110(a)(2)(C), D(i)(II), and (J) related to PSD. On December 30, 2010,
EPA promulgated a FIP \1\ under CAA section 110(c)(1)(A) for Florida to
govern PSD permitting for GHG in the State. Since the Florida SIP
currently does not provide adequate legal authority to address the new
GHG PSD permitting requirements at or above the emissions levels set in
the GHG Tailoring Rule, or at other appropriate levels, it does not
satisfy portions of the aforementioned infrastructure requirements. See
75 FR 82246. As a result, EPA is proposing disapproval in part portions
of sections 110(a)(2)(C), D(i)(II) and (J) of Florida infrastructure
SIP submission as related to GHG PSD permitting requirements. EPA's
proposed disapproval of these elements does not result in any further
obligation on the part of Florida, because, as described above, EPA has
already promulgated a FIP for the Florida PSD program to address
permitting GHGs at or above the GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds. Thus,
today's proposed action to disapprove FDEP's submission for the PSD-
related portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C), D(i)(II), and (J), once
final, will not require any further action by either FDEP or EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan--Final Rule,
75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010).

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

    Today's action is proposing two related actions on Florida's
October 31, 2011, submission. First, EPA is proposing to approve
Florida's infrastructure submission \2\ for the applicable requirements
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception of the visibility
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and the portions of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), D(i)(II), and (J) related to GHG PSD permitting.
With respect to Florida's infrastructure SIP submission related to the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA will act on
this portion of the submission in a separate action. With respect to
the portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C), D(i)(II), and (J) related to GHG
PSD permitting requirements, EPA is proposing to disapprove Florida's
submission related to these requirements. This action is not approving
any specific rule, but rather proposing that Florida's already approved
SIP meets certain CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As noted above, Florida withdrew the portions of its
infrastructure SIP submission related to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As such, this proposed action does not address
these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
requirements that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking are
summarized below.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to
section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In accordance with the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit opinion, EPA at this time is not treating
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as a required SIP submission. See EME
Homer City generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7. Unless the EME Homer
City decision is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme
Court, states are not required to submit 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs
until the EPA has quantified their obligations under that section.
The portions of the SIP submission relating to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
(also referred to as prongs 3 and 4) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), in
contrast, are required. Prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) are being acted upon by EPA in today's proposed
rulemaking. Prong 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be acted on in a
separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA notes that this rulemaking does not address four substantive
issues that are not integral to the Florida infrastructure SIP
submission. These four issues are: (i) Existing provisions related to
excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction
at sources (SSM), that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies
addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to
``director's variance'' or ``director's discretion'' that purport to
permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public
process or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be
contrary to the CAA (director's discretion); (iii) existing provisions
for minor source new source review (NSR) programs that may be
inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations
that pertain to such programs (minor source NSR); and, (iv) 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).
    Instead, EPA has indicated that it has other authority to address
any such existing SIP defects in other rulemakings, as appropriate. A
detailed rationale for why these four substantive issues are not part
of the scope of infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be found in EPA's
November 8, 2012, proposed rule entitled, ``Approval and Promulgation
of Implementation Plans; Florida; 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' in the section
entitled, ``Scope of Infrastructure SIPs.'' See 77 FR 66927.

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

    EPA is proposing to take two actions in response to Florida's
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. FDEP's
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: There
are several regulations within Florida's SIP relevant to air quality
control regulations which include enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures. Chapters 62-204, Air Pollution Control
Provisions; 62-210, Stationary Sources--General Requirements; and 62-
296, Stationary Sources--Emissions Standards, establish emission limits
for ozone and address the required control measures,

means and techniques for compliance with the ozone NAAQS respectively.
EPA has made the preliminary determination that the provisions
contained in these chapters and Florida's practices are adequate to
protect the 2008 8-hour ozone 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 SSM of
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the
Agency plans to address such state regulations in a separate action.\7\
In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM
provision to take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On February 22, 2013, EPA published a proposed action in the
Federal Register entitled, ``State Implementation Plans: Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP
Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During
Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed Rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system:
Chapters 62-204, Air Pollution Control 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, of the
Florida SIP, along with the Florida Network Description and Ambient Air
Monitoring Network Plan, provide for an ambient air quality monitoring
system in the State. Annually, EPA approves the ambient air monitoring
network plan for the state agencies. In May 2012, Florida submitted its
monitoring network plan to EPA, and on September 11, 2012, EPA approved
this plan. Florida's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed
at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692. 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 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources: Florida's authority to
regulate new and modified sources of the ozone precursors volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) to assist
in the protection of air quality in nonattainment, attainment or
unclassifiable areas is established in 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.
    At present, there are four SIP revisions that are relevant to EPA's
review of FDEP's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in connection with the current PSD-related infrastructure
requirements. See sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
and 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA. The EPA regulations that require these SIP
revisions are: (1) ``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule'' (November 29, 2005,
70 FR 71612) (hereafter referred to as the ``Phase II Rule''); (2)
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
[GHG] Tailoring Rule; Final Rule'' (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 31514)
(hereafter referred to as the ``GHG Tailoring Rule''); (3)
``Implementation of the New Source Review Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers; Final Rule'' (May 16, 2008, 73 FR
28321) (hereafter referred to as the ``NSR PM2.5 Rule'');
and, (4) ``Final Rule on the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC); Final Rule'' (October 20,
2010, 75 FR 64864) (hereafter referred to as the``PM2.5 PSD
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5
Increments)'').
    On October 19, 2007, and July 1, 2011, FDEP submitted revisions to
EPA for approval into the Florida SIP to adopt federal requirements for
NSR permitting promulgated in the Phase II Rule. FDEP's submittal
addressed the structural PSD program revisions required by the Phase II
Rule, including requirements to include NOX as an ozone
precursor for permitting purposes for PSD and nonattainment NSR. EPA
published a final action approving FDEP's revisions which incorporate
NOX as an ozone precursor on June 15, 2012. See 77 FR 35862.
Thus, EPA has preliminarily determined that the infrastructure SIP
submission is approvable with respect to this issue.
    The second revision pertains to revisions to the PSD program
promulgated in EPA's June 3, 2010, Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule or
``GHG Tailoring Rule.'' See 75 FR 31514. Florida did not submit a SIP
revision to adopt the appropriate emission thresholds for determining
which new stationary sources and modification projects become subject
to PSD permitting requirements for their GHG emissions as promulgated
in the GHG Tailoring Rule. Therefore, Florida's federally-approved SIP
contained errors that resulted in its failure to address, or provide
adequate legal authority for, the implementation of a GHG PSD program
in Florida. Approval of a revision to address GHG is required to meet
110(a)(2)(C). In the GHG SIP Call,\8\ EPA determined that the State of
Florida's SIP was substantially inadequate to achieve CAA requirements
because its existing PSD program does not apply to GHG-emitting
sources; the rule finalized a finding to the effect and promulgated SIP
call for 15 state and local permitting authorities including Florida.
EPA explained that if a state, such as Florida, identified in the SIP
call, failed to submit the required corrective SIP revision by the
applicable deadline, EPA would promulgate a FIP under CAA section
110(c)(1)(A) for that state to govern PSD permitting for GHG. On
December 30, 2010, EPA promulgated a FIP \9\ for Florida because the
State failed to submit, by its December 22, 2010, deadline, the
corrective SIP revision to apply its PSD program to sources of GHG
consistent with the thresholds described in the GHG Tailoring rule. The
FIP ensured that a permitting authority (i.e., EPA) would be available
to issue preconstruction PSD permits to GHG-emitting sources in the
State of Florida. EPA took these actions through interim final
rulemaking, effective upon publication, to ensure the availability of a
permitting authority--EPA--in Florida for GHG-emitting sources when
they

became subject to PSD on January 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call, Final Rule, 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010).
    \9\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan--Final Rule,
75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since Florida currently does not have adequate legal authority in
its SIP to address the GHG PSD permitting requirements established in
the GHG Tailoring Rule, or at other appropriate levels, it does not
satisfy portions of elements of the infrastructure requirements. As a
result, EPA is proposing disapproval of FDEP's submission for the
portions of infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J)
related to GHG PSD permitting requirements. EPA's proposed disapproval
of these elements, if finalized, would not result in any further
obligation on the part of Florida because EPA has already promulgated a
FIP for the Florida PSD program to address permitting GHGs at or above
the GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds. See 76 FR 25178. Thus, today's
proposed action to disapprove FDEP's submission for sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to GHG PSD permitting
requirements, once final, will not require any further action by either
FDEP or EPA.
    The third and fourth revisions pertain to the adoption of PSD and
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) requirements related to the
implementation of the NSR PM2.5 Rule and PM2.5
PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5
Increments). On March 15, 2012, FDEP submitted revisions to its PSD/NSR
regulations for EPA approval to revise Florida's SIP and adopt required
federal PSD permitting provisions governing the implementation of the
NSR program for PM2.5 as promulgated in the NSR
PM2.5 Rule and PM2.5 increments pursuant to
section 166(a) of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in areas meeting the NAAQS. Approval of these regulations into
the SIP address the relevant requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J). EPA finalized approval of Florida's March 15,
2012, submittal on September 19, 2012. See 77 FR 58027.
    EPA notes that on September 19, 2012, the Agency approved the SMC
portion of the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule into the
Florida SIP. See 77 FR 58027. Since that time, on January 22, 2013, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, issued a decision
that, inter alia, vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5
SMC to the federal regulations, at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated as part of the 2010
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. See Sierra Club v. EPA,
703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In its decision, the court held that EPA
did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt permit applicants from
the statutory requirement in section 165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient
monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in all PSD permit
applications. Thus, although the PM2.5 SMC was not a
required element of a State's PSD program and thus not a structural
requirement for purposes of infrastructure SIPs, were a SIP-approved
PSD program that contains such a provision to use that provision to
issue new permits without requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring
data, such application of the SIP would be inconsistent with the
court's opinion and the requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.
    Given the clarity of the court's decision, it would now be
inappropriate for Florida to continue to allow applicants for any
pending or future PSD permits to rely on the PM2.5 SMC in
order to avoid compiling ambient monitoring data for PM2.5.
Because of the vacatur of the EPA regulations, the SMC provisions
included in Florida's SIP-approved PSD programs on the basis of EPA's
regulations are unlawful and no longer enforceable by law. Permits
issued on the basis of these provisions as they appear in approved SIPs
would be inconsistent with the CAA and difficult to defend in
administrative and judicial challenges. Thus, the SIP provisions may
not be applied even prior to their removal from the SIP. Florida should
instead require applicants requesting a PSD permit, including those
having already been applied for but for which the permit has not yet
been received, to submit ambient PM2.5 monitoring data in
accordance with the CAA requirements whenever either direct
PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor is emitted in a
significant amount.\10\ As the previously-approved PM2.5 SMC
provisions in the Florida SIP are no longer enforceable, EPA does not
believe the existence of the provisions in the State's SIP precludes
today's proposed approval of portions of the infrastructure SIP
submission for Florida as it relates to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In lieu of the applicants' need to set out PM2.5
monitors to collect ambient data, applicants may submit
PM2.5 ambient data collected from existing monitoring
networks when the permitting authority deems such data to be
representative of the air quality in the area of concern for the
year preceding receipt of the application. EPA believes that
applicants will generally be able to rely on existing representative
monitoring data to satisfy the monitoring data requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intends to initiate a rulemaking to correct SIPs that were
approved with regard to the PM2.5 SMCs prior to the court's
decision. EPA also advises the States to begin preparations to remove
the PM2.5 SMC provisions from their state PSD regulations
and SIPs. However, EPA has not yet set a deadline requiring States to
take action to revise their existing PSD programs to address the
court's decision.
    These SIP revisions and the FIP for GHG \11\ address requisite
requirements of infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C), D(i)(II), and
(J). The FIP that is currently in place to address GHG requirements in
Florida will remain until Florida submits a final submission to EPA for
federal approval and EPA takes final action on the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ (1) EPA's approval of Florida's PSD/NSR regulations which
address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements, (2) EPA's
FIP for PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions which addresses the
thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in Florida, (3) EPA's
approval of Florida's NSR PM2.5 Rule, and (4) EPA's
approval of Florida's PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, EPA notes that today's action is not proposing to approve
or disapprove the State's existing minor NSR program itself to the
extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this
program. EPA believes that a number of states may have minor NSR
provisions that are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this
program. EPA intends to work with states to reconcile state minor NSR
programs with EPA's regulatory provisions for the program. The
statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable
flexibility in designing minor NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be
time to revisit the regulatory requirements for this program to give
the states an appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that
meets their particular air quality concerns, while assuring reasonable
consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to
new and modified minor sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and
practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources related to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. For the portion of this element that EPA is disapproving
related to GHG PSD permitting requirements, EPA has made the
preliminary determination that the already promulgated FIP for Florida
is adequate for program enforcement of control measures including
review of proposed new sources related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and (ii) Interstate and International transport
provisions: Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two

components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to
as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed in SIP submissions. The first two
prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are
provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and interfering with maintenance
of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 2''). The third and fourth
prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state interfering
with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in another state (``prong 3''), or to protect visibility in
another state (``prong 4''). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
EPA's analysis of FDEP's infrastructure submission with regard to the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D) is as follows:
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): Florida does not currently have a section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS before
the Agency.\12\ However, in accordance with the panel of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinion, a SIP submission addressing
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) from the State of Florida is not currently
required. See EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7. The opinion in EME Homer City
concluded that EPA cannot promulgate a FIP to address the requirements
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for a state until EPA has first quantified the
emissions that must be prohibited under that provision. See EME Homer
City, 696 F.3d at 28 (``explaining that EPA must, after quantifying
state's obligations under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) give states an
initial opportunity to implement the obligations through SIPs''). As
such, the lack of a submission from Florida does not currently trigger
a FIP pursuant to section 110(c)(1) unless the EME Homer City decision
is reversed or otherwise modified by the Supreme Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As previously described, Florida withdrew this portion of
its infrastructure submission related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
on April 30, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 3: With regard to prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), this requirement may be met by the 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) to a NNSR program that implements the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. As discussed in more detail above with respect to section
110(a)(2)(C), FDEP's infrastructure SIP submission describes the PSD
Program provisions contained in for Florida's SIP that provide the
necessary structural PSD requirements to satisfy prong 3 requirements,
with the exception of those necessary to address GHG permitting.
Because the Florida SIP does not currently provide adequate legal
authority to address GHG PSD permitting requirements, EPA is proposing
disapproval of the Florida prong 3 infrastructure SIP submission
related to the GHG PSD permitting requirements. As previously
described, EPA has promulgated a FIP for Florida addressing these GHG
permitting requirements, and as such, EPA's proposed disapproval, if
finalized, would not result in further obligations on the part of
Florida because the FIP addresses the permitting of GHGs at our above
the applicable Tailoring Rule thresholds. See 75 FR 82246.
    EPA has preliminarily determined that the Florida SIP meets the
relevant PSD program requirements, with the exception of those for
pertaining to GHG. Accordingly, in this action EPA is proposing to
approve in part, and disapprove in part, Florida's infrastructure SIP
submission as meeting the applicable requirements of prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--prong 4: Prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requires that SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures
to protect visibility in another state. In this rulemaking, EPA is not
proposing any action on prong 4 and instead will do so in a separate
action.
    110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport provisions:
With regard to 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), Chapter 62-210, Stationary Sources--
General Requirements of the Florida SIP outlines how Florida will
notify neighboring states of potential impacts from new or modified
sources. EPA is unaware of any pending obligations for the State of
Florida pursuant to sections 115 or 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices are adequate
for insuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to
interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: 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.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i),
(ii), and (iii), EPA notes that FDEP is responsible for promulgating
rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards general
policies, a system of permits, and fee schedules for the review of
plans, and other planning needs. As evidence of the adequacy of FDEP's
resources, EPA submitted a letter to Florida on February 28, 2013,
outlining 105 grant commitments and the current status of these
commitments for fiscal year 2012. The letter EPA submitted to Florida
can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0692. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on
current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS. Florida satisfactorily met all
commitments agreed to in the Air Planning Agreement for fiscal year
2012, therefore Florida's grants were finalized. On July 30, 2012, EPA
approved Florida statutes into the SIP to comply with section 128
respecting state boards. See 77 FR 44485. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Florida has adequate resources for implementation of
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system: Florida's
infrastructure submission describes how the State establishes
requirements for emissions compliance testing and utilizes emissions
sampling and analysis. It further describes how the State ensures the
quality of its data through observing emissions and monitoring
operations. Florida FDEP uses these data to track progress towards
maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies,
identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance
with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. These
requirements are provided in Chapters 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.
    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
February 27, 2013. 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 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: Florida's infrastructure SIP
submission identifies air pollution emergency episodes and preplanned
abatement strategies as outlined in Florida Statutes 403.131 and
120.569(2)(n). These statutes were submitted for inclusion to the SIP
to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA and have
been approved by EPA on July 30, 2012. See 77 FR 44485. EPA has made
the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices are
adequate for emergency powers related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: FDEP is responsible for
adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or
maintain the NAAQS in Florida. FDEP has the ability and authority to
respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a number of SIP
revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS. Florida does
not have any nonattainment areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard but
has made an infrastructure submission for this standard, which is the
subject of this rulemaking. EPA has made the preliminary determination
that Florida's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to
provide future SIP revisions related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
when necessary.
    9. 110(a)(2)(J): EPA is proposing to approve in part, and
disapprove in part, Florida's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with respect to the requirements in section 110(a)(2)(J) to
include a program in the SIP that provides for meeting the applicable
consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification
requirements of section 127, and the PSD and visibility protection
requirements of part C of the Act.
    110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government
officials: Chapters 62-204, Air Pollution Control Provisions and 62-
212, Stationary Sources--Preconstruction Review, as well as Florida's
Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation
between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control
agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), provide
for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be
affected by SIP development activities. Florida adopted state-wide
consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation
conformity. These consultation procedures include considerations
associated with the development of mobile inventories for SIPs.
Implementation of transportation conformity as outlined in the
consultation procedures requires FDEP to consult with federal, state
and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the
development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate consultation with government officials related to the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: FDEP
has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of ozone and
other pollutant forecasting, including an air quality monitoring Web
site providing ground level ozone alerts, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/air_quality/countyaqi.htm. Florida also has state statutes,
403.131, Injunctive relief, remedies and 120.569(n) (relating to
emergency orders) which allow the state to seek injunctive relief to
prevent irreparable damage to air quality. In addition, the Florida SIP
contains federally-approved provisions to monitor air pollution
episodes for ozone and particulate matter contained in Chapter 62-
256.300, Prohibitions. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Florida's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability
to provide public notification related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
when necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (PSD) PSD: Florida's authority to regulate new and
modified sources of the ozone precursors VOCs and NOx to
assist in the protection of air quality in nonattainment, attainment or
unclassifiable areas is established in 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. Accordingly, as with the
PSD related elements of the infrastructure SIP, this portion of element
(J) also requires compliance with the Phase II Rule, the GHG Tailoring
Rule, the NSR PM2.5 Rule, and the PM2.5 PSD
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. EPA has approved into the Florida SIP or has
promulgated a FIP to address each of these requirements, and as such,
the requisite PSD-related requirements of infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(J) have been addressed. However, as with infrastructure
elements 110(a)(2)(C), and prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA has
preliminarily determined that FDEP's infrastructure SIP submission does
not fully meet element 110(a)(2)(J) due to the existing GHG permitting
FIP for Florida. As discussed in more detail above with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(C), FDEP's SIP contains provisions for Florida's PSD
program that reflect relevant SIP revisions of the structural PSD
requirements with the exception of the authority to regulate new GHG
PSD permitting requirements at or above the levels of emissions set in
the GHG Tailoring Rule, or at other appropriate levels. On December 30,
2010, EPA promulgated a FIP \13\ for those states including Florida,
because they failed to submit, a corrective SIP revision to apply its
PSD program to sources of GHG consistent with the thresholds described
in the GHG Tailoring rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan--Final Rule,
75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has preliminarily determined that the Florida SIP meets the
relevant PSD program requirements, with the exception of those for
pertaining to GHG. Accordingly, in this action EPA is proposing to
approve in part, and

disapprove in part, Florida's infrastructure SIP submission as meeting
the applicable requirements of 110(a)(2)(J). As previously described,
EPA's proposed disapproval of section 110(a)(2)(J) related to GHG PSD
permiting, if finalized, would not result in further obligations on the
part of Florida because the FIP addresses the permitting of GHGs at our
above the applicable Tailoring Rule thresholds. See 75 FR 82246.
    110(a)(2)(J) Visibility protection: With regard to the visibility
protection aspect of 110(a)(2)(J), EPA recognizes that states are
subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part
C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of
the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional
haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds
that there are no applicable visibility obligations under part C
``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes
effective. Florida has submitted SIP revisions to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA Section 169A and 169B, and the regional haze
and BART rules contained in 40 CFR 51.308. On November 29, 2012, EPA
published a final rulemaking approving certain BART determinations
under Florida's regional haze program. See 77 FR 71111. EPA has
proposed full approval of the remaining aspects of Florida's regional
haze program on December 10, 2012. See 77 FR 73369. In EPA's view, the
current status of Florida's regional haze SIP as having not been fully
approved is not a bar to full approval of the infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to the visibility protection aspect of
110(a)(2)(J), and EPA is proposing to fully approve the infrastructure
SIP for this aspect.
    10. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: Chapter 62-204.800,
Federal Regulations Adopted by Reference, incorporates by reference 40
CFR 52.21(l), which specifies that air modeling be conducted in
accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality
Models.'' These regulations demonstrate that Florida has the authority
to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on
ambient air quality of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, Florida
supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions
inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, for the Southeastern states. Taken as a
whole, Florida's air quality regulations demonstrate that FDEP has the
authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the
effect on ambient air quality of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has made
the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality
and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    11. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: Florida addresses the review of
construction permits as previously discussed in 110(a)(2)(C).
Permitting fees in Florida are collected through the State's federally-
approved title V fees program, according to State regulation
403.087(6)(a), Permit Fees. EPA has made the preliminary determination
that Florida's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    12. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: Chapter 62-204, Air Pollution Control Provisions, requires
that SIPs be submitted in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Subpart F,
for permitting purposes. Florida statute 403.061(21) 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.''
Furthermore, FDEP has demonstrated consultation with, and participation
by, affected local entities through its work with local political
subdivisions during the developing of its Transportation Conformity SIP
and Regional Haze Implementation Plan. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Florida's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate
consultation with affected local entities related to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, Florida has addressed the elements of the CAA
section 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements being proposed for approval
to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented, enforced,
and maintained in Florida. EPA is now proposing two related actions on
Florida's October 31, 2011, submission. First, EPA is proposing to
approve Florida's infrastructure submission for the applicable
requirements of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception prong 4
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and the portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
prong 3 of D(i), and (J) related to GHG PSD permitting. With respect to
Florida infrastructure SIP submission related to prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA will act on this portion of the submission in a
separate action. With respect to the portions of sections 110(a)(2)(C),
prong 3 of D(i) and (J) related to GHG PSD permitting requirements, EPA
is proposing to disapprove Florida's submission related to these
requirements.

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. 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 6, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-11868 Filed 5-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P