Air Quality Plans; Florida; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 19089-19093 [2020-06585]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19089
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 66 / Monday, April 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.
Subpart EE—New Hampshire
2. In § 52.1520, amend the table in
paragraph (e) by adding an entry for
‘‘Negative declaration for the 2016
Control Techniques Guideline for the
Oil and Natural Gas Industry’’ at the end
of the table, to read as follows:
■
Dated: March 27, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
§ 52.1520
*
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
NEW HAMPSHIRE NONREGULATORY
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision
*
*
*
Negative declaration for the 2016 Control Tech- Statewide ..........
niques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas
Industry.
State
submittal date/
effective date
*
12/17/2019
EPA approved date 3
*
*
4/6/2020 [Insert Federal Register citation].
Explanations
*
Negative
declaration.
3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.
[FR Doc. 2020–06809 Filed 4–3–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0148; FRL–10007–
04–Region 4]
Air Quality Plans; Florida;
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 Apr 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
DATES:
This rule is effective May 6,
2020.
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2019–0148. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information may not be 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
ADDRESSES:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving portions of
the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission provided by the State of
Florida, through the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP),
through a letter dated September 18,
2018. This submission pertains to the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2015 8hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Whenever EPA
promulgates a new or revised NAAQS,
the CAA requires that each state adopt
and submit a SIP submission to
SUMMARY:
establish that the state’s implementation
plan meets infrastructure requirements
for the implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement of each such NAAQS.
FDEP made the required SIP submission
to assure that the Florida SIP contains
provisions that ensure the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is implemented,
enforced, and maintained in Florida.
EPA has in this action determined that
Florida’s infrastructure SIP submission
satisfies certain required infrastructure
elements for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
the Air Regulatory Management Section,
Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air and Radiation 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, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, 30303–8960. Mr.
Lakeman can be reached via electronic
mail at lakeman.sean@epa.gov or via
telephone at (404) 562–9043.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 1, 2015 (80 FR 65292,
October 26, 2015), EPA promulgated
revised primary and secondary NAAQS
for ozone revising the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS from 0.075 parts per million to
a new more protective level of 0.070
ppm. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA, states are required to make a
E:\FR\FM\06APR1.SGM
06APR1
19090
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 66 / Monday, April 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
SIP submission meeting the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2) within
three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS or within such
shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) requires states to
address basic SIP elements such as
requirements for monitoring, basic
program requirements and legal
authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. This particular type of SIP
submission is commonly referred to as
an ‘‘infrastructure SIP.’’ EPA required
states to submit these infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS to EPA no later than October 1,
2018.1
This action is approving portions of
Florida’s September 18, 2018 2 ozone
infrastructure SIP submission for the
applicable requirements of the 2015 8hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is not acting
on the interstate transport requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. EPA will consider these
requirements for Florida for the 2015 8hour ozone NAAQS separately.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) published on December 17,
2019 (84 FR 68863), EPA proposed to
approve portions of Florida’s SIP
submission dated September 18, 2018,
intended to address the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The NPRM
provides additional detail regarding the
background and rationale for EPA’s
action.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
II. Response to Comments
EPA received one comment seeking
clarification and one set of adverse
comments which are summarized and
responded to below. The full set of
comments are in the docket for this final
rule.
Comment 1: A Commenter notes that
EPA may have misidentified a website
in the NPRM and seeks a clarification.
Response 1: EPA agrees with the
Commenter. In the December 17, 2019,
NPRM, EPA noted that Florida is
required to submit emissions data to
EPA for purposes of the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) pursuant to
subpart A to 40 CFR part 51—‘‘Air
1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions, states
generally certify evidence of compliance with
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a
combination of state regulations and statutes, some
of which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be
appropriate for demonstrating compliance with
sections 110(a)(1) and (2).
2 The September 18, 2018, SIP submission
provided by FDEP was received by EPA on
September 26, 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Apr 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
Emissions Reporting Rule.’’ The NEI is
EPA’s central repository for air
emissions data and Florida made its
latest update to the NEI on December
17, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions
data, supplementing it where necessary,
and releases it to the general public
through the website. In the December
17, 2019 (84 FR 68868), NPRM, EPA
indicated the website was https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
eiinformation.html. However, as
identified by the Commenter, the correct
website is https://www.epa.gov/airemissions-inventories.
Comment 2: A Commenter asserts that
EPA cannot approve Florida’s
infrastructure SIP submission as
demonstrating compliance with the
CAA’s interstate transport requirements
in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
interference with prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) and
visibility programs for any other state
because Florida’s September 18, 2018,
SIP submission did not address the
interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). By way of
background, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
contains two subsections: (D)(i)(I) and
(D)(i)(II) that a state must address in
infrastructure SIP submissions. Each of
these subsections has two subparts
resulting in four distinct components,
commonly referred to by EPA as
‘‘prongs.’’ The first two prongs, which
are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
are provisions that prohibit any source
or other type of emissions activity in
one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in
another state (‘‘prong 1’’) and interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and
fourth prongs, which are codified in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions
that prohibit emissions activity in one
state from interfering with measures
required for PSD of air quality in
another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or to protect
visibility in another state (‘‘prong 4’’).
The Commenter asserts that Florida
did not address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for PSD and visibility
in the September 18, 2018, SIP
submission because the State does not
‘‘even mention the words ‘Prong 3’ or
‘Prong 4.’ ’’ As further evidence that the
SIP submission does not address these
requirements, the Commenter points to
the fact that the State sent an email to
EPA on November 13, 2019, to confirm
that the State did intend the submission
to meet those substantive requirements.
The Commenter contends that ‘‘EPA
cannot act on email messages from
states and pretend they are official SIP
submissions from the states’’ and that
no state public notice was advertised on
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Prongs 3 or 4. As to the substance of the
November 13, 2019 email, the
Commenter claims that the State
wrongly attempts to suggest that prong
3 and 4 are met by pointing to the prong
1 discussion in the September 18, 2018,
SIP submission, and points to prior
court cases pertaining to interstate
transport that indicate EPA is required
to give independent analysis to each
prong of the interstate transport
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D). The
Commenter also suggests that EPA has
additional correspondence with the
State related to the State’s November 13,
2019, clarification email that should be
included in the docket for the
rulemaking.
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the
Commenter’s assertion that Florida did
not address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in
its September 18, 2018, infrastructure
SIP submission. In its September 13,
2013 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2)’’ (2013 Guidance), EPA
explains that a state may meet
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) by
establishing in its infrastructure SIP
submission that new major sources and
major modifications are already subject
to a comprehensive EPA-approved PSD
permitting program.3 EPA also notes in
the 2013 Guidance that sources in
nonattainment areas are not subject to
PSD permitting and that states may rely
on an existing EPA-approved
nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) program with respect to sources
located in nonattainment areas.4 For the
visibility component of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4), EPA
provides in the 2013 Guidance that
states may meet this requirement by
establishing in its infrastructure SIP
submission that it already has an EPAapproved regional haze SIP that fully
meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308.5
EPA’s analysis of Florida’s September
18, 2018, infrastructure SIP submission
focused on whether the State provided
relevant information to establish that
Florida’s existing SIP adequately
prohibits emissions activities within the
State that will ‘‘interfere with measures
required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for any
other State . . . to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility,’’ consistent with the
requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Based on Florida’s
transmittal letter for the September 18,
3 2013
Guidance, p. 31.
Guidance, pp. 31–32.
5 2013 Guidance, p. 33.
4 2013
E:\FR\FM\06APR1.SGM
06APR1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 66 / Monday, April 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
2018, SIP submission, and the actual
content of the September 18, 2018, SIP
submission, EPA believes Florida
satisfied these requirements. In its
September 18, 2018, transmittal letter,
Florida states that the submission
‘‘addresses each [emphasis added] of
the CAA infrastructure elements for the
2015 Revised National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone
(O3).’’ The State did not identify any
sections it did not intend to address and
further explained the provisions that it
did intend to address in the
introduction section of the September
18, 2018, SIP submission: ‘‘[FDEP]
Hereby confirms that the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and the
infrastructure elements required by
sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) of the
CAA are adequately addressed in
Florida’s existing approved SIP with
respect to the implementation of the
2015 revised NAAQS.’’ Moreover, on
page 5 of the SIP submission, the State
properly describes the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to include
the provisions of subparagraph (II)
requiring states to prohibit emissions
activity from the State from ‘‘interfering
with any other state’s required plan
under Part C of the CAA for prevention
of significant deterioration and
protection of visibility.’’ Thus, though
broadly worded in some cases, there are
several indications in the September 18,
2018, SIP submission that the State
intended the submission to address all
of the applicable requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2), including the prong 3
and prong 4 requirements.
While EPA acknowledges that the
September 18, 2018, SIP submission did
not use the terms ‘‘prong 3’’ or ‘‘prong
4’’ to describe the requirements the
State was addressing in the SIP
submission, these are not statutory
terms but rather EPA-developed
shorthand for the two requirements in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Thus,
EPA disagrees that it is a deficiency for
the State not to include these specific
terms in its SIP submission nor is the
absence of these terms an indication
that the State failed to perform the
necessary analysis of these statutory
requirements. Consistent with the 2013
Guidance regarding how a state may
address the prong 3 requirements,6 the
SIP submission confirms on both pages
5 and 7 of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
analysis that the State has both PSD and
NNSR permitting programs already in
its existing SIP. In particular, the State
notes on those pages that the approved
SIP requires ‘‘any new major source or
major modification to undergo PSD or
6 2013
Guidance, pp. 30–32.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Apr 03, 2020
NNSR permitting and thereby
demonstrate that it will not cause or
contribute to a violation of any NAAQS
or PSD increment in Florida or any
other state’’ (emphasis added). This
language from the SIP submission is
consistent with the language of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requiring that a
state’s plan demonstrate that emissions
from the state will not interfere with
another state’s PSD permitting plan, as
the PSD requirements are specifically
concerned with ensuring that the
construction of new or modified major
sources will not lead to new violations
of the NAAQS or increments. See CAA
section 165(a)(3).
Similarly, the SIP submission is
consistent with the 2013 Guidance
regarding how a state may address the
prong 4 requirements because the SIP
revision explains at page 5 that Florida
has a fully-approved regional haze SIP.7
The State further explained on the same
page that: ‘‘This plan ensures that
Florida will not interfere with visibility
protection in other states.’’ That
statement is clearly in reference to the
language describing the prong 4
requirements in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
EPA agrees with the Commenter that
it would have been clearer if the State
had provided sections in its September
18, 2018, SIP submission explicitly
labeled ‘‘prong 3’’ and ‘‘prong 4,’’ or
otherwise demarcated its analysis of
these specific requirements in the same
manner as the sections entitled ‘‘prong
1’’ and ‘‘prong 2,’’ but EPA does not
agree that the exclusion of the terms
‘‘prong 3’’ and ‘‘prongs 4’’ in the
submission means that the State did not
in fact make a submission that addresses
the interstate transport requirements
with respect to the PSD and visibility
prongs for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
EPA also agrees with the Commenter
that each of the four prongs of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) are separate requirements
that states and EPA must address, and
that there are prior court decisions that
confirm this basic point. EPA disagrees,
however, that the State has failed to
address prong 3 and 4 in the September
18, 2018, SIP submission, or that EPA
has failed to evaluate the submission
with respect to these prongs. EPA and
the State have provided independent
analysis for prongs 3 and 4, as discussed
above. Florida’s SIP submission satisfies
the prong 3 requirements based on its
SIP-approved PSD and NNSR permit
programs, which require analysis and
control of emissions that may impact
another state’s compliance with its own
PSD requirements and satisfies the
7 2013
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Guidance, pp. 32–35.
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19091
prong 4 requirements based on the
State’s fully-approved regional haze SIP.
Not providing individual headings for
each requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) or
prong within the submission does not
support Commenter’s assertion that the
State or EPA failed to address each of
these prongs independently.
EPA also disagrees with the
Commenter’s assertion that, by
proposing to approve the September 18,
2018, SIP revision, EPA is
inappropriately relying on the
November 13, 2019, email from Florida
instead of requiring a supplemental SIP
submission. As previously
acknowledged, EPA agrees that the SIP
submission could have been clearer
with respect to the infrastructure SIP
requirements that the State was
addressing, but the content of that SIP
submission in fact did substantively
address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In an abundance of
caution, however, EPA requested
confirmation of that fact from the State
to include in the docket during EPA’s
public comment period for the proposed
approval of Florida’s September 18,
2018, SIP submission. The email merely
confirmed Florida’s intent regarding its
September 18, 2018, SIP submission and
did not provide new information
regarding the Florida SIP or include
new analysis to demonstrate that the
Florida SIP meets the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Additionally, the Commenter does not
provide support for its contention that
‘‘no state public notice was advertised
on Prongs 3 and 4.’’ EPA has reexamined the notice that the State
provided concerning the content of the
SIP submission. The State’s September
18, 2018, revision that underwent
public notice clearly stated that it
addressed ‘‘each [emphasis added] of
the CAA infrastructure elements for the
2015 Revised National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone
(O3),’’ and did not exclude any
infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA
does not agree that use of the specific
terms prong 3 or prong 4 was necessary
for public notice purposes, given the
broad statement concerning the subject
matter of the proposed SIP submission
and given the actual substantive content
of that proposed SIP submission.
Finally, the Commenter asserted that
EPA has ‘‘emails, records, and
correspondence (including meeting
minutes/notes)’’ related to Florida’s
September 18, 2018, SIP submission,
and in particular, related to the
interstate transport requirements for
PSD and visibility, that it did not
include in the rulemaking docket. In
response to the comment, EPA has
E:\FR\FM\06APR1.SGM
06APR1
19092
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 66 / Monday, April 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
reviewed the docket and confirmed that
it contains the appropriate documents
necessary to reflect the basis for the
agency’s proposed and final action on
the SIP submission. The relevant EPA
staff have checked their individual files
and have confirmed that they do not
have any additional documents that
should be included in the docket for
this rulemaking. EPA notes that agency
staff have regular communications with
the states concerning SIP submissions
and air quality planning generally. Such
communications between a state and
EPA are part of the normal SIP process.
III. Final Action
With the exception of interstate
transport provisions pertaining to
contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance in other
states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
(prongs 1 and 2), EPA is approving
Florida’s infrastructure submission
provided on September 18, 2018, for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is
approving Florida’s infrastructure SIP
submission for certain elements for the
2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the
submission is consistent with section
110 of the CAA for those elements.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and would not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Apr 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 (Public Law 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 June 5, 2020. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the
finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: March 13, 2020.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Title 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 the entry ‘‘110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS’’ at the end of
the table to read as follows:
■
§ 52.520
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
E:\FR\FM\06APR1.SGM
06APR1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 66 / Monday, April 6, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
19093
EPA-APPROVED FLORIDA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
State
effective
date
Provision
*
*
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour
Ozone NAAQS.
*
9/18/2018
[FR Doc. 2020–06585 Filed 4–3–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2019–0305; FRL–10007–
15–Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Tennessee;
Chattanooga Miscellaneous Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to
the Chattanooga portion of the
Tennessee State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the State of
Tennessee through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) on behalf of the
Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air
Pollution Control Bureau (Bureau) on
September 12, 2018. The SIP submittal
removes and replaces the Chattanooga
City Code, Air Pollution Control
Ordinances pertaining to the
Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air
Pollution Control Board (Board), powers
and duties of the Board, penalties,
enforcement and permit fees. The SIP
revision that EPA is approving is
consistent with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: This rule will be effective May 6,
2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2019–0305. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
website. 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
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Apr 03, 2020
Jkt 250001
EPA
approval
date
4/6/2020
Federal Register notice
Explanation
*
*
[Insert citation of publication] ...
*
*
With the exception of Prongs 1 and 2
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Regulatory Management Section,
Air Planning and Implementation
Branch, Air and Radiation 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, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation 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 also be reached
via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Through a letter dated September 12,
2018, TDEC submitted a SIP revision on
behalf of the Bureau requesting removal
and replacement of certain air quality
rules in the Chattanooga portion of the
Tennessee SIP.1 2 This rulemaking
approves the Chattanooga City Code
Part II, Chapter 4, Section 4–4,
‘‘Penalties for violation of chapter,
permit or order,’’ 3 Section 4–6, ‘‘Air
1 The Bureau is comprised of Hamilton County
and the municipalities of Chattanooga, Collegedale,
East Ridge, Lakesite, Lookout Mountain, Red Bank,
Ridgeside, Signal Mountain, Soddy Daisy, and
Walden. The Bureau recommends regulatory
revisions, which are subsequently adopted by the
eleven jurisdictions. The Bureau then implements
and enforces the regulations, as necessary, in each
jurisdiction. Because the air pollution control
regulations/ordinances adopted by the jurisdictions
within the Bureau are substantively identical
(except as noted later in this document), EPA refers
solely to Chattanooga and the Chattanooga rules
throughout the document as representative of the
other ten jurisdictions for brevity and simplicity.
See footnotes 3 through 8, later in this document.
2 EPA received the SIP revision on September 18,
2018.
3 In this final action, EPA is also approving
substantively similar changes in the following
sections of the Air Pollution Control Regulations/
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
pollution control board; bureau of air
pollution control; persons required to
comply with chapter,’’ 4 Section 4–7,
‘‘Powers and duties of the board;
delegation,’’ 5 Paragraphs 4–8(a)(14), 4–
8(c)(12), 4–8(d)(4) and 4–8(d)(6) in
Section 4–8, ‘‘Installation permit and
certificate of operation,’’ 6 Paragraph 4–
Ordinances for the remaining jurisdictions within
the Bureau, which were locally effective as of the
relevant dates below: Hamilton County—Section 4
(9/6/17); City of Collegedale—Section 14–304 (10/
16/17); City of East Ridge—Section 8–4 (10/26/17);
City of Lakesite—Section 14–4 (11/2/17); Town of
Lookout Mountain—Section 4 (11/14/17); City of
Red Bank—Section 20–4 (11/21/17); City of
Ridgeside—Section 4 (1/16/18); City of Signal
Mountain—Section 4 (10/20/17); City of SoddyDaisy—Section 8–4 (10/5/17); and Town of
Walden—Section 4 (10/16/17). The only
substantive difference between the various
jurisdictions’ regulations is that Chattanooga
Ordinance Part II, Chapter 4, Section 4–4 contains
an additional sentence regarding fines and fees,
which is discussed later in this document.
4 In this final action, EPA is also approving
substantively similar changes in the following
sections of the Air Pollution Control Regulations/
Ordinances for the remaining jurisdictions within
the Bureau, which were locally effective as of the
relevant dates below: Hamilton County—Section 6
(9/6/17); City of Collegedale—Section 14–306 (10/
16/17); City of East Ridge—Section 8–6 (10/26/17);
City of Lakesite—Section 14–6 (11/2/17); Town of
Lookout Mountain—Section 6 (11/14/17); City of
Red Bank—Section 20–6 (11/21/17); City of
Ridgeside—Section 6 (1/16/18); City of Signal
Mountain—Section 6 (10/20/17); City of SoddyDaisy—Section 8–6 (10/5/17); and Town of
Walden—Section 6 (10/16/17).
5 In this final action, EPA is also approving
substantively similar changes in the following
sections of the Air Pollution Control Regulations/
Ordinances for the remaining jurisdictions within
the Bureau, which were locally effective as of the
relevant dates below: Hamilton County—Section 7
(9/6/17); City of Collegedale—Section 14–307 (10/
16/17); City of East Ridge—Section 8–7 (10/26/17);
City of Lakesite—Section 14–7 (11/2/17); Town of
Lookout Mountain—Section 7 (11/14/17); City of
Red Bank—Section 20–7 (11/21/17); City of
Ridgeside—Section 7 (1/16/18); City of Signal
Mountain—Section 7 (10/20/17); City of SoddyDaisy—Section 8–7 (10/5/17); and Town of
Walden—Section 7 (10/16/17).
6 In this final action, EPA is also approving
substantively similar changes in the following
sections of the Air Pollution Control Regulations/
Ordinances for the remaining jurisdictions within
the Bureau, which were locally effective as of the
relevant dates below: Hamilton County—Section 8
(9/6/17); City of Collegedale—Section 14–308 (10/
16/17); City of East Ridge—Section 8–8 (10/26/17);
City of Lakesite—Section 14–8 (11/2/17); Town of
Lookout Mountain—Section 8 (11/14/17); City of
Red Bank—Section 20–8 (11/21/17); City of
E:\FR\FM\06APR1.SGM
Continued
06APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 66 (Monday, April 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19089-19093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06585]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0148; FRL-10007-04-Region 4]
Air Quality Plans; Florida; Infrastructure Requirements for the
2015 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission provided by
the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP), through a letter dated September 18, 2018. This
submission pertains to the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) for the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Whenever EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the
CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP submission to
establish that the state's implementation plan meets infrastructure
requirements for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
each such NAAQS. FDEP made the required SIP submission to assure that
the Florida SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Florida. EPA has in
this action determined that Florida's infrastructure SIP submission
satisfies certain required infrastructure elements for the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
DATES: This rule is effective May 6, 2020.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0148. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation 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, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via
electronic mail at [email protected] or via telephone at (404) 562-
9043.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 1, 2015 (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015), EPA promulgated
revised primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone revising the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS from 0.075 parts per million to a new more protective level of
0.070 ppm. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are
required to make a
[[Page 19090]]
SIP submission meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2)
requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. This
particular type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP.'' EPA required states to submit these
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA
no later than October 1, 2018.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions, states generally
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes,
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections
110(a)(1) and (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action is approving portions of Florida's September 18, 2018
\2\ ozone infrastructure SIP submission for the applicable requirements
of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is not acting on the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) related to
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA will consider these
requirements for Florida for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The September 18, 2018, SIP submission provided by FDEP was
received by EPA on September 26, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 17,
2019 (84 FR 68863), EPA proposed to approve portions of Florida's SIP
submission dated September 18, 2018, intended to address the applicable
infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
NPRM provides additional detail regarding the background and rationale
for EPA's action.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received one comment seeking clarification and one set of
adverse comments which are summarized and responded to below. The full
set of comments are in the docket for this final rule.
Comment 1: A Commenter notes that EPA may have misidentified a
website in the NPRM and seeks a clarification.
Response 1: EPA agrees with the Commenter. In the December 17,
2019, NPRM, EPA noted that Florida is required to submit emissions data
to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) pursuant
to subpart A to 40 CFR part 51--``Air Emissions Reporting Rule.'' The
NEI is EPA's central repository for air emissions data and Florida made
its latest update to the NEI on December 17, 2014. EPA compiles the
emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to
the general public through the website. In the December 17, 2019 (84 FR
68868), NPRM, EPA indicated the website was https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. However, as identified by the Commenter, the
correct website is https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories.
Comment 2: A Commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve Florida's
infrastructure SIP submission as demonstrating compliance with the
CAA's interstate transport requirements in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with
respect to interference with prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) and visibility programs for any other state because Florida's
September 18, 2018, SIP submission did not address the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). By way of
background, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains two subsections:
(D)(i)(I) and (D)(i)(II) that a state must address in infrastructure
SIP submissions. Each of these subsections has two subparts resulting
in four distinct components, commonly referred to by EPA as ``prongs.''
The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment
of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1'') and interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 2''). The third and
fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are
provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required for PSD of air quality in another
state (``prong 3''), or to protect visibility in another state (``prong
4'').
The Commenter asserts that Florida did not address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for PSD and visibility in the September 18, 2018,
SIP submission because the State does not ``even mention the words
`Prong 3' or `Prong 4.' '' As further evidence that the SIP submission
does not address these requirements, the Commenter points to the fact
that the State sent an email to EPA on November 13, 2019, to confirm
that the State did intend the submission to meet those substantive
requirements. The Commenter contends that ``EPA cannot act on email
messages from states and pretend they are official SIP submissions from
the states'' and that no state public notice was advertised on Prongs 3
or 4. As to the substance of the November 13, 2019 email, the Commenter
claims that the State wrongly attempts to suggest that prong 3 and 4
are met by pointing to the prong 1 discussion in the September 18,
2018, SIP submission, and points to prior court cases pertaining to
interstate transport that indicate EPA is required to give independent
analysis to each prong of the interstate transport provisions of
section 110(a)(2)(D). The Commenter also suggests that EPA has
additional correspondence with the State related to the State's
November 13, 2019, clarification email that should be included in the
docket for the rulemaking.
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that
Florida did not address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in its September
18, 2018, infrastructure SIP submission. In its September 13, 2013
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'' (2013 Guidance),
EPA explains that a state may meet 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) by
establishing in its infrastructure SIP submission that new major
sources and major modifications are already subject to a comprehensive
EPA-approved PSD permitting program.\3\ EPA also notes in the 2013
Guidance that sources in nonattainment areas are not subject to PSD
permitting and that states may rely on an existing EPA-approved
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program with respect to sources
located in nonattainment areas.\4\ For the visibility component of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4), EPA provides in the 2013 Guidance that
states may meet this requirement by establishing in its infrastructure
SIP submission that it already has an EPA-approved regional haze SIP
that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2013 Guidance, p. 31.
\4\ 2013 Guidance, pp. 31-32.
\5\ 2013 Guidance, p. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's analysis of Florida's September 18, 2018, infrastructure SIP
submission focused on whether the State provided relevant information
to establish that Florida's existing SIP adequately prohibits emissions
activities within the State that will ``interfere with measures
required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any
other State . . . to prevent significant deterioration of air quality
or to protect visibility,'' consistent with the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Based on Florida's transmittal letter for
the September 18,
[[Page 19091]]
2018, SIP submission, and the actual content of the September 18, 2018,
SIP submission, EPA believes Florida satisfied these requirements. In
its September 18, 2018, transmittal letter, Florida states that the
submission ``addresses each [emphasis added] of the CAA infrastructure
elements for the 2015 Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for Ozone (O3).'' The State did not identify any
sections it did not intend to address and further explained the
provisions that it did intend to address in the introduction section of
the September 18, 2018, SIP submission: ``[FDEP] Hereby confirms that
the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and the infrastructure elements
required by sections 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) of the CAA are adequately
addressed in Florida's existing approved SIP with respect to the
implementation of the 2015 revised NAAQS.'' Moreover, on page 5 of the
SIP submission, the State properly describes the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to include the provisions of subparagraph (II)
requiring states to prohibit emissions activity from the State from
``interfering with any other state's required plan under Part C of the
CAA for prevention of significant deterioration and protection of
visibility.'' Thus, though broadly worded in some cases, there are
several indications in the September 18, 2018, SIP submission that the
State intended the submission to address all of the applicable
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), including the prong 3 and prong
4 requirements.
While EPA acknowledges that the September 18, 2018, SIP submission
did not use the terms ``prong 3'' or ``prong 4'' to describe the
requirements the State was addressing in the SIP submission, these are
not statutory terms but rather EPA-developed shorthand for the two
requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Thus, EPA disagrees
that it is a deficiency for the State not to include these specific
terms in its SIP submission nor is the absence of these terms an
indication that the State failed to perform the necessary analysis of
these statutory requirements. Consistent with the 2013 Guidance
regarding how a state may address the prong 3 requirements,\6\ the SIP
submission confirms on both pages 5 and 7 of the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) analysis that the State has both PSD and NNSR
permitting programs already in its existing SIP. In particular, the
State notes on those pages that the approved SIP requires ``any new
major source or major modification to undergo PSD or NNSR permitting
and thereby demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to a
violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment in Florida or any other state''
(emphasis added). This language from the SIP submission is consistent
with the language of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requiring that a
state's plan demonstrate that emissions from the state will not
interfere with another state's PSD permitting plan, as the PSD
requirements are specifically concerned with ensuring that the
construction of new or modified major sources will not lead to new
violations of the NAAQS or increments. See CAA section 165(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 2013 Guidance, pp. 30-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the SIP submission is consistent with the 2013 Guidance
regarding how a state may address the prong 4 requirements because the
SIP revision explains at page 5 that Florida has a fully-approved
regional haze SIP.\7\ The State further explained on the same page
that: ``This plan ensures that Florida will not interfere with
visibility protection in other states.'' That statement is clearly in
reference to the language describing the prong 4 requirements in
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 2013 Guidance, pp. 32-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA agrees with the Commenter that it would have been clearer if
the State had provided sections in its September 18, 2018, SIP
submission explicitly labeled ``prong 3'' and ``prong 4,'' or otherwise
demarcated its analysis of these specific requirements in the same
manner as the sections entitled ``prong 1'' and ``prong 2,'' but EPA
does not agree that the exclusion of the terms ``prong 3'' and ``prongs
4'' in the submission means that the State did not in fact make a
submission that addresses the interstate transport requirements with
respect to the PSD and visibility prongs for the 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
EPA also agrees with the Commenter that each of the four prongs of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) are separate requirements that states and EPA
must address, and that there are prior court decisions that confirm
this basic point. EPA disagrees, however, that the State has failed to
address prong 3 and 4 in the September 18, 2018, SIP submission, or
that EPA has failed to evaluate the submission with respect to these
prongs. EPA and the State have provided independent analysis for prongs
3 and 4, as discussed above. Florida's SIP submission satisfies the
prong 3 requirements based on its SIP-approved PSD and NNSR permit
programs, which require analysis and control of emissions that may
impact another state's compliance with its own PSD requirements and
satisfies the prong 4 requirements based on the State's fully-approved
regional haze SIP. Not providing individual headings for each
requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) or prong within the submission does not
support Commenter's assertion that the State or EPA failed to address
each of these prongs independently.
EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that, by
proposing to approve the September 18, 2018, SIP revision, EPA is
inappropriately relying on the November 13, 2019, email from Florida
instead of requiring a supplemental SIP submission. As previously
acknowledged, EPA agrees that the SIP submission could have been
clearer with respect to the infrastructure SIP requirements that the
State was addressing, but the content of that SIP submission in fact
did substantively address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In an abundance of caution, however, EPA requested
confirmation of that fact from the State to include in the docket
during EPA's public comment period for the proposed approval of
Florida's September 18, 2018, SIP submission. The email merely
confirmed Florida's intent regarding its September 18, 2018, SIP
submission and did not provide new information regarding the Florida
SIP or include new analysis to demonstrate that the Florida SIP meets
the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Additionally, the Commenter does not provide support for its
contention that ``no state public notice was advertised on Prongs 3 and
4.'' EPA has re-examined the notice that the State provided concerning
the content of the SIP submission. The State's September 18, 2018,
revision that underwent public notice clearly stated that it addressed
``each [emphasis added] of the CAA infrastructure elements for the 2015
Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone
(O3),'' and did not exclude any infrastructure SIP
requirements. EPA does not agree that use of the specific terms prong 3
or prong 4 was necessary for public notice purposes, given the broad
statement concerning the subject matter of the proposed SIP submission
and given the actual substantive content of that proposed SIP
submission.
Finally, the Commenter asserted that EPA has ``emails, records, and
correspondence (including meeting minutes/notes)'' related to Florida's
September 18, 2018, SIP submission, and in particular, related to the
interstate transport requirements for PSD and visibility, that it did
not include in the rulemaking docket. In response to the comment, EPA
has
[[Page 19092]]
reviewed the docket and confirmed that it contains the appropriate
documents necessary to reflect the basis for the agency's proposed and
final action on the SIP submission. The relevant EPA staff have checked
their individual files and have confirmed that they do not have any
additional documents that should be included in the docket for this
rulemaking. EPA notes that agency staff have regular communications
with the states concerning SIP submissions and air quality planning
generally. Such communications between a state and EPA are part of the
normal SIP process.
III. Final Action
With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other
states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2), EPA is approving
Florida's infrastructure submission provided on September 18, 2018, for
the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA is approving Florida's infrastructure
SIP submission for certain elements for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
because the submission is consistent with section 110 of the CAA for
those elements.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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 (Public Law 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 5, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 13, 2020.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Title 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart K--Florida
0
2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by adding the entry ``110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' at the
end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.520 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 19093]]
EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA
Provision effective approval Federal Register notice Explanation
date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 9/18/2018 4/6/2020 [Insert citation of With the exception of
Requirements for the 2015 8-Hour publication]. Prongs 1 and 2 of
Ozone NAAQS. section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-06585 Filed 4-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
