[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4403-4407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02542]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0542; FRL-9989-59-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; Florida; 2008 8-Hour Ozone Interstate 
Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve Florida's October 3, 2017, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
submission pertaining to the ``good neighbor'' provision of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS). The good neighbor provision requires each 
state's implementation plan to address the interstate transport of air 
pollution in amounts that contribute significantly to nonattainment, or 
interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in any other state. In this 
action, EPA is proposing to determine that Florida's SIP contains 
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions within the state from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with 
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0542 at https://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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, 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. Ms. Ward can also be reached via telephone at (404) 562-
9140 and via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS that revised the 
levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 
parts per

[[Page 4404]]

million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.\1\ See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). 
Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), within three years after 
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or shorter, if EPA prescribes), 
states must submit SIPs that meet the applicable requirements of 
section 110(a)(2). EPA has historically referred to these SIP 
submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of 
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. 
One of the structural requirements of section 110(a)(2) is section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which generally requires SIPs to contain adequate 
provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities from having 
certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to 
interstate transport of air pollution. There are four sub-elements, or 
``prongs,'' within section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA. CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the ``good neighbor'' provision, 
requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other 
type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant 
in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment, or 
interfere with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two 
provisions of this section are referred to as prong 1 (significant 
contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with 
maintenance). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to contain 
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will interfere with 
measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan 
for any other state under part C to prevent significant deterioration 
of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). This 
proposed action addresses only prongs 1 and 2 of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i). All other infrastructure SIP elements for Florida for 
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS were addressed in separate rulemakings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 0.075 ppm equates to 75 parts per billion (ppb).
    \2\ See 78 FR 65559 (November 1, 2013); 79 FR 50554 (August 25, 
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. State Submittal

    On October 3, 2017, the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection (FDEP) provided a SIP submittal \3\ to EPA to address the 
interstate transport requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 
the Florida SIP. Florida made this submission to certify that its SIP 
contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions activities within 
the State which will contribute significantly to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other 
state, and therefore, adequately addresses the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\ 
Florida's certification is based on emissions generating activities, 
air quality monitoring and modeling data, and SIP-approved and state 
provisions regulating emissions of ozone precursors (volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)) within the 
State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This submittal supplements an October 31, 2011 submittal 
addressing other infrastructure SIP elements for Florida for the 
2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 78 FR 65559, 79 FR 50554. Although the 
transmittal letter is dated October 3, 2017, EPA did not receive 
Florida's submittal until October 12, 2017.
    \4\ On July 13, 2015, EPA published a final rule that finalized 
findings of failure to submit with regard to the requirements of CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 24 states, including Florida, with 
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 39961. The findings of 
failure to submit established a two-year deadline for EPA to 
promulgate a FIP to address the interstate transport SIP 
requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment 
and interference with maintenance unless, prior to EPA promulgating 
a FIP, the state submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that meets these 
requirements. Additional background on the findings of failure to 
submit--including Florida's finding--can be found in the preamble to 
the final rule findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis Related to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-Hour 
Ozone NAAQS

    EPA developed technical information and related analyses to assist 
states with meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS through SIPs and, as appropriate, to provide 
backstop federal implementation plans (FIPs) in the event that states 
failed to submit approvable SIPs.\5\ On October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74504), 
EPA took steps to effectuate this backstop role with respect to eastern 
states \6\ by finalizing an update to the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule (CSAPR) ozone season program that addresses good neighbor 
obligations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (``CSAPR Update''). The 
CSAPR Update establishes statewide NOX budgets for certain 
affected electricity generating units in 22 eastern states for the May-
September ozone season to reduce the interstate transport of ozone 
pollution in the eastern United States, and thereby help downwind 
states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 
See 81 FR 74506. The rule also determined that emissions from 14 states 
(including Florida) will not significantly contribute to nonattainment 
or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind 
states. Accordingly, EPA determined that it need not require further 
emission reductions from sources in those states to address the good 
neighbor provision as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability on August 4, 
2015 requesting comment on the modeling platform and air quality 
modeling results that were used for the proposed CSAPR Update. See 
80 FR 46271.
    \6\ For purposes of the CSAPR Update, ``eastern'' states refer 
to all contiguous states fully east of the Rocky Mountains (thus not 
including the mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, or New 
Mexico).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR Update used the same framework that EPA used when 
developing the original 2011 CSAPR, EPA's interstate transport rule 
addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. The CSAPR framework 
establishes the following four-step process to address the requirements 
of the good neighbor provision: (1) Identify downwind areas, referred 
to as receptors, that are expected to have problems attaining or 
maintaining the NAAQS; (2) determine which upwind states impact these 
identified problems in amounts sufficient to ``link'' them to the 
downwind air quality problems; (3) for states linked to downwind air 
quality problems, identify upwind emissions, if any, that will 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of a NAAQS; and (4) reduce the identified upwind emissions for states 
that are found to have emissions that will significantly contribute to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind by 
adopting permanent and enforceable measures in a FIP or SIP. In the 
CSAPR Update, EPA used this four-step framework to determine whether 
states in the east will significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interference with maintenance of downwind air quality. As explained 
below, the CSAPR Update's four-step analysis supports the conclusions 
provided in FDEP's October 3, 2017, interstate transport SIP for the 
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS that the State will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 
standard in other states.
    In the technical analysis supporting the CSAPR Update, EPA used 
detailed air quality analyses to determine where projected 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors would be, at step 1 of the four-
step framework, and whether emissions from an eastern state contribute 
to downwind air quality problems at those projected nonattainment or 
maintenance receptors, at step 2 of the framework. Specifically, EPA 
determined whether each state's contributing emissions were

[[Page 4405]]

at or above a specific threshold (i.e., one percent of the ozone 
NAAQS). EPA determined that one percent was an appropriate threshold to 
use in this analysis because there were important, even if relatively 
small, contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors from multiple upwind states at that threshold.\7\ See 81 FR 
74504 (October 26, 2016). For the CSAPR Update, EPA applied an air 
quality screening threshold of 0.75 ppb (one percent of the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb) to identify linkages between upwind states and 
the downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors. States with 
impacts below the one-percent threshold were considered not to 
contribute to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance 
receptors and therefore would not contribute significantly to 
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those 
downwind areas. If a state's impact was equal to or exceeded the one-
percent threshold, that state was considered ``linked'' to the downwind 
nonattainment or maintenance receptor(s) and the state's emissions were 
further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost 
considerations, to determine whether any emissions reductions might be 
necessary to address the state's obligation pursuant to CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA's analysis showed that the one-percent threshold 
generally captured a high percentage of the total pollution 
transport affecting downwind states. EPA's analysis further showed 
that the application of a lower threshold would result in relatively 
modest increases in the overall percentage of ozone transport 
pollution captured, while the use of higher thresholds would result 
in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage of ozone 
pollution transport captured relative to the levels captured at one 
percent at the majority of the receptors. See 81 FR 74504 (October 
26, 2016) and ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document for the Final CSAPR Update'' (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD), 
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf. This approach is 
consistent with the use of a one-percent threshold to identify those 
states ``linked'' to air quality problems with respect to the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the original CSAPR rulemaking, wherein EPA 
noted that there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient 
ozone even at low levels. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). See 
technical support document for the August 8, 2011 final rule 
``Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine 
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP'' approvals'' 
located at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-4140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the final rule for the CSAPR Update, the air 
quality modeling contained in EPA's technical analysis: (1) Identified 
locations in the U.S. where EPA anticipated nonattainment or 
maintenance issues in 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (these were 
identified as nonattainment or maintenance receptors, respectively), 
and (2) quantified the projected contributions from emissions from 
upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at the receptors in 
2017. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This modeling used the 
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx 
version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year and the 2017 future base case 
emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance 
sites with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used 
nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (the 
CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic 
Precursor Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution 
of 2017 base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in 
each state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs 
were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous 
United States, the District of Columbia, and adjacent portions of 
Canada and Mexico. The updated modeling data released to support the 
final CSAPR Update for Florida are the most up-to-date information EPA 
has developed to inform the Agency's analysis of upwind state linkages 
to downwind air quality problems for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 
``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document for the 
Final CSAPR Update'' (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support 
Document for the Final CSAPR Update'' (CSAPR Update Modeling TSD), 
available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's air quality modeling for the final CSAPR Update indicated 
that Florida's largest impact on any projected downwind nonattainment 
receptor in 2017 was 0.71 ppb, which is below the one-percent 
threshold. Accordingly, Florida is not ``linked'' to any nonattainment 
receptors in EPA's modeling. Although the modeling for the proposed 
CSAPR Update did not link Florida's emissions to any maintenance 
receptors, the updated modeling conducted for the final CSAPR Update 
indicated that Florida's largest contribution to any projected downwind 
maintenance-only site in 2017 would be 0.75 ppb.\9\ EPA's modeling 
indicated an average contribution at the 0.75 ppb threshold to the 2017 
design values at two receptors in Houston, Texas (i.e., Harris County 
sites 482010024 and 482011034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CSAPR Update Modeling TSD at Table 4-2, section 4.4 and 
Appendix D located at available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA received a comment on the CSAPR Update proposal \10\ stating 
that the version of CAMx used for the proposal modeling 
(CAMx v6.11) did not include the most recent halogen 
chemistry that would affect ozone concentrations in saltwater marine 
atmospheres and transport of ozone from Florida to receptors in Texas. 
The commenter stated that EPA should include this chemistry in modeling 
for the final rule. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). A report by the 
CAMx model developer on the impact of modeling with the 
latest CAMx halogen chemistry indicates that the updated 
chemistry results in lower modeled ozone in air transported over 
saltwater marine environments for multiple days.\11\ Specifically, the 
report notes that on days with multi-day transport across the Gulf of 
Mexico, modeling with the updated chemistry could lower 8-hour daily 
maximum ozone concentrations by up to 2 to 4 ppb in locations in 
eastern Texas, including Houston. Air parcel trajectories for 
individual days used in EPA's calculation of the contribution from 
Florida to the Houston receptors confirm that on days with high modeled 
transport from Florida to the receptors in Houston, air travels for 
multiple days over the Gulf of Mexico from Florida before reaching the 
receptors in Houston.\12\ In the final rule modeling, EPA was not able 
to explicitly account for the updated chemistry because this chemistry 
had not yet been included by the model developer in the source 
apportionment tool in CAMx at the time the modeling was 
performed for this rule. However, because Florida's maximum impact on 
receptors in Houston, Texas, is exactly

[[Page 4406]]

at the 0.75 ppb threshold, the Agency concluded that if it had 
performed the final rule modeling with the updated halogen chemistry, 
Florida's impact would likely be below this threshold. Therefore, EPA 
determined in the CSAPR Update that when this updated halogen chemistry 
is considered, there are no identified linkages between Florida and 
2017 downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance receptors. As a 
result of the modeling, EPA did not finalize a FIP that required 
NOX emission reductions from Florida in the CSAPR Update 
because EPA's analysis performed to support the final rule does not 
indicate that the State is linked to any identified downwind 
nonattainment or maintenance receptors with respect to the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS. Rather, in the CSAPR Update, EPA took final action to 
determine that emissions from Florida will not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS in any other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 80 FR 75706 (December 3, 2015).
    \11\ See Yarwood, G., T. Sakulyanontvittaya, O. Nopmongcol, and 
B. Koo, 2014. Ozone Depletion by Bromine and Iodine over the Gulf of 
Mexico Final Report. Prepared for the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality. November 2014. Ramboll Environ International 
Corporation, Novato, CA and Yarwood, G., J. Jung, O. Nopmongcol, and 
C. Emery, 2012. Improving CAMx Performance in Simulating 
Ozone Transport from the Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for the Texas 
Commission on Environmental Quality. September 2012. Ramboll Environ 
International Corporation, Novato, CA. These studies are available 
in the docket for the CSAPR Update Rule as EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0458 
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0457, respectively.
    \12\ More details and analysis of the impact of the 
CAMx halogen chemistry updates on the contributions from 
Florida and other Gulf Coast states can be found in section 4.4 and 
Appendix D to the CSAPR Update Modeling TSD available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/aq_modeling_tsd_final_csapr_update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the CSAPR Update addressed the decision from the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015), 
remanding for reconsideration certain states' ozone season 
NOX emission budgets from the original CSAPR (including 
Florida's) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\13\ EPA removed 
Florida from the CSAPR ozone season trading program beginning in 
2017.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Among other things, the decision remanded CSAPR without 
vacatur for reconsideration of the EPA's emission budgets for 
certain states. The court declared invalid the CSAPR Phase 2 
NOX ozone season emission budgets of 11 states, including 
Florida, holding that those budgets over-control with respect to the 
downwind air quality problems to which those states were linked for 
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Because the 2008 ozone NAAQS is more stringent 
than the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the CSAPR Update modeling necessarily 
indicates that Florida is also not linked to any remaining air 
quality concerns with respect to the 1997 ozone standard for which 
the states were regulated in the original CSAPR. For Florida, EPA 
therefore relieved sources in the State from the obligation to 
comply with the NOX ozone season trading program in 
response to the remand. The court also remanded without vacatur the 
CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 annual emission budgets for four states 
(Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas) for reconsideration.
    \14\ See 81 FR 74523-74524, October 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's analysis of the Florida submittal?

    As mentioned in section I of this document, Florida's October 3, 
2017 submittal certifies that emission activities from the State will 
not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state for the 
following reasons: (1) Modeling conducted by EPA in support of the 
CSAPR Update indicates that Florida's impact on any downwind receptor 
is less than one percent of the standard; (2) NOX and VOC 
precursor emissions and monitored ozone concentrations in Florida have 
decreased since 2000; and (3) Florida has SIP-approved stationary 
source emissions standards and monitoring and permitting regulations in 
place addressing certain emissions generating activities that 
contribute to ozone precursor emissions. Based on an assessment of this 
information, EPA proposes to approve Florida's SIP submission because 
it has adequate provisions to ensure that emissions from sources within 
the State will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other 
state.
    Florida's submittal assessed EPA's CSAPR Update modeling that 
showed Florida's contribution to downwind receptors for the 2008 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS is less than one percent of the standard (i.e., 0.75 ppb), 
except as follows. As discussed in Florida's October 3, 2017 SIP 
submission, the CSAPR Update 2017 modeling generated an average 
contribution from Florida at the 0.75 ppb threshold to two receptors in 
Houston, Texas (i.e., Harris County sites 482010024 and 482011034). 
However, as discussed in section I.B of this document and the CSAPR 
Update, a newer version of the CAMx chemical mechanism 
contains updated chemical reactions (halogen chemistry) which may have 
an impact on the estimated ozone contributions from Florida emissions 
to Houston receptors. In the final rule modeling, EPA was not able to 
explicitly account for the updated chemistry because this chemistry had 
not yet been included by the model developer in the source 
apportionment tool in CAMx at the time the modeling was 
performed for this final rule. However, because Florida's maximum 
contribution to receptors in Houston, Texas is exactly at the 0.75 ppb 
threshold, the Agency believes that if it had performed the final rule 
modeling with the updated halogen chemistry, Florida's contribution 
would likely be below the 0.75 ppb threshold. Therefore, EPA concluded 
that Florida's emissions will not contribute to downwind nonattainment 
and maintenance receptors when considering updated halogen chemistry 
and therefore, did not finalize a FIP that required NOX 
emission reductions from Florida in the CSAPR Update. Accordingly, in 
the CSAPR Update, EPA already made a final determination that Florida 
emissions will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or 
interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states and that sources in 
the State are not required to further reduce emissions pursuant to the 
good neighbor provision with respect to this standard.
    Florida's submittal also notes that total NOX and non-
biogenic VOC emissions in Florida have decreased by 52 percent and 44 
percent, respectively, since 2000. Florida indicates that monitored 
ozone concentrations in the State are also trending downward, which 
correlates to the decline in ozone precursor emissions.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Florida's October 3, 2017, SIP submission, Appendix 1 
for additional information on ozone precursor emission trends and 
monitored ozone concentrations in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida also identified SIP-approved regulations in the Florida 
Administrative Code, including Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, 
that provide for the implementation of a permitting program required 
under title I, parts C and D of the CAA for sources of NOX 
and VOC ozone precursors that contribute to ambient ozone 
concentrations. The permitting requirements help ensure that no new or 
modified sources in the State subject to these permitting regulations 
will contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with 
maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in other states. Chapters 
62-296 and 62-297 establish emission standards and compliance (testing 
and monitoring) requirements respectively for stationary sources of air 
pollution emissions.
    Based on the information presented herein, EPA proposes to approve 
Florida's SIP submission on grounds that it addresses the State's 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) good neighbor obligation for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS because the EPA has found that the State will not significantly 
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 
ozone NAAQS in any other state.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Florida's October 3, 2017 SIP 
submission demonstrating that Florida's SIP is sufficient to address 
the CAA requirements of prongs 1 and 2 under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In the CSAPR Update, EPA has already 
taken a final action to determine that emissions from Florida will not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with

[[Page 4407]]

maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in downwind states. EPA 
requests comment on this proposed approval of Florida's SIP.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA is not reopening for comment final determinations made 
in the CSAPR Update or the modeling conducted to support that 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
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);
     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 (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 Clean Air Act; 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, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 5, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-02542 Filed 2-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P