[Federal Register: October 4, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 58595-58596]
[DOCID:fr04oc06-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

September 27, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC06-165-000.
    Applicants: Pinnacle West Capital Corporation; Pinnacle West
Marketing & Trading.
    Description: Pinnacle West Capital Corp et al submit a joint
application for approval of corporate reorganization under Section 203
of the FPA.
    Filed Date: September 21, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060926-0263.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 23, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER99-1293-008; ER06-398-001; ER06-399-001; ER04-
268-004; ER98-4159-007.
    Applicants: Monmouth Energy, Inc.; Duquesne Keystone LLC; Duquesne
Conemaugh LLC; Duquesne Power, L.P.; Duquesne Light Company.
    Description: Duquesne Keystone LLC et al submit their notice of
change in status related to the Duquesne Companies' acquisition of
approx 108 MWs of generation.
    Filed Date: September 22, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060926-0199.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-715-004.
    Applicants: Marina Energy, LLC.
    Description: Marina Energy, LLC submits its triennial updated
market power analysis pursuant to the Commission's Order issued June
17, 2006.
    Filed Date: September 21, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060922-0063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 12, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-768-004.
    Applicants: Susquehanna Energy Products LLC.
    Description: Susquehanna Energy Products LLC submits its updated
market power analysis in compliance with FERC's Order issued June 16,
2006, et al.
    Filed Date: September 20, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060926-0259.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 11, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-427-005.
    Applicants: Mystic Development, LLC.
    Description: Mystic Development, LLC submits a Second Revised Sheet
7 to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 2 pursuant to the
Commission's order issued August 23, 2006.
    Filed Date: September 22, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060926-0216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-559-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
    Description: Entergy Louisiana, LLC submits a Notice of Termination
canceling several rate schedules that are no longer in use pursuant to
the Commission's March 9, 2006 order.
    Filed Date: September 22, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060927-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1314-001.
    Applicants: E.ON U.S., LLC.
    Description: E.ON U.S. LLC submits its compliance electric Refund
Report pursuant to the Commission's order issued August 24, 2006.
    Filed Date: September 25, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060925-5005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 16, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1489-001.
    Applicants: S.A.C. Energy Investments, L.P.
    Description: SAC Energy Investments LP submits a non-material
amendment to its application for market-based rate authority which was
filed on September 13, 2006.
    Filed Date: September 25, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060926-0198.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 16, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1511-000.
    Applicants: R&R Energy, Inc.
    Description: R&R Energy, Inc submits a petition for acceptance of
its initial rate schedule, waivers and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: September 15, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060926-0261.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 6, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1512-000.
    Applicants: Verso Androscoggin LLC.
    Description: Verso Androscoggin, LLC submits a Notice of Succession
and a revised market-based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: September 21, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060926-0258.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 12, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1513-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc submits a non-conforming Market
Participation Service Agreement with 330 Fund I, LP.
    Filed Date: September 21, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060926-0262.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 12, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1514-000.
    Applicants: Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.
    Description: Rochester Gas and Electric Corp submits its Third
Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement with RE Ginna Nuclear Power
Plant, LLC.
    Filed Date: September 22, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060926-0218.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1515-000.
    Applicants: TXU Portfolio Management Company LP.
    Description: TXU Portfolio Management Company, LP submits its
application for amendment to its market-based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: September 22, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060926-0217.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 13, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:
    Docket Numbers: PH06-107-000.
    Applicants: PPL Corporation.
    Description: PPL Corporation submits a Petition for Waiver pursuant
to section 18 CFR 366.4(c)(1) of the Commission's Regulations.
    Filed Date: September 22, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060922-5050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: PH06-108-000.
    Applicants: Sempra Energy.
    Description: Sempra Energy submits a Notification of Waiver
pursuant to section 18 CFR 366.4(c)(1) of the Commission's Regulations.
    Filed Date: September 22, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060922-5063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: PH06-109-000; PH06-110-000; PH06-111-000; PH06-112-
000; PH06-113-000; PH06-114-000.
    Applicants: Plainfield Direct Institutional Offshore Feeder Fund
Limited; Plainfield Direct Offshore Feeder Fund Limited; Plainfield
Direct Onshore Feeder Fund LP; Plainfield Special Situations
Institutional Offshore Feeder Fund Limited; Plainfield Special
Situations Offshore Feeder Fund Limited; Plainfield Special Situations
Onshore Feeder Fund LP.
    Description: Plainfield Direct, et al submit Waiver Notifications
pursuant to sections 18 CFR 366.3(c) and 366.4(c) of the Commission's
Regulations.
    Filed Date: September 25, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060925-5039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 16, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: PH06-115-000.
    Applicants: D. E. Shaw & Co., II, Inc.
    Description: D. E. Shaw & Co., II, Inc submits its Notice of Waiver
pursuant to sections 18 CFR 366.3(c) and 366.4(c)(1) of the
Commission's regulations.
    Filed Date: September 25, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060925-5042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 16, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16341 Filed 10-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23181-23191]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9225]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0809; FRL-9659-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida;
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part, conditionally approve,
and disapprove in part, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission,
submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) on December 13, 2007, and supplemented
on April 18, 2008, to demonstrate that the State meets the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997 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. DEP certified that the
Florida SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
are implemented, enforced, and maintained in Florida (hereafter
referred to as ``infrastructure submission''). EPA is taking four
related actions on DEP's infrastructure submission for Florida.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2011-0809, 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-2011-0809,'' 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 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2011-0809. 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 to 4:30, 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: EPA is now taking four related actions on
DEP's infrastructure submission for Florida. First, EPA is proposing to
approve a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for element 110(a)(2)(G),
which relates to the authority to implement emergency powers under
section 303 of the CAA. Second, EPA is proposing to disapprove in part
portions of elements 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J) of the State's
submittal as it relates to the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Third, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii), which relates to the State board requirements
contained section 128 of the CAA. Fourth, and with the exception of the
aforementioned elements, EPA is proposing to determine that Florida's
infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on December 13, 2007, as
supplemented on April 18, 2008, addresses all other required
infrastructure elements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Table of Contents

I. Background
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

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-
hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was
changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. See 62 FR 38856.
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit
SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)
requires states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. However,
intervening litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS created
uncertainty about how to proceed and many states did not provide the
required ``infrastructure'' SIP submission for these newly promulgated
NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice which required EPA,
among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice announcing
EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether
each state had made complete submissions to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007.
Subsequently, EPA received an extension of the date to complete this
Federal Register notice until March 17, 2008, based upon agreement to
make the findings with respect to submissions made by January 7, 2008.
In accordance with the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings
for each state based upon what the Agency received from each state as
of January 7, 2008.
    On March 27, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled,
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans;
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,'' making a finding that each state had submitted or
failed to submit a complete SIP that provided the basic program
elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16205. For those states that did receive
findings, such as Florida, the findings of failure to submit for all or
a portion of a State's implementation plan established a 24-month
deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the outstanding SIP
elements unless, prior to that time, the affected states submitted, and
EPA approved, the required SIPs. However, the findings of failure to
submit did not impose sanctions or set deadlines for imposing sanctions
as described in section 179 of the CAA, because these findings do not
pertain to the elements contained in the Title I part D plan for
nonattainment areas as required under section 110(a)(2)(I).
Additionally, the findings of failure to submit for the infrastructure
submittals are not a SIP call pursuant to section 110(k)(5).
    The finding that all or portions of a state's submission are
complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon
the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k). Florida's
infrastructure submission was received by EPA on December 13, 2007, and
was determined to be complete on March 27, 2008, for all elements with
the exception of 110(a)(2)(G). Specifically, 110(a)(2)(G) relates to
the requirement for states to provide authority comparable to that in
section 303 of the CAA, Emergency Power, and adequate contingency plans
to implement such authority. Florida was among other states that
received a finding of failure to submit because its infrastructure
submission was deemed incomplete for element (G) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by March 1, 2008. The finding of failure to submit action
triggered a 24-month clock for EPA to either issue a FIP or take final
action on a SIP revision which corrects the deficiency for which the
finding of failure to submit was received. Today's action involves four
related proposals to act on DEP's December 13, 2007, submission as
supplemented on April 18, 2008.
    With regard to the proposal to establish a FIP, which will be
discussed in further detail below, preliminary background information
is provided as follows. In DEP's December 13, 2007, submission and a
letter dated April 18, 2008, DEP cited State statutes as

evidence that Florida has the authority to implement emergency powers
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Because these statutes have not
been approved into the Florida SIP, as part of today's proposal, EPA is
proposing a FIP to correct this deficiency. EPA will take action to
approve a FIP for element 110(a)(2)(G) unless Florida submits a SIP
revision correcting the deficiency for element 110(a)(2)(G) and EPA
takes final action to approve the revision prior to such time that EPA
is obligated to take final action on this ozone infrastructure SIP
submission, per a settlement agreement signed on November 30, 2011. In
a letter dated March 23, 2012, DEP provided a letter with the State's
intent to submit a SIP revision to address this deficiency in the very
near future. A copy of this letter is in the docket for today's
proposed rulemaking. EPA acknowledges Florida's request and if EPA is
able to take action on Florida's forthcoming SIP revision prior to
finalizing the proposed FIP that is being proposed today, the FIP
proposed today will no longer be necessary.
    Today's action is proposing to approve Florida's infrastructure
submission for which EPA made the completeness determination and
findings of failure to submit on March 27, 2008. This action is not
approving revisions to any rules; but rather, is proposing that
Florida's already approved SIP meets certain CAA infrastructure
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

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 1997 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 previous 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 SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the
subject of this proposed rulemaking are listed below \1\ and in EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today's proposed rule does not address element
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Interstate transport requirements were formerly addressed by
Florida consistent with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). On
December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals, without vacatur, back to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA,
531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Prior to this remand, EPA took final
action to approve Florida's SIP revision, which was submitted to
comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 58016 (October 12, 2007). In so doing,
Florida's CAIR SIP revision addressed the interstate transport
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. In response to the remand of CAIR, EPA has recently finalized
a new rule to address the interstate transport of NOX and
SOX in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011) (``the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule''). EPA's action on
element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be addressed 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' but
as mentioned above 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 is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS for various states across
the country. Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states
raised concerns about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain
substantive issues in the context of acting on those infrastructure SIP
submissions.\5\ Those Commenters specifically raised concerns involving
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements in other
proposals that it would address two issues separately and not as part
of actions on the infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) Existing
provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) at sources, that may be contrary to the
CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; and (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). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues for
which EPA likewise stated in other proposals that it would address the
issues separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source new source
review programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the
CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (minor source
NSR); and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (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). In light of the comments, EPA believes that its
statements in various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs with
respect to these four individual issues should be explained in greater
depth. It is important to emphasize that EPA is taking the same
position with respect to these four substantive issues in this action
on the infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS from
Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated
May 31, 2011. Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that
these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this
rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this
rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate
rulemaking action to which they apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these
four issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice
of the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of
some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not
want states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under
the misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a re-approval of
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy,
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit
re-approval of any existing provisions that relate to these four
substantive issues. EPA is reiterating that position in this action on
the infrastructure SIP for Florida.
    Unfortunately, the Commenters and others evidently interpreted
these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM
provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts
of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA
was merely postponing taking final action on the issues in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the
contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for
certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any
misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions.
EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not
require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive
issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with
separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP
submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it
was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to
be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k)
or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from
EPA's statements in those other proposals, however, we want to explain
more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these four
potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed
separately from actions on infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``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
that these SIPs are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, new source review
permitting program submissions required to address the requirements of
part D, and a host of other specific types of SIP submissions that
address other specific matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2)
provides more details concerning the required contents of these
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory
provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, 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 provisions,
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and
substantive provisions.\6\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2)
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) 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 substantive program to address
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event
of such an emergency.
    \7\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic
points as what constitutes significant contribution. See ``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
(May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that ``each'' SIP
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\8\ This illustrates that
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states
to address each of the four prongs of

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with substantive administrative actions
proceeding on different tracks with different schedules.\9\ This
illustrates that EPA may conclude that subdividing the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may
sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS where a specific substantive
action is necessitated, beyond a mere submission addressing basic
structural aspects of the state's implementation plans. Finally, 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
and the attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For
example, the monitoring requirements that might be necessary for
purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different
than what might be necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the
content of an infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a
state might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor
revision to an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \9\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division
Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2),
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by
part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section
110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear
that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D
also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)
with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be
limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type
of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2)
and not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for
infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\11\ Within this guidance document,
EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what
the Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs,
which it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards.'' \12\ As further identification of
these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the
guidance document included a short description of the various elements
of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of
issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such
infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic
requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an
interpretation of'' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief
description of the required elements.'' \13\ EPA also stated its belief
that with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self
explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA
Regions.'' \14\ However, for the one exception to that general
assumption (i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each
State would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine
the scope of a State's submittal based on an assessment of how the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic
structure of the State's implementation plans for the NAAQS in
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance'').
    \12\ Id., at page 2.
    \13\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \14\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by
commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations
to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\15\ In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a
number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure
SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS (e.g., the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had
bifurcated from the other infrastructure elements for those specific
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS). Significantly, neither the 2007
Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM,
director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among
specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the
2009 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended
to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to
address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007
Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make
submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP
structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the

NAAQS. EPA believes that states can establish that they have the basic
SIP structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies
within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals for other states
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions. The same holds
true for this action on the infrastructure SIP for Florida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''
from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25,
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP
requirement is reasonable because it would not be feasible to read
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern,
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP 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 that, 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 considers the overall effectiveness of the
SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to
determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of
the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate
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 otherwise to comply with the CAA.\16\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\17\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the
appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP
problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action 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 the infrastructure SIP, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a
subsequent action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \17\ EPA has recently utilized 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 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See 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).
    \18\ EPA has recently disapproved 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 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed
disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540
(January 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?

    EPA is proposing to take four previously described actions in
response to Florida's infrastructure SIP submission for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Below is a discussion of Florida's submission organized by
each of the sub-elements found in sections 110(a)(1) and (2).
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures: 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 1997
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 the future. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to
take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
    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 2011, Florida submitted its
monitoring network plan to EPA, and on October 17, 2011, EPA approved
this plan. Florida's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed
at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0809. 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 1997 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. There are two recent
revisions to the Florida SIP (including revisions to Chapters 62-210
and 62-212) that are necessary to meet the requirements of
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C).
    The first revision modifies provisions of Florida's SIP at Chapter
62-210 and 62-212 to recognize NOX as an ozone precursor as
required by the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule New Source
Review (NSR) Update--Phase 2 final rule (hereafter referred to as the
``Ozone Implementation NSR Update'' or ``Phase 2 Rule''), among other
requirements. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).
    On October 19, 2007, and July 1, 2011, DEP submitted revisions to
EPA for approval into the Florida SIP to adopt federal requirements for
new source review (NSR) permitting promulgated in the Phase 2 Rule.
Both, the October 19, 2007, and July 1, 2011, SIP revisions amend the
State's PSD regulations to establish that PSD permit applicants must
identify NOX as an ozone precursor as established in the
Phase 2 Rule. In addition to meeting the requirements of the Ozone
Implementation NSR Update, these revisions are also necessary to
address portions of the infrastructure SIP requirements described at
element 110(a)(2)(C). Specifically, these SIP revisions address the
Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements to include NOX
as an ozone precursor for permitting purposes. EPA is currently
proposing approval of these provisions into the SIP in a separate
action from this rulemaking. On March 23, 2012, the proposed rulemaking
of Florida's October 19, 2007, and July 1, 2011, SIP revisions was
signed by EPA Region 4.
    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 greenhouse gas (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 GHGs is
required to meet 110(a)(2)(C). In the GHG SIP Call,\19\ 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 findings and SIP call for 15
state and local permitting authorities including Florida. EPA explained
that if a state, 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 GHGs. On December 30, 2010, EPA promulgated a
FIP \20\ because Florida 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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).
    \20\ 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 to
address the new GHG PSD permitting requirements at or above the levels
of emissions set in the GHG Tailoring Rule, or at other appropriate
levels, its SIP does not satisfy portions of elements of the
infrastructure requirements. As a result, EPA is proposing disapproval
DEP's submission for infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C) and
110(a)(2)(J) as they relate 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 EPA has already promulgated
a FIP for the Florida PSD program to address permitting GHGs at or
above the GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds (76 FR 25178). Thus, today's
proposed action to disapprove DEP's submission for elements
110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J), once final, will not require any further
action by either DEP or EPA.
    Florida's October 19, 2007, and July 1, 2011, SIP revisions \21\
address the requisite requirements of infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(C) related to the Phase 2 Rule, therefore, today's action to
propose approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(C) related to
the Phase 2 Rule is contingent upon EPA is taking final action to
approve each of those revisions into the Florida SIP. Additionally, 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. Final action
regarding today's proposed approval of infrastructure SIP element
110(a)(2)(C) will not occur prior to final approval of the pending
related SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This pertains to EPA's proposed approval of Florida's PSD/
NSR regulations which address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also 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 1997 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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport
provisions: Chapter 62-210, Stationary Sources--General Requirements of
Florida's SIP, outlines how Florida will notify neighboring states of
potential impacts from new or modified sources. Florida does not have
any pending obligation under sections 115 and 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
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    5. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: EPA is proposing two separate
actions with respect to the sub-elements required pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(E). Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation
plan provide (i) necessary assurances that the State will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out its
implementation plan, (ii) that the State comply with the requirements
respecting State Boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation
of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of such plan provisions. EPA is proposing to
approve Florida's SIP as meeting the requirements of sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). With respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (regarding
state boards), EPA is proposing to conditionally approve this sub-
element. EPA's rationale for today's proposals respecting each sub-
element is described in turn below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), EPA notes that DEP 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
DEP's resources, EPA submitted a letter to Florida on March 13, 2012,
outlining 105 grant commitments and the current status of these
commitments for fiscal year 2011. The letter EPA submitted to Florida
can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2011-0809. 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
2011, therefore Florida's grants were finalized and closed out.
    As discussed above, with respect to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii),
EPA is proposing to conditionally approve Florida's infrastructure SIP
as to this requirement. Florida's December 13, 2007, infrastructure
certification letter did not certify the adequacy of the State's
implementation plan to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (requiring state compliance with section 128 of the
CAA), and presently Florida's SIP does not include provisions to meet
section 128 requirements. EPA is proposing to conditionally approve
Florida's infrastructure SIP with respect to element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
based upon a letter dated March 13, 2012, which outlined DEP's
commitment to adopt specific enforceable measures into its SIP within
one year to address the applicable portions of section 128.
    The section 128(a)(1) State Board requirements--as applicable to
the infrastructure SIP pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)--provide
that each SIP shall require that any board or body which approves
permits or enforcement orders shall be subject to the described public
interest and income restrictions therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) requires
that any board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar
power to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall
also be subject to conflict of interest disclosure requirements. EPA's
proposed conditional approval of Florida's 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
infrastructure SIP requires the State to adopt specific enforceable
measures related to 128(a)(2) to address current deficiencies in the
Florida SIP.
    For purposes of section 128(a)(1), Florida has no boards or bodies
with authority over air pollution permits or enforcement actions. Such
matters are instead handled by an appointed Secretary. Appeals of final
administrative orders and permits are available only through the
judicial appellate process described at Florida Statute 120.68. As
such, a ``board or body'' is not responsible for approving permits or
enforcement orders in Florida, and the requirements of section
128(a)(1) are not applicable.
    Regarding section 128(a)(2) (also made applicable to the
infrastructure SIP pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)), Florida has
committed to submit for incorporation into the SIP relevant provisions
of Florida Statutes, specifically 112.3143(4) and 112.3144, sufficient
to satisfy the conflict of interest provisions applicable to the head
of DEP and all public officers within the Department.
    In accordance with section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the commitment
from Florida must provide that the State will adopt the specified
enforceable provisions, and provide a SIP submission to EPA, by a date
certain within one year from EPA's final action in this matter. In
Florida's letter, dated March 13, 2012, DEP committed to adopt the
specified enforceable provisions by October 31, 2012. Failure by the
State to adopt these provisions and submit them to EPA for
incorporation into the SIP within one year from the effective date of
EPA's final conditional approval action would result in this proposed
conditional approval being treated as a disapproval. Should that occur,
EPA would provide the public with notice of such a disapproval in the
Federal Register.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ EPA notes that pursuant to section 110(k)(4), a conditional
approval is treated as a disapproval in the event that a State fails
to comply with its commitment. Notification of this disapproval
action in the Federal Register is not subject to public notice and
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of Florida's formal commitment to correct deficiencies
contained in the Florida SIP pertaining to section 128, EPA intends to
move forward with finalizing the conditional approval consistent with
section 110(k)(4) of the Act. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Florida has adequate resources for implementation of
the 1997 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 DEP 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
November 22, 2011. 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 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: On March 27, 2008, EPA published a
final rulemaking entitled, ``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a)
State Implementation Plans; 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS,'' making a finding as
to whether each state had submitted or failed to submit a complete SIP
that provided the basic program elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary
to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16205. Florida was
among other states that received a finding of failure to submit because
its infrastructure submission was deemed incomplete for element
110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by March 1, 2008. The
finding of failure to submit action triggered a 24-month clock for EPA
to either issue a FIP or take final action on a SIP revision which
corrects the deficiency for which the finding of failure to submit was
received. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
    In DEP's December 13, 2007, submission and a letter dated April 18,
2008, DEP cited State statutes as evidence that Florida has the
authority to implement emergency powers for the 8-hour ozone standard.
The April 18, 2008, letter DEP sent to EPA, which includes the specific
State statutes cited by DEP, can be accessed at www.regulations.gov
using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0809. Because these statutes have
not been adopted into the federally-approved SIP, EPA is proposing a
FIP to correct this deficiency. EPA has preliminarily determined that
the cited statutes are sufficient to meet the requirements of section
303 of the CAA thus meet the requirements of element 110(a)(2)(G).
Through this action, EPA is proposing use of the following parts of
Florida's statutes as part of a FIP, to meet the ``emergency powers''
requirements described at section 110(a)(2)(G) for Florida:
    a. Injunctive relief, remedies.--
    The department may institute a civil action in a court of competent
jurisdiction to seek injunctive relief to enforce compliance with this
chapter or any rule, regulation, permit certification, or order; to
enjoin any violation specified in s. 403.161(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.
    b. Decisions which affect substantial interests.--
    If an agency head finds that an immediate danger to the public
health, safety, or welfare requires an immediate final order, it shall
recite with particularity the facts underlying such finding in the
final order, which shall be appealable or enjoinable from the date
rendered.
    In a letter dated, March 23, 2012, DEP committed to submit a SIP
revision correcting deficiencies in the SIP for element 110(a)(2)(G).
EPA intends to approve a FIP for element 110(a)(2)(G) unless Florida
submits a SIP revision correcting the deficiency for element
110(a)(2)(G). Due to EPA's obligations pursuant to the infrastructure
SIP settlement agreement described above, EPA would need to take final
action to approve such a SIP revision prior to the date on which EPA is
obligated to take final action.\23\ Should final approval of a SIP
revision related to emergency powers occur after EPA finalizes a FIP
for element 110(a)(2)(G), EPA would act to rescind the FIP at that
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ To facilitate an expeditious remedy to this deficiency,
upon request of the State, EPA will parallel process such a SIP
submittal. See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has made the preliminary determination that the proposed FIP
for Florida, as outlined above, is adequate for emergency powers
related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: DEP is responsible for
adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or
maintain the NAAQS in Florida. DEP 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 1997 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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
when necessary.
    9. 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 DEP to consult with federal, state and
local transportation and air quality agency officials on the
development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA approved Florida's
consultation procedures on August 11, 2003 (See 68 FR 47468). EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials related
to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    10. 110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: DEP
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 allows the state to seek
injunctive relief to prevent irreparable damage to air quality and
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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when
necessary.
    11. 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD) PSD and visibility protection: Florida's
authority to regulate new and modified sources of ozone precursors VOCs
and NOX to assist in the protection of air quality in
nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable areas is provided for in
Chapters 62-210, Stationary Sources--General Requirements, Section
200--Definitions, and 62-212, Stationary Sources--Preconstruction
Review, Section 400--Prevention of Significant Deterioration. As with
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C), infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(J) also requires compliance with applicable provisions of the
PSD program described in Part C of the Act. Accordingly, the GHG
Tailoring Rule revisions to Florida's SIP and pending EPA actions on
the Ozone Implementation NSR Update are likewise prerequisites to
today's proposed action to approve the State's infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(J). See the discussion for element 110(a)(2)(C) above for a
description of these pending revisions to the Florida SIP respecting
the Ozone Implementation NSR Update.
    The second revision pertains to revisions to the PSD program
promulgated in the June 3, 2010, GHG Tailoring Rule (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 GHGs is required to meet 110(a)(2)(J).
    Since Florida currently does not have adequate legal authority to
address the new GHG PSD permitting requirements at or above the levels
of emissions set in the GHG Tailoring Rule, or at other appropriate
levels, its SIP does not satisfy portions of elements of the
infrastructure requirements. As a result, EPA is proposing disapproval
DEP's submission for infrastructure elements 110(a)(2)(C) and
110(a)(2)(J) as they relate to GHG PSD permitting requirements. EPA's
proposed disapproval of these elements does not result in any further
action, because EPA has already promulgated a FIP for the Florida PSD
program to address permitting GHGs at or above the GHG Tailoring Rule
thresholds (76 FR 25178). See the discussion for element 110(a)(2)(C)
above for a description of the FIP related to GHG PSD permitting
requirements in Florida.
    Both of the previously discussed proposed Ozone Implementation NSR
Update SIP revisions \24\ address requisite requirements of
infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J), therefore, today's action to
propose approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(J) is
contingent upon EPA taking final action to approve each of these
pending revisions into the Florida SIP. 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. Final action regarding today's proposed
approval of infrastructure SIP element 110(a)(2)(J) (PSD and visibility
protection) will not occur prior to final approval of the pending
related SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This pertains to EPA's proposed approval of Florida's PSD/
NSR regulations which address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also 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)(J) 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.
    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, 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 is
no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J)
when a new NAAQS becomes effective. This would be the case even in the
event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established,
because this NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part
C. Florida has submitted SIP revisions for approval to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA Section 169A and 169B, and the regional haze
and best available retrofit technology rules contained in 40 CFR
51.308. These revisions are currently under review and will be acted on
in a separate action.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Florida's SIP and
practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to implement PSD
programs and to provide for visibility protection related to the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary. For the portion of this element that
EPA is disapproving related to GHG PSD permitting requirements, EPA has
made the preliminary determination that the promulgated FIP for Florida
is adequate for program enforcement of control measures including
review of proposed new sources related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    12. 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 DEP 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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
when necessary.
    13. 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 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    14. 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 DEP 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, DEP 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 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA has addressed the elements of the CAA
110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to EPA's October 2, 2007,
guidance to ensure that the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented,
enforced, and maintained in Florida. EPA is now proposing four related
actions on Florida's December 13, 2007, submission as supplemented on
April 18, 2008. First, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's
infrastructure submission for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the
specific exceptions as follows. Second, EPA is proposing a FIP to
address 110(a)(G) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA notes that
the proposed FIP will not be necessary if EPA receives, and is able to
take action on, a SIP revision to address the 110(a)(2)(G) requirements
prior to the Agency's obligation to take final action per the terms of
a settlement agreement related to this action. Third, EPA is proposing
to disapprove Florida's submission for portions of elements
110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J) related to the regulation of GHG
emissions. Fourth, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve sub-
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) related to section 128 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. 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: March 30, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-9225 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 40087]
[DOCID:fr14jy06-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP97-81-026]

Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC; Notice of
Negotiated Rate

July 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on June 30, 2006, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas
Transmission LLC (KMIGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, to
be effective July 1, 2006:

Sixth Revised Sheet No. 4G.01.
Third Revised Sheet No. 4K.
Original Sheet No. 4K.01.
Original Sheet No. 4K.02.
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 4L.

    KMIGT states that a copy of this filing has been served upon all
parties to this proceeding, KMIGT's customers and affected state
commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-11175 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P