Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Infrastructure Requirement (Visibility) for the 1997 and 2006 PM, and 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, 50554-50556 [2014-20053]
Download as PDF
50554
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
to the network is authorized by the
operator of the network.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Persons who may initiate
circumvention. To the extent authorized
under paragraph (b) of this section, the
circumvention of a technological
measure that restricts wireless
telephone handsets or other wireless
devices from connecting to a wireless
telecommunications network may be
initiated by the owner of any such
handset or other device, by another
person at the direction of the owner, or
by a provider of a commercial mobile
radio service or a commercial mobile
data service at the direction of such
owner or other person, solely in order
to enable such owner or a family
member of such owner to connect to a
wireless telecommunications network,
when such connection is authorized by
the operator of such network.
Dated: August 18, 2014.
James H. Billington,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2014–20077 Filed 8–22–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814 & EPA–R04–
OAR–2012–0692; FRL–9915–65–Region 4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Florida;
Infrastructure Requirement (Visibility)
for the 1997 and 2006 PM, and 2008
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
On April 18, 2008, and
September 23, 2009, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) received state
implementation plan (SIP) submissions
from the State of Florida, through the
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP), regarding the
infrastructure elements for the 1997
annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, respectively. On October 31,
2012, EPA received a SIP submission
from FDEP regarding the infrastructure
elements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Additionally, on October 22,
2013, FDEP supplemented the three
aforementioned infrastructure SIP
submissions. The Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation,
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
maintenance, and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These
plans are commonly referred to as
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. Specifically, EPA
is taking final action to approve the
submissions for Florida as they relate to
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP requirements to
protect visibility in other states. All
other applicable infrastructure
requirements for these NAAQS have
been addressed in separate rulemakings.
EPA is approving the elements of these
infrastructure SIP submissions, as
supplemented on October 22, 2013, as
they relate to the protection of visibility
in other states.
This rule will be effective
September 24, 2014.
DATES:
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2012–0814 for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
SIP submissions and EPA–R04–OAR–
2012–0692 for the 2008 8-hour ozone
SIP submission. All documents in the
docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. excluding federal holidays.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Lakeman, 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 (404) 562–9043.
Mr. Lakeman can be reached via
electronic mail at lakeman.sean@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. Background
Upon promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address
basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and
modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance for that new NAAQS. On
July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA
established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of
15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/
m3), based on a 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24hour NAAQS of 65 mg/m3. On October
17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0
mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and
promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of
35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. On March 27, 2008 (77
FR 16436), EPA revised the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per
million. On March 21, 2014, EPA
proposed to approve SIP submissions
from Florida as they relate to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) infrastructure SIP
requirements to protect visibility in
other states for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. A
summary of the background for today’s
final action is provided below. See
EPA’s March 21, 2014, proposed
rulemaking at 79 FR 15718 for more
detail.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two
components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
includes four distinct components,
commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that
must be addressed in infrastructure SIP
submissions. The first two prongs,
which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that
prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 2). The third and fourth
prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that
prohibit emissions activity in one state
interfering with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in another state (prong 3) and to
protect visibility in another state (prong
4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs
to include provisions ensuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126
of the Act, relating to interstate and
international pollution abatement.
EPA has previously taken action to
address SIP submissions from Florida
related to prongs 1 through 3 of section
E:\FR\FM\25AUR1.SGM
25AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Today’s final rulemaking
relates only to prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which as previously
described, requires that infrastructure
SIPs contain adequate provisions to
protect visibility in other states.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Response to Comments
On March 21, 2014 (79 FR 15718),
EPA published a proposed rule to
approve SIP submissions from Florida
as they relate to the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) infrastructure SIP
requirements to protect visibility in
other states for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
received comments and questions on
the rulemaking from two members of
the general public (collectively referred
to as the ‘‘Commenter’’). A summary of
these comments and EPA’s response is
provided below.
Comment: The Commenter contends
that EPA must disapprove the
infrastructure SIP submissions as they
relate to prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) because, according to the
Commenter, regional haze at the St.
Marks Wildlife Refuge (St. Marks Class
I Area) is caused by prescribed burning;
the Smoke Management Plan (SMP)
attached to Florida’s regional haze SIP
submittal is ‘‘largely ignored’’ by the
Florida Forest Service (FFS); the FFS
has not designated the St. Marks Class
I Area as a Smoke Sensitive Area/
Receptor and ‘‘regularly approves burns
that engulf’’ the St. Marks Class I Area
and the Gulf of Mexico; Georgia and
Florida ‘‘regularly send smoke from
prescribed burning to the other state;’’
the FFS should disapprove prescribed
burns on days when the wind direction
will likely send smoke in the direction
of the St. Marks Class I Area; and
Florida’s regional haze SIP is ‘‘never
enforced.’’
Response: EPA disagrees that the
concerns raised by the Commenter
require the Agency to disapprove
Florida’s infrastructure SIP submissions
under prong 4. The regional haze
regulations at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E)
require that each state consider smoke
management techniques and plans for
agricultural and forestry management
purposes in developing the long-term
strategy (LTS) included in its regional
haze SIP. In reviewing Florida’s regional
haze SIP, EPA agreed with the State’s
determination that elemental carbon
associated with prescribed fires was not
a significant contributor to visibility in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
the Class I areas in Florida or Georgia.1
Florida evaluated the impact of
emissions from within the State on
Class I areas in neighboring states and
consulted with those states through a
regional planning process.2 In its formal
correspondence with Florida, Georgia
supported Florida’s approach to
identifying and evaluating emissions
sources that contribute significantly to
visibility impairment in Georgia’s Class
I areas and did not identify prescribed
fires in Florida as a source that
significantly impacts those areas.3 EPA
concluded that Florida had satisfied the
requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) to consider the need
for smoke management techniques in
Florida’s LTS for ensuring reasonable
progress towards improving visibility,
but had reasonably concluded that such
techniques were not needed in its
regional haze SIP for the first planning
period.4 We note that the Commenter
has not provided any information
unavailable at the time that EPA
finalized action on Florida’s regional
haze SIP that warrants a different
conclusion. More importantly, given
that the visibility requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) are directed
toward the protection of visibility in
downwind states, the comments do not
show that the impacts from prescribed
burning in Florida are interfering with
the reasonable progress goals set by
Georgia or other nearby states for their
Class I areas. As such, the comments
relating to visibility impacts at the St.
Marks Class I Area in Florida do not
provide a basis for disapproving FDEP’s
SIP submissions addressing the
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility.
Regarding the comments concerning
enforcement, the Commenter has not
identified any specific instances in
which the State has failed to implement
or enforce any elements of its regional
haze SIP. Florida included the SMP as
Appendix N to its regional haze SIP
submittal, but as noted in the
transmittal document associated with
Florida’s August 31, 2010 regional haze
SIP submission, the appendices to that
submission were included to provide
background information and ‘‘were not
proposed to be incorporated into the
1 See 77 FR 31240, 31251, 31260–31261 (May 25,
2012).
2 Id. at 31260.
3 Id. at 31260–61; Letter from James P. Johnson,
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, to
Thomas G. Rogers, FDEP (May 26, 2009) (attached
as Exhibit 3 to Florida’s regional haze SIP and
available in Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010–
0935).
4 77 FR at 31250–31251.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50555
SIP.’’ 5 Because the SMP is not part of
Florida’s SIP, it is not federally
enforceable. Concerns regarding the
implementation of the SMP by the FFS
should be addressed to the State.
III. Final Action
As described above, EPA is approving
the infrastructure SIP submissions from
FDEP as addressing prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Specifically, EPA is approving FDEP’s
April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009,
submissions for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and FDEP’s October 31,
2011, submission for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, as supplemented on
October 22, 2013, as they pertain to
prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
because they are consistent with section
110 of the CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this final action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive 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);
5 FDEP, Proposed Revision to State
Implementation Plan, Number 2010–01, Regional
Haze Plan (Amended), SIP Transmittal (August 31,
2010), p.3. This document can be found in Docket
ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0935.
E:\FR\FM\25AUR1.SGM
25AUR1
50556
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
• 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 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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 24, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 14, 2014.
Heather McTeer Tony,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart K—Florida
2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by
adding three new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1)
and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for
the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’, ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006
Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and
‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’ at the end of the table to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.520
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
State
effective
date
Provision
*
*
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014–20053 Filed 8–22–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
EPA
approval
date
*
Federal Register notice
4/18/2008
*
8/25/2014
*
*
*
[Insert Federal Register cita- Addressing prong 4 of section
tion].
110(a)(2)(D)(i) only.
9/23/2009
8/25/2014
[Insert Federal Register citation].
Addressing prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) only.
10/31/2011
8/25/2014
[Insert Federal Register citation].
Addressing prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) only.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 64
[Docket ID FEMA–2014–0002; Internal
Agency Docket No. FEMA–8347]
Suspension of Community Eligibility
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 22, 2014
Jkt 232001
Explanation
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
Final rule.
This rule identifies
communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under
the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) that are scheduled for
suspension on the effective dates listed
within this rule because of
noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the
program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives
documentation that the community has
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25AUR1.SGM
25AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50554-50556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20053]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814 & EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692; FRL-9915-65-Region 4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida;
Infrastructure Requirement (Visibility) for the 1997 and 2006 PM, and
2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) received state implementation plan (SIP)
submissions from the State of Florida, through the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP), regarding the infrastructure
elements for the 1997 annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, respectively. On October 31, 2012, EPA received
a SIP submission from FDEP regarding the infrastructure elements for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, on October 22, 2013, FDEP
supplemented the three aforementioned infrastructure SIP submissions.
The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
each NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These plans are commonly referred to as
``infrastructure'' SIPs. Specifically, EPA is taking final action to
approve the submissions for Florida as they relate to the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP requirements to protect visibility in other states.
All other applicable infrastructure requirements for these NAAQS have
been addressed in separate rulemakings. EPA is approving the elements
of these infrastructure SIP submissions, as supplemented on October 22,
2013, as they relate to the protection of visibility in other states.
DATES: This rule will be effective September 24, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814 for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 SIP submissions and EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0692 for the 2008
8-hour ozone SIP submission. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, 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 (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR
38652), EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour NAAQS of 65
[mu]g/m\3\. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and promulgated
a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the
98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On March 27, 2008 (77 FR
16436), EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million.
On March 21, 2014, EPA proposed to approve SIP submissions from Florida
as they relate to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) infrastructure SIP
requirements to protect visibility in other states for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS. A summary of the background for today's final
action is provided below. See EPA's March 21, 2014, proposed rulemaking
at 79 FR 15718 for more detail.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit
emissions activity in one state interfering with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state
(prong 3) and to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
EPA has previously taken action to address SIP submissions from
Florida related to prongs 1 through 3 of section
[[Page 50555]]
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for
the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Today's final rulemaking relates
only to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), which as previously
described, requires that infrastructure SIPs contain adequate
provisions to protect visibility in other states.
II. Response to Comments
On March 21, 2014 (79 FR 15718), EPA published a proposed rule to
approve SIP submissions from Florida as they relate to the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) infrastructure SIP requirements to protect
visibility in other states for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA
received comments and questions on the rulemaking from two members of
the general public (collectively referred to as the ``Commenter''). A
summary of these comments and EPA's response is provided below.
Comment: The Commenter contends that EPA must disapprove the
infrastructure SIP submissions as they relate to prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) because, according to the Commenter, regional haze at
the St. Marks Wildlife Refuge (St. Marks Class I Area) is caused by
prescribed burning; the Smoke Management Plan (SMP) attached to
Florida's regional haze SIP submittal is ``largely ignored'' by the
Florida Forest Service (FFS); the FFS has not designated the St. Marks
Class I Area as a Smoke Sensitive Area/Receptor and ``regularly
approves burns that engulf'' the St. Marks Class I Area and the Gulf of
Mexico; Georgia and Florida ``regularly send smoke from prescribed
burning to the other state;'' the FFS should disapprove prescribed
burns on days when the wind direction will likely send smoke in the
direction of the St. Marks Class I Area; and Florida's regional haze
SIP is ``never enforced.''
Response: EPA disagrees that the concerns raised by the Commenter
require the Agency to disapprove Florida's infrastructure SIP
submissions under prong 4. The regional haze regulations at 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) require that each state consider smoke management
techniques and plans for agricultural and forestry management purposes
in developing the long-term strategy (LTS) included in its regional
haze SIP. In reviewing Florida's regional haze SIP, EPA agreed with the
State's determination that elemental carbon associated with prescribed
fires was not a significant contributor to visibility in the Class I
areas in Florida or Georgia.\1\ Florida evaluated the impact of
emissions from within the State on Class I areas in neighboring states
and consulted with those states through a regional planning process.\2\
In its formal correspondence with Florida, Georgia supported Florida's
approach to identifying and evaluating emissions sources that
contribute significantly to visibility impairment in Georgia's Class I
areas and did not identify prescribed fires in Florida as a source that
significantly impacts those areas.\3\ EPA concluded that Florida had
satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) to consider the
need for smoke management techniques in Florida's LTS for ensuring
reasonable progress towards improving visibility, but had reasonably
concluded that such techniques were not needed in its regional haze SIP
for the first planning period.\4\ We note that the Commenter has not
provided any information unavailable at the time that EPA finalized
action on Florida's regional haze SIP that warrants a different
conclusion. More importantly, given that the visibility requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) are directed toward the protection of
visibility in downwind states, the comments do not show that the
impacts from prescribed burning in Florida are interfering with the
reasonable progress goals set by Georgia or other nearby states for
their Class I areas. As such, the comments relating to visibility
impacts at the St. Marks Class I Area in Florida do not provide a basis
for disapproving FDEP's SIP submissions addressing the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 77 FR 31240, 31251, 31260-31261 (May 25, 2012).
\2\ Id. at 31260.
\3\ Id. at 31260-61; Letter from James P. Johnson, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, to Thomas G. Rogers, FDEP (May 26,
2009) (attached as Exhibit 3 to Florida's regional haze SIP and
available in Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0935).
\4\ 77 FR at 31250-31251.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the comments concerning enforcement, the Commenter has
not identified any specific instances in which the State has failed to
implement or enforce any elements of its regional haze SIP. Florida
included the SMP as Appendix N to its regional haze SIP submittal, but
as noted in the transmittal document associated with Florida's August
31, 2010 regional haze SIP submission, the appendices to that
submission were included to provide background information and ``were
not proposed to be incorporated into the SIP.'' \5\ Because the SMP is
not part of Florida's SIP, it is not federally enforceable. Concerns
regarding the implementation of the SMP by the FFS should be addressed
to the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FDEP, Proposed Revision to State Implementation Plan, Number
2010-01, Regional Haze Plan (Amended), SIP Transmittal (August 31,
2010), p.3. This document can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
As described above, EPA is approving the infrastructure SIP
submissions from FDEP as addressing prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is
approving FDEP's April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009, submissions
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and FDEP's October 31,
2011, submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as supplemented on
October 22, 2013, as they pertain to prong 4 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because they are consistent with section 110 of the
CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
final action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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);
[[Page 50556]]
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 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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 24, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 14, 2014.
Heather McTeer Tony,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart K--Florida
0
2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by adding three new entries for
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'',
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end of the table to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Provision effective EPA approval Federal Register Explanation
date date notice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 4/18/2008 8/25/2014 [Insert Federal Addressing prong 4 of
Requirements for the 1997 Fine Register citation]. section
Particulate Matter National 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
Ambient Air Quality Standards. only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 9/23/2009 8/25/2014 [Insert Federal Addressing prong 4 of
Requirements for the 2006 Fine Register citation]. section
Particulate Matter National 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
Ambient Air Quality Standards. only.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 10/31/2011 8/25/2014 [Insert Federal Addressing prong 4 of
Requirements for the 2008 Ozone Register citation]. section
National Ambient Air Quality 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
Standards. only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2014-20053 Filed 8-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P