
[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 lakeman.sean@epa.gov.

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


