Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; FL; Source-Specific SO2, 47216-47231 [2019-19413]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
47216
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
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. This 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 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds,
Nitrogen Oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 27, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–19307 Filed 9–6–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0510; FRL–9999–43–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval and Designation of
Areas; FL; Source-Specific SO2 Permit
Limits & Redesignation of
Hillsborough-Polk 2010 1-Hr SO2
Nonattainment Area to Attainment &
Mulberry Unclassifiable Area to
Attainment/Unclassifiable
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions and two redesignation
requests provided by the State of
Florida, through the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP),
related to the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS or standard).
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve a December 1, 2017, SIP
revision (as supplemented through a
February 15, 2019 draft SIP revision
discussed below) that includes SO2
multi-unit permit limits and associated
compliance and monitoring parameters
for Mosaic Fertilizer LLC’s New Wales
facility (Mosaic New Wales) and Bartow
facility (Mosaic Bartow), both located in
Polk County, Florida. The December 1,
2017, SIP revision also includes a
modeling analysis to demonstrate that
the Hillsborough-Polk SO2
nonattainment area (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘‘Hillsborough-Polk Area’’)
attains the SO2 NAAQS with these
permit limits. EPA is also proposing to
approve, through parallel processing, a
draft February 15, 2019, request to
redesignate the Hillsborough-Polk Area
to attainment for the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS and associated SIP revision
containing the State’s plan for
maintaining attainment of the standard
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in the Area. As mentioned above, a draft
February 15, 2019, SIP revision also
revises the modeling analysis in the
2017 SIP revision. Additionally, the
draft February 15, 2019, SIP revisions
contain a base-year emissions inventory
for the Area and certify that the Area
meets nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) requirements. EPA is proposing
to approve the draft February 15, 2019,
SIP revisions through parallel
processing. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve, through parallel
processing, a draft February 15, 2019,
request to redesignate the Mulberry
Unclassifiable Area (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘‘Mulberry Area’’) to
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 9, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2018–0510 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:
Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
Ms. Sanchez may be reached by phone
at (404) 562–9644 or via electronic mail
at sanchez.madolyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is parallel processing?
II. What are the actions EPA is proposing to
take?
III. Background
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?
V. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
VI. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s
source-specific SO2 permit limits?
VII. What actions are being proposed for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area?
VIII. What is EPA’s analysis of the
redesignation request for the Mulberry
Area?
IX. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed
actions?
X. Incorporation by Reference
XI. Proposed Actions
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is parallel processing?
Parallel processing refers to a process
that utilizes concurrent state and
Federal proposed rulemaking actions.
Generally, the state submits a copy of
the proposed regulation or other
revisions to EPA before conducting its
public hearing and completing its
public comment process under state
law. EPA reviews this proposed state
action and prepares a notice of proposed
rulemaking under Federal law. In some
cases, EPA’s notice of proposed
rulemaking is published in the Federal
Register during the same time frame
that the state is holding its public
hearing and conducting its public
comment process. The state and EPA
then provide for concurrent public
comment periods on both the state
action and Federal action. If, after
completing its public comment process
and after EPA’s public comment process
has run, the state changes its final
submittal from the proposed submittal,
EPA evaluates those changes and
decides whether to publish another
notice of proposed rulemaking in light
of those changes or to proceed to taking
final action on its proposed action and
describe the state’s changes in its final
rulemaking action. Any final
rulemaking action by EPA will occur
only after the final submittal has been
adopted by the state and formally
provided to EPA.
In the instant case, however, EPA’s
and Florida’s processes have not been
perfectly concurrent. The State
submitted its first SIP revision for the
Area to EPA in December 2017. Then,
on February 15, 2019, Florida submitted
proposed SIP revisions related to the
2010 1-hour SO2 standard for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area, including an
amendment to the December 2017, SIP
revision, along with proposed requests
to redesignate the Hillsborough-Polk
and Mulberry Areas. These submittals
were noticed for public comment by the
State on February 15, 2019, and have
not yet been submitted in final form.
The State’s public comment period
closed on March 18, 2019. The State
only received comments from EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
which are provided in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking. Florida
requested that EPA parallel process
these proposed submittals while the
State waits for the multi-unit permit
limits to become state-enforceable on
August 31, 2019. The State’s intention is
to submit its final SIP revisions and
redesignation requests in early
September 2019. After Florida submits
these formal SIP revisions and requests
(including responses to EPA’s
comments), EPA will evaluate the
submittals. If the State changes the
formal submittals from the proposed
submittals, EPA will evaluate those
changes for significance. If EPA finds
any such changes to be significant, then
the Agency intends to determine
whether to re-propose the actions based
upon the revised submissions or to
proceed to take final action on the
submittals as changed by the State.
Although EPA was unable to have a
concurrent public comment process
with the State, Florida’s request for
parallel processing allows EPA to begin
to take action on the State’s proposed
submittals in advance of formal, final
submissions.
II. What are the actions EPA is
proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to take the following
seven separate but related actions: (1)
Approve and incorporate the SO2 permit
limits and associated compliance and
monitoring parameters for Mosaic New
Wales and Mosaic Bartow into the SIP;
(2) approve the base-year emissions
inventory pursuant to Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) section 172(c)(3) for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area and incorporate
it into the SIP; (3) concur with Florida’s
certification pursuant to CAA section
172(c)(5) that its existing NNSR
requirements apply to the HillsboroughPolk Area; (4) determine that the air
quality modeling submitted by the State
demonstrates that the Hillsborough-Polk
Area will have attained the 2010 SO2
NAAQS as a result of compliance with
the multi-unit permit limits at Mosaic
New Wales and Mosaic Bartow; (5)
approve Florida’s plan for maintaining
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the
Hillsborough-Polk Area through 2032
and incorporate it into the SIP pursuant
to section 175A of the CAA; (6)
redesignate the Hillsborough-Polk Area
to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS; and (7) redesignate the
Mulberry Area to attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS based on air quality modeling.
Because attainment of the SO2 NAAQS
is dependent on making the multi-unit
permit limits and associated compliance
and monitoring parameters for Mosaic
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47217
New Wales and Mosaic Bartow
permanent and enforceable measures,
EPA cannot take final action on items 4–
7, above, unless it finalizes its proposal
to approve and incorporate these limits
and parameters into the SIP.1
The Hillsborough-Polk Area is
comprised of the portion of
Hillsborough and Polk Counties
encompassed by the polygon with the
vertices using Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) coordinates in UTM
zone 17 with datum North American
Datum 83 (NAD83) as follows: 390,500
E, 3,073,500 N; 390,500 E, 3,083,500 N;
400,500 E, 3,083,500 N; 400,500 E,
3,073,500 N. The Hillsborough-Polk
Area contains one major point source
for SO2 emissions—Mosaic New Wales.
The Mulberry Area is that portion of
Hillsborough and Polk Counties
encompassed by the polygon with the
vertices using UTM coordinates in UTM
zone 17 with datum NAD83 starting
with the Northwest Corner and
proceeding to the Northeast as follows:
390,500 E, 3,083,500 N; 410,700 E,
3,091,600 N; 412,900 E, 3,089,800 N;
412,900 E, 3,084,600 N; 400,500 E,
3,073,50 N; 400,500 E, 3,083,500 N. The
Mulberry Area is directly adjacent to the
Hillsborough-Polk Area and contains
one major point source for SO2
emissions—Mosaic Bartow. In addition,
there are two major SO2 point sources
located within 10 kilometers (km) of the
Hillsborough-Polk Area and the
Mulberry Area—Mosaic’s South Pierce
facility and Tampa Electric Company’s
(TECO’s) Polk Power Station.
III. Background
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the
primary SO2 NAAQS, establishing a
new 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 parts per
billion (ppb). See 75 FR 35520 (June 22,
2010). Under EPA’s regulations at 40
CFR part 50, the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS is met at a monitoring site
when the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of daily maximum 1hour average concentrations is less than
or equal to 75 ppb (based on the
rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50,
appendix T). See 40 CFR 50.17.
Ambient air quality monitoring data for
the 3-year period must meet a data
completeness requirement. A year meets
1 FDEP has committed to submit the
redesignation requests and SIP revisions soon after
the SO2 permit limits become state-enforceable on
August 31, 2019. As described above, EPA will not
take final action on its proposals associated with
the February 15, 2019, drafts until after these
redesignation requests and SIP revisions are
formally submitted to EPA in early September 2019.
As a part of the final SIP submittals, Florida will
provide emissions data to show compliance with
the SO2 permit limits that are the subject of this
proposed rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
47218
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
data completeness requirements when
all four quarters are complete, and a
quarter is complete when at least 75
percent of the sampling days for each
quarter have complete data. A sampling
day has complete data if 75 percent of
the hourly concentration values,
including state-flagged data affected by
exceptional events which have been
approved for exclusion by the
Administrator, are reported.2 The 2010
1-hour SO2 standard is violated at an
ambient air quality monitoring site (or
in the case of dispersion modeling, at an
ambient air quality receptor location)
when the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of the daily maximum 1hour average concentrations exceeds 75
ppb, as determined in accordance with
Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50.
Upon promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area
that does not meet (or that contributes
to ambient air quality in a nearby area
that does not meet) the NAAQS.
Effective on April 9, 2018, EPA
designated the Hillsborough-Polk Area
as nonattainment based on air
dispersion modeling and designated the
Mulberry Area as unclassifiable for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.3 See 83 FR
1098 (January 9, 2018). Under the CAA,
SO2 nonattainment areas must attain the
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable
but not later than five years after the
April 9, 2018, effective date of the
designation. See CAA section 192(a).
Therefore, the Hillsborough-Polk Area’s
applicable attainment date is no later
than April 9, 2023.
EPA’s nonattainment designation for
the Hillsborough-Polk Area triggered an
obligation for Florida to develop a
nonattainment area SIP revision
addressing certain requirements under
CAA title I, part D, subpart 1
(hereinafter ‘‘Subpart 1’’), and to submit
that SIP revision to EPA in accordance
with the deadlines in title I, part D,
subpart 5 (hereinafter ‘‘Subpart 5’’).4
Subpart 1 contains the general
requirements for nonattainment areas
for criteria pollutants, including
requirements to develop a SIP that
provides for the implementation of
reasonably available control measures
(RACM), requires reasonable further
2 See
40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 3(b).
designated the Mulberry Area as
unclassifiable due to the uncertainty regarding
possible contribution from Mosaic Bartow to the
modeled violations in the Hillsborough-Polk Area.
See Chapter 9 of the Technical Support Document
for the Round 3 Designations for the 2010 1-Hour
SO2 NAAQS located in the docket for the
designation at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–
0003–0635.
4 No requirements were triggered as a result of the
unclassifiable designation for the Mulberry Area.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
3 EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
progress (RFP), includes base-year and
attainment-year emissions inventories, a
SIP-approved NNSR permitting program
that accounts for growth in the area,
enforceable emission limitations and
other such control measures, and
provides for the implementation of
contingency measures. This SIP revision
is due within 18 months following the
April 9, 2018, effective date of
designation (i.e., October 9, 2019).5 See
CAA section 191(a).
IV. What are the criteria for
redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area
to attainment. Specifically, section
107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA allows for
redesignation provided that the
following criteria are met: (1) The
Administrator determines that the area
has attained the applicable NAAQS; (2)
the Administrator has fully approved
the applicable implementation plan for
the area under section 110(k); (3) the
Administrator determines that the
improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP
and applicable federal air pollutant
control regulations, and other
permanent and enforceable reductions;
(4) the Administrator has fully approved
a maintenance plan for the area as
meeting the requirements of section
175A; and (5) the state containing such
area has met all requirements applicable
to the area for purposes of redesignation
under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
On April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), EPA
provided guidance on redesignations in
the General Preamble for the
Implementation of title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 and supplemented
this guidance on April 28, 1992 (57 FR
18070). EPA has provided further
guidance on processing redesignation
requests in the following documents:
1. ‘‘Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director,
Air Quality Management Division, September
4, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘‘Calcagni Memorandum’’);
2. ‘‘State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air
Act (CAA) Deadlines,’’ Memorandum from
John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, October 28, 1992
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘1992 Calcagni
Memorandum’’);
3. ‘‘Part D New Source Review (Part D
NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting
5 If EPA redesignates the Hillsborough-Polk Area
to attainment, a nonattainment SIP revision will not
be required.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Redesignation to Attainment,’’ Memorandum
from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, October
14, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘‘Nichols Memorandum’’); and
4. ‘‘Guidance for 1-Hour SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,’’
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, April
23, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance’’).
EPA’s SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance discusses the CAA
requirements that air agencies need to
address when implementing the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in areas designated as
nonattainment for the standard. The
guidance includes recommendations for
air agencies to consider as they develop
SIPs to satisfy the requirements of
sections 110, 172, 175A, 191, and 192 of
the CAA to show future attainment and
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Additionally, the SO2 Nonattainment
Area Guidance provides
recommendations for air agencies to
consider as they develop redesignation
requests and maintenance plans to
satisfy the requirements of sections
107(d)(3)(E) and 175A.
V. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
EPA has evaluated and is proposing to
approve the base-year nonattainment
emissions inventory and concurs with
FDEP’s certification that its existing SIPapproved NNSR permitting program
applies to the Hillsborough-Polk Area
because they satisfy the requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 172(c)(5),
respectively. As discussed in greater
detail in Section VI of this notice, EPA
is also proposing to approve and
incorporate the SO2 permit limits and
associated compliance and monitoring
parameters for Mosaic New Wales and
Mosaic Bartow into the SIP. In addition,
EPA is proposing to determine that the
air quality modeling submitted by the
State demonstrates that the
Hillsborough-Polk Area will have
attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as a
result of compliance with the permit
limits at Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow and that the Area will meet the
requirements for redesignation as set
forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), including
the maintenance plan requirements
under section 175A of the CAA,
provided that the state submits a final
SIP consistent with that outlined above,
including the permit limits, parameters,
and related information, and EPA
approves the SIP.
Also, as a result of the compliance
with the multi-unit permit limits at
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow,
EPA proposes to determine that the
Mulberry Area will have attained the 1hour SO2 NAAQS and thus will meet
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the requirements for redesignation from
unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable.
VI. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s
source-specific SO2 permit limits?
Florida’s December 1, 2017, sourcespecific SIP revision includes SO2
multi-unit permit limits and associated
compliance and monitoring provisions
from air construction permits for Mosaic
New Wales (Permit No. 1050059–106–
AC) and Mosaic Bartow (Permit No.
1050046–050–AC). The SIP revision
also includes modeling to demonstrate
that the Hillsborough-Polk Area will
attain the SO2 NAAQS as a result of
compliance with these multi-unit
permit limits. Florida’s February 15,
2019, draft SIP submittal contains
changes to this modeling and
administrative corrections to the
aforementioned permits.
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow are phosphate fertilizer
manufacturing plants that employ a
process of reacting phosphate rock with
sulfuric acid to produce phosphoric
acid, which is then converted into
several different fertilizer products and
animal feed ingredients. The sulfuric
acid needed for the process is produced
by sulfuric acid plants (SAPs), which
are the largest SO2 emitting units at
these sites. Both facilities are sulfur
burning, double conversion, and double
absorption plants of Leonard-Monsanto
design.6 The SAPs burn sulfur with
dried atmospheric oxygen to produce
SO2, which is catalytically oxidized to
sulfur trioxide (SO3), which is then
absorbed in sulfuric acid.
To reduce SO2 emissions from the
SAPs, Mosaic has replaced the
vanadium catalysts with more efficient
catalysts to enable Mosaic New Wales
and Mosaic Bartow to meet the new SO2
permit limits. Mosaic Bartow and
Mosaic New Wales began installation of
the catalyst replacements in 2016 and
2017, respectively, and completed
installation in April 2019.7 The new
catalysts allow for more SO2 to be
47219
captured for process purposes rather
than being emitted into the atmosphere.
On October 30, 2017, FDEP issued
Permit No. 1050059–106–AC for Mosaic
New Wales requiring compliance with a
SO2 multi-unit permit limit of 1,090
pounds per hour (lb/hr) across all five
SAPs (Nos. 1 through 5) based on a 24hour block average and with associated
specific compliance and monitoring
provisions. On July 3, 2017, FDEP
issued Permit No. 1050046–050–AC for
Mosaic Bartow requiring compliance
with an SO2 multi-unit permit limits of
1,100 lb/hr across all three SAPs (No. 4,
No. 6 and No. 5) based on a 24-hour
block average and with associated
compliance and monitoring provisions.
Mosaic is required to comply with these
permit conditions no later than August
31, 2019.8 The construction permits
impose the new limits for scenarios
where any number of units are operating
at each respective facility while
retaining the current individual unit
limits as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
TABLE 1—MOSAIC NEW WALES SO2 SOURCE CHANGES
SO2 permit limits
(lb/hr)
Source
Individual
(not changing)
SAP1
SAP2
SAP3
SAP4
SAP5
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
.......................................
496
496
496
483.3
483.3
New 5-unit *
Combined emissions cannot exceed 1,090.
* SO2 permit limit is a 24-hour block average.
TABLE 2—MOSAIC BARTOW SO2 SOURCE CHANGES
SO2 permit limits
(lb/hr)
Source
Individual
(not changing)
SAP4 .......................................
SAP5 .......................................
SAP6 .......................................
433.3
433.3
433.3
New 3-unit *
Combined emissions cannot exceed 1,100.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
* SO2 permit limit is a 24-hour block average.
The potential to emit for SAPs 1–5 at
Mosaic New Wales and SAPs 4–6 at
Mosaic Bartow was previously 10,750
tons per year (tpy) and 5,694 tpy,
respectively. With the new multi-unit
permit limits implemented at Mosaic
New Wales and Mosaic Bartow, FDEP
expects the potential to emit to be 4,774
tpy and 4,818 tpy, respectively. This is
approximately a 42-percent drop in total
allowable emissions for both facilities,
combined. At maximum production,
with all SAPs in operation, overall SO2
emissions are expected to be reduced by
approximately 5,930 tpy at Mosaic New
Wales and 876 tpy at Mosaic Bartow.
FDEP projects that actual SO2 emissions
will decrease by 36 percent from 2016
to 2020.
On January 11, 2019, FDEP issued
Administrative Permit Corrections to
6 A double conversion, double absorption plant
efficiently converts SO2 to SO3, then SO3 reacts in
a mixture of water and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to
produce more H2SO4. In a double absorption
system, the conversion efficiency from SO2 to SO3
is at least 99.7 percent.
7 See the May 23, 2019, email from Mosaic
Fertilizer, LLC to EPA Region 4 Air Planning
Implementation Branch, Air Regulatory
Management Section and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Resource
Management located in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking. FDEP required Mosaic to install these
catalysts through Permit No. 1050059–101–AC
(Mosaic New Wales) and No. 1050046–050–AC
(Mosaic Bartow).
8 FDEP incorporated these permit limits into Title
V Permit No. 1050059–107–AV (Mosaic New
Wales) and No. 1050046–053–AV (Mosaic Bartow).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
47220
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
the air construction permits identified
above. These corrections are contained
in Permit No. 1050059–114–AC for
Mosaic New Wales and Permit No.
1050046–063–AC for Mosaic Bartow
and do not modify the multi-unit permit
limits or the associated compliance and
monitoring provisions. The notices
associated with these permits state that
the corrections merely remove
unnecessary and confusing language
from the permit provisions that contain
the emissions caps.9 Florida’s February
15, 2019, draft SIP revisions ask EPA to
incorporate the corrections from Permit
Nos. 1050059–114–AC and 050046–
063–AC into the SIP.
On March 22, 2019, Florida submitted
a letter to EPA explaining the
administrative corrections and
clarifying which permit conditions that
it would like EPA to incorporate into
the SIP.10 FDEP is requesting that EPA
incorporate the following conditions
from Permit Nos. 10500046–106–AC
and 1050046–050–AC: 11 (1) Section III,
Subsection A, Specific Condition 3 (as
corrected by Permit Nos. 1050059–114–
AC and Permit No. 1050046–063–AC)—
establishing the five-unit permit limit of
1,090 lb/hr for Mosaic New Wales and
the three-unit permit limit of 1,100 lb/
hr for Mosaic Bartow, each based on 24hour block average, and applicable
during all periods of operation; 12 (2)
Section III, Subsection A Specific
Condition 4—requiring the facilities to
use certified SO2 continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) data to
demonstrate initial compliance with the
new SO2 permit limit; and (3) Section
III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 5—
requiring the facilities to keep records of
the initial compliance demonstration
that include the SO2 CEMS data and
9 The Administrative Permit Corrections and
associated notices are included in Appendix C and
Appendix H of Florida’s February 15, 2019 draft SIP
revisions contained in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking. The corrections remove the phrase
‘‘Any requested revisions to this emissions limit
requires air dispersion modeling review and written
approval from the Department’s Meteorology and
Air Modeling Section in the Office of Business
Planning to confirm SO2 NAAQS compliance’’ from
the provisions establishing the multi-unit permit
limits.
10 See Florida’s March 22, 2019, clarification
letter contained in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
11 The permit condition numbers are the same for
each permit.
12 Permit condition Section III, Subsection A,
Specific Condition 3 requires compliance with the
emissions caps within the same 24-hour block
averaging period (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) and in
scenarios when any combination of any number of
the SAPs are not in operation and when any
number of the SAPs are in operation. See
Appendices B, C, G, and H of Florida’s February 19,
2019 draft redesignation SIP submission in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
sulfuric acid production rate (in tons
per hour) during the demonstration.
The Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow air construction permits include
specific conditions regarding initial
compliance with the SO2 permit limits
using CEMS. Florida’s SIP-approved
regulations for SAPs, at Rule 62–
296.402, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), require the owner or operator
of a SAP to install and operate CEMS
according to appendix B of 40 CFR part
60, and Chapter 62–297, F.A.C., which
specifies how stationary sources
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable permit limits.13 These
applicable requirements require
compliance with the permit limits on an
ongoing basis. For each SAP at each
source, a CEMS will be used to
determine compliance with the 24-hour
average permit limit for SO2. The CEMS
shall be calibrated, maintained and
operated as specified in 40 CFR 60.84.
The December 1, 2017, SIP revision
includes an air dispersion modeling
analysis to show attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in the Hillsborough-Polk
Area. The modeling used 1-hour
emission rates calculated from final
multi-unit permit limits of 1,090 lb/hr
and 1,100 lb/hr for New Wales and
Bartow, respectively, using adjustment
factors derived following the procedures
in EPA’s SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance. Florida’s draft February 15,
2019, SIP revision updated this
modeling. FDEP’s modeling complied
with all applicable EPA rules and
guidance, including Appendix W to 40
CFR part 51: The Guideline on Air
Quality Models (Appendix W) and the
SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling
Technical Assistance Document.14 For
more information on the modeling
analysis, see section VII.C of this notice
and the Air Modeling Technical
Support Document (TSD).15 For details
on how Florida established the 24-hour
multi-unit SO2 permit limits, see the
longer term averaging (LTA) TSD.16 EPA
13 See Florida’s March 22, 2019 clarification letter
in the docket for this proposal action.
14 SO National Ambient Air Quality Standards
2
Designations Modeling Technical Assistance
Document, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2016-06/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf.
15 This TSD is entitled ‘‘U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Technical Support Document
(TSD) for the Air Quality Modeling Analysis
Supporting the Proposed Redesignations for the
Hillsborough—Polk and Mulberry, Florida Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) Areas.’’
16 This TSD is entitled ‘‘U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Technical Support Document
(TSD) for the Longer Term Average Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Permit Limits for the Mosaic New Wales and
Bartow Fertilizer Facilities.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
included both TSDs in the docket for
this proposing rulemaking.
Based on a review of Florida’s
December 1, 2017, SIP revision, as
modified through its February 15, 2019,
draft SIP revision, EPA believes that the
24-hour block average SO2 multi-unit
permit limits described above provide
an appropriate alternative to
establishing a 1-hour average permit
limit for each unit at Mosaic New Wales
and Mosaic Bartow. The State has used
a suitable database and has derived
adjustment factors that yielded permit
limits that have comparable stringency
to the 1-hour average limits that would
otherwise have been necessary to
provide for attainment. While the 24hour block average allows for occasions
in which emissions may be higher than
the level that would be allowed with the
1-hour limit, the State’s caps
compensate by requiring average
emissions to be lower than the level that
would otherwise have been required by
1-hour average limits. For more
information on how Florida established
the SO2 permit limits, please refer to the
LTA discussion presented in TSD. For
reasons discussed in the LTA TSD and
explained in more detail in EPA’s SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance, EPA
believes that appropriately set longer
term average limits provide a reasonable
basis by which permit limits may
provide for attainment. Based on its
review of this information as well as the
information in the State’s 2017 and 2019
SIP revisions, EPA is proposing to find
that the 24-hour average limits for
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow
provide for attainment of the SO2
standard.
VII. What actions are being proposed
for the Hillsborough-Polk Area?
Regarding the Hillsborough-Polk Area
and in accordance with the CAA, EPA
proposes to: (1) Approve and
incorporate the SO2 permit limits and
associated compliance and monitoring
parameters for Mosaic New Wales and
Bartow into the SIP; (2) approve the
base-year emissions inventory pursuant
to Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section
172(c)(3) for the Hillsborough-Polk Area
and incorporate it into the SIP; (3)
concur with Florida’s certification
pursuant to CAA section 172(c)(5) that
its existing NNSR requirements apply to
the Hillsborough-Polk Area; (4)
determine that the air quality modeling
submitted by the State demonstrates
that the Hillsborough-Polk Area will
have attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as
a result of compliance with the multiunit permit limits at Mosaic New Wales
and Bartow; (5) approve Florida’s plan
for maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
NAAQS in the Hillsborough-Polk Area
through 2032 and incorporate it into the
SIP pursuant to section 175A of the
CAA; and (6) redesignate the
Hillsborough-Polk Area to attainment
for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Because attainment of the SO2 NAAQS
is dependent on making the multi-unit
permit limits and associated compliance
and monitoring parameters for Mosaic
New Wales and Bartow permanent and
enforceable measures, EPA cannot take
final action on items 4–7, above, unless
it finalizes its proposal to approve and
incorporate these caps and parameters
into the SIP.
A. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s
base-year inventory for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area?
States are required under section
172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop
comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventories of actual emissions from all
sources of the relevant pollutant or
pollutants in the nonattainment area.
These inventories provide a detailed
accounting of all emissions and
emission sources by precursor or
pollutant. In addition, these inventories
are used in air quality modeling to
demonstrate that attainment of the
NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable.
The SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance
states that the emissions inventory
should be consistent with the Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements
(AERR) at subpart A to 40 CFR part 51.17
The SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance
notes that the base-year inventory
should include all sources of SO2 in the
nonattainment area as well as any
sources located outside the
nonattainment area which may affect
attainment in the area.
Florida elected to use 2017 as the base
year. To develop the base-year emission
inventory, Florida reviewed and
compiled county-level actual SO2
emissions for all source categories (i.e.,
point, area, and mobile (nonroad and
onroad)) in Hillsborough and Polk
Counties and then utilized county and
partial county nonattainment area
population and land use data to
determine estimated SO2 emission
inventories for sources of SO2 in the
Hillsborough-Polk Area. Emissions from
Mosaic New Wales, the largest point
source of SO2 in the Area, as well as
nearby Mosaic Bartow, a point source
located outside of the Area, were
included in the inventory.
Pursuant to Florida’s SIP-approved
regulations at Rule 62–210.370, F.A.C.,
paragraph (3), FDEP collects annual
operating reports (AORs). Florida used
these AORs to satisfy the AERR and to
develop the base year inventory for
actual emissions for point sources.
47221
FDEP utilized EPA’s 2014 NEI, Version
2 to obtain estimates of the area and
nonroad sources. For onroad mobile
source emissions, FDEP utilized EPA’s
Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
(MOVES2014). A more detailed
discussion of the emissions inventory
development for the Hillsborough-Polk
Area can be found in Florida’s February
15, 2019, draft SIP submittal.
Table 3, below, shows the level of
emissions in the Hillsborough-Polk Area
for the 2017 base year by emissions
source category. The point source
category includes 2017 emissions from
the Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow AORs (6,877 tons and 4,001
tons, respectively). Area and nonroad
emissions are based on 2014 NEI data
for Hillsborough County and Polk
County. Florida projected the 2014
emissions for the area and nonroad
categories to 2017 based on the increase
in the Hillsborough County and Polk
County population from 2014 to 2017,
and then allocated to the HillsboroughPolk Area based on the Area’s fraction
of land area within each county. Florida
estimated onroad emissions for the area
using MOVES2014a and then allocated
them to the Hillsborough-Polk Area
based on the Area’s fraction of land area
within each county.
TABLE 3—2017 BASE-YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH-POLK AREA
[tons]
Year
Point
Area
Nonroad
Onroad
Total
2017 .....................................................................................
10,888
16.42
0.31
1.34
10,906.07
F.A.C.,18 and is therefore proposing to
concur with Florida’s section 172(c)(5)
certification that its program requires
NNSR in the Hillsborough Polk Area for
so long as the Area is designated
nonattainment.19
B. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s
NNSR SIP for the Hillsborough-Polk
Area?
CAA section 172(c)(5) requires source
permits for the construction and
operation of new and modified major
stationary sources anywhere in a
nonattainment area. In its February 15,
2019, draft SIP revision, Florida certifies
that it has a SIP-approved NNSR
permitting program, outlined in
Chapters 62–210 and 62–212, F.A.C., to
address any new major stationary
sources or source modifications in the
Hillsborough-Polk Area. The SIPapproved program applies to
nonattainment areas for all NAAQS,
including the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard.
Florida also states that it is unaware of
and does not anticipate any future
development within the Area that
would increase SO2 emissions. EPA has
previously approved Florida’s SIPapproved NNSR program, including the
NNSR regulation at 62–212.500,
17 The AERR covers federal reporting
requirements for states to submit emissions
inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA’s Emission
Inventory System. EPA uses these submittals, along
with other data sources, to build the National
Emission Inventory (NEI).
18 EPA last modified the SIP-approved version of
this rule on June 27, 2008. See 73 FR 36435.
19 As discussed in section VII.C.ii.A.2.a, below,
EPA has a longstanding interpretation that because
NNSR is replaced by Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting upon redesignation,
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to
attainment need not have a fully approved part D
NNSR program in order to be redesignated. See
Nichols Memorandum. Nonetheless, EPA is
proposing to concur with the State’s certification.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA has evaluated Florida’s 2017
base-year emissions inventory for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area and has made
the preliminary determination that this
inventory was developed consistent
with EPA’s guidance. Therefore,
pursuant to section 172(c)(3), EPA is
proposing to approve Florida’s 2017
base-year emissions inventory for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area and incorporate
it into the SIP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. What is EPA’s analysis of the
redesignation request and SIP revision
for the Hillsborough-Polk Area?
The five redesignation criteria
provided under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater
detail for the Hillsborough-Polk Area in
the following paragraphs.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
47222
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
i. Criterion (1)—The Administrator
Determines That the Area Has Attained
the NAAQS
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the area has
attained the applicable NAAQS (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). As discussed in
section VIII.A of the SO2 Nonattainment
Area Guidance, there are generally two
components needed to support an
attainment determination for SO2,
which should be considered
interdependently.20 The first
component relies on air quality
monitoring data. For SO2, any available
monitoring data would need to indicate
that all monitors in the affected area are
meeting the standard as stated in 40
CFR 50.17 using data analysis
procedures specified in 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix T. The second component
relies on air quality modeling data. If
there are no air quality monitors located
in the affected area, or there are air
quality monitors located in the area, but
analyses show that none of the monitors
are located in the area of maximum
concentration,21 then air quality
dispersion modeling will generally be
needed to estimate SO2 concentrations
in the area. Such dispersion modeling
should be conducted to estimate SO2
concentrations throughout the
nonattainment area using actual
emissions and meteorological
information for the most recent three
calendar years. However, EPA may also
make determinations of attainment
based on the modeling from the
attainment demonstration 22 for the
applicable SIP for the affected area,
eliminating the need for separate
actuals-based modeling to support a
redesignation request. A demonstration
that the control strategy in the SIP has
been fully implemented (compliance
records demonstrating that the control
measures have been implemented as
required by the approved SIP) would
also be relevant for making the
determination, and as noted above,
20 SO is primarily a localized, source-specific
2
pollutant, and therefore, SO2 control measures are,
by definition, based on what is directly and
quantifiably necessary to attain the NAAQS.
21 See section VIII.A of the SO Nonattainment
2
Area Guidance.
22 Florida submitted the modeling analysis for the
Hillsborough-Polk and Mulberry Areas in support
of its redesignation requests and as part of its SIP
revision containing permit limits for Mosaic Bartow
and Mosaic New Wales. Although this modeling
analysis is not considered part of an ‘‘attainment
demonstration’’ or ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ pursuant to
section 172 of the CAA, the portion of the SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance regarding the use of
modeling summarized in this section of the notice
is applicable given the similarities between the
submitted analysis and a modeling analysis under
a section 172 ‘‘attainment demonstration.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
Florida is providing emissions data to
demonstrate compliance with the SO2
permit limits in its final SIP submittal.
Areas which were designated
nonattainment based on modeling will
generally not be redesignated to
attainment unless an acceptable
modeling analysis indicates attainment.
See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum.
As discussed above, Florida’s
December 1, 2017, SIP revision, as
modified through its February 15, 2019,
draft SIP revision, contains a modeling
analysis to demonstrate that the Area
will attain the 2010 1-hour standard as
a result of compliance with the
comparably stringent 24-hour SO2
emissions caps at Mosaic New Wales
and Mosaic Bartow. When EPA
designated the Hillsborough-Polk Area
as a nonattainment area for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA determined that
Mosaic New Wales was the primary
cause of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
violations in the Hillsborough-Polk
Area. However, Florida included nearby
Mosaic Bartow in its modeling because
it determined that emissions from
Mosaic Bartow also had the potential to
contribute to elevated concentrations
within the Hillsborough-Polk Area.
Because there are no air quality
monitors located in the HillsboroughPolk Area, EPA’s proposed approval of
Florida’s draft redesignation and
maintenance plan SIP for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area is based on this
modeled demonstration and related
information. Details regarding the
modeling analysis are summarized in
the following paragraphs. A more
detailed discussion of FDEP’s modeling,
including changes in the February 19,
2019, draft SIP revision, can be found in
EPA’s Air Modeling TSD.
FDEP’s modeling analysis was
developed in accordance with EPA’s
Guideline on Air Quality Models
(Modeling Guideline) 23 and the SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance, and was
prepared using EPA’s preferred
dispersion modeling system—the
American Meteorological Society/
Environmental Protection Agency
Regulatory Model (AERMOD)—
consisting of the AERMOD (version
18081) model and multiple data input
preprocessors as described below. FDEP
used regulatory default options and the
rural land use dispersion option in the
AERMOD modeling.
The pre-processors AERMET (version
16216) and AERMINUTE (version
14337) were used to process five years
23 See 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W (EPA’s
Guideline on Air Quality Models) (January 17,
2017) located at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/
appendix_w/2016/AppendixW_2017.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(i.e., 2012–2016) of 1-minute
meteorological data from the Winter
Haven Municipal Airport National
Weather Service (NWS) surface level
site, based on FDEP’s land use
classifications, in combination with
twice daily upper-air meteorological
information from the Ruskin, FL NWS
station. The Winter Haven Municipal
Airport is located approximately 38 km
northwest from the Hillsborough-Polk
Area.
The AERMOD pre-processor
AERMAP (version 18081) was used to
generate terrain inputs for the receptors,
based on a digital elevation mapping
database from the National Elevation
Dataset developed by the U.S.
Geological Survey. FDEP used
AERSURFACE to generate directionspecific land-use surface characteristics
for the modeling.
The stack heights used in the
modeling meet the Good Engineering
Practice stack height criteria, and the
Building Profile Input Program for
Plume Rise Model Enhancements
preprocessor was used to generate
direction-specific building downwash
parameters. FDEP developed two
overlapping Cartesian receptor grids to
fully encompass the entire
nonattainment area and the
unclassifiable area, with 100-meter (m)
spacing out to 2.5 km from Mosaic New
Wales and Mosaic Bartow, 200 m
spacing from 2.5 km to 5 km, and 500
m spacing from 5 km to 7.5 km from the
facilities, to ensure maximum
concentrations were captured in the
analysis.
FDEP selected a background SO2
concentration based on monitoring data
from the Sydney monitor (AQS ID: 12–
057–3002), for the period January 2014
to December 2016. The monitor is
approximately 23 km from Mosaic New
Wales and 31 km from Mosaic Bartow.
The background concentration from this
ambient air monitor is used to account
for SO2 impacts from all sources that are
not specifically included in the
AERMOD modeling analysis. The
ambient monitoring data was obtained
from the Florida Air Monitoring and
Assessment System. Due to its close
proximity to the modeled facilities,
monitored concentrations at this station
are strongly influenced by their
emissions. As a result, and as allowed
by EPA’s Modeling Guideline, the data
were filtered to remove measurements
where the wind direction could
transport pollutants from these facilities
to the monitor. More specifically, the
data were filtered to remove
measurements where hourly wind
directions were between 85° to 175°.
FDEP elected to use a temporally
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
varying approach, based on the 99th
percentile monitored concentrations by
hour of day and season or month. The
resulting temporally varying
background concentration ranged from
0.67–7.33 ppb.
The State used the emissions caps for
each of the SO2 emissions units at
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow
in the modeling demonstration. As
discussed in Section VI, FDEP’s
construction permits require Mosaic
New Wales to comply with a 1,090 lb/
hr SO2 permit limit for its five SAPs and
Mosaic Bartow to comply with a 1,100
lb/hr for its three SAPs, each on a 24hour block average, no later than August
31, 2019. To determine the level of these
permit limits, the State initially
performed exploratory modeling,
consisting of over 300 AERMOD
modeling runs, to determine the CEVs
for Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow on an hourly basis. This
modeling was performed to determine
the highest aggregate hourly emission
rate that, regardless of its distribution
among any combination of SAPs at the
facilities, would result in modeled
concentrations at or below the level of
the 1-hour NAAQS (i.e., the CEV). The
analysis resulted in CEVs of 1,118 lb/hr
and 1,163 lb/hr for Mosaic New Wales
and Mosaic Bartow, respectively.
Following the procedures in EPA’s SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance, Florida
calculated comparably stringent 24-hour
emissions caps using adjustment factors
calculated by the ratio of each source’s
historic 99th percentile one-hour
average emissions rate to its 99th
percentile longer-term average
emissions rate, which resulted in 24hour adjusted emission caps of 1,100 lb/
hr for New Wales and 1,138 lb/hr for
Bartow. The details of the adjustment
factor calculation are provided in the
47223
LTA TSD for this action. To provide for
a margin of safety in the final modeling
demonstration, Florida slightly lowered
the 24-hour adjusted emission caps to
establish final multi-unit permit limits
of 1,090 lb/hr and 1,100 lb/hr for New
Wales and Bartow, respectively. For the
final modeling run to show compliance
with the NAAQS, Florida applied the
adjustment factors to back-calculate 1hour emission rates (1,108 lb/hr for New
Wales and 1,124 lb/hr for Bartow) from
the final 24-hour multi-unit permit
limits of 1,090 lb/hr and 1,100 lb/hr for
New Wales and Bartow, respectively.
Table 4 shows that the maximum
modeled 99th percentile daily
maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration
averaged across all five years of
meteorological data (2012–2016) is less
than or equal to the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS of 75 ppb using the in 1-hour
equivalent emission rates.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 4—MAXIMUM MODELED 99TH PERCENTILE DAILY MAXIMUM 1-HOUR SO2 IMPACTS IN THE HILLSBOROUGH-POLK
AREA, MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER
Averaging time
Maximum predicted impact
Background
Total
1-hour ................................
186.94 (71.4 ppb) .............
7.84 (3 ppb) ......................
194.74 (74.4 ppb) .............
The final modeling resulted in a
highest predicted 99th percentile daily
maximum 1-hour concentration of 74.4
ppb with no modeled violations of the
1-hour SO2 NAAQS in ambient air
locations in the Hillsborough-Polk Area
or in the Mulberry Area. The details of
the modeling are provided EPA’s Air
Modeling TSD for this action. EPA
believes that the modeled
demonstration described above is
consistent with CAA requirements,
EPA’s Modeling Guideline, and the SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance.
Therefore, EPA proposes to determine
that the air quality modeling and related
information that will be submitted by
the State in its final submission
(consistent with the current proposed
SIP) demonstrates that the HillsboroughPolk Area will have attained the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS as a result of
compliance with the permit limits at
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow.
EPA cannot take final action to
determine that the Area has attained the
NAAQS unless it receives the final SIP
submittal containing that information
and finalizes its proposal to approve
and incorporate these permit limits,
associated compliance and monitoring
parameters, and other related
information into the SIP.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
SO2 NAAQS
196.4 (75 ppb).
ii. Criterion (2)—The Administrator
Fully Approves the Applicable
Implementation Plan for the Area Under
Section 110(k); and Criterion (5)—
Florida Has Met All Applicable
Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of Title I of the CAA
applicable to the Area and, if applicable,
that they are fully approved under
section 110(k). SIPs must be fully
approved only with respect to
requirements that were applicable prior
to submittal of the complete
redesignation request.
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the state has met
all applicable requirements under
section 110 and part D of title I of the
CAA (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and
that the state has a fully approved SIP
under section 110(k) for the area (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA proposes
to find that Florida has met all
applicable SIP requirements for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area under section
110 of the CAA (general SIP
requirements) for purposes of
redesignation. Additionally, EPA
proposes to find that the Florida SIP
satisfies the criterion that it meets
applicable SIP requirements for
purposes of redesignation under part D
of title I of the CAA in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA
proposes to determine that the SIP is
fully approved with respect to all
requirements applicable for purposes of
redesignation in accordance with
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making these
proposed determinations, EPA
ascertained which requirements are
A. The Hillsborough-Polk Area Has Met
All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1. General SIP Requirements
General SIP elements and
requirements are delineated in section
110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA.
These requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following: Submittal of a
SIP that has been adopted by the state
after reasonable public notice and
hearing; provisions for establishment
and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality;
implementation of a source permit
program; provisions for the
implementation of part C requirements
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)) and provisions for the
implementation of part D requirements
(NNSR permit programs); provisions for
air pollution modeling; and provisions
for public and local agency participation
in planning and emission control rule
development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs
contain certain measures to prevent
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
47224
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
sources in a state from significantly
contributing to air quality problems in
another state. To implement this
provision, EPA has required certain
states to establish programs to address
the interstate transport of air pollutants.
The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements
for a state are not linked with a
particular nonattainment area’s
designation and classification in that
state. EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular
nonattainment area’s designation and
classifications are the relevant measures
to evaluate in reviewing a redesignation
request. The transport SIP submittal
requirements, where applicable,
continue to apply to a state regardless of
the designation of any one particular
area in the state. Thus, EPA does not
believe that the CAA’s interstate
transport requirements should be
construed to be applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that other
section 110(a)(2) elements that are
neither connected with nonattainment
plan submissions nor linked with an
area’s attainment status are not
applicable requirements for purposes of
redesignation. The area will still be
subject to these requirements after the
area is redesignated. The section
110(a)(2) and part D requirements which
are linked with a particular area’s
designation and classification are the
relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. This
approach is consistent with EPA’s
existing policy on applicability (i.e., for
redesignations) of conformity and
oxygenated fuels requirements, as well
as with section 184 ozone transport
requirements. See Reading,
Pennsylvania, proposed and final
rulemakings (61 FR 53174–53176,
October 10, 1996), (62 FR 24826, May 7,
2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio,
final rulemaking (61 FR 20458, May 7,
1996); and Tampa, Florida, final
rulemaking at (60 FR 62748, December
7, 1995). See also the discussion on this
issue in the Cincinnati, Ohio,
redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19,
2000), and in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR
50399, October 19, 2001). Nonetheless,
EPA has approved Florida’s SIP
revisions related to the section 110
requirements for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS,
with the exception of the interstate
transport elements at section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 81 FR 67179
(September 30, 2016).
2. Title I, Part D, Applicable SIP
Requirements
Subpart 1 of part D, comprised of
CAA sections 171–179B, sets forth the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
basic nonattainment requirements
applicable to all nonattainment areas.
All areas that were designated
nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS were
designated under Subpart 1 of the CAA
in accordance with the deadlines in
Subpart 5. For purposes of evaluating
this redesignation request, the
applicable Subpart 1 SIP requirements
are contained in section 172(c)(1)–(9),
section 176, and sections 191 and 192.
A thorough discussion of the
requirements contained in sections
172(c) can be found in the General
Preamble for Implementation of Title I.
See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
a. Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements
Section 172 requires states with
nonattainment areas to submit plans
providing for timely attainment and
meeting a variety of other requirements.
EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the
attainment-related nonattainment
planning requirements of section 172 is
that once an area is attaining the
NAAQS, those requirements are not
‘‘applicable’’ for purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore
need not be approved into the SIP
before EPA can redesignate the area. In
the 1992 General Preamble for
Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth
its interpretation of applicable
requirements for purposes of evaluating
redesignation requests when an area is
attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498,
13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that
the requirements for RFP and other
measures designed to provide for
attainment do not apply in evaluating
redesignation requests because those
nonattainment planning requirements
‘‘have no meaning’’ for an area that is
attaining the standard. Id. This
interpretation was also set forth in the
Calcagni Memo. EPA’s understanding of
section 172 also forms the basis of its
Clean Data Policy, articulated with
regard to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
in the SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance, which suspends a state’s
obligation to submit most of the
attainment planning requirements that
would otherwise apply. Therefore, these
section 172(c) nonattainment planning
requirements are not applicable for
purposes of evaluating Florida’s
redesignation request if EPA finalizes its
proposal to incorporate the permit
limits and associated compliance and
monitoring parameters into the SIP once
they become enforceable at the state
level on August 31, 2019. Specifically,
the RACT/RACM requirement under
172(c)(1); the RFP requirement under
section 172(c)(2), which is defined as
progress that must be made toward
attainment; the requirement under
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
section 172(c)(6) that the SIP contain
control measures necessary to provide
for attainment of the standard; and the
requirement to submit section 172(c)(9)
contingency measures, which are
measures to be taken if the area fails to
make reasonable further progress to
attainment, would not be applicable.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission
for approval of a comprehensive,
accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions. As discussed in Section
VII.A, EPA is proposing to approve
Florida’s base-year emissions inventory
for the Hillsborough-Polk Area.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the
identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and
modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5)
requires source permits for the
construction and operation of new and
modified major stationary sources
anywhere in the nonattainment area.
EPA has a longstanding interpretation
that because NNSR is replaced by PSD
upon redesignation, nonattainment
areas seeking redesignation to
attainment need not have a fully
approved part D NNSR program in order
to be redesignated. See Nichols
Memorandum. Florida currently has a
fully-approved PSD and part D NNSR
program in place in Chapters 62–204,
62–210, and 62–212 of the Florida
Administrative Code. Florida’s PSD
program will become effective in the
Area upon redesignation to attainment.
Nonetheless, as discussed above,
Florida has certified that its SIPapproved NNSR program meets the
requirements of section 172(c)(5) for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area and EPA is
proposing to concur with that
certification.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to
meet the applicable provisions of
section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA
believes that Florida’s SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)
applicable for purposes of
redesignation.
Finally, section 172(c)(8) allows a
state to use equivalent modeling,
emission inventory, and planning
procedures if such use is requested by
the state and approved by EPA. Florida
has not requested the use of equivalent
techniques under section 172(c)(8).
b. Subpart 1 Section 176—Conformity
Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires
states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally
supported or funded projects conform to
the air quality planning goals in the
applicable SIP. The requirement to
determine conformity applies to
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
transportation plans, programs, and
projects that are developed, funded, or
approved under title 23 of the United
States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal
Transit Act (transportation conformity)
as well as to all other federally
supported or funded projects (general
conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be
consistent with federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, and
enforceability that EPA promulgated
pursuant to its authority under the CAA.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to
interpret the conformity SIP
requirements 24 as not applying for
purposes of evaluating the redesignation
request under section 107(d) because
state conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and federal
conformity rules apply where state rules
have not been approved. See Wall v.
EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (upholding this
interpretation) (6th Cir. 2001); See 60 FR
62748 (December 7, 1995). Furthermore,
due to the relatively small, and
decreasing, amounts of sulfur in
gasoline and on-road diesel fuel, EPA’s
transportation conformity rules provide
that they do not apply to SO2 unless
either the EPA Regional Administrator
or the director of the state air agency has
found that transportation-related
emissions of SO2 as a precursor are a
significant contributor to a SO2 or fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment
problem, or if the SIP has established an
approved or adequate budget for such
emissions as part of the RFP,
attainment, or maintenance strategy. See
40 CFR 93.102(b)(1), (2)(v); SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance. Neither
of these conditions have been met;
therefore, EPA’s transportation
conformity rules do not apply to SO2 for
the Area. For these reasons, EPA
proposes to find that Florida has
satisfied all applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation of the
Hillsborough-Polk Area under section
110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
B. The Hillsborough-Polk Area Has a
Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable
Florida SIP for the Hillsborough-Polk
Area under section 110(k) of the CAA
for purposes of redesignation. EPA may
rely on prior SIP approvals in approving
a redesignation request (see 1992
Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3,
24 CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to
submit revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain
federal criteria and procedures for determining
transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle
emission budgets that are established in control
strategy SIPs and maintenance plans.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth
Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3D 984, 989–
90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426)
plus any additional measures it may
approve in conjunction with a
redesignation action. See 68 FR 25426
(May 12, 2003) and citations therein.
Criterion (3)—The Air Quality
Improvement in the Hillsborough-Polk
Area is due to Permanent and
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
Resulting From Implementation of the
SIP and Applicable Federal Air
Pollution Control Regulations and Other
Permanent and Enforceable Reductions
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the air quality
improvement in the area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions
in emissions resulting from
implementation of the SIP, applicable
Federal air pollution control
regulations, and other permanent and
enforceable reductions (CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). As discussed above,
EPA proposes to determine that the
modeled attainment in the
Hillsborough-Polk Area will be due to
emission reductions resulting from
compliance with the SO2 permit limits
at Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow. These limits will become
permanent and enforceable measures if
EPA finalizes its proposal to approve
and incorporate them into the SIP. See
section VI, above, for more discussion
on these permit limits, the permit
conditions proposed for approval and
incorporation into the SIP, and the
emissions reductions resulting from the
limits.
Criterion (4)—The Hillsborough-Polk
Area Has a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section
175A of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment, the CAA requires
EPA to determine that the area has a
fully approved maintenance plan
pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.
See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). In
conjunction with its request to
redesignate the Hillsborough-Polk Area
to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS, Florida submitted a draft SIP
revision to provide for the maintenance
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for at
least 10 years after the effective date of
redesignation to attainment. EPA is
proposing to determine that this
maintenance plan meets the
requirements for approval under section
175A of the CAA; however, EPA cannot
take final action to approve the
maintenance plan unless it finalizes its
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47225
proposal to approve and incorporate the
SO2 permit limits into the SIP.
a. What is required in a maintenance
plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth
the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must
demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10
years after the Administrator approves a
redesignation to attainment. Eight years
after the redesignation, the state must
submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will
continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year
period. To address the possibility of
future NAAQS violations, the
maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure prompt correction of
any future 2010 1-hour SO2 violations.
The 1992 Calcagni Memorandum
provides further guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan,
explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five requirements: The
attainment emissions inventory;
maintenance demonstration;
monitoring; verification of continued
attainment; and a contingency plan. As
is discussed more fully below, EPA is
proposing to determine that Florida’s
maintenance plan includes all the
necessary components and is thus
proposing to approve it as a revision to
the Florida SIP.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
An attainment inventory identifies a
level of emissions in the area that is
sufficient to attain the NAAQS. As
discussed above, modeled attainment of
the SO2 NAAQS in the HillsboroughPolk Area will be due to emissions
reductions resulting from compliance
with the SO2 permit limits at Mosaic
New Wales and Mosaic Bartow. Because
the permit limits are not stateenforceable until August 31, 2019,
Florida based its attainment emissions
inventory on projected emissions from
the year after the permit limits become
state-enforceable (i.e., 2020) rather than
on actual emission levels that reflect
complete implementation of the
emission reduction measures.25
The largest point sources of SO2 in or
near the Hillsborough-Polk Area are
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow,
which combined, account for over 99
percent of the SO2 emissions in or near
25 See Tables 5 and 6 for Mosaic New Wales and
Mosaic Bartow, respectively, and Appendix L in
Florida’s draft redesignation request and
maintenance plan submittal.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
47226
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
emissions rate. FDEP selected the high
end of this range (75 percent) as the
utilization factor and then applied it to
the 2020 allowable emissions rate of
4,774 tpy and 4,818 tpy for Mosaic New
Wales and Mosaic Bartow, respectively,
to project 2020 actual emissions for both
Mosaic sources. Tables 5 and 6 below
provide for the historic emissions data
the Area. Florida projected emissions
from both sources to 2020 by first
analyzing the average utilization factors
(i.e., the ratios of historical actual to
allowable emissions rates) for the SAPs
from 2012–2016. Over this time period,
both sources emitted between
approximately 60 percent and 75
percent of each facility’s total allowable
(i.e., actuals, allowables, and the average
percentage of allowables) for both
facilities as well as 2020 allowables and
2020 projected actuals. The projected
2020 actual emissions for Mosaic New
Wales and Mosaic Bartow are 3,581 tpy
and 3,614 tpy, respectively, resulting in
total point source projected actual
emissions of 7,195 tons.
TABLE 5—MOSAIC NEW WALES HISTORIC EMISSIONS AND 2020 PROJECTED ACTUALS EMISSIONS INVENTORY
2012–2016 Historic emissions
Average annual
actual SO2
emissions
Unit
SAP
SAP
SAP
SAP
SAP
1
2
3
4
5
.....................................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
.....................................................
2020 Emissions
Annual
allowable SO2
emissions
(tons)
1,292
1,517
1,397
1,532
1,394
Average
percentage of
allowables
emitted
2,172
2,172
2,172
2,117
2,117
59.45%
69.81
64.32
72.36
65.86
Allowables
Projected actuals
(75 percent of
2020 allowables)
4,774
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
3,581
..............................
..............................
..............................
..............................
TABLE 6—MOSAIC BARTOW HISTORIC EMISSIONS AND 2020 PROJECTED ACTUALS EMISSIONS INVENTORY
2012–2016 Historic Emissions
Average
annual
actual SO2
emissions
Unit
SAP 1 .....................................................
SAP 2 .....................................................
SAP 3 .....................................................
TABLE 7—2020 PROJECTED EMISSIONS INVENTORY BY SOURCE CATEGORY
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Source type
Projected
2020 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Point ......................................
Area ......................................
Non-Road .............................
On-Road ...............................
7,195
16.97
0.32
1.30
Total ..................................
7,213.59
c. Maintenance Demonstration
Maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard is demonstrated either by
showing that future emissions will not
exceed the level of the attainment
emissions inventory year or by
modeling to show that the future mix of
sources and emission rates will not
cause a violation of the NAAQS. As
discussed in the SO2 Nonattainment
Area Guidance, an EPA-approved
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Annual
allowable
SO2 emissions
(tons)
1,315
1,308
1,336
Table 7 includes the complete
inventory of all source categories for the
2020 attainment year. A discussion of
the development of the 2020–2032
projections is found in the next section.
Jkt 247001
2020 Emissions
Average
percentage of
allowables
emitted
1,897
1,897
1,897
69.33
68.94
70.43
demonstration of attainment that relies
on air quality dispersion modeling using
maximum allowable emissions, such as
Florida’s modeling, can generally be
expected to demonstrate that the
standard will be maintained for the
requisite 10 years and beyond without
regard to any changes in operation rate
of the pertinent sources that do not
involve increases in maximum
allowable emissions.26 EPA believes
that the Hillsborough-Polk Area will
continue to maintain the 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard through year 2032 because
the relevant sources are required to
comply with the permit limits that air
quality modeling shows will maintain
the standard.
To evaluate maintenance through
2032 and satisfy the 10-year interval
required in CAA section 175A, Florida
elected to prepare projected emissions
inventories for 2020–2032. The
emissions inventories are composed of
the following general source categories:
point, area, non-road mobile, and onroad mobile. The emissions inventories
were developed consistent with EPA
guidance and are summarized in Table
8.
26 See
PO 00000
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance at p.67.
Frm 00079
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Allowables
Projected actuals
(75 percent of
2020 allowables)
4,818
..............................
..............................
3,614
..............................
..............................
Florida estimated 2020 point source
emissions as discussed above and held
those emissions steady through 2032
because it is not aware of and does not
anticipate any future development
within the Hillsborough-Polk Area that
would increase SO2 emissions.
Furthermore, following achievement of
the emission levels that Florida
demonstrated yield attainment, actual
emissions from Mosaic New Wales and
Mosaic Bartow must remain at or below
these levels.
Florida estimated on-road mobile
emissions utilizing the most recent
version of EPA’s Motor Vehicle
Emission Simulator (MOVES2014a).
The State developed MOVES inputs for
the 2017 base year using county-level
traffic modeling from the Florida
Department of Transportation and
vehicle population information from the
Florida Department of Highway Safety
and Motor Vehicles (FLDHSMV). Where
county-level data was not available,
FDEP used MOVES default data. To
develop MOVES inputs for future years,
FDEP calculated the linear trend of
vehicle population growth using
FLDHSMV data from 2008 to 2018 and
projected it to future years. FDEP
apportioned the Hillsborough County
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
47227
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
and Polk County results of the
MOVES2014a model runs for each year
to the Hillsborough-Polk Area by using
the fraction of the county land area
contained within the boundaries of the
Hillsborough-Polk Area.27
Estimates for the projected future
emissions inventories for area and nonroad categories were calculated by
multiplying the area and non-road 2014
NEI data 28 by the projected increase in
population in Hillsborough and Polk
Counties in 2020 and each interim year.
The population data for 2014 and 2017
were obtained from the US Census
Bureau. Population projections for 2020
through 2032 were developed by the
Florida Bureau of Economic and
Business Research. For years where
projections were not available, the
projections were interpolated.29 County
level emissions were apportioned to the
Hillsborough-Polk Area using the
fraction of the county land area within
the Hillsborough-Polk Area boundary.
Florida compared projected emissions
for the final year of the maintenance
plan (2032) to the 2020 projected actuals
emissions inventory and compared
interim years to the 2020 projected
actuals inventory to demonstrate
continued maintenance of the 2010 1hour SO2 standard. For additional
information regarding the development
of the projected inventories, see
Florida’s February 15, 2019, draft SIP
submittal.
TABLE 8—PROJECTED FUTURE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH-POLK AREA
Projected
2020 SO2
emissions
(tons)
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Source type
Projected
2023 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Projected
2026 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Projected
2029 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Projected
2032 SO2
emissions
(tons)
Point .......................................................
Area .......................................................
Non-road ................................................
On-road ..................................................
7,195
16.97
0.32
1.30
7,195
17.83
0.33
1.27
7,195
18.66
0.35
1.22
7,195
19.44
0.37
1.22
7,195
20.16
0.38
1.22
Total ................................................
7,213.59
7,214.43
7,215.23
7,216.03
7,216.76
In situations where local emissions
are the primary contributor to
nonattainment, such as the
Hillsborough-Polk Area, if the future
projected emissions in the
nonattainment area remain at or below
the baseline emissions in the
nonattainment area, then the related
ambient air quality standards should not
be violated in the future. Florida has
projected emissions as described
previously, and these projections
indicate that emissions in the
Hillsborough-Polk Area will remain at
nearly the same levels as those in the
attainment year inventory for the
duration of the maintenance plan. While
these projections include a very small
increase in area and nonroad emissions
from 2020 to 2032 (3.25 tons), the
increase is negligible when compared to
the total emissions inventory, and EPA
does not believe that this projected
increase should cause a violation of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS through 2032.
This belief is supported by the fact that
Florida does not anticipate any future
development within the HillsboroughPolk Area that could potentially
increase SO2 emissions and the fact that
any increases in actual emissions from
Mosaic New Wales or Mosaic Bartow
must remain below their permitted
levels. Furthermore, any potential future
SO2 emissions sources that may locate
in or near the Area would be required
to comply with the FDEP’s approved
27 See Table 3 in Appendix L for summarize land
area and MOVES2014a data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
NSR permitting programs to ensure that
the Area will continue to meet the
NAAQS.
d. Monitoring Network
As noted above, the HillsboroughPolk Area was designated
nonattainment based on air dispersion
modeling; there is no ambient air
monitor in the Area. Therefore, the
maintenance plan does not contain
provisions for continued operation of air
quality monitors to verify attainment
status. As discussed in the following
section, Florida will verify continued
attainment using emissions data from
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow
and an evaluation of air dispersion
modeling inputs.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State of Florida, through FDEP,
has the legal authority to enforce and
implement all measures necessary to
attain and maintain the NAAQS.
Section 403.061(35), Florida Statutes,
authorizes the Department to ‘‘exercise
the duties, powers, and responsibilities
required of the state under the federal
Clean Air Act.’’ This includes
implementing and enforcing all
measures necessary to attain and
maintain the NAAQS.
Because there is no ambient air SO2
monitor in the Hillsborough-Polk Area,
Florida will verify continued attainment
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard through
an annual review of emissions data and
28 See Table 5 in Appendix L for summarize 2014
NEI emissions data for area and non-road source
categories.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
air dispersion modeling inputs and
assumptions for Mosaic New Wales and
Mosaic Bartow. Florida will use
emissions data from the required AOR
submittals from both facilities to verify
continued compliance with the
permitted limits used to model
attainment of the NAAQS in the Area.
Actual emissions must remain below
permitted levels, which will be made
permanent and federally-enforceable if
EPA finalizes its proposal to approve
and incorporate the permit limits into
the SIP.
Florida will evaluate the inputs and
assumptions used to model attainment
by assessing emissions data and basic
air dispersion inputs for the Area on an
annual basis. Prior to each annual
review, FDEP will contact EPA to
discuss the emissions data and air
dispersion modeling inputs and
assumptions necessary for evaluation.
FDEP will verify attainment using the
emissions data and air dispersion
modeling inputs and assumptions
identified by EPA as a result of
coordination with FDEP. FDEP
anticipates that the inputs and
assumptions may include stack
parameters for all modeled sources;
significant changes to land use in the
area; a limited review of meteorology;
changes in operation that lead to a
temporal or spatial distribution of
emissions; onsite construction that
change building configuration/
29 Population data and projections are
summarized in Table 4 in Appendix L.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
47228
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
dimensions or add new buildings;
changes in fuel that would alter
emissions; and changes in ambient
background concentrations used in the
cumulative modeling analysis.
Based on its review of source
emissions data and air dispersion
modeling inputs and assumptions,
FDEP will provide an annual report to
EPA on or before July 1st that certifies
whether the Hillsborough-Polk Area is
continuing to attain the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. This annual report will
provide: (1) The status of ongoing
compliance with the SO2 permit limits
for Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow; (2) a review of annual emissions
data for these facilities; (3) a review of
the air dispersion modeling inputs and
assumptions identified by EPA as a
result of coordination with FDEP; (4) a
certification that there are no changes in
the air dispersion modeling inputs and
assumptions that could result in a
modeled violation; and (5) all
supporting documentation and data
evaluated by FDEP to prepare its annual
report.
If FDEP certifies that there are no
changes in the modeling inputs and
assumptions that could result in
modeled violations, and EPA concurs,
no additional action or information is
necessary to verify continued
attainment. If FDEP or EPA identifies a
change in the modeling inputs and
assumptions that could cause a modeled
violation, FDEP, in coordination with
EPA, will further evaluate the modeling
inputs and assumptions and complete
this evaluation no later than 30 days
after identifying the changes. If this
evaluation continues to indicate that a
modeled violation could occur, FDEP
will conduct air dispersion modeling no
later than 30 days after completing the
evaluation. If the revised model does
not produce a modeled violation, then
no additional action or information is
necessary to verify continued
attainment. If the revised model
produces a modeled violation of the
2010 1-hour SO2 standard within the
nonattainment area, the State will
implement the relevant contingency
measures as discussed below.
f. Contingency Measures in the
Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA requires that
a maintenance plan include contingency
measures as EPA deems necessary to
assure that the state will promptly
correct a violation of the NAAQS that
occurs after redesignation. The
maintenance plan should identify the
contingency measures to be adopted, a
schedule and procedure for adoption
and implementation, and a time limit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
for action by the state. In cases where
attainment revolves around compliance
of a single source or a small set of
sources with emissions limits shown to
provide for attainment, EPA interprets
‘‘contingency measures’’ to mean that
the state agency has a comprehensive
program to identify sources of violations
of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake
aggressive follow-up for compliance and
enforcement, including expedited
procedures for establishing enforceable
consent agreement pending the
adoption of revised SIPs.30 A state
should also identify specific indicators
to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be
implemented. The maintenance plan
must include a requirement that a state
will implement all measures with
respect to control of the pollutant that
were contained in the SIP before
redesignation of the area to attainment
in accordance with section 175A(d).
The contingency plan included in the
maintenance plan contains triggers to
determine when contingency measures
are needed and what kind of measures
should be used. The Title V operating
permits for Mosaic New Wales and
Mosaic Bartow require the facilities to
report any non-compliance with permit
conditions or limitations.31 Upon
receipt of such a report from Mosaic
New Wales and/or Mosaic Bartow that
30 See SO Nonattainment Area Guidance at p.69.
2
FDEP has an active compliance and enforcement
program to address violations. FDEP will continue
to operate this program to identify sources of
violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an
aggressive follow-up for compliance and
enforcement, including expedited procedures for
establishing enforceable consent agreements
pending the adoption of revised SIPs. FDEP
commits to adopt and expeditiously implement
necessary corrective actions in the event of a
violation.
31 This reporting requirement is detailed in
Appendix RR2(b) and (c) in the Title V permits as
follows: ‘‘b. If, for any reason, the permittee does
not comply with or will be unable to comply with
any condition or limitation specified in this permit,
the permittee shall immediately provide the
Department with the following information: (1) A
description of and cause of noncompliance; and (2)
The period of noncompliance, including dates and
times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the
noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps
being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent
recurrence of the noncompliance. The permittee
shall be responsible for any and all damaged which
may result and may be subject to enforcement
action by the Department for penalties or for
revocation of this permit. c. When requested by the
Department, the permittee shall within a reasonable
time furnish any information required by law which
is needed to determine compliance with the permit.
If the permittee becomes aware the relevant facts
were not submitted or were incorrect in the permit
application or in any report to the Department, such
facts or information shall be corrected promptly.’’
‘‘Immediately’’ is defined in Appendix RR(d) as
‘‘the same day, if during a workday (i.e., 8:00 a.m.–
5:00 p.m.), or the first business day after the
incident, excluding weekends and holidays.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
identifies noncompliance with the SO2
permit limits, FDEP will immediately
begin a 30-day evaluation period to
diagnose the cause of noncompliance.
This will be followed by a 30-day
consultation period with Mosaic New
Wales and/or Mosaic Bartow to develop
and implement operational changes
identified during the consultation
period to prevent any future
noncompliance with the SO2 permit
limits. These changes could include, but
would not be limited to, physical or
operational reduction of production
capacity, as appropriate. Any necessary
changes would be implemented as soon
as practicable, with at least one
measured implemented during the full
system audit implemented within 18–24
months of the noncompliance with the
SO2 permit limits, in order to bring the
Area into attainment as expeditiously as
possible.
FDEP would rely on its authority
outlined in Rule 62–4.080, F.A.C.,
which expressly authorizes FDEP to
require the permittee to conform to new
or additional conditions if there is a
showing of any change in the
environment or surrounding conditions
that requires a modification to conform
to applicable air quality standards.
Depending on the present
circumstances, FDEP would exercise
this authority to work expeditiously
with Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow to make necessary permit
modifications. If a permit modification
is deemed necessary, FDEP would issue
a final permit within the statutory
timeframes in Sections 120 and 403,
Florida Statutes, and any new permit
limits required by such a permit would
be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
If revised air dispersion modeling
performed during the verification of
continued attainment process produces
a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard due to changes in modeling
inputs and assumptions, FDEP will
immediately begin a 30-day evaluation
period to diagnose the cause of the
modeled violation, including
consultation with any emission
source(s) that FDEP believes may be a
cause of the modeled violation. At the
completion of this evaluation period,
FDEP will begin to take necessary
measures to remedy the modeled
violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard, which may include mandating
physical or operational changes at
emission sources. Any necessary
changes would be implemented as soon
as practicable, with at least one measure
implemented within 18–24 months of
the modeled violation, in order to bring
the area into modeled attainment as
expeditiously as possible.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
EPA has preliminarily concluded that
the maintenance plan adequately
addresses the five basic components of
a maintenance plan: The attainment
emissions inventory; maintenance
demonstration; monitoring; verification
of continued attainment; and a
contingency plan. Therefore, EPA
proposes to determine that the
maintenance plan for the Area meets the
requirements of section 175A of the
CAA and proposes to incorporate the
maintenance plan into the Florida SIP.
EPA cannot take final action to approve
the maintenance plan unless it finalizes
its proposal to approve and incorporate
the SO2 permit limits into the SIP.
VIII. What is EPA’s analysis of the
redesignation request for the Mulberry
Area?
A. Background
On January 9, 2018 (effective April 9,
2018), EPA designated the Mulberry
Area as unclassifiable for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS. See 83 FR 1098. EPA
designated the Area as unclassifiable
based on uncertainty regarding the
potential for SO2 emissions from Mosaic
Bartow to contribute to the
Hillsborough-Polk Area. EPA’s rationale
for this designation is outlined in the
TSD associated with EPA’s designation
for the Mulberry Area.32
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Criteria for Redesignating an Area
From Unclassifiable to Attainment/
Unclassifiable
Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides
the framework for changing the area
designations for any NAAQS pollutants.
Section 107(d)(3)(A) provides that the
Administrator may notify the Governor
of any state that the designation of an
area should be revised ‘‘on the basis of
air quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air qualityrelated considerations the Administrator
deems appropriate.’’ The Act further
provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that
even if the Administrator has not
notified a state Governor that a
designation should be revised, the
Governor of any state may, on the
Governor’s own motion, submit a
request to revise the designation of any
area, and the Administrator must
approve or deny the request.
When approving or denying a request
to redesignate an area, EPA bases its
decision on the air quality data for the
area as well as the considerations
32 See Chapter 9 of the Technical Support
Document for the Round 3 Designations for the
2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS located in the docket for
the designation at Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
2017–0003–0635.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
provided under section 107(d)(3)(A).33
For the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA may
also base its decision on relevant
modeling analyses as discussed in
section VII.C, above. In keeping with
section 107(d)(1)(A), areas that are
redesignated to attainment/
unclassifiable must meet the
requirements for attainment areas and
thus must meet the relevant NAAQS.34
In addition, the area must not contribute
to ambient air quality in a nearby area
that does not meet the NAAQS.
C. EPA’s Rationale for Proposing To
Redesignate the Mulberry Area
As noted above, EPA designated the
Mulberry Area as unclassifiable due to
uncertainty regarding the potential
contribution of emissions from Mosaic
Bartow to the Hillsborough-Polk Area.
After EPA finalized the designation,
FDEP established permits requiring
catalyst installation and compliance
with the SO2 permit limits for Mosaic
New Wales and Mosaic Bartow. As
discussed above, EPA has reviewed the
modeling based on CEVs which, when
adjusted, provide for the 24-hour
adjusted emission caps of 1,100 lb/hr
and 1,138 lb/hr for New Wales and
Bartow, respectively. To provide for an
additional margin of safety in its air
dispersion modeling, Florida slightly
lowered the maximum 24-hour emission
caps to establish final multi-unit permit
limits of 1,090 lb/hr and 1,100 lb/hr for
New Wales and Bartow, respectively.
EPA believes that the modeling results
relying on the slightly lowered permit
limits appropriately characterize the air
quality in the Mulberry Area and that
this modeling demonstrates that the
Mulberry Area will have attained the 1hour SO2 standard as a result of
compliance with these limits at Mosaic
New Wales and Mosaic Bartow.
Therefore, EPA proposes to redesignate
the Mulberry Area to attainment/
unclassifiable for the SO2 NAAQS. EPA
cannot redesignate the Mulberry Area to
attainment/unclassifiable unless it
finalizes its proposal to approve and
33 While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists
specific requirements for redesignations, those
requirements only apply to redesignations of
nonattainment areas to attainment and, therefore,
are not applicable in the context of a redesignation
of an area from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable.
34 Historically, EPA has designated most areas
that do not meet the definition of nonattainment as
‘‘unclassifiable/attainment.’’ EPA has reversed the
order of the label to be ‘‘attainment/unclassifiable’’
to better convey the definition of the designation
category and so that the category is more easily
distinguished from the separate unclassifiable
category. See, e.g., 83 FR 1098, 1099 (January 9,
2018) and 83 FR 25776, 25778 (June 4, 2018). EPA
reserves the ‘‘attainment’’ category for when EPA
redesignates a nonattainment area to attainment.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47229
incorporate the permit limits and
associated compliance and monitoring
parameters into the SIP.
IX. What is the effect of EPA’s proposed
actions?
Approval and incorporation of the
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow
permit conditions described in Section
VI, above, into the SIP would make
them permanent and federally
enforceable.
Approval of the base-year emissions
inventory would satisfy the
requirements of CAA section 173(c)(3)
for the Hillsborough-Polk Area and
incorporate that inventory into the SIP.
Concurrence with Florida’s certification
that prior EPA rulemaking has approved
NNSR rules that require NNSR for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area for so long as
the Area is designated nonattainment
would satisfy CAA section 173(c)(5).
Approval of Florida’s redesignation
request for the Hillsborough-Polk Area
would change the legal designation of
the portions of Hillsborough and Polk
Counties that are within the
Hillsborough-Polk Area, as found at 40
CFR part 81, from nonattainment to
attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. Approval of Florida’s
associated maintenance plan SIP
revision would incorporate a plan for
maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in the Hillsborough-Polk Area
through 2032 into the SIP.
Lastly, approval of Florida’s
redesignation request for the Mulberry
Area would change the legal designation
of the portion of Polk County that is
within the Mulberry Area, as found at
40 CFR part 81, from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1hour SO2 NAAQS.
X. Incorporation by Reference
EPA is proposing to include in a final
EPA rule regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference into Florida’s SIP the
following conditions from Permit No.
1050046–050–AC issued by FDEP to
Mosaic Bartow with an effective date of
July 3, 2017: (1) Section III, Subsection
A, Specific Condition 3 (as
administratively corrected by Permit
No. 1050046–063–AC with an effective
date of January 11, 2019); 35 (2) Section
35 This provision states: ‘‘SO Emissions Limit:
2
The following emission limit applies to the Sulfuric
Acid Plant (SAP) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5: a. When all
five SAPs are in operation within the same 24-hour
block averaging period, a cap of 1,090 lb SO2/hour,
24-hour block average (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) is
applicable; and, b. The cap of 1,090 lb SO2/hour,
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
Continued
09SEP1
47230
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
III, Subsection A, Specific Condition
4; 36 and (3) Section III, Subsection A,
Specific Condition 5.37 In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA
is also proposing to incorporate by
reference into Florida’s SIP the
following conditions from Permit No.
1050059–106–AC issued by FDEP to
Mosaic New Wales with an effective
date of October 30, 2017: (1) Section III,
Subsection A, Specific Condition 3; 38
(2) Section III, Subsection A, Specific
Condition 4 (as administratively
corrected by Permit No. 1050059–114–
AC with an effective date of January 11,
2019); 39 and (3) Section III, Subsection
A, Specific Condition 5.40 EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region
4 office (please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
24-hour block average (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.)
applies in scenarios when any combination of any
number of the SAPs are not in operation and when
any number of the SAPs are in operation. [Rules
62–4.030, General Prohibition, F.A.C. & Rule 62–
4.210, Construction Permits, F.A.C.; Application
No. 1050059–106–AC; and, Administrative Permit
Correction Application No. 1050059–114–AC.]’’
36 This provision states: ‘‘Initial Compliance:
These emission units shall use certified SO2 CEMS
data to demonstrate initial compliance with the
new SO2 emission limit. [Rules 62–4.070(1)&(3),
Reasonable Assurance, F.A.C.; and, Application
Nos. 1050059–103–AC & 1050059–106–AC.]’’
37 This provision states: ‘‘Recordkeeping: The
permittee shall keep records of the initial
compliance demonstration. The records shall
include the SO2 CEMS data along with the sulfuric
acid production rate (TPH, tons per hour) during
the demonstration. Any reports shall be prepared in
accordance with the applicable requirements
specified in Appendix D (Common Testing
Requirements) of this permit. [Rule 62–297.310(10),
F.A.C.; and, Application Nos. 1050059–103–AC &
1050059–106–AC.]’’
38 This provision states: ‘‘SO Emissions Limit:
2
The following emission limit applies to the Sulfuric
Acid Plant (SAP) Nos. 4, 5 & 6: a. When all five
SAPs are in operation within the same 24-hour
block averaging period, a cap of 1,100 lb SO2/hour,
24-hour block average (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) is
applicable; and, b. The cap of 1,100 lb SO2/hour,
24-hour block average (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.)
applies in scenarios when any combination of any
number of the SAPs are not in operation and when
any number of the SAPs are in operation. [Rules
62–4.030, General Prohibition, F.A.C. & Rule 62–
4.210, Construction Permits, F.A.C.; Application
No. 1050046–050–AC; and, Administrative Permit
Correction Application No. 1050046–063–AC.]’’
39 This provision states: ‘‘Initial Compliance:
These emission units shall use certified SO2 CEMS
data to demonstrate initial compliance with the
new SO2 emission limit. [Rules 62–4.070(1)&(3),
Reasonable Assurance, F.A.C.; and, Application No.
1050046–050–AC.]’’
40 This provision states: ‘‘Recordkeeping: The
permittee shall keep records of the initial
compliance demonstration. The records shall
include the SO2 CEMS data along with the sulfuric
acid production rate (TPH, tons per hour) during
the demonstration. Any reports shall be prepared in
accordance with the applicable requirements
specified in Appendix D (Common Testing
Requirements) of this permit. [Rule 62–297.310(10),
F.A.C.; and, Application No. 1050046–050–AC.]’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
Jkt 247001
section of this
preamble for more information).
INFORMATION CONTACT
XI. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to approve SIP
revisions provided by Florida related to
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve Florida’s December 1, 2017, SIP
revision (as supplemented through the
February 15, 2019, draft SIP revision)
which includes SO2 permit limits and
associated compliance and monitoring
provisions for Mosaic New Wales and
Mosaic Bartow. The December 1, 2017,
SIP revision also includes a modeling
analysis to demonstrate that the
Hillsborough-Polk Area will attain the
SO2 NAAQS as a result of compliance
with these permit limits.
EPA is also proposing to approve,
through parallel processing, a draft
February 15, 2019 request to redesignate
the Hillsborough-Polk Area to
attainment for the SO2 NAAQS and
associated SIP revision containing the
State’s plan for maintaining attainment
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard in that
Area. Florida also submitted draft SIP
revisions on February 15, 2019, to revise
the modeling analysis in the 2017 SIP
revision, provide a base-year emissions
inventory for the Area, and certify that
the Area meets NNSR requirements. In
addition, EPA is proposing to approve,
through parallel processing, Florida’s
draft February 15, 2019 request to
redesignate the Mulberry Area to
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to approve these
requests and SIP revisions because the
Agency has made the preliminary
determination that they meet the
requirements of the CAA.
XII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an
area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a
maintenance plan under section
107(d)(3)(E) as well as the redesignation
of an area to attainment/unclassifiable
are actions that affect the status of a
geographical area and do not impose
any additional regulatory requirements
on sources beyond those imposed by
state law. A redesignation to attainment
or to attainment/unclassifiable does not
in and of itself create any new
requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained
in the CAA for areas that have been
redesignated to attainment or
attainment/unclassifiable, respectively.
Moreover, the Administrator is required
to approve a SIP submission that
complies with the provisions of the Act
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, these proposed
actions merely propose to approve state
law as meeting Federal requirements
and do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For this reason, these
proposed actions:
• Are not significant regulatory
actions 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);
• Are not Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
actions because redesignations and SIP
approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
• Do not impose information
collection burdens under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Are 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.);
• Do not contain any unfunded
mandates or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Are not significant regulatory
actions subject to Executive Order
13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Are 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
• Will not have disproportionate
human health or environmental effects
under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
These proposed actions do not 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, these proposed actions do not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will they
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2019 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping, Sulfur
dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 27, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019–19413 Filed 9–6–19; 8:45 am]
ADDRESSES:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2018–0029;
FXES11130900000 189 FF09E42000]
RIN 1018–BD46
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Reclassifying the
American Burying Beetle From
Endangered to Threatened on the
Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife With a 4(d) Rule
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
public comment period, and
announcement of a public hearing.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, recently published a
proposed rule to reclassify the American
burying beetle (Nicrophorus
americanus) from endangered to
threatened and to adopt a rule under
section 4(d) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, to
provide for the conservation of the
species. We announced a 60-day public
comment period on the proposed rule,
ending July 2, 2019. We now reopen the
public comment period on the proposed
rule for 30 days, to allow all interested
parties additional time to comment on
the proposed rule. Comments
previously submitted need not be
resubmitted and will be fully
considered in preparation of the final
rule. We also announce a public
informational meeting and public
hearing on the proposed rule.
DATES:
Written comments: The comment
period on the proposed rule that
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:17 Sep 06, 2019
published May 3, 2019 (84 FR 19013),
is reopened. We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
October 9, 2019. Please note that
comments submitted electronically
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(see ADDRESSES, below) must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
the closing date, and comments
submitted by U.S. mail must be
postmarked by that date to ensure
consideration.
Public informational meeting and
public hearing: We will hold a public
informational meeting on September 24,
2019, from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., followed by
a public hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8
p.m.
Jkt 247001
Availability of documents: You may
obtain copies of the May 3, 2019,
proposed rule and associated
documents on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R2–ES–2018–0029.
Written comments: You may submit
written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS–
R2–ES–2018–0029, which is the docket
number for the proposed rule. You may
submit a comment by clicking on
‘‘Comment Now!’’ Please ensure you
have found the correct document before
submitting your comments. If your
comments will fit in the provided
comment box, please use this feature of
https://www.regulations.gov, as it is most
compatible with our comment review
procedures. If you attach your
comments as a separate document, our
preferred file format is Microsoft Word.
If you attach multiple comments (such
as form letters), our preferred format is
a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS–R2–
ES–2018–0029, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: JAO/1N, 5275 Leesburg
Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–3803.
(3) At the public hearing: Handdeliver your prepared written comments
to Service personnel at the scheduled
public hearing.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all substantive comments
we receive on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Public
Comments, below, for more
information).
Public informational meeting and
public hearing: The public
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47231
informational meeting and the public
hearing will be held at the Oklahoma
University, Schusterman Center, Perkins
Auditorium LC1, 4502 East 41st Street,
Tulsa, OK 74135. See Public Hearing,
below, for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jonna Polk, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma
Ecological Services Field Office, 9014
East 21st St., Tulsa, OK 74129;
telephone 918–382–4500. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On May 3, 2019, we published a
proposed rule (84 FR 19013) to
reclassify the American burying beetle
as a threatened species under the Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and to adopt a
rule under section 4(d) of the Act (a
‘‘4(d) rule’’) to provide for the
conservation of the species. The
proposed rule had a 60-day public
comment period, ending July 2, 2019.
During the comment period for the
proposed rule, we received a request for
a public hearing. We are, therefore,
reopening the comment period on our
proposed rule to reclassify the American
burying beetle as a threatened species
and to adopt a 4(d) rule for the species
for 30 days (see DATES, above), to hold
a public informational meeting and a
public hearing and to allow the public
an additional opportunity to provide
comments on our proposal.
For a description of previous Federal
actions concerning the American
burying beetle, please refer to the May
3, 2019, proposed rule (84 FR 19013).
Public Comments
We will accept comments and
information during this reopened
comment period on our proposed rule to
reclassify the American burying beetle
as a threatened species and to adopt a
4(d) rule to provide for the conservation
of the species. We will consider
information and recommendations from
all interested parties. We intend that
any final action resulting from the
proposal will be based on the best
scientific and commercial data available
and will be as accurate and as effective
as possible. Our final determination will
take into consideration all comments
and any additional information we
receive during all comment periods on
the proposed rule. Therefore, the final
decision may differ from the May 3,
2019, proposed rule, based on our
review of all information we receive
during the comment periods.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47216-47231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19413]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0510; FRL-9999-43-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; FL; Source-Specific
SO2 Permit Limits & Redesignation of Hillsborough-Polk 2010 1-Hr SO2
Nonattainment Area to Attainment & Mulberry Unclassifiable Area to
Attainment/Unclassifiable
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions and two redesignation
requests provided by the State of Florida, through the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), related to the 2010 1-
hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS or standard). Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve
a December 1, 2017, SIP revision (as supplemented through a February
15, 2019 draft SIP revision discussed below) that includes
SO2 multi-unit permit limits and associated compliance and
monitoring parameters for Mosaic Fertilizer LLC's New Wales facility
(Mosaic New Wales) and Bartow facility (Mosaic Bartow), both located in
Polk County, Florida. The December 1, 2017, SIP revision also includes
a modeling analysis to demonstrate that the Hillsborough-Polk
SO2 nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the
``Hillsborough-Polk Area'') attains the SO2 NAAQS with these
permit limits. EPA is also proposing to approve, through parallel
processing, a draft February 15, 2019, request to redesignate the
Hillsborough-Polk Area to attainment for the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS and associated SIP revision containing the State's plan for
maintaining attainment of the standard in the Area. As mentioned above,
a draft February 15, 2019, SIP revision also revises the modeling
analysis in the 2017 SIP revision. Additionally, the draft February 15,
2019, SIP revisions contain a base-year emissions inventory for the
Area and certify that the Area meets nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) requirements. EPA is proposing to approve the draft February 15,
2019, SIP revisions through parallel processing. In addition, EPA is
proposing to approve, through parallel processing, a draft February 15,
2019, request to redesignate the Mulberry Unclassifiable Area
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Mulberry Area'') to attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0510 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: Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez may be
reached by phone at (404) 562-9644 or via electronic mail at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What is parallel processing?
II. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?
III. Background
[[Page 47217]]
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?
V. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
VI. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's source-specific
SO2 permit limits?
VII. What actions are being proposed for the Hillsborough-Polk Area?
VIII. What is EPA's analysis of the redesignation request for the
Mulberry Area?
IX. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
X. Incorporation by Reference
XI. Proposed Actions
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is parallel processing?
Parallel processing refers to a process that utilizes concurrent
state and Federal proposed rulemaking actions. Generally, the state
submits a copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA
before conducting its public hearing and completing its public comment
process under state law. EPA reviews this proposed state action and
prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking under Federal law. In some
cases, EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking is published in the Federal
Register during the same time frame that the state is holding its
public hearing and conducting its public comment process. The state and
EPA then provide for concurrent public comment periods on both the
state action and Federal action. If, after completing its public
comment process and after EPA's public comment process has run, the
state changes its final submittal from the proposed submittal, EPA
evaluates those changes and decides whether to publish another notice
of proposed rulemaking in light of those changes or to proceed to
taking final action on its proposed action and describe the state's
changes in its final rulemaking action. Any final rulemaking action by
EPA will occur only after the final submittal has been adopted by the
state and formally provided to EPA.
In the instant case, however, EPA's and Florida's processes have
not been perfectly concurrent. The State submitted its first SIP
revision for the Area to EPA in December 2017. Then, on February 15,
2019, Florida submitted proposed SIP revisions related to the 2010 1-
hour SO2 standard for the Hillsborough-Polk Area, including
an amendment to the December 2017, SIP revision, along with proposed
requests to redesignate the Hillsborough-Polk and Mulberry Areas. These
submittals were noticed for public comment by the State on February 15,
2019, and have not yet been submitted in final form. The State's public
comment period closed on March 18, 2019. The State only received
comments from EPA which are provided in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking. Florida requested that EPA parallel process these proposed
submittals while the State waits for the multi-unit permit limits to
become state-enforceable on August 31, 2019. The State's intention is
to submit its final SIP revisions and redesignation requests in early
September 2019. After Florida submits these formal SIP revisions and
requests (including responses to EPA's comments), EPA will evaluate the
submittals. If the State changes the formal submittals from the
proposed submittals, EPA will evaluate those changes for significance.
If EPA finds any such changes to be significant, then the Agency
intends to determine whether to re-propose the actions based upon the
revised submissions or to proceed to take final action on the
submittals as changed by the State. Although EPA was unable to have a
concurrent public comment process with the State, Florida's request for
parallel processing allows EPA to begin to take action on the State's
proposed submittals in advance of formal, final submissions.
II. What are the actions EPA is proposing to take?
EPA is proposing to take the following seven separate but related
actions: (1) Approve and incorporate the SO2 permit limits
and associated compliance and monitoring parameters for Mosaic New
Wales and Mosaic Bartow into the SIP; (2) approve the base-year
emissions inventory pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section
172(c)(3) for the Hillsborough-Polk Area and incorporate it into the
SIP; (3) concur with Florida's certification pursuant to CAA section
172(c)(5) that its existing NNSR requirements apply to the
Hillsborough-Polk Area; (4) determine that the air quality modeling
submitted by the State demonstrates that the Hillsborough-Polk Area
will have attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as a result of
compliance with the multi-unit permit limits at Mosaic New Wales and
Mosaic Bartow; (5) approve Florida's plan for maintaining the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in the Hillsborough-Polk Area through 2032
and incorporate it into the SIP pursuant to section 175A of the CAA;
(6) redesignate the Hillsborough-Polk Area to attainment for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS; and (7) redesignate the Mulberry Area to
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
based on air quality modeling. Because attainment of the SO2
NAAQS is dependent on making the multi-unit permit limits and
associated compliance and monitoring parameters for Mosaic New Wales
and Mosaic Bartow permanent and enforceable measures, EPA cannot take
final action on items 4-7, above, unless it finalizes its proposal to
approve and incorporate these limits and parameters into the SIP.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FDEP has committed to submit the redesignation requests and
SIP revisions soon after the SO2 permit limits become
state-enforceable on August 31, 2019. As described above, EPA will
not take final action on its proposals associated with the February
15, 2019, drafts until after these redesignation requests and SIP
revisions are formally submitted to EPA in early September 2019. As
a part of the final SIP submittals, Florida will provide emissions
data to show compliance with the SO2 permit limits that
are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hillsborough-Polk Area is comprised of the portion of
Hillsborough and Polk Counties encompassed by the polygon with the
vertices using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates in UTM
zone 17 with datum North American Datum 83 (NAD83) as follows: 390,500
E, 3,073,500 N; 390,500 E, 3,083,500 N; 400,500 E, 3,083,500 N; 400,500
E, 3,073,500 N. The Hillsborough-Polk Area contains one major point
source for SO2 emissions--Mosaic New Wales.
The Mulberry Area is that portion of Hillsborough and Polk Counties
encompassed by the polygon with the vertices using UTM coordinates in
UTM zone 17 with datum NAD83 starting with the Northwest Corner and
proceeding to the Northeast as follows: 390,500 E, 3,083,500 N; 410,700
E, 3,091,600 N; 412,900 E, 3,089,800 N; 412,900 E, 3,084,600 N; 400,500
E, 3,073,50 N; 400,500 E, 3,083,500 N. The Mulberry Area is directly
adjacent to the Hillsborough-Polk Area and contains one major point
source for SO2 emissions--Mosaic Bartow. In addition, there
are two major SO2 point sources located within 10 kilometers
(km) of the Hillsborough-Polk Area and the Mulberry Area--Mosaic's
South Pierce facility and Tampa Electric Company's (TECO's) Polk Power
Station.
III. Background
On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS,
establishing a new 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 parts per
billion (ppb). See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Under EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR part 50, the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is met at a
monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile
of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to
75 ppb (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
T). See 40 CFR 50.17. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-
year period must meet a data completeness requirement. A year meets
[[Page 47218]]
data completeness requirements when all four quarters are complete, and
a quarter is complete when at least 75 percent of the sampling days for
each quarter have complete data. A sampling day has complete data if 75
percent of the hourly concentration values, including state-flagged
data affected by exceptional events which have been approved for
exclusion by the Administrator, are reported.\2\ The 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard is violated at an ambient air quality
monitoring site (or in the case of dispersion modeling, at an ambient
air quality receptor location) when the 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations
exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR
part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that does not meet (or that
contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)
the NAAQS. Effective on April 9, 2018, EPA designated the Hillsborough-
Polk Area as nonattainment based on air dispersion modeling and
designated the Mulberry Area as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.\3\ See 83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018). Under the
CAA, SO2 nonattainment areas must attain the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable but not later than five years after the
April 9, 2018, effective date of the designation. See CAA section
192(a). Therefore, the Hillsborough-Polk Area's applicable attainment
date is no later than April 9, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA designated the Mulberry Area as unclassifiable due to
the uncertainty regarding possible contribution from Mosaic Bartow
to the modeled violations in the Hillsborough-Polk Area. See Chapter
9 of the Technical Support Document for the Round 3 Designations for
the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS located in the docket for the
designation at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0635.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's nonattainment designation for the Hillsborough-Polk Area
triggered an obligation for Florida to develop a nonattainment area SIP
revision addressing certain requirements under CAA title I, part D,
subpart 1 (hereinafter ``Subpart 1''), and to submit that SIP revision
to EPA in accordance with the deadlines in title I, part D, subpart 5
(hereinafter ``Subpart 5'').\4\ Subpart 1 contains the general
requirements for nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants, including
requirements to develop a SIP that provides for the implementation of
reasonably available control measures (RACM), requires reasonable
further progress (RFP), includes base-year and attainment-year
emissions inventories, a SIP-approved NNSR permitting program that
accounts for growth in the area, enforceable emission limitations and
other such control measures, and provides for the implementation of
contingency measures. This SIP revision is due within 18 months
following the April 9, 2018, effective date of designation (i.e.,
October 9, 2019).\5\ See CAA section 191(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ No requirements were triggered as a result of the
unclassifiable designation for the Mulberry Area.
\5\ If EPA redesignates the Hillsborough-Polk Area to
attainment, a nonattainment SIP revision will not be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation?
The CAA provides the requirements for redesignating a nonattainment
area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA
allows for redesignation provided that the following criteria are met:
(1) The Administrator determines that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS; (2) the Administrator has fully approved the
applicable implementation plan for the area under section 110(k); (3)
the Administrator determines that the improvement in air quality is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from
implementation of the applicable SIP and applicable federal air
pollutant control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable
reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan
for the area as meeting the requirements of section 175A; and (5) the
state containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the
area for purposes of redesignation under section 110 and part D of the
CAA.
On April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), EPA provided guidance on
redesignations in the General Preamble for the Implementation of title
I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 and supplemented this guidance on April
28, 1992 (57 FR 18070). EPA has provided further guidance on processing
redesignation requests in the following documents:
1. ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as
the ``Calcagni Memorandum'');
2. ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (CAA) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28,
1992 (hereinafter referred to as the ``1992 Calcagni Memorandum'');
3. ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary
D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October
14, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ``Nichols Memorandum'');
and
4. ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions,'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, April 23, 2014
(hereinafter referred to as the ``SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance'').
EPA's SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance discusses the CAA
requirements that air agencies need to address when implementing the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in areas designated as nonattainment for the
standard. The guidance includes recommendations for air agencies to
consider as they develop SIPs to satisfy the requirements of sections
110, 172, 175A, 191, and 192 of the CAA to show future attainment and
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, the
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance provides recommendations for
air agencies to consider as they develop redesignation requests and
maintenance plans to satisfy the requirements of sections 107(d)(3)(E)
and 175A.
V. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
EPA has evaluated and is proposing to approve the base-year
nonattainment emissions inventory and concurs with FDEP's certification
that its existing SIP-approved NNSR permitting program applies to the
Hillsborough-Polk Area because they satisfy the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(3) and 172(c)(5), respectively. As discussed in greater
detail in Section VI of this notice, EPA is also proposing to approve
and incorporate the SO2 permit limits and associated
compliance and monitoring parameters for Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow into the SIP. In addition, EPA is proposing to determine that
the air quality modeling submitted by the State demonstrates that the
Hillsborough-Polk Area will have attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
as a result of compliance with the permit limits at Mosaic New Wales
and Mosaic Bartow and that the Area will meet the requirements for
redesignation as set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E), including the
maintenance plan requirements under section 175A of the CAA, provided
that the state submits a final SIP consistent with that outlined above,
including the permit limits, parameters, and related information, and
EPA approves the SIP.
Also, as a result of the compliance with the multi-unit permit
limits at Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow, EPA proposes to determine
that the Mulberry Area will have attained the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS and thus will meet
[[Page 47219]]
the requirements for redesignation from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable.
VI. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's source-specific SO[bdi2] permit
limits?
Florida's December 1, 2017, source-specific SIP revision includes
SO2 multi-unit permit limits and associated compliance and
monitoring provisions from air construction permits for Mosaic New
Wales (Permit No. 1050059-106-AC) and Mosaic Bartow (Permit No.
1050046-050-AC). The SIP revision also includes modeling to demonstrate
that the Hillsborough-Polk Area will attain the SO2 NAAQS as
a result of compliance with these multi-unit permit limits. Florida's
February 15, 2019, draft SIP submittal contains changes to this
modeling and administrative corrections to the aforementioned permits.
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow are phosphate fertilizer
manufacturing plants that employ a process of reacting phosphate rock
with sulfuric acid to produce phosphoric acid, which is then converted
into several different fertilizer products and animal feed ingredients.
The sulfuric acid needed for the process is produced by sulfuric acid
plants (SAPs), which are the largest SO2 emitting units at
these sites. Both facilities are sulfur burning, double conversion, and
double absorption plants of Leonard-Monsanto design.\6\ The SAPs burn
sulfur with dried atmospheric oxygen to produce SO2, which
is catalytically oxidized to sulfur trioxide (SO3), which is
then absorbed in sulfuric acid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A double conversion, double absorption plant efficiently
converts SO2 to SO3, then SO3
reacts in a mixture of water and sulfuric acid
(H2SO4) to produce more
H2SO4. In a double absorption system, the
conversion efficiency from SO2 to SO3 is at
least 99.7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reduce SO2 emissions from the SAPs, Mosaic has
replaced the vanadium catalysts with more efficient catalysts to enable
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow to meet the new SO2
permit limits. Mosaic Bartow and Mosaic New Wales began installation of
the catalyst replacements in 2016 and 2017, respectively, and completed
installation in April 2019.\7\ The new catalysts allow for more
SO2 to be captured for process purposes rather than being
emitted into the atmosphere.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See the May 23, 2019, email from Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC to
EPA Region 4 Air Planning Implementation Branch, Air Regulatory
Management Section and Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Resource Management located in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking. FDEP required Mosaic to install
these catalysts through Permit No. 1050059-101-AC (Mosaic New Wales)
and No. 1050046-050-AC (Mosaic Bartow).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 30, 2017, FDEP issued Permit No. 1050059-106-AC for
Mosaic New Wales requiring compliance with a SO2 multi-unit
permit limit of 1,090 pounds per hour (lb/hr) across all five SAPs
(Nos. 1 through 5) based on a 24-hour block average and with associated
specific compliance and monitoring provisions. On July 3, 2017, FDEP
issued Permit No. 1050046-050-AC for Mosaic Bartow requiring compliance
with an SO2 multi-unit permit limits of 1,100 lb/hr across
all three SAPs (No. 4, No. 6 and No. 5) based on a 24-hour block
average and with associated compliance and monitoring provisions.
Mosaic is required to comply with these permit conditions no later than
August 31, 2019.\8\ The construction permits impose the new limits for
scenarios where any number of units are operating at each respective
facility while retaining the current individual unit limits as shown in
Tables 1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ FDEP incorporated these permit limits into Title V Permit
No. 1050059-107-AV (Mosaic New Wales) and No. 1050046-053-AV (Mosaic
Bartow).
Table 1--Mosaic New Wales SO2 Source Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 permit limits (lb/hr)
---------------------------------------
Source Individual (not
changing) New 5-unit *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAP1............................ 496 Combined emissions
cannot exceed
1,090.
SAP2............................ 496
SAP3............................ 496
SAP4............................ 483.3
SAP5............................ 483.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* SO2 permit limit is a 24-hour block average.
Table 2--Mosaic Bartow SO2 Source Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 permit limits (lb/hr)
---------------------------------------
Source Individual (not
changing) New 3-unit *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAP4............................ 433.3 Combined emissions
cannot exceed
1,100.
SAP5............................ 433.3
SAP6............................ 433.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* SO2 permit limit is a 24-hour block average.
The potential to emit for SAPs 1-5 at Mosaic New Wales and SAPs 4-6
at Mosaic Bartow was previously 10,750 tons per year (tpy) and 5,694
tpy, respectively. With the new multi-unit permit limits implemented at
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow, FDEP expects the potential to emit
to be 4,774 tpy and 4,818 tpy, respectively. This is approximately a
42-percent drop in total allowable emissions for both facilities,
combined. At maximum production, with all SAPs in operation, overall
SO2 emissions are expected to be reduced by approximately
5,930 tpy at Mosaic New Wales and 876 tpy at Mosaic Bartow. FDEP
projects that actual SO2 emissions will decrease by 36
percent from 2016 to 2020.
On January 11, 2019, FDEP issued Administrative Permit Corrections
to
[[Page 47220]]
the air construction permits identified above. These corrections are
contained in Permit No. 1050059-114-AC for Mosaic New Wales and Permit
No. 1050046-063-AC for Mosaic Bartow and do not modify the multi-unit
permit limits or the associated compliance and monitoring provisions.
The notices associated with these permits state that the corrections
merely remove unnecessary and confusing language from the permit
provisions that contain the emissions caps.\9\ Florida's February 15,
2019, draft SIP revisions ask EPA to incorporate the corrections from
Permit Nos. 1050059-114-AC and 050046-063-AC into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Administrative Permit Corrections and associated notices
are included in Appendix C and Appendix H of Florida's February 15,
2019 draft SIP revisions contained in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking. The corrections remove the phrase ``Any requested
revisions to this emissions limit requires air dispersion modeling
review and written approval from the Department's Meteorology and
Air Modeling Section in the Office of Business Planning to confirm
SO2 NAAQS compliance'' from the provisions establishing
the multi-unit permit limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 22, 2019, Florida submitted a letter to EPA explaining the
administrative corrections and clarifying which permit conditions that
it would like EPA to incorporate into the SIP.\10\ FDEP is requesting
that EPA incorporate the following conditions from Permit Nos.
10500046-106-AC and 1050046-050-AC: \11\ (1) Section III, Subsection A,
Specific Condition 3 (as corrected by Permit Nos. 1050059-114-AC and
Permit No. 1050046-063-AC)--establishing the five-unit permit limit of
1,090 lb/hr for Mosaic New Wales and the three-unit permit limit of
1,100 lb/hr for Mosaic Bartow, each based on 24-hour block average, and
applicable during all periods of operation; \12\ (2) Section III,
Subsection A Specific Condition 4--requiring the facilities to use
certified SO2 continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS)
data to demonstrate initial compliance with the new SO2
permit limit; and (3) Section III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 5--
requiring the facilities to keep records of the initial compliance
demonstration that include the SO2 CEMS data and sulfuric
acid production rate (in tons per hour) during the demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Florida's March 22, 2019, clarification letter
contained in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
\11\ The permit condition numbers are the same for each permit.
\12\ Permit condition Section III, Subsection A, Specific
Condition 3 requires compliance with the emissions caps within the
same 24-hour block averaging period (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) and in
scenarios when any combination of any number of the SAPs are not in
operation and when any number of the SAPs are in operation. See
Appendices B, C, G, and H of Florida's February 19, 2019 draft
redesignation SIP submission in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow air construction permits
include specific conditions regarding initial compliance with the
SO2 permit limits using CEMS. Florida's SIP-approved
regulations for SAPs, at Rule 62-296.402, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), require the owner or operator of a SAP to install and operate
CEMS according to appendix B of 40 CFR part 60, and Chapter 62-297,
F.A.C., which specifies how stationary sources demonstrate compliance
with the applicable permit limits.\13\ These applicable requirements
require compliance with the permit limits on an ongoing basis. For each
SAP at each source, a CEMS will be used to determine compliance with
the 24-hour average permit limit for SO2. The CEMS shall be
calibrated, maintained and operated as specified in 40 CFR 60.84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Florida's March 22, 2019 clarification letter in the
docket for this proposal action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The December 1, 2017, SIP revision includes an air dispersion
modeling analysis to show attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
in the Hillsborough-Polk Area. The modeling used 1-hour emission rates
calculated from final multi-unit permit limits of 1,090 lb/hr and 1,100
lb/hr for New Wales and Bartow, respectively, using adjustment factors
derived following the procedures in EPA's SO2 Nonattainment
Area Guidance. Florida's draft February 15, 2019, SIP revision updated
this modeling. FDEP's modeling complied with all applicable EPA rules
and guidance, including Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51: The Guideline on
Air Quality Models (Appendix W) and the SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling
Technical Assistance Document.\14\ For more information on the modeling
analysis, see section VII.C of this notice and the Air Modeling
Technical Support Document (TSD).\15\ For details on how Florida
established the 24-hour multi-unit SO2 permit limits, see
the longer term averaging (LTA) TSD.\16\ EPA included both TSDs in the
docket for this proposing rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf.
\15\ This TSD is entitled ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Air Quality Modeling
Analysis Supporting the Proposed Redesignations for the
Hillsborough--Polk and Mulberry, Florida Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Areas.''
\16\ This TSD is entitled ``U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Longer Term Average Sulfur
Dioxide (SO2) Permit Limits for the Mosaic New Wales and
Bartow Fertilizer Facilities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a review of Florida's December 1, 2017, SIP revision, as
modified through its February 15, 2019, draft SIP revision, EPA
believes that the 24-hour block average SO2 multi-unit
permit limits described above provide an appropriate alternative to
establishing a 1-hour average permit limit for each unit at Mosaic New
Wales and Mosaic Bartow. The State has used a suitable database and has
derived adjustment factors that yielded permit limits that have
comparable stringency to the 1-hour average limits that would otherwise
have been necessary to provide for attainment. While the 24-hour block
average allows for occasions in which emissions may be higher than the
level that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the State's caps
compensate by requiring average emissions to be lower than the level
that would otherwise have been required by 1-hour average limits. For
more information on how Florida established the SO2 permit
limits, please refer to the LTA discussion presented in TSD. For
reasons discussed in the LTA TSD and explained in more detail in EPA's
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance, EPA believes that
appropriately set longer term average limits provide a reasonable basis
by which permit limits may provide for attainment. Based on its review
of this information as well as the information in the State's 2017 and
2019 SIP revisions, EPA is proposing to find that the 24-hour average
limits for Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow provide for attainment of
the SO2 standard.
VII. What actions are being proposed for the Hillsborough-Polk Area?
Regarding the Hillsborough-Polk Area and in accordance with the
CAA, EPA proposes to: (1) Approve and incorporate the SO2
permit limits and associated compliance and monitoring parameters for
Mosaic New Wales and Bartow into the SIP; (2) approve the base-year
emissions inventory pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section
172(c)(3) for the Hillsborough-Polk Area and incorporate it into the
SIP; (3) concur with Florida's certification pursuant to CAA section
172(c)(5) that its existing NNSR requirements apply to the
Hillsborough-Polk Area; (4) determine that the air quality modeling
submitted by the State demonstrates that the Hillsborough-Polk Area
will have attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as a result of
compliance with the multi-unit permit limits at Mosaic New Wales and
Bartow; (5) approve Florida's plan for maintaining the 2010 1-hour
SO2
[[Page 47221]]
NAAQS in the Hillsborough-Polk Area through 2032 and incorporate it
into the SIP pursuant to section 175A of the CAA; and (6) redesignate
the Hillsborough-Polk Area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Because attainment of the SO2 NAAQS is
dependent on making the multi-unit permit limits and associated
compliance and monitoring parameters for Mosaic New Wales and Bartow
permanent and enforceable measures, EPA cannot take final action on
items 4-7, above, unless it finalizes its proposal to approve and
incorporate these caps and parameters into the SIP.
A. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's base-year inventory for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area?
States are required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventories of actual emissions
from all sources of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the
nonattainment area. These inventories provide a detailed accounting of
all emissions and emission sources by precursor or pollutant. In
addition, these inventories are used in air quality modeling to
demonstrate that attainment of the NAAQS is as expeditious as
practicable. The SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance states that
the emissions inventory should be consistent with the Air Emissions
Reporting Requirements (AERR) at subpart A to 40 CFR part 51.\17\ The
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance notes that the base-year
inventory should include all sources of SO2 in the
nonattainment area as well as any sources located outside the
nonattainment area which may affect attainment in the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The AERR covers federal reporting requirements for states
to submit emissions inventories for criteria pollutants to EPA's
Emission Inventory System. EPA uses these submittals, along with
other data sources, to build the National Emission Inventory (NEI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida elected to use 2017 as the base year. To develop the base-
year emission inventory, Florida reviewed and compiled county-level
actual SO2 emissions for all source categories (i.e., point,
area, and mobile (nonroad and onroad)) in Hillsborough and Polk
Counties and then utilized county and partial county nonattainment area
population and land use data to determine estimated SO2
emission inventories for sources of SO2 in the Hillsborough-
Polk Area. Emissions from Mosaic New Wales, the largest point source of
SO2 in the Area, as well as nearby Mosaic Bartow, a point
source located outside of the Area, were included in the inventory.
Pursuant to Florida's SIP-approved regulations at Rule 62-210.370,
F.A.C., paragraph (3), FDEP collects annual operating reports (AORs).
Florida used these AORs to satisfy the AERR and to develop the base
year inventory for actual emissions for point sources. FDEP utilized
EPA's 2014 NEI, Version 2 to obtain estimates of the area and nonroad
sources. For onroad mobile source emissions, FDEP utilized EPA's Motor
Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2014). A more detailed discussion of
the emissions inventory development for the Hillsborough-Polk Area can
be found in Florida's February 15, 2019, draft SIP submittal.
Table 3, below, shows the level of emissions in the Hillsborough-
Polk Area for the 2017 base year by emissions source category. The
point source category includes 2017 emissions from the Mosaic New Wales
and Mosaic Bartow AORs (6,877 tons and 4,001 tons, respectively). Area
and nonroad emissions are based on 2014 NEI data for Hillsborough
County and Polk County. Florida projected the 2014 emissions for the
area and nonroad categories to 2017 based on the increase in the
Hillsborough County and Polk County population from 2014 to 2017, and
then allocated to the Hillsborough-Polk Area based on the Area's
fraction of land area within each county. Florida estimated onroad
emissions for the area using MOVES2014a and then allocated them to the
Hillsborough-Polk Area based on the Area's fraction of land area within
each county.
Table 3--2017 Base-Year Emissions Inventory for the Hillsborough-Polk Area
[tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Point Area Nonroad Onroad Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017............................................................... 10,888 16.42 0.31 1.34 10,906.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has evaluated Florida's 2017 base-year emissions inventory for
the Hillsborough-Polk Area and has made the preliminary determination
that this inventory was developed consistent with EPA's guidance.
Therefore, pursuant to section 172(c)(3), EPA is proposing to approve
Florida's 2017 base-year emissions inventory for the Hillsborough-Polk
Area and incorporate it into the SIP.
B. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's NNSR SIP for the Hillsborough-
Polk Area?
CAA section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for the construction
and operation of new and modified major stationary sources anywhere in
a nonattainment area. In its February 15, 2019, draft SIP revision,
Florida certifies that it has a SIP-approved NNSR permitting program,
outlined in Chapters 62-210 and 62-212, F.A.C., to address any new
major stationary sources or source modifications in the Hillsborough-
Polk Area. The SIP-approved program applies to nonattainment areas for
all NAAQS, including the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard. Florida
also states that it is unaware of and does not anticipate any future
development within the Area that would increase SO2
emissions. EPA has previously approved Florida's SIP-approved NNSR
program, including the NNSR regulation at 62-212.500, F.A.C.,\18\ and
is therefore proposing to concur with Florida's section 172(c)(5)
certification that its program requires NNSR in the Hillsborough Polk
Area for so long as the Area is designated nonattainment.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ EPA last modified the SIP-approved version of this rule on
June 27, 2008. See 73 FR 36435.
\19\ As discussed in section VII.C.ii.A.2.a, below, EPA has a
longstanding interpretation that because NNSR is replaced by
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting upon
redesignation, nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to
attainment need not have a fully approved part D NNSR program in
order to be redesignated. See Nichols Memorandum. Nonetheless, EPA
is proposing to concur with the State's certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is EPA's analysis of the redesignation request and SIP revision
for the Hillsborough-Polk Area?
The five redesignation criteria provided under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are discussed in greater detail for the Hillsborough-Polk
Area in the following paragraphs.
[[Page 47222]]
i. Criterion (1)--The Administrator Determines That the Area Has
Attained the NAAQS
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has attained the applicable
NAAQS (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(i)). As discussed in section VIII.A of
the SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance, there are generally two
components needed to support an attainment determination for
SO2, which should be considered interdependently.\20\ The
first component relies on air quality monitoring data. For
SO2, any available monitoring data would need to indicate
that all monitors in the affected area are meeting the standard as
stated in 40 CFR 50.17 using data analysis procedures specified in 40
CFR part 50, Appendix T. The second component relies on air quality
modeling data. If there are no air quality monitors located in the
affected area, or there are air quality monitors located in the area,
but analyses show that none of the monitors are located in the area of
maximum concentration,\21\ then air quality dispersion modeling will
generally be needed to estimate SO2 concentrations in the
area. Such dispersion modeling should be conducted to estimate
SO2 concentrations throughout the nonattainment area using
actual emissions and meteorological information for the most recent
three calendar years. However, EPA may also make determinations of
attainment based on the modeling from the attainment demonstration \22\
for the applicable SIP for the affected area, eliminating the need for
separate actuals-based modeling to support a redesignation request. A
demonstration that the control strategy in the SIP has been fully
implemented (compliance records demonstrating that the control measures
have been implemented as required by the approved SIP) would also be
relevant for making the determination, and as noted above, Florida is
providing emissions data to demonstrate compliance with the
SO2 permit limits in its final SIP submittal. Areas which
were designated nonattainment based on modeling will generally not be
redesignated to attainment unless an acceptable modeling analysis
indicates attainment. See 1992 Calcagni Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ SO2 is primarily a localized, source-specific
pollutant, and therefore, SO2 control measures are, by
definition, based on what is directly and quantifiably necessary to
attain the NAAQS.
\21\ See section VIII.A of the SO2 Nonattainment Area
Guidance.
\22\ Florida submitted the modeling analysis for the
Hillsborough-Polk and Mulberry Areas in support of its redesignation
requests and as part of its SIP revision containing permit limits
for Mosaic Bartow and Mosaic New Wales. Although this modeling
analysis is not considered part of an ``attainment demonstration''
or ``nonattainment SIP'' pursuant to section 172 of the CAA, the
portion of the SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance regarding
the use of modeling summarized in this section of the notice is
applicable given the similarities between the submitted analysis and
a modeling analysis under a section 172 ``attainment
demonstration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, Florida's December 1, 2017, SIP revision, as
modified through its February 15, 2019, draft SIP revision, contains a
modeling analysis to demonstrate that the Area will attain the 2010 1-
hour standard as a result of compliance with the comparably stringent
24-hour SO2 emissions caps at Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow. When EPA designated the Hillsborough-Polk Area as a
nonattainment area for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA
determined that Mosaic New Wales was the primary cause of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS violations in the Hillsborough-Polk Area.
However, Florida included nearby Mosaic Bartow in its modeling because
it determined that emissions from Mosaic Bartow also had the potential
to contribute to elevated concentrations within the Hillsborough-Polk
Area.
Because there are no air quality monitors located in the
Hillsborough-Polk Area, EPA's proposed approval of Florida's draft
redesignation and maintenance plan SIP for the Hillsborough-Polk Area
is based on this modeled demonstration and related information. Details
regarding the modeling analysis are summarized in the following
paragraphs. A more detailed discussion of FDEP's modeling, including
changes in the February 19, 2019, draft SIP revision, can be found in
EPA's Air Modeling TSD.
FDEP's modeling analysis was developed in accordance with EPA's
Guideline on Air Quality Models (Modeling Guideline) \23\ and the
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance, and was prepared using
EPA's preferred dispersion modeling system--the American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD)--
consisting of the AERMOD (version 18081) model and multiple data input
preprocessors as described below. FDEP used regulatory default options
and the rural land use dispersion option in the AERMOD modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W (EPA's Guideline on Air
Quality Models) (January 17, 2017) located at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/appendix_w/2016/AppendixW_2017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pre-processors AERMET (version 16216) and AERMINUTE (version
14337) were used to process five years (i.e., 2012-2016) of 1-minute
meteorological data from the Winter Haven Municipal Airport National
Weather Service (NWS) surface level site, based on FDEP's land use
classifications, in combination with twice daily upper-air
meteorological information from the Ruskin, FL NWS station. The Winter
Haven Municipal Airport is located approximately 38 km northwest from
the Hillsborough-Polk Area.
The AERMOD pre-processor AERMAP (version 18081) was used to
generate terrain inputs for the receptors, based on a digital elevation
mapping database from the National Elevation Dataset developed by the
U.S. Geological Survey. FDEP used AERSURFACE to generate direction-
specific land-use surface characteristics for the modeling.
The stack heights used in the modeling meet the Good Engineering
Practice stack height criteria, and the Building Profile Input Program
for Plume Rise Model Enhancements preprocessor was used to generate
direction-specific building downwash parameters. FDEP developed two
overlapping Cartesian receptor grids to fully encompass the entire
nonattainment area and the unclassifiable area, with 100-meter (m)
spacing out to 2.5 km from Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow, 200 m
spacing from 2.5 km to 5 km, and 500 m spacing from 5 km to 7.5 km from
the facilities, to ensure maximum concentrations were captured in the
analysis.
FDEP selected a background SO2 concentration based on
monitoring data from the Sydney monitor (AQS ID: 12-057-3002), for the
period January 2014 to December 2016. The monitor is approximately 23
km from Mosaic New Wales and 31 km from Mosaic Bartow. The background
concentration from this ambient air monitor is used to account for
SO2 impacts from all sources that are not specifically
included in the AERMOD modeling analysis. The ambient monitoring data
was obtained from the Florida Air Monitoring and Assessment System. Due
to its close proximity to the modeled facilities, monitored
concentrations at this station are strongly influenced by their
emissions. As a result, and as allowed by EPA's Modeling Guideline, the
data were filtered to remove measurements where the wind direction
could transport pollutants from these facilities to the monitor. More
specifically, the data were filtered to remove measurements where
hourly wind directions were between 85[deg] to 175[deg]. FDEP elected
to use a temporally
[[Page 47223]]
varying approach, based on the 99th percentile monitored concentrations
by hour of day and season or month. The resulting temporally varying
background concentration ranged from 0.67-7.33 ppb.
The State used the emissions caps for each of the SO2
emissions units at Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow in the modeling
demonstration. As discussed in Section VI, FDEP's construction permits
require Mosaic New Wales to comply with a 1,090 lb/hr SO2
permit limit for its five SAPs and Mosaic Bartow to comply with a 1,100
lb/hr for its three SAPs, each on a 24-hour block average, no later
than August 31, 2019. To determine the level of these permit limits,
the State initially performed exploratory modeling, consisting of over
300 AERMOD modeling runs, to determine the CEVs for Mosaic New Wales
and Mosaic Bartow on an hourly basis. This modeling was performed to
determine the highest aggregate hourly emission rate that, regardless
of its distribution among any combination of SAPs at the facilities,
would result in modeled concentrations at or below the level of the 1-
hour NAAQS (i.e., the CEV). The analysis resulted in CEVs of 1,118 lb/
hr and 1,163 lb/hr for Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow,
respectively. Following the procedures in EPA's SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance, Florida calculated comparably stringent
24-hour emissions caps using adjustment factors calculated by the ratio
of each source's historic 99th percentile one-hour average emissions
rate to its 99th percentile longer-term average emissions rate, which
resulted in 24-hour adjusted emission caps of 1,100 lb/hr for New Wales
and 1,138 lb/hr for Bartow. The details of the adjustment factor
calculation are provided in the LTA TSD for this action. To provide for
a margin of safety in the final modeling demonstration, Florida
slightly lowered the 24-hour adjusted emission caps to establish final
multi-unit permit limits of 1,090 lb/hr and 1,100 lb/hr for New Wales
and Bartow, respectively. For the final modeling run to show compliance
with the NAAQS, Florida applied the adjustment factors to back-
calculate 1-hour emission rates (1,108 lb/hr for New Wales and 1,124
lb/hr for Bartow) from the final 24-hour multi-unit permit limits of
1,090 lb/hr and 1,100 lb/hr for New Wales and Bartow, respectively.
Table 4 shows that the maximum modeled 99th percentile daily
maximum 1-hour SO2 concentration averaged across all five
years of meteorological data (2012-2016) is less than or equal to the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb using the in 1-hour
equivalent emission rates.
Table 4--Maximum Modeled 99th Percentile Daily Maximum 1-Hour SO2 Impacts in the Hillsborough-Polk Area,
Micrograms per Cubic Meter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum predicted
Averaging time impact Background Total SO2 NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-hour.......................... 186.94 (71.4 ppb). 7.84 (3 ppb)...... 194.74 (74.4 ppb). 196.4 (75 ppb).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final modeling resulted in a highest predicted 99th percentile
daily maximum 1-hour concentration of 74.4 ppb with no modeled
violations of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in ambient air locations
in the Hillsborough-Polk Area or in the Mulberry Area. The details of
the modeling are provided EPA's Air Modeling TSD for this action. EPA
believes that the modeled demonstration described above is consistent
with CAA requirements, EPA's Modeling Guideline, and the SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance. Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that
the air quality modeling and related information that will be submitted
by the State in its final submission (consistent with the current
proposed SIP) demonstrates that the Hillsborough-Polk Area will have
attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as a result of compliance
with the permit limits at Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow. EPA
cannot take final action to determine that the Area has attained the
NAAQS unless it receives the final SIP submittal containing that
information and finalizes its proposal to approve and incorporate these
permit limits, associated compliance and monitoring parameters, and
other related information into the SIP.
ii. Criterion (2)--The Administrator Fully Approves the Applicable
Implementation Plan for the Area Under Section 110(k); and Criterion
(5)--Florida Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 and
Part D of Title I of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the state has met all applicable
requirements under section 110 and part D of title I of the CAA (CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)) and that the state has a fully approved SIP
under section 110(k) for the area (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii)). EPA
proposes to find that Florida has met all applicable SIP requirements
for the Hillsborough-Polk Area under section 110 of the CAA (general
SIP requirements) for purposes of redesignation. Additionally, EPA
proposes to find that the Florida SIP satisfies the criterion that it
meets applicable SIP requirements for purposes of redesignation under
part D of title I of the CAA in accordance with section
107(d)(3)(E)(v). Further, EPA proposes to determine that the SIP is
fully approved with respect to all requirements applicable for purposes
of redesignation in accordance with section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In making
these proposed determinations, EPA ascertained which requirements are
applicable to the Area and, if applicable, that they are fully approved
under section 110(k). SIPs must be fully approved only with respect to
requirements that were applicable prior to submittal of the complete
redesignation request.
A. The Hillsborough-Polk Area Has Met All Applicable Requirements Under
Section 110 and Part D of the CAA
1. General SIP Requirements
General SIP elements and requirements are delineated in section
110(a)(2) of title I, part A of the CAA. These requirements include,
but are not limited to, the following: Submittal of a SIP that has been
adopted by the state after reasonable public notice and hearing;
provisions for establishment and operation of appropriate procedures
needed to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a source
permit program; provisions for the implementation of part C
requirements (Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)) and
provisions for the implementation of part D requirements (NNSR permit
programs); provisions for air pollution modeling; and provisions for
public and local agency participation in planning and emission control
rule development.
Section 110(a)(2)(D) requires that SIPs contain certain measures to
prevent
[[Page 47224]]
sources in a state from significantly contributing to air quality
problems in another state. To implement this provision, EPA has
required certain states to establish programs to address the interstate
transport of air pollutants. The section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements for
a state are not linked with a particular nonattainment area's
designation and classification in that state. EPA believes that the
requirements linked with a particular nonattainment area's designation
and classifications are the relevant measures to evaluate in reviewing
a redesignation request. The transport SIP submittal requirements,
where applicable, continue to apply to a state regardless of the
designation of any one particular area in the state. Thus, EPA does not
believe that the CAA's interstate transport requirements should be
construed to be applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation.
In addition, EPA believes that other section 110(a)(2) elements
that are neither connected with nonattainment plan submissions nor
linked with an area's attainment status are not applicable requirements
for purposes of redesignation. The area will still be subject to these
requirements after the area is redesignated. The section 110(a)(2) and
part D requirements which are linked with a particular area's
designation and classification are the relevant measures to evaluate in
reviewing a redesignation request. This approach is consistent with
EPA's existing policy on applicability (i.e., for redesignations) of
conformity and oxygenated fuels requirements, as well as with section
184 ozone transport requirements. See Reading, Pennsylvania, proposed
and final rulemakings (61 FR 53174-53176, October 10, 1996), (62 FR
24826, May 7, 2008); Cleveland-Akron-Loraine, Ohio, final rulemaking
(61 FR 20458, May 7, 1996); and Tampa, Florida, final rulemaking at (60
FR 62748, December 7, 1995). See also the discussion on this issue in
the Cincinnati, Ohio, redesignation (65 FR 37890, June 19, 2000), and
in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, redesignation (66 FR 50399, October
19, 2001). Nonetheless, EPA has approved Florida's SIP revisions
related to the section 110 requirements for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, with the exception of the interstate transport elements at
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 81 FR 67179 (September 30, 2016).
2. Title I, Part D, Applicable SIP Requirements
Subpart 1 of part D, comprised of CAA sections 171-179B, sets forth
the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment
areas. All areas that were designated nonattainment for the
SO2 NAAQS were designated under Subpart 1 of the CAA in
accordance with the deadlines in Subpart 5. For purposes of evaluating
this redesignation request, the applicable Subpart 1 SIP requirements
are contained in section 172(c)(1)-(9), section 176, and sections 191
and 192. A thorough discussion of the requirements contained in
sections 172(c) can be found in the General Preamble for Implementation
of Title I. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
a. Subpart 1 Section 172 Requirements
Section 172 requires states with nonattainment areas to submit
plans providing for timely attainment and meeting a variety of other
requirements. EPA's longstanding interpretation of the attainment-
related nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once
an area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not
``applicable'' for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and
therefore need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate
the area. In the 1992 General Preamble for Implementation of Title I,
EPA set forth its interpretation of applicable requirements for
purposes of evaluating redesignation requests when an area is attaining
a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992). EPA noted that the
requirements for RFP and other measures designed to provide for
attainment do not apply in evaluating redesignation requests because
those nonattainment planning requirements ``have no meaning'' for an
area that is attaining the standard. Id. This interpretation was also
set forth in the Calcagni Memo. EPA's understanding of section 172 also
forms the basis of its Clean Data Policy, articulated with regard to
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance, which suspends a state's obligation to
submit most of the attainment planning requirements that would
otherwise apply. Therefore, these section 172(c) nonattainment planning
requirements are not applicable for purposes of evaluating Florida's
redesignation request if EPA finalizes its proposal to incorporate the
permit limits and associated compliance and monitoring parameters into
the SIP once they become enforceable at the state level on August 31,
2019. Specifically, the RACT/RACM requirement under 172(c)(1); the RFP
requirement under section 172(c)(2), which is defined as progress that
must be made toward attainment; the requirement under section 172(c)(6)
that the SIP contain control measures necessary to provide for
attainment of the standard; and the requirement to submit section
172(c)(9) contingency measures, which are measures to be taken if the
area fails to make reasonable further progress to attainment, would not
be applicable.
Section 172(c)(3) requires submission for approval of a
comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions. As
discussed in Section VII.A, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's base-
year emissions inventory for the Hillsborough-Polk Area.
Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for
the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has a longstanding
interpretation that because NNSR is replaced by PSD upon redesignation,
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment need not have a
fully approved part D NNSR program in order to be redesignated. See
Nichols Memorandum. Florida currently has a fully-approved PSD and part
D NNSR program in place in Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212 of the
Florida Administrative Code. Florida's PSD program will become
effective in the Area upon redesignation to attainment. Nonetheless, as
discussed above, Florida has certified that its SIP-approved NNSR
program meets the requirements of section 172(c)(5) for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area and EPA is proposing to concur with that
certification.
Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes that
Florida's SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable
for purposes of redesignation.
Finally, section 172(c)(8) allows a state to use equivalent
modeling, emission inventory, and planning procedures if such use is
requested by the state and approved by EPA. Florida has not requested
the use of equivalent techniques under section 172(c)(8).
b. Subpart 1 Section 176--Conformity Requirements
Section 176(c) of the CAA requires states to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to
[[Page 47225]]
transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed,
funded, or approved under title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
and the Federal Transit Act (transportation conformity) as well as to
all other federally supported or funded projects (general conformity).
State transportation conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with
federal conformity regulations relating to consultation, and
enforceability that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the
CAA.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret the conformity SIP
requirements \24\ as not applying for purposes of evaluating the
redesignation request under section 107(d) because state conformity
rules are still required after redesignation and federal conformity
rules apply where state rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA,
265 F.3d 426 (upholding this interpretation) (6th Cir. 2001); See 60 FR
62748 (December 7, 1995). Furthermore, due to the relatively small, and
decreasing, amounts of sulfur in gasoline and on-road diesel fuel,
EPA's transportation conformity rules provide that they do not apply to
SO2 unless either the EPA Regional Administrator or the
director of the state air agency has found that transportation-related
emissions of SO2 as a precursor are a significant
contributor to a SO2 or fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) nonattainment problem, or if the SIP has established
an approved or adequate budget for such emissions as part of the RFP,
attainment, or maintenance strategy. See 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1), (2)(v);
SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance. Neither of these conditions
have been met; therefore, EPA's transportation conformity rules do not
apply to SO2 for the Area. For these reasons, EPA proposes
to find that Florida has satisfied all applicable requirements for
purposes of redesignation of the Hillsborough-Polk Area under section
110 and part D of title I of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ CAA section 176(c)(4)(E) requires states to submit
revisions to their SIPs to reflect certain federal criteria and
procedures for determining transportation conformity. Transportation
conformity SIPs are different from the motor vehicle emission
budgets that are established in control strategy SIPs and
maintenance plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Hillsborough-Polk Area Has a Fully Approved Applicable SIP Under
Section 110(k) of the CAA
EPA has fully approved the applicable Florida SIP for the
Hillsborough-Polk Area under section 110(k) of the CAA for purposes of
redesignation. EPA may rely on prior SIP approvals in approving a
redesignation request (see 1992 Calcagni Memorandum at p. 3,
Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.3D 984,
989-90 (6th Cir. 1998); Wall, 265 F.3d 426) plus any additional
measures it may approve in conjunction with a redesignation action. See
68 FR 25426 (May 12, 2003) and citations therein.
Criterion (3)--The Air Quality Improvement in the Hillsborough-Polk
Area is due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
Resulting From Implementation of the SIP and Applicable Federal Air
Pollution Control Regulations and Other Permanent and Enforceable
Reductions
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the air quality improvement in the area
is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting
from implementation of the SIP, applicable Federal air pollution
control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable reductions
(CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii)). As discussed above, EPA proposes to
determine that the modeled attainment in the Hillsborough-Polk Area
will be due to emission reductions resulting from compliance with the
SO2 permit limits at Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow.
These limits will become permanent and enforceable measures if EPA
finalizes its proposal to approve and incorporate them into the SIP.
See section VI, above, for more discussion on these permit limits, the
permit conditions proposed for approval and incorporation into the SIP,
and the emissions reductions resulting from the limits.
Criterion (4)--The Hillsborough-Polk Area Has a Fully Approved
Maintenance Plan Pursuant to Section 175A of the CAA
For redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment, the CAA
requires EPA to determine that the area has a fully approved
maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA. See CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(iv). In conjunction with its request to redesignate the
Hillsborough-Polk Area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS, Florida submitted a draft SIP revision to provide for the
maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for at least 10
years after the effective date of redesignation to attainment. EPA is
proposing to determine that this maintenance plan meets the
requirements for approval under section 175A of the CAA; however, EPA
cannot take final action to approve the maintenance plan unless it
finalizes its proposal to approve and incorporate the SO2
permit limits into the SIP.
a. What is required in a maintenance plan?
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment.
Under section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of
the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years after the Administrator
approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years after the
redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance plan
demonstrating that attainment will continue to be maintained for the 10
years following the initial 10-year period. To address the possibility
of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance plan must contain
contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction
of any future 2010 1-hour SO2 violations. The 1992 Calcagni
Memorandum provides further guidance on the content of a maintenance
plan, explaining that a maintenance plan should address five
requirements: The attainment emissions inventory; maintenance
demonstration; monitoring; verification of continued attainment; and a
contingency plan. As is discussed more fully below, EPA is proposing to
determine that Florida's maintenance plan includes all the necessary
components and is thus proposing to approve it as a revision to the
Florida SIP.
b. Attainment Emissions Inventory
An attainment inventory identifies a level of emissions in the area
that is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. As discussed above, modeled
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS in the Hillsborough-Polk Area
will be due to emissions reductions resulting from compliance with the
SO2 permit limits at Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow.
Because the permit limits are not state-enforceable until August 31,
2019, Florida based its attainment emissions inventory on projected
emissions from the year after the permit limits become state-
enforceable (i.e., 2020) rather than on actual emission levels that
reflect complete implementation of the emission reduction measures.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Tables 5 and 6 for Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow,
respectively, and Appendix L in Florida's draft redesignation
request and maintenance plan submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The largest point sources of SO2 in or near the
Hillsborough-Polk Area are Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow, which
combined, account for over 99 percent of the SO2 emissions
in or near
[[Page 47226]]
the Area. Florida projected emissions from both sources to 2020 by
first analyzing the average utilization factors (i.e., the ratios of
historical actual to allowable emissions rates) for the SAPs from 2012-
2016. Over this time period, both sources emitted between approximately
60 percent and 75 percent of each facility's total allowable emissions
rate. FDEP selected the high end of this range (75 percent) as the
utilization factor and then applied it to the 2020 allowable emissions
rate of 4,774 tpy and 4,818 tpy for Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow,
respectively, to project 2020 actual emissions for both Mosaic sources.
Tables 5 and 6 below provide for the historic emissions data (i.e.,
actuals, allowables, and the average percentage of allowables) for both
facilities as well as 2020 allowables and 2020 projected actuals. The
projected 2020 actual emissions for Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow
are 3,581 tpy and 3,614 tpy, respectively, resulting in total point
source projected actual emissions of 7,195 tons.
Table 5--Mosaic New Wales Historic Emissions and 2020 Projected Actuals Emissions Inventory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012-2016 Historic emissions 2020 Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Average annual Annual allowable percentage of Projected actuals
Unit actual SO2 SO2 emissions allowables Allowables (75 percent of
emissions (tons) emitted 2020 allowables)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAP 1.................................................... 1,292 2,172 59.45% 4,774 3,581
SAP 2.................................................... 1,517 2,172 69.81 ................. .................
SAP 3.................................................... 1,397 2,172 64.32 ................. .................
SAP 4.................................................... 1,532 2,117 72.36 ................. .................
SAP 5.................................................... 1,394 2,117 65.86 ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Mosaic Bartow Historic Emissions and 2020 Projected Actuals Emissions Inventory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012-2016 Historic Emissions 2020 Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Average annual Annual allowable percentage of Projected actuals
Unit actual SO2 SO2 emissions allowables Allowables (75 percent of
emissions (tons) emitted 2020 allowables)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAP 1.................................................... 1,315 1,897 69.33 4,818 3,614
SAP 2.................................................... 1,308 1,897 68.94 ................. .................
SAP 3.................................................... 1,336 1,897 70.43 ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 includes the complete inventory of all source categories
for the 2020 attainment year. A discussion of the development of the
2020-2032 projections is found in the next section.
Table 7--2020 Projected Emissions Inventory by Source Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 2020
SO2 emissions
Source type (tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point................................................... 7,195
Area.................................................... 16.97
Non-Road................................................ 0.32
On-Road................................................. 1.30
---------------
Total................................................. 7,213.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Maintenance Demonstration
Maintenance of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard is
demonstrated either by showing that future emissions will not exceed
the level of the attainment emissions inventory year or by modeling to
show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS. As discussed in the SO2
Nonattainment Area Guidance, an EPA-approved demonstration of
attainment that relies on air quality dispersion modeling using maximum
allowable emissions, such as Florida's modeling, can generally be
expected to demonstrate that the standard will be maintained for the
requisite 10 years and beyond without regard to any changes in
operation rate of the pertinent sources that do not involve increases
in maximum allowable emissions.\26\ EPA believes that the Hillsborough-
Polk Area will continue to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard through year 2032 because the relevant sources are required to
comply with the permit limits that air quality modeling shows will
maintain the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance at p.67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate maintenance through 2032 and satisfy the 10-year
interval required in CAA section 175A, Florida elected to prepare
projected emissions inventories for 2020-2032. The emissions
inventories are composed of the following general source categories:
point, area, non-road mobile, and on-road mobile. The emissions
inventories were developed consistent with EPA guidance and are
summarized in Table 8.
Florida estimated 2020 point source emissions as discussed above
and held those emissions steady through 2032 because it is not aware of
and does not anticipate any future development within the Hillsborough-
Polk Area that would increase SO2 emissions. Furthermore,
following achievement of the emission levels that Florida demonstrated
yield attainment, actual emissions from Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow must remain at or below these levels.
Florida estimated on-road mobile emissions utilizing the most
recent version of EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014a).
The State developed MOVES inputs for the 2017 base year using county-
level traffic modeling from the Florida Department of Transportation
and vehicle population information from the Florida Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (FLDHSMV). Where county-level data
was not available, FDEP used MOVES default data. To develop MOVES
inputs for future years, FDEP calculated the linear trend of vehicle
population growth using FLDHSMV data from 2008 to 2018 and projected it
to future years. FDEP apportioned the Hillsborough County
[[Page 47227]]
and Polk County results of the MOVES2014a model runs for each year to
the Hillsborough-Polk Area by using the fraction of the county land
area contained within the boundaries of the Hillsborough-Polk Area.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Table 3 in Appendix L for summarize land area and
MOVES2014a data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates for the projected future emissions inventories for area
and non-road categories were calculated by multiplying the area and
non-road 2014 NEI data \28\ by the projected increase in population in
Hillsborough and Polk Counties in 2020 and each interim year. The
population data for 2014 and 2017 were obtained from the US Census
Bureau. Population projections for 2020 through 2032 were developed by
the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. For years where
projections were not available, the projections were interpolated.\29\
County level emissions were apportioned to the Hillsborough-Polk Area
using the fraction of the county land area within the Hillsborough-Polk
Area boundary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Table 5 in Appendix L for summarize 2014 NEI emissions
data for area and non-road source categories.
\29\ Population data and projections are summarized in Table 4
in Appendix L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida compared projected emissions for the final year of the
maintenance plan (2032) to the 2020 projected actuals emissions
inventory and compared interim years to the 2020 projected actuals
inventory to demonstrate continued maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 standard. For additional information regarding the
development of the projected inventories, see Florida's February 15,
2019, draft SIP submittal.
Table 8--Projected Future Emissions Inventories for the Hillsborough-Polk Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 2020 Projected 2023 Projected 2026 Projected 2029 Projected 2032
Source type SO2 emissions SO2 emissions SO2 emissions SO2 emissions SO2 emissions
(tons) (tons) (tons) (tons) (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.................................................... 7,195 7,195 7,195 7,195 7,195
Area..................................................... 16.97 17.83 18.66 19.44 20.16
Non-road................................................. 0.32 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.38
On-road.................................................. 1.30 1.27 1.22 1.22 1.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 7,213.59 7,214.43 7,215.23 7,216.03 7,216.76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situations where local emissions are the primary contributor to
nonattainment, such as the Hillsborough-Polk Area, if the future
projected emissions in the nonattainment area remain at or below the
baseline emissions in the nonattainment area, then the related ambient
air quality standards should not be violated in the future. Florida has
projected emissions as described previously, and these projections
indicate that emissions in the Hillsborough-Polk Area will remain at
nearly the same levels as those in the attainment year inventory for
the duration of the maintenance plan. While these projections include a
very small increase in area and nonroad emissions from 2020 to 2032
(3.25 tons), the increase is negligible when compared to the total
emissions inventory, and EPA does not believe that this projected
increase should cause a violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS through 2032. This belief is supported by the fact that Florida
does not anticipate any future development within the Hillsborough-Polk
Area that could potentially increase SO2 emissions and the
fact that any increases in actual emissions from Mosaic New Wales or
Mosaic Bartow must remain below their permitted levels. Furthermore,
any potential future SO2 emissions sources that may locate
in or near the Area would be required to comply with the FDEP's
approved NSR permitting programs to ensure that the Area will continue
to meet the NAAQS.
d. Monitoring Network
As noted above, the Hillsborough-Polk Area was designated
nonattainment based on air dispersion modeling; there is no ambient air
monitor in the Area. Therefore, the maintenance plan does not contain
provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors to verify
attainment status. As discussed in the following section, Florida will
verify continued attainment using emissions data from Mosaic New Wales
and Mosaic Bartow and an evaluation of air dispersion modeling inputs.
e. Verification of Continued Attainment
The State of Florida, through FDEP, has the legal authority to
enforce and implement all measures necessary to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. Section 403.061(35), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department
to ``exercise the duties, powers, and responsibilities required of the
state under the federal Clean Air Act.'' This includes implementing and
enforcing all measures necessary to attain and maintain the NAAQS.
Because there is no ambient air SO2 monitor in the
Hillsborough-Polk Area, Florida will verify continued attainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 standard through an annual review of
emissions data and air dispersion modeling inputs and assumptions for
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow. Florida will use emissions data
from the required AOR submittals from both facilities to verify
continued compliance with the permitted limits used to model attainment
of the NAAQS in the Area. Actual emissions must remain below permitted
levels, which will be made permanent and federally-enforceable if EPA
finalizes its proposal to approve and incorporate the permit limits
into the SIP.
Florida will evaluate the inputs and assumptions used to model
attainment by assessing emissions data and basic air dispersion inputs
for the Area on an annual basis. Prior to each annual review, FDEP will
contact EPA to discuss the emissions data and air dispersion modeling
inputs and assumptions necessary for evaluation. FDEP will verify
attainment using the emissions data and air dispersion modeling inputs
and assumptions identified by EPA as a result of coordination with
FDEP. FDEP anticipates that the inputs and assumptions may include
stack parameters for all modeled sources; significant changes to land
use in the area; a limited review of meteorology; changes in operation
that lead to a temporal or spatial distribution of emissions; onsite
construction that change building configuration/
[[Page 47228]]
dimensions or add new buildings; changes in fuel that would alter
emissions; and changes in ambient background concentrations used in the
cumulative modeling analysis.
Based on its review of source emissions data and air dispersion
modeling inputs and assumptions, FDEP will provide an annual report to
EPA on or before July 1st that certifies whether the Hillsborough-Polk
Area is continuing to attain the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. This
annual report will provide: (1) The status of ongoing compliance with
the SO2 permit limits for Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow; (2) a review of annual emissions data for these facilities; (3)
a review of the air dispersion modeling inputs and assumptions
identified by EPA as a result of coordination with FDEP; (4) a
certification that there are no changes in the air dispersion modeling
inputs and assumptions that could result in a modeled violation; and
(5) all supporting documentation and data evaluated by FDEP to prepare
its annual report.
If FDEP certifies that there are no changes in the modeling inputs
and assumptions that could result in modeled violations, and EPA
concurs, no additional action or information is necessary to verify
continued attainment. If FDEP or EPA identifies a change in the
modeling inputs and assumptions that could cause a modeled violation,
FDEP, in coordination with EPA, will further evaluate the modeling
inputs and assumptions and complete this evaluation no later than 30
days after identifying the changes. If this evaluation continues to
indicate that a modeled violation could occur, FDEP will conduct air
dispersion modeling no later than 30 days after completing the
evaluation. If the revised model does not produce a modeled violation,
then no additional action or information is necessary to verify
continued attainment. If the revised model produces a modeled violation
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard within the nonattainment
area, the State will implement the relevant contingency measures as
discussed below.
f. Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan
Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state
will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation, and a time limit for action by the state. In cases
where attainment revolves around compliance of a single source or a
small set of sources with emissions limits shown to provide for
attainment, EPA interprets ``contingency measures'' to mean that the
state agency has a comprehensive program to identify sources of
violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake aggressive
follow-up for compliance and enforcement, including expedited
procedures for establishing enforceable consent agreement pending the
adoption of revised SIPs.\30\ A state should also identify specific
indicators to be used to determine when the contingency measures need
to be implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that
a state will implement all measures with respect to control of the
pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the
area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See SO2 Nonattainment Area Guidance at p.69.
FDEP has an active compliance and enforcement program to address
violations. FDEP will continue to operate this program to identify
sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to undertake
an aggressive follow-up for compliance and enforcement, including
expedited procedures for establishing enforceable consent agreements
pending the adoption of revised SIPs. FDEP commits to adopt and
expeditiously implement necessary corrective actions in the event of
a violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The contingency plan included in the maintenance plan contains
triggers to determine when contingency measures are needed and what
kind of measures should be used. The Title V operating permits for
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow require the facilities to report any
non-compliance with permit conditions or limitations.\31\ Upon receipt
of such a report from Mosaic New Wales and/or Mosaic Bartow that
identifies noncompliance with the SO2 permit limits, FDEP
will immediately begin a 30-day evaluation period to diagnose the cause
of noncompliance. This will be followed by a 30-day consultation period
with Mosaic New Wales and/or Mosaic Bartow to develop and implement
operational changes identified during the consultation period to
prevent any future noncompliance with the SO2 permit limits.
These changes could include, but would not be limited to, physical or
operational reduction of production capacity, as appropriate. Any
necessary changes would be implemented as soon as practicable, with at
least one measured implemented during the full system audit implemented
within 18-24 months of the noncompliance with the SO2 permit
limits, in order to bring the Area into attainment as expeditiously as
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ This reporting requirement is detailed in Appendix RR2(b)
and (c) in the Title V permits as follows: ``b. If, for any reason,
the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with
any condition or limitation specified in this permit, the permittee
shall immediately provide the Department with the following
information: (1) A description of and cause of noncompliance; and
(2) The period of noncompliance, including dates and times; or, if
not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to
continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent
recurrence of the noncompliance. The permittee shall be responsible
for any and all damaged which may result and may be subject to
enforcement action by the Department for penalties or for revocation
of this permit. c. When requested by the Department, the permittee
shall within a reasonable time furnish any information required by
law which is needed to determine compliance with the permit. If the
permittee becomes aware the relevant facts were not submitted or
were incorrect in the permit application or in any report to the
Department, such facts or information shall be corrected promptly.''
``Immediately'' is defined in Appendix RR(d) as ``the same day, if
during a workday (i.e., 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.), or the first business
day after the incident, excluding weekends and holidays.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDEP would rely on its authority outlined in Rule 62-4.080, F.A.C.,
which expressly authorizes FDEP to require the permittee to conform to
new or additional conditions if there is a showing of any change in the
environment or surrounding conditions that requires a modification to
conform to applicable air quality standards. Depending on the present
circumstances, FDEP would exercise this authority to work expeditiously
with Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow to make necessary permit
modifications. If a permit modification is deemed necessary, FDEP would
issue a final permit within the statutory timeframes in Sections 120
and 403, Florida Statutes, and any new permit limits required by such a
permit would be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
If revised air dispersion modeling performed during the
verification of continued attainment process produces a violation of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard due to changes in modeling
inputs and assumptions, FDEP will immediately begin a 30-day evaluation
period to diagnose the cause of the modeled violation, including
consultation with any emission source(s) that FDEP believes may be a
cause of the modeled violation. At the completion of this evaluation
period, FDEP will begin to take necessary measures to remedy the
modeled violation of the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard, which may
include mandating physical or operational changes at emission sources.
Any necessary changes would be implemented as soon as practicable, with
at least one measure implemented within 18-24 months of the modeled
violation, in order to bring the area into modeled attainment as
expeditiously as possible.
[[Page 47229]]
EPA has preliminarily concluded that the maintenance plan
adequately addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan:
The attainment emissions inventory; maintenance demonstration;
monitoring; verification of continued attainment; and a contingency
plan. Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that the maintenance plan
for the Area meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA and
proposes to incorporate the maintenance plan into the Florida SIP. EPA
cannot take final action to approve the maintenance plan unless it
finalizes its proposal to approve and incorporate the SO2
permit limits into the SIP.
VIII. What is EPA's analysis of the redesignation request for the
Mulberry Area?
A. Background
On January 9, 2018 (effective April 9, 2018), EPA designated the
Mulberry Area as unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS. See 83 FR 1098. EPA designated the Area as unclassifiable based
on uncertainty regarding the potential for SO2 emissions
from Mosaic Bartow to contribute to the Hillsborough-Polk Area. EPA's
rationale for this designation is outlined in the TSD associated with
EPA's designation for the Mulberry Area.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Chapter 9 of the Technical Support Document for the
Round 3 Designations for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
located in the docket for the designation at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0003-0635.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Criteria for Redesignating an Area From Unclassifiable to
Attainment/Unclassifiable
Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides the framework for changing
the area designations for any NAAQS pollutants. Section 107(d)(3)(A)
provides that the Administrator may notify the Governor of any state
that the designation of an area should be revised ``on the basis of air
quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air
quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.''
The Act further provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that even if the
Administrator has not notified a state Governor that a designation
should be revised, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own
motion, submit a request to revise the designation of any area, and the
Administrator must approve or deny the request.
When approving or denying a request to redesignate an area, EPA
bases its decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the
considerations provided under section 107(d)(3)(A).\33\ For the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, EPA may also base its decision on relevant
modeling analyses as discussed in section VII.C, above. In keeping with
section 107(d)(1)(A), areas that are redesignated to attainment/
unclassifiable must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus
must meet the relevant NAAQS.\34\ In addition, the area must not
contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet
the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists specific
requirements for redesignations, those requirements only apply to
redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment and, therefore,
are not applicable in the context of a redesignation of an area from
unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable.
\34\ Historically, EPA has designated most areas that do not
meet the definition of nonattainment as ``unclassifiable/
attainment.'' EPA has reversed the order of the label to be
``attainment/unclassifiable'' to better convey the definition of the
designation category and so that the category is more easily
distinguished from the separate unclassifiable category. See, e.g.,
83 FR 1098, 1099 (January 9, 2018) and 83 FR 25776, 25778 (June 4,
2018). EPA reserves the ``attainment'' category for when EPA
redesignates a nonattainment area to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. EPA's Rationale for Proposing To Redesignate the Mulberry Area
As noted above, EPA designated the Mulberry Area as unclassifiable
due to uncertainty regarding the potential contribution of emissions
from Mosaic Bartow to the Hillsborough-Polk Area. After EPA finalized
the designation, FDEP established permits requiring catalyst
installation and compliance with the SO2 permit limits for
Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow. As discussed above, EPA has
reviewed the modeling based on CEVs which, when adjusted, provide for
the 24-hour adjusted emission caps of 1,100 lb/hr and 1,138 lb/hr for
New Wales and Bartow, respectively. To provide for an additional margin
of safety in its air dispersion modeling, Florida slightly lowered the
maximum 24-hour emission caps to establish final multi-unit permit
limits of 1,090 lb/hr and 1,100 lb/hr for New Wales and Bartow,
respectively. EPA believes that the modeling results relying on the
slightly lowered permit limits appropriately characterize the air
quality in the Mulberry Area and that this modeling demonstrates that
the Mulberry Area will have attained the 1-hour SO2 standard
as a result of compliance with these limits at Mosaic New Wales and
Mosaic Bartow. Therefore, EPA proposes to redesignate the Mulberry Area
to attainment/unclassifiable for the SO2 NAAQS. EPA cannot
redesignate the Mulberry Area to attainment/unclassifiable unless it
finalizes its proposal to approve and incorporate the permit limits and
associated compliance and monitoring parameters into the SIP.
IX. What is the effect of EPA's proposed actions?
Approval and incorporation of the Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic
Bartow permit conditions described in Section VI, above, into the SIP
would make them permanent and federally enforceable.
Approval of the base-year emissions inventory would satisfy the
requirements of CAA section 173(c)(3) for the Hillsborough-Polk Area
and incorporate that inventory into the SIP. Concurrence with Florida's
certification that prior EPA rulemaking has approved NNSR rules that
require NNSR for the Hillsborough-Polk Area for so long as the Area is
designated nonattainment would satisfy CAA section 173(c)(5).
Approval of Florida's redesignation request for the Hillsborough-
Polk Area would change the legal designation of the portions of
Hillsborough and Polk Counties that are within the Hillsborough-Polk
Area, as found at 40 CFR part 81, from nonattainment to attainment for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Approval of Florida's associated
maintenance plan SIP revision would incorporate a plan for maintaining
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the Hillsborough-Polk Area
through 2032 into the SIP.
Lastly, approval of Florida's redesignation request for the
Mulberry Area would change the legal designation of the portion of Polk
County that is within the Mulberry Area, as found at 40 CFR part 81,
from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
X. Incorporation by Reference
EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference into Florida's SIP the following conditions from Permit No.
1050046-050-AC issued by FDEP to Mosaic Bartow with an effective date
of July 3, 2017: (1) Section III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 3
(as administratively corrected by Permit No. 1050046-063-AC with an
effective date of January 11, 2019); \35\ (2) Section
[[Page 47230]]
III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 4; \36\ and (3) Section III,
Subsection A, Specific Condition 5.\37\ In accordance with requirements
of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is also proposing to incorporate by reference into
Florida's SIP the following conditions from Permit No. 1050059-106-AC
issued by FDEP to Mosaic New Wales with an effective date of October
30, 2017: (1) Section III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 3; \38\ (2)
Section III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 4 (as administratively
corrected by Permit No. 1050059-114-AC with an effective date of
January 11, 2019); \39\ and (3) Section III, Subsection A, Specific
Condition 5.\40\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at EPA
Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ This provision states: ``SO2 Emissions Limit:
The following emission limit applies to the Sulfuric Acid Plant
(SAP) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5: a. When all five SAPs are in operation
within the same 24-hour block averaging period, a cap of 1,090 lb
SO2/hour, 24-hour block average (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.)
is applicable; and, b. The cap of 1,090 lb SO2/hour, 24-
hour block average (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) applies in scenarios
when any combination of any number of the SAPs are not in operation
and when any number of the SAPs are in operation. [Rules 62-4.030,
General Prohibition, F.A.C. & Rule 62-4.210, Construction Permits,
F.A.C.; Application No. 1050059-106-AC; and, Administrative Permit
Correction Application No. 1050059-114-AC.]''
\36\ This provision states: ``Initial Compliance: These emission
units shall use certified SO2 CEMS data to demonstrate
initial compliance with the new SO2 emission limit.
[Rules 62-4.070(1)&(3), Reasonable Assurance, F.A.C.; and,
Application Nos. 1050059-103-AC & 1050059-106-AC.]''
\37\ This provision states: ``Recordkeeping: The permittee shall
keep records of the initial compliance demonstration. The records
shall include the SO2 CEMS data along with the sulfuric
acid production rate (TPH, tons per hour) during the demonstration.
Any reports shall be prepared in accordance with the applicable
requirements specified in Appendix D (Common Testing Requirements)
of this permit. [Rule 62-297.310(10), F.A.C.; and, Application Nos.
1050059-103-AC & 1050059-106-AC.]''
\38\ This provision states: ``SO2 Emissions Limit:
The following emission limit applies to the Sulfuric Acid Plant
(SAP) Nos. 4, 5 & 6: a. When all five SAPs are in operation within
the same 24-hour block averaging period, a cap of 1,100 lb
SO2/hour, 24-hour block average (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.)
is applicable; and, b. The cap of 1,100 lb SO2/hour, 24-
hour block average (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) applies in scenarios
when any combination of any number of the SAPs are not in operation
and when any number of the SAPs are in operation. [Rules 62-4.030,
General Prohibition, F.A.C. & Rule 62-4.210, Construction Permits,
F.A.C.; Application No. 1050046-050-AC; and, Administrative Permit
Correction Application No. 1050046-063-AC.]''
\39\ This provision states: ``Initial Compliance: These emission
units shall use certified SO2 CEMS data to demonstrate
initial compliance with the new SO2 emission limit.
[Rules 62-4.070(1)&(3), Reasonable Assurance, F.A.C.; and,
Application No. 1050046-050-AC.]''
\40\ This provision states: ``Recordkeeping: The permittee shall
keep records of the initial compliance demonstration. The records
shall include the SO2 CEMS data along with the sulfuric
acid production rate (TPH, tons per hour) during the demonstration.
Any reports shall be prepared in accordance with the applicable
requirements specified in Appendix D (Common Testing Requirements)
of this permit. [Rule 62-297.310(10), F.A.C.; and, Application No.
1050046-050-AC.]''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XI. Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to approve SIP revisions provided by Florida
related to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve Florida's December 1, 2017, SIP revision (as
supplemented through the February 15, 2019, draft SIP revision) which
includes SO2 permit limits and associated compliance and
monitoring provisions for Mosaic New Wales and Mosaic Bartow. The
December 1, 2017, SIP revision also includes a modeling analysis to
demonstrate that the Hillsborough-Polk Area will attain the
SO2 NAAQS as a result of compliance with these permit
limits.
EPA is also proposing to approve, through parallel processing, a
draft February 15, 2019 request to redesignate the Hillsborough-Polk
Area to attainment for the SO2 NAAQS and associated SIP
revision containing the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 standard in that Area. Florida also
submitted draft SIP revisions on February 15, 2019, to revise the
modeling analysis in the 2017 SIP revision, provide a base-year
emissions inventory for the Area, and certify that the Area meets NNSR
requirements. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve, through
parallel processing, Florida's draft February 15, 2019 request to
redesignate the Mulberry Area to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS.
EPA is proposing to approve these requests and SIP revisions
because the Agency has made the preliminary determination that they
meet the requirements of the CAA.
XII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
as well as the redesignation of an area to attainment/unclassifiable
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment or to attainment/
unclassifiable does not in and of itself create any new requirements,
but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in
the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment or
attainment/unclassifiable, respectively. Moreover, 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, these proposed actions merely propose to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, these
proposed actions:
Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because redesignations and SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
Do not impose information collection burdens under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Are 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.);
Do not contain any unfunded mandates or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Are 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
Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
These proposed actions do not 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, these
proposed actions do not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
[[Page 47231]]
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping,
Sulfur dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 27, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-19413 Filed 9-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
