[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32702-32707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12113]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0361; FRL-9946-81-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Florida; Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Florida through the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) on March 10, 2015. Florida's March 10, 2015, SIP
revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic
reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of a
state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). EPA
is proposing to approve Florida's Progress Report on the basis that it
addresses the progress report and adequacy determination requirements
for the first implementation period for regional haze.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 23, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0361 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043 and
via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Under the Regional Haze Rule,\1\ each state is required to submit a
progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that
evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal
area (also referred to as Class I area in this rulemaking) within the
state and for each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the state
which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR
51.308(g). Each state is also required to submit, at the same time as
the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's
existing regional haze plan. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress
report is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze
plan. On March 19, 2010, FDEP submitted the State's first regional haze
plan in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.
\2\ On August 29, 2013, EPA fully approved Florida's regional
haze plan (as amended on August 31, 2010, and September 17, 2012).
See 78 FR 53250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 10, 2015, FDEP submitted its regional haze progress
report, reporting progress made in the first implementation period
towards RPGs for Class I areas in the State and for Class I areas
outside the State that are
[[Page 32703]]
affected by emissions from sources within Florida. This submittal also
includes a negative declaration pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) that
the State's regional haze plan requires no substantive revision to
achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement goals for
2018. EPA is proposing to approve Florida's progress report on the
basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and
51.308(h).
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze progress report and
adequacy determinations?
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress
report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a
minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in
further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A
description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze
plan; (2) a summary of emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment
of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an
analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the
state; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded
progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; (6) an
assessment of the sufficiency of the approved regional haze plan; and
(7) a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy.
B. Adequacy Determinations of the Current Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of their
existing regional haze plan and to take one of four possible actions
based on information in the progress report. As described in further
detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states to: (1)
Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive
revision to the state's existing regional haze plan is needed; (2)
provide notification to EPA (and to other state(s) that participated in
the regional planning process) if the state determines that its
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning
process, and collaborate with these other state(s) to develop
additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification
with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources in another country; or (4) revise its regional haze plan to
address deficiencies within one year if the state determines that its
existing regional haze plan is or may be inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress in one or more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources within the state.
III. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's regional haze progress report
and adequacy determination?
On March 10, 2015, FDEP submitted a revision to Florida's regional
haze plan to address progress made towards the RPGs for Class I areas
in the State and for Class I areas outside the State that are affected
by emissions from sources within Florida. This submittal also includes
a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze
plan. Florida has three mandatory Class I areas within its borders:
Everglades National Park, Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area, and St. Marks
Wilderness Area. In Florida's regional haze plan, the State also
determined that emissions sources located in Florida may have
significant sulfate visibility impacts on the following Class I areas
in neighboring states: Okefenokee Wilderness Area and Wolf Island
Wilderness Area in Georgia, and Breton Wilderness Area in Louisiana.
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
The following sections summarize: (1) Each of the seven elements
that must be addressed by a progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g); (2)
how Florida's Progress Report addressed each element; and (3) EPA's
analysis and proposed determination as to whether the State satisfied
each element.
1. Status of Control Measures
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a description of the status of
implementation of all measures included in the regional haze plan for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state.
The State evaluated the status of all measures included in its
regional haze plan in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1).
Specifically, in its Progress Report, Florida summarizes the status of
the emissions reduction measures that were included in the final
iteration of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of
the Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG
modeling used by the State in developing its regional haze plan. These
measures include, among other things, applicable federal programs
(e.g., mobile source rules, Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards), federal and state consent agreements, and federal
and state control strategies for electric generating units (EGUs). The
State also addresses the status of Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) and reasonable progress controls included in the regional haze
plan and discusses the status of several measures that were not
included in the final VISTAS emissions inventory and were not relied
upon in the initial regional haze plan to meet RPGs. The State notes
that the emissions reductions from these recent measures will help
ensure Class I areas impacted by Florida sources achieve their RPGs. In
aggregate, as noted in sections III.A.2 and III.A.6 of this notice, the
emissions reductions from the identified measures are expected to
exceed the emissions projections in Florida's regional haze plan.
In its regional haze plan, Florida identified sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions from coal-fired EGUs as a key contributor to
regional haze in the VISTAS region, with the EGU sector as a major
contributor to visibility impairment at all Class I areas in the VISTAS
region. The State's Progress Report provides additional information on
EGU control strategies and the status of existing and future expected
controls for EGUs in Florida, with updated actual SO2
emissions data for the years 2007-2013.
EPA proposes to find that Florida's analysis adequately addresses
40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State documents the implementation status of
measures from its regional haze plan in addition to describing
additional measures not originally accounted for in the final VISTAS
emissions inventory that came into effect since the VISTAS analyses for
the regional haze plan were completed.
2. Emissions Reductions and Progress
40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the emissions reductions
achieved in the state through implementing measures described in 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1).
In its Progress Report, Florida evaluated the emissions reductions
associated with the implementation of many measures identified in its
regional haze plan, including the emissions reductions associated with
sources subject to BART or reasonable progress control determinations.
As described
[[Page 32704]]
below, Florida included nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
SO2 emissions data for EGUs in Florida from 2002-2013 and
annual SO2 emissions data from point sources in the State
from 2000-2013. In its regional haze plan, Florida states that ammonium
sulfate is the largest contributor to visibility impairment in Class I
areas throughout the southeastern United States during the baseline
period from 2000-2004. Emissions sensitivity modeling performed by
VISTAS determined that the most effective ways to reduce ammonium
sulfate were to reduce SO2 emissions from coal-fired EGUs
and, with an important but smaller impact, to reduce SO2
emissions from non-utility industrial point sources. SO2
reductions from point sources were therefore identified as the focus of
Florida's long-term strategy for visibility improvement. In its
Progress Report, Florida examined pollutants affecting visibility in
Class I areas in Florida to ascertain whether it is still appropriate
to focus on SO2 emissions to improve visibility in Class I
areas impacted by sources in Florida. Using updated data for the 2006-
2010 time period, the State concludes that ammonium sulfate continues
to be the largest contributor to visibility impairment in these areas.
The data from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division included in the
Progress Report for Acid Rain Program units from 2002-2013 show that
SO2 emissions from EGUs in Florida and in the VISTAS region
have declined during this time period even though heat input to these
units remains fairly steady. See Figure 4-2 in Florida's submittal.
Between 2002 and 2013, heat input to these units decreased from
approximately 1,597,000,000 (million British Thermal Units) MMBtu to
1,548,000,000 MMBtu, a decrease of three percent. SO2
emissions from these units decreased from 466,904 tons annually in 2002
to 88,004 tons annually in 2013, a decrease of 81.2 percent, and the
average SO2 emission rate from these units decreased from
0.603 pounds per MMBtu (lbs/MMBtu) in 2002 to 0.114 lbs/MMBtu in 2013,
a decrease of 81.1 percent. Over the same time period, NOX
emissions from these units decreased from 258,378 tons in 2002 to
54,398 tons in 2013, a decrease of 78.9 percent. Florida states that
the SO2 and NOX emissions reductions are due to
the installation of controls and the use of cleaner burning fuels.
Florida also identifies the shut-down of eight BART sources and three
reasonable progress sources.
Florida's Progress Report also includes SO2 and
NOX emissions and heat input trends for Acid Rain Program
units in the VISTAS region. See Figure 4-3 in Florida's submittal.
Between 2002 and 2011, heat input to these units decreased from
7,645,295,464 MMBtu to 7,336,055,333 MMBtu, a decrease of four percent.
SO2 emissions from these units decreased from 3,713,262 tons
annually in 2002 to 1,166,572 tons annually in 2011, a decrease of 69.9
percent, and the average SO2 emission rate from these units
decreased from 0.971 lbs/MMBtu in 2002 to 0.318 lbs/MMBtu in 2011, a
decrease of 67.3 percent. Over the same time period, NOX
emissions decreased from 1,498,143 tons in 2002 to 464,129 tons in
2011, a decrease of 69 percent.
Between 2009 and 2011, the total VISTAS states' heat input for Acid
Rain Program units increased from 6,966,765,915 MMBtu to 7,336,055,333
MMBtu. However, emissions from these units declined from 1,619,348 tons
of SO2 in 2009 to 1,166,572 tons of SO2 in 2011,
and the emission rates of SO2 decreased from 0.465 lbs/MMBtu
to 0.318 lbs/MMBtu.
Florida believes that the reductions in SO2 and
NOX described above are a result of many factors, including
permanent changes at EGUs through the use of control technology and
fuel switching. In Florida and the VISTAS region, Florida concluded
that these emissions reductions have been achieved even though heat
input to these units remains fairly steady. Thus, the State believes
that the visibility improvements from the reductions in SO2
and NOX should continue into the future even though demand
for power and heat input to these units may have moderate increases.
EPA proposes to conclude that Florida has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(g)(2). As discussed above, the State provides emissions
reduction estimates, and where available, actual emissions reductions
of visibility-impairing pollutants resulting from the measures relied
upon in its regional haze plan. The State appropriately focused on
SO2 emissions from EGUs in its Progress Report because the
State had previously identified these emissions as the most significant
contributors to visibility impairment at Florida's Class I areas and
those Class I areas that Florida sources impact.
3. Visibility Progress
40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that states with Class I areas provide
the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days
for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of
these annual values: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in
the Regional Haze Rule refers to the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in
a calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. 40 CFR
51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Current visibility conditions;
(ii) the difference between current visibility conditions and
baseline visibility conditions; and
(iii) the change in visibility impairment over the past five years.
The State provides figures with the latest supporting data
available at the time of plan development that address the three
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for Class I areas in Florida. Table
1, below, shows the current visibility conditions and the difference
between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility
conditions. Florida reported current conditions as the 2009-2013 five-
year period and used the 2000-2004 baseline period for its Class I
areas.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the first regional haze plan, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July
1, 1999).
Table 1--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, and Visibility Changes in Class I Areas in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Current Change
Class I area average (2000- average (2009- (current-
2004) 2013) baseline)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days:
Chassahowitzka.............................................. 25.75 21.33 -4.42
Everglades.................................................. 22.30 18.14 -4.16
St. Marks................................................... 26.31 22.22 -4.09
20% Best Days:
[[Page 32705]]
Chassahowitzka.............................................. 15.51 13.74 -1.77
Everglades.................................................. 11.69 11.21 -0.48
St. Marks................................................... 14.37 13.33 -1.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data summarized above shows that all Class I areas in the State
saw an improvement in visibility (i.e., reduced impairment) on the 20
percent worst days and on the 20 percent best days. For the 20 percent
worst days, the current observed five-year average values for all three
areas are below the 2013 glide path values and the corresponding 2018
RPG. See Table 3-1 in Florida's submittal. For the 20 percent best
days, the current observed five-year average values for all three areas
are below baseline visibility conditions. Florida's submittal also
includes the change in visibility impairment for the 20 percent worst
and 20 percent best days from the 2001-2005 time period through the
2009-2013 time period in five-year average increments. See Table 3-2 of
Florida's submittal. The data also shows that all three Class I areas
saw an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent worst days and on
the 20 percent best days.
EPA proposes to conclude that Florida has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(g)(3) because the State provides the information regarding
visibility conditions and visibility changes necessary to meet the
requirements of the regulation. The Progress Report includes current
conditions based on the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for the years 2009-2013, the
difference between current visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions, and the change in visibility impairment over the
most recent five-year period for which data were available at the time
of Progress Report development (i.e., 2009-2013).
4. Emission Tracking
40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an analysis tracking emissions changes
of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or
category over the past five years based on the most recent updated
emissions inventory.
In its Progress Report, Florida includes an analysis tracking the
change over a five-year period in emissions of pollutants contributing
to visibility impairment from the following source categories: point,
area, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile. The State evaluated
emissions trends in SO2, NOX, and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) with a focus on SO2
because, as noted above, Florida concludes that ammonium sulfate
continues to be the largest contributor to visibility impairment in
Class I areas in Florida.
In its evaluation of NOX, PM2.5, and
SO2 emissions trends, Florida used the 2002 actual and 2009
and 2018 projected inventories from its regional haze plan as well as
the Southeastern Modeling, Analysis, and Planning Project (SEMAP) 2007
actual emissions inventory, the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI)
actual emissions inventory, and the State's Annual Operation Report
point source data collected each year. See Tables 4-1 through 4-3 in
Florida's submittal. For NOX emissions, there were large
decreases in point and area emissions and some increases in on-road
mobile emissions in 2007. The State asserts that the decreases in point
source NOX were due to emissions controls that were
installed and that the decrease in area source NOX is
primarily due to the removal of coal and wood combustion boilers from
the area source inventory to avoid double counting with the point
source category. Florida also believes that the increase in on-road
mobile NOX is due to the use of the MOVES2010a model, rather
than MOBILE6.2, for the 2007 inventory. If a consistent on-road model
had been used for 2002, 2007, and 2009, the SEMAP 2007 NOX
emissions would have been lower than the VISTAS 2002 actual and VISTAS
2009 projected emissions. However, NOX emissions have
continued to decline between 2002 and 2011 by over 370,000 tons.
Regarding PM2.5, the 2007 SEMAP and 2011 NEI
PM2.5 emissions are different from the VISTAS emissions due
to methodology changes to reflect up-to-date emission calculations. For
example, Florida believes that the increase in on-road mobile
PM2.5 is due to the switch in model used. Regardless,
overall PM2.5 emissions have decreased slightly between 2002
and 2011. Regarding SO2, the inventory analysis shows that
overall emissions have decreased significantly from 2002 to 2011, with
point source reductions dominating. Florida's Progress Report also
evaluates the trend from 2000 through 2013 in SO2 point
source emissions, demonstrating a decrease of over 480,000 tons during
this time period. See Figure 4-1 in Florida's submittal.
Also, as discussed in section III.A.2. of this notice, the Progress
Report documents reductions in NOX and SO2
emissions that occurred between 2002-2013 at EGUs in Florida. The State
believes that these reductions are a result of permanent changes at
EGUs in the State through the use of control technology, fuel
switching, and the shut-down of eight BART sources and three reasonable
progress sources.
EPA proposes to conclude that Florida has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(g)(4). Florida tracked changes in emissions of visibility-
impairing pollutants from 2002-2011 for all source categories and
analyzed trends in SO2 and NOX emissions from
EGUs in the State from 2002-2013, the most current quality-assured data
available for these units at the time of progress report development.
While ideally the five-year period to be analyzed for emissions
inventory changes is the time period since the current regional haze
plan was submitted, there is an inevitable time lag in developing and
reporting complete emissions inventories once quality-assured emissions
data becomes available. Therefore, EPA believes that there is some
flexibility in the five-year time period that states can select.
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an assessment of any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that
have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources.
The Progress Report demonstrates that there are no significant
changes in emissions of SO2, PM, or NOX that have
impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by Florida sources. As
[[Page 32706]]
discussed above, Florida documents that sulfates continue to be the
biggest single contributor to regional haze in Class I areas in the
State and focused its analysis on addressing large SO2
emissions from point sources. In addressing the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(5), Florida references its analysis showing that
SO2 emissions from stationary point sources have decreased
significantly from 2002 to 2013 and are well below the projections for
these sources made in Florida's regional haze plan. Regarding EGUs, the
State documented significant decreases in SO2 emissions
despite the fact that power generation has remained fairly constant
during the same period. Furthermore, the Progress Report shows that the
State is on track to meeting its 2018 RPGs for Class I areas in
Florida. For these reasons, EPA proposed to conclude that Florida's
Progress Report has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5).
6. Assessment of Current Strategy
40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an assessment of whether the current
regional haze plan is sufficient to enable the state, or other states,
to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the
state.
In its Progress Report, Florida states its belief that the elements
and strategies outlined in its regional haze plan are sufficient for
Class I areas impacted by emissions sources in Florida to meet their
RPGs. To support this conclusion, Florida notes the following:
Speciated data collected for the period 2006-2010 shows that sulfates
continue to be the most significant contributor to visibility
impairment, supporting SO2 reduction as the appropriate
control strategy; the SO2 controls in the State's regional
haze plan have been implemented; a 71 percent reduction in the overall
SO2 emissions inventory from 2002 through 2011 verifies that
Florida's SO2 reduction program is achieving the reductions
that were projected in the regional haze plan; current visibility
impairment values for the 20 percent worst days are lower than the 2018
RPGs and lower than the 2013 glide path values for the Class I areas in
Florida; current visibility impairment values for the 20 percent best
days are below baseline visibility conditions for all Class I areas in
Florida; and visibility data through 2010 show that the 2010 five-year
average visibility impairment on the 20 percent worst days in the three
Class I areas outside of the State impacted by emissions sources in
Florida is at or below the glide path.
EPA proposes to conclude that Florida has adequately addressed 40
CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a qualitative
assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and
other readily available information, including expected emissions
reductions associated with measures with compliance dates that have not
yet become effective. The State referenced the improving visibility
trends and the downward emissions trends in the State, with a focus on
SO2 emissions from Florida EGUs. These trends support the
State's determination that the State's regional haze plan is sufficient
to meet RPGs for Class I areas within and outside the State impacted by
Florida sources.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review of the state's visibility
monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to
the monitoring strategy are necessary.
In its Progress Report, Florida summarizes the existing visibility
monitoring network in Class I areas in Florida and notes that the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring network is the primary monitoring network for regional haze.
There is currently one IMPROVE site in each Florida Class I area
(SAMA1, CHAS1, and EVER1) operated by the responsible Federal Land
Manager. Florida intends to continue to rely on the IMPROVE network for
complying with regional haze monitoring requirements and on the
Visibility Information and Exchange Web System (VIEWS) to access
IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. Florida concludes that the
existing network is adequate and that no modifications to the State's
visibility monitoring strategy are necessary at this time.
EPA proposes to conclude that Florida has adequately addressed the
sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by 40 CFR
51.308(g)(7). The State reaffirmed its continued reliance upon the
IMPROVE monitoring network, explained the importance of the IMPROVE
monitoring network for tracking visibility trends in Class I areas in
Florida, and determined that no changes to its visibility monitoring
strategy are necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan
Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made
in the progress report. The following section summarizes: (1) The
action taken by Florida under 40 CFR 51.308(h); (2) Florida's rationale
for the selected action; and (3) EPA's analysis and proposed
determination regarding the State's action.
In its Progress Report, Florida took the action provided for by 40
CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to submit a negative declaration
to EPA if the state determines that the existing regional haze plan
requires no further substantive revision at this time to achieve the
RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state's sources. The State's
negative declaration is based on its findings in the Progress Report.
EPA proposes to conclude that Florida has adequately addressed 40 CFR
51.308(h) because the visibility trends at the Class I areas impacted
by the State's sources and the emissions trends of the State's largest
emitters of visibility-impairing pollutants indicate that the RPGs for
Class I areas impacted by sources in Florida will be met or exceeded.
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to approve Florida's Regional Haze Progress
Report, SIP revision, submitted by the State on March 10, 2015, as
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
[[Page 32707]]
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 12, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-12113 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P