
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30749-30758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13892]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0624 & EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0623; FRL-9964-39-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; FL: Hillsborough and Nassau Areas; SO2 
Attainment Demonstration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, submitted by the State of 
Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL 
DEP), to EPA on April 3, 2015, for the purpose of providing for 
attainment of the 2010 primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the Hillsborough County and 
Nassau County SO2 nonattainment areas (hereafter referred to 
as the ``Hillsborough Area,'' ``Nassau Area,'' or ``Areas''). The 
Hillsborough Area is comprised of the portion of Hillsborough County in 
Florida surrounding the Mosaic Fertilizer facility (hereafter referred 
to as ``Mosaic''). The Nassau Area comprises the portion of Nassau 
County in Florida surrounding the Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC 
sulfite pulp mill (hereafter referred to as ``Rayonier''). EPA 
concludes that Florida has appropriately demonstrated that attainment 
with the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS will occur in the 
Nassau and Hillsborough Areas by the applicable attainment dates, and 
that the plans meet the other applicable requirements under the Clean 
Air Act (CAA or Act). As a part of approving the attainment 
demonstrations, EPA is taking final action to approve into the Florida 
SIP the SO2 emissions limits and associated compliance 
parameters for both Areas.

DATES: This rule will be effective August 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification Nos. EPA-R04-OAR-

[[Page 30750]]

2015-0623 and EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0624. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential 
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and 
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that, if at all possible, you 
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Twunjala Bradley, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides 
and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The 
telephone number is (404) 562-9352. Ms. Bradley can also be reached via 
electronic mail at bradley.twunjala@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 2, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary 
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an 
ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the 
annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not 
exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR 
part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On August 5, 
2013, EPA designated the first set of areas of the country as 
nonattainment for the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS, including the 
Hillsborough and Nassau Areas in Florida. See 78 FR 47191, codified at 
40 CFR part 81, subpart C. These area designations were effective 
October 4, 2013, which triggered a requirement for Florida to submit a 
SIP revision with a plan for how the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas 
would attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA 
sections 191-192. Section 191 of the CAA directs states to submit SIPs 
for areas designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS to 
EPA within 18 months of the effective date of the designation, i.e., by 
no later than April 4, 2015, in this case. Section 192 requires that 
such plans shall provide for NAAQS attainment as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than 5 years from the effective date of the 
nonattainment designation. Section 172(c) of part D of the CAA lists 
the required components of a nonattainment plan submittal. The base 
year emissions inventory (section 172(c)(3)) is required to show a 
``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory'' of all relevant 
pollutants in the nonattainment area. The nonattainment plan must 
identify and quantify any expected emissions from the construction of 
new sources to account for emissions in the area that might affect 
reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment, or that might 
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and it must 
provide for a nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program (section 
172(c)(5)). The attainment demonstration must include a modeling 
analysis showing that the enforceable emissions limitations and other 
control measures taken by the state will provide for reasonable further 
progress (RFP) and expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (section 
172(c)(2), (4), (6) and (7)). The nonattainment plan must include an 
analysis of the reasonably available control measures (RACM) 
considered, including reasonably available control technology (RACT) 
(section 172(c)(1)). Finally, the nonattainment plan must provide for 
contingency measures (section 172(c)(9)) to be implemented either in 
the case that RFP toward attainment is not made, or in the case that 
the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date.
    On April 23, 2014, EPA issued a guidance document entitled, 
``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP 
Submissions'' (SO2 Nonattainment Guidance). The 
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides recommendations for the 
development of SO2 nonattainment SIPs to satisfy CAA 
requirements (see, e.g., section 172 and 191-192). An attainment 
demonstration must also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and part 
51, appendix W, and include inventory data, modeling results, and 
emissions reduction analyses on which the state has based its projected 
attainment. The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance also provides 
states with the option to utilize emission limits with longer averaging 
times of up to 30 days so long as the state meets various suggested 
criteria to ensure attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.
    Florida submitted attainment demonstrations for both Areas on April 
3, 2015. On August 23, 2016, EPA proposed to approve Florida's April 3, 
2015, SO2 attainment demonstrations, which included all the 
specific attainment elements mentioned above and new SO2 
emission limits with averaging times longer than the 1-hour form of the 
primary SO2 NAAQS for the Mosaic-Riverview fertilizer plant 
and the Tampa Electric Company's (TECO's) Big Bend electric generating 
source impacting the Hillsborough Area, and for Rayonier sulfite pulp 
mill and WestRock CP, LLC kraft pulp mill sources impacting the Nassau 
Area in accordance with the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. See 
81 FR 57522 and 81 FR 57535. Comments on the proposed rulemakings were 
due on or before September 23, 2016. EPA received three sets of 
comments on the proposed approval of Florida's SO2 SIP 
revision for the Hillsborough Area, and one set of comments on the 
proposed approval of Florida's SO2 SIP for the Nassau Area. 
The comments are available in the docket for this final rulemaking 
action. EPA's summary of the comments and responses are provided below. 
For a comprehensive discussion of Florida's SO2 attainment 
SIP and EPA's analysis and rationale for approval for both Areas, 
please refer to the August 23, 2016, proposed rulemakings. The 
remainder of this preamble summarizes EPA's final approval of Florida's 
SO2 attainment demonstrations for both areas and response to 
comments.

II. Response to Comments

    The three sets of comments for the proposed approval of the SIP 
revision for the Hillsborough Area were from the Arizona Mining 
Association (AMA), Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, INC. 
(FCG), and Tampa Electric Company (TECO). The single set of comments 
for the proposed approval of the SIP revision for the Nassau Area was 
received from the AMA. EPA will refer to the AMA, FCG, and TECO 
Commenters collectively as ``the Commenter(s).'' Notably, the 
Commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed approvals of Florida's 
SO2 SIP revisions for the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas. 
Additionally, the Commenters also provided other related comments for 
which EPA is taking the opportunity to respond in this final 
rulemaking. To review the complete sets of comments received, refer to 
the dockets for this rulemaking as identified

[[Page 30751]]

above. A summary of the comments received and EPA's responses are 
provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter references a revised study conducted by 
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) dated January 
2016 which asserts that AERMOD over-predicts at the level of the 
standard when compared to actual monitored data. IDEM's study compared 
predicted and observed SO2 concentrations at the Gibson 
Power Plant in southwestern Indiana. The Commenter claims that the 
IDEM's study showed AERMOD may ``grossly over-estimate site specific 
monitoring data.'' The Commenter states that the study assessed model-
predicted ambient concentrations at the monitor receptor points and 
compared it to actual hourly monitor concentrations. The Commenter 
argues that the study showed that when the projected SO2 
concentrations were 35 ppb or higher, AERMOD over-predicted ambient 
impacts by more than a factor of two in nearly 84 percent of the cases 
based on offsite meteorological conditions and in nearly 25 percent of 
the cases when onsite meteorology was considered. The Commenter also 
asserts that AERMOD under-predicted the actual site monitored data in 
less than 1 percent of the cases. The Commenter concludes that the IDEM 
study suggests that TECO's modeled allowable limit at Big Bend station 
is likely over-estimated.
    Response 1: First, EPA believes that the Commenter's objection is 
not germane to our proposed approval of the Florida SIP, and raises 
objections that are both outside the scope of our approval action and 
not averse to it. Second, EPA notes that the IDEM modeling study is a 
seriously flawed analysis and disagrees that it indicates poor model 
performance by AERMOD as a general matter. Most notably, the report 
compares modeled SO2 levels expressed in [mu]g/m\3\ against 
monitored values expressed in ppb. EPA made IDEM aware of the 
discrepancy in concentration units in fall 2015. A more appropriate 
assessment of this model-monitor comparison, as discussed, for example, 
in an article in the Journal of the Air and Waste Management 
Association by Kali Frost of IDEM, published April 9, 2014, shows that 
AERMOD results match monitoring data relatively closely. Also, as part 
of the proposed revisions to The Guideline on Air Quality Modeling in 
2015 and finalized in 2016, EPA performed an evaluation on the use of 
prognostic meteorological data for input into AERMOD. Part of this 
evaluation included the same Gibson study as in the Frost 2014 paper 
and the IDEM study. As with the Frost 2014 paper, the results of the 
EPA evaluation indicated good model performance for AERMOD. The 
evaluation can be found in the EPA Technical Support Document, 
Evaluation of Prognostic Meteorological Data in AERMOD Applications 
(EPA-454/R-16-004). Additionally, the Commenter does not offer any 
specific technical evidence or documentation that the attainment 
modeling for the Hillsborough Area over predicts estimated site 
monitoring concentration nor explains how the SO2 
characterization of the area in the IDEM study applies to the 
Hillsborough Area. Furthermore, notwithstanding stated concerns about 
the model, the Commenter concludes that the SO2 emission 
limits established for the TECO Big Bend Station are ``appropriate to 
ensure attainment with SO2 NAAQS and provides the 
operational flexibility to ensure a reliable power supply to the Tampa 
Bay area.'' EPA agrees that the modeling conducted for Florida's 
attainment plan submission provided results that support the emission 
limitations developed by the state for the particular sources at issue 
in this action.
    Comment 2: The Commenters state that EPA did not explicitly clarify 
its legal authority to approve the Florida attainment plan SIP 
submissions with longer-term averaging times for emission limits for 
the Rayonier and WestRock sources in the Nassau Area; and Mosaic and 
TECO facilities in the Hillsborough Area. The Commenters suggest EPA 
clearly explain the legal authority under which it can approve the 
longer term emission limitations contained in the proposed attainment 
SIPs for each respective area as well as update the 2014 nonattainment 
guidance with additional analysis to support the ``probabilistic'' 
approach to developing such emission limits. The Commenters, 
nevertheless, agreed with EPA that it is appropriate to approve 
SO2 emission limitations with a 30-day averaging period and 
a 24-hour averaging period for the TECO and Mosaic facilities, 
respectively, as part of the Hillsborough Area 1-hour SO2 
attainment SIP. The Commenters also agreed with EPA that it is 
appropriate to approve SO2 emission limitations with a 3-
hour averaging period for both the Rayonier and WestRock facilities as 
part of the Nassau Area 1-hour SO2 attainment SIP. The 
Commenters state that EPA's approval of Florida's attainment plan with 
emission limitations that have longer-term averaging periods is a 
``reasonable and technically justified approach that is consistent with 
the purposes of the CAA.'' The Commenters maintain that EPA's approach 
is ``scientifically defensible and reflects EPA's sound judgment 
regarding how to calculate a longer-term emissions limit that is 
comparably stringent to the critical emission value.'' The Commenters 
believe that the longer-term limits are no more likely to cause a NAAQS 
exceedance than an hourly limit set at the critical emission value 
because both are determined by the same air modeling approach and 
calculated to be comparably stringent and provide for operational 
flexibility to ensure a reliable production of electricity.
    Response 2: EPA appreciates the Commenter's observation regarding 
the appropriateness of approving attainment plans with emission 
limitations that apply over a longer time period than the 1-hour form 
of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As mentioned above, CAA section 
172(c) directs states with areas designated as nonattainment to 
demonstrate that the submitted attainment plan provides for attainment 
of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further delineates the control 
strategy requirements that SIPs must meet, and EPA has long required 
that all control strategies in attainment plans reflect four 
fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability, 
replicability, and accountability. See ``State Implementation Plans; 
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule,'' 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) 
(General Preamble), at 13567-68. Additional guidance is provided in the 
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. For SO2, there are 
generally two components needed to support an attainment determination 
submitted under section 172(c): (1) Emission limitations and other 
control measures that assure implementation of permanent, enforceable 
and necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling analysis that meets 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W which demonstrates that 
these emission limitations and control measures provide for timely 
attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as 
practicable, but by no later than the applicable attainment date for 
the affected area. In all cases, the emission limitations and control 
measures must be accompanied by appropriate methods and conditions to 
determine compliance with the respective emission limitations and 
control measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., a specific amount of 
emission reduction can be ascribed to

[[Page 30752]]

the measures), fully enforceable (specifying clear, unambiguous and 
measurable requirements for which compliance can be practicably 
determined), replicable (the procedures for determining compliance are 
sufficiently specific and non-subjective so that two independent 
entities applying the procedures would obtain the same result), and 
accountable (source specific limitations must be permanent and must 
reflect the assumptions used in the SIP demonstrations).
    In the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance EPA notes that past 
Agency guidance has recommended that averaging times in SIP emissions 
limitations should not exceed the averaging time of the applicable 
NAAQS that the limit is intended to help attain (e.g., addressing 
emissions averaged over one or three hours), but also describes the 
option to utilize emission limitations with longer averaging times of 
up to 30 days, so long as the state meets various suggested criteria. 
See SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, pp. 22 to 39. The guidance 
recommends that--should states elect to use longer averaging times--the 
longer term average limit should be set at an adjusted level that 
reflects a stringency comparable to the 1-hour average limit at the 
critical emission value shown to provide for attainment that the plan 
otherwise would have set.
    The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance provides an extensive 
discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that appropriately set 
comparably stringent limitations based on averaging times as long as 30 
days can be found to provide for attainment of the 2010 primary 
SO2 NAAQS. In evaluating this option, EPA considered the 
nature of the standard, conducted detailed analyses of the impact of 
the use of 30-day average limits on the prospects for attaining the 
standard, and carefully reviewed how best to achieve an appropriate 
balance among the various factors that warrant consideration in judging 
whether a state's attainment plan provides for attainment. Id. at pp. 
22 to 39. See also id. at Appendices B, C and D.
    As specified in 40 CFR 50.17(b), the 1-hour primary SO2 
NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year 
average of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour 
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb. In a year with 365 days 
of valid monitoring data, the 99th percentile would be the fourth 
highest daily maximum 1-hour value. The 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 
including this form of determining compliance with the standard, was 
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit in Nat'l Envt'l Dev. Ass'n's Clean Air Project v. EPA, 686 F.3d 
803 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Because the standard has this form, a single 
exceedance of the numerical limit of 75 ppb does not constitute a 
violation of the standard. Instead, at issue is whether a source 
operating in compliance with a properly set longer term average could 
cause exceedances, and if so the resulting frequency and magnitude of 
such exceedances, and in particular whether EPA can have reasonable 
confidence that a properly set longer term average limit will provide 
that the average fourth highest daily maximum value will be at or below 
75 ppb. A synopsis of EPA's review of how to judge whether such plans 
``provide for attainment,'' based on modeling of projected allowable 
emissions and in light of the NAAQS' form for determining attainment at 
monitoring sites, follows.
    For plans for SO2 attainment based on 1-hour emission 
limits, the standard approach is to conduct modeling using fixed 
emission rates. The maximum emission rate that would be modeled to 
result in attainment (i.e., in an ``average year'' \1\ shows three, not 
four days with maximum hourly levels exceeding 75 ppb) is labeled the 
``critical emission value.'' The modeling process for identifying this 
critical emission value inherently considers the numerous variables 
that affect ambient concentrations of SO2, such as 
meteorological data, background concentrations, and topography. In the 
standard approach, the state would then provide for attainment by 
setting a continuously applicable 1-hour emission limitation at this 
critical emission value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ An ``average year'' is used to mean a year with average air 
quality. While 40 CFR 50 appendix T provides for averaging three 
years of 99th percentile daily maximum values (e.g., the fourth 
highest maximum daily concentration in a year with 365 days with 
valid data), this discussion and an example below uses a single 
``average year'' in order to simplify the illustration of relevant 
principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes that some sources may have highly variable 
emissions, for example due to variations in fuel sulfur content and 
operating rate, that can make it extremely difficult, even with a well-
designed control strategy, to ensure in practice that emissions for any 
given hour do not exceed the critical emission value. EPA also 
acknowledges the concern that longer term emission limits can allow 
short periods with emissions above the critical emission value, which, 
if coincident with meteorological conditions conducive to high 
SO2 concentrations, could in turn create the possibility of 
a NAAQS exceedance occurring on a day when an exceedance would not have 
occurred if emissions were continuously controlled at the level 
corresponding to the critical emission value. However, for several 
reasons, EPA believes that the approach recommended in its guidance 
document suitably addresses this concern. First, from a practical 
perspective, EPA expects the actual emission profile of a source 
subject to an appropriately set longer term average limit to be similar 
to the emission profile of a source subject to an analogous 1-hour 
average limit. EPA expects this similarity because it has recommended 
that the longer term average limit be set at a level that is comparably 
stringent to the otherwise applicable 1-hour limit (reflecting a 
downward adjustment from the critical emission value) and that takes 
the source's emissions profile into account. As a result, EPA expects 
either form of emission limit to yield comparable air quality.
    Second, from a more theoretical perspective, EPA has compared the 
likely air quality with a source having maximum allowable emissions 
under an appropriately set longer term limit, as compared to the likely 
air quality with the source having maximum allowable emissions under 
the comparable 1-hour limit. In this comparison, in the 1-hour average 
limit scenario, the source is presumed at all times to emit at the 
critical emission level, and in the longer term average limit scenario, 
the source is presumed occasionally to emit more than the critical 
emission value but on average, and presumably at most times, to emit 
well below the critical emission value. In an ``average year,'' 
compliance with the 1-hour limit is expected to result in three 
exceedance days (i.e., three days with hourly values above 75 ppb) and 
a fourth day with a maximum hourly value at 75 ppb. By comparison, with 
the source complying with a longer term limit, it is possible that 
additional exceedances would occur that would not occur in the 1-hour 
limit scenario (if emissions exceed the critical emission value at 
times when meteorology is conducive to poor air quality). However, this 
comparison must also factor in the likelihood that exceedances that 
would be expected in the 1-hour limit scenario would not occur in the 
longer term limit scenario. This result arises because the longer term 
limit requires lower emissions most of the time (because the limit is 
set well below the critical emission value), so a source complying with 
an appropriately set longer term limit is likely to have lower 
emissions at critical times than would be the case

[[Page 30753]]

if the source were emitting as allowed with a 1-hour limit.
    As a hypothetical example to illustrate these points, suppose a 
source that always emits 1000 pounds of SO2 per hour, which 
results in air quality at the level of the NAAQS (i.e., results in a 
design value of 75 ppb). Suppose further that in an ``average year,'' 
these emissions cause the 5 highest maximum daily average 1-hour 
concentrations to be 100 ppb, 90 ppb, 80 ppb, 75 ppb, and 70 ppb. Then 
suppose that the source becomes subject to a 30-day average emission 
limit of 700 pounds per hour. It is theoretically possible for a source 
meeting this limit to have emissions that occasionally exceed 1000 
pounds per hour, but with a typical emissions profile emissions would 
much more commonly be between 600 and 800 pounds per hour. In this 
simplified example, assume a zero background concentration, which 
allows one to assume a linear relationship between emissions and air 
quality. (A nonzero background concentration would make the mathematics 
more difficult but would give similar results.) Air quality will depend 
on what emissions happen on what critical hours, but suppose that 
emissions at the relevant times on these 5 days are 800 pounds/hour, 
1100 pounds per hour, 500 pounds per hour, 900 pounds per hour, and 
1200 pounds per hour, respectively. (This is a conservative example 
because the average of these emissions, 900 pounds per hour, is well 
over the 30-day average emission limit.) These emissions would result 
in daily maximum 1-hour concentrations of 80 ppb, 99 ppb, 40 ppb, 67.5 
ppb, and 84 ppb. In this example, the fifth day would have an 
exceedance that would not otherwise have occurred, but the third and 
fourth days would not have exceedances that otherwise would have 
occurred. In this example, the fourth highest maximum daily 
concentration under the 30-day average would be 67.5 ppb.
    This simplified example illustrates the findings of a more 
complicated statistical analysis that EPA conducted using a range of 
scenarios using actual plant data. As described in appendix B of the 
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, EPA found that the requirement 
for lower average emissions is highly likely to yield better air 
quality than is required with a comparably stringent 1-hour limit. 
Based on analyses described in appendix B, EPA expects that an emission 
profile with maximum allowable emissions under an appropriately set 
comparably stringent 30-day average limit is likely to have the net 
effect of having a lower number of exceedances and better air quality 
than an emission profile with maximum allowable emissions under a 1-
hour emission limit at the critical emission value. This result 
provides a compelling policy rationale for allowing the use of a longer 
averaging period, in appropriate circumstances where the facts indicate 
this result can be expected to occur.
    The question then becomes whether this approach--which is likely to 
produce a lower number of overall exceedances even though it may 
produce some unexpected exceedances above the critical emission value--
meets the requirement in sections 110(a) and 172(c) for state 
implementation plans to ``provide for attainment'' of the NAAQS. For 
SO2, as for other pollutants, it is generally impossible to 
design a nonattainment plan in the present that will guarantee that 
attainment will occur in the future. A variety of factors can cause a 
well-designed attainment plan to fail and unexpectedly not result in 
attainment, for example if meteorology occurs that is more conducive to 
poor air quality than was anticipated in the plan. Therefore, in 
determining whether a plan meets the requirement to provide for 
attainment, EPA's task is commonly to judge not whether the plan 
provides absolute certainty that attainment will in fact occur, but 
rather whether the plan provides an adequate level of confidence of 
prospective NAAQS attainment. From this perspective, in evaluating use 
of a 30-day average limit, EPA must weigh the likely net effect on air 
quality. Such an evaluation must consider the risk that occasions with 
meteorology conducive to high concentrations will have elevated 
emissions leading to exceedances that would not otherwise have 
occurred, and must also weigh the likelihood that the requirement for 
lower emissions on average will result in days not having exceedances 
that would have been expected with emissions at the critical emission 
value. Additional policy considerations, such as in this case the 
desirability of accommodating real world emissions variability without 
significant risk of violations, are also appropriate factors for EPA to 
weigh in judging whether a plan provides a reasonable degree of 
confidence that the plan will lead to attainment. Based on these 
considerations, especially given the high likelihood that a 
continuously enforceable limit averaged over as long as 30 days, 
determined in accordance with EPA's guidance, will result in 
attainment, EPA believes as a general matter that such limits, if 
appropriately determined, can reasonably be considered to provide for 
attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    For these reasons, the Commenter's statement that ``the longer-term 
limits are no more likely to cause a NAAQS exceedance than an hourly 
limit set at the critical emission value'' is not perfectly consistent 
with the EPA's position. Presuming that the Commenter means to speak of 
NAAQS violations rather than single exceedances of the level of the 
NAAQS, the use of longer-term limits creates an arguable (albeit 
minimal) risk of violations that nominally does not exist with short-
term limits, even though compliance with an appropriately adjusted 
longer-term limit is likely to yield fewer exceedances of the level of 
the NAAQS than compliance with a short-term limit. Thus, the 
Commenter's statement misrepresents EPA's rationale for approving the 
longer-term average limits in Florida's plans as providing for 
attainment.
    The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance offers specific 
recommendations for determining an appropriate longer term average 
limit. The recommended method starts with determination of the 1-hour 
emission limit that would provide for attainment (i.e., the critical 
emission value), and applies an adjustment factor to determine the 
(lower) level of the longer term average emission limit that would be 
estimated to have a stringency comparable to the otherwise necessary 1-
hour emission limit. This method uses a database of continuous emission 
data reflecting the type of control that the source will be using to 
comply with the SIP emission limits, which (if compliance requires new 
controls) may require use of an emission database from another source. 
The recommended method involves using these data to compute a complete 
set of emission averages, computed according to the averaging time and 
averaging procedures of the prospective emission limitation. In this 
recommended method, the ratio of the 99th percentile among these long 
term averages to the 99th percentile of the 1-hour values represents an 
adjustment factor that may be multiplied by the candidate 1-hour 
emission limit to determine a longer term average emission limit that 
may be considered comparably stringent.\2\ The guidance also addresses 
a variety of related topics, such as the potential utility of setting 
supplemental emission limits, such as mass-based limits, to reduce the

[[Page 30754]]

likelihood and/or magnitude of elevated emission levels that might 
occur under the longer term emission rate limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example, if the critical emission value is 1000 pounds 
of SO2 per hour, and a suitable adjustment factor is 
determined to be 70 percent, the recommended longer term average 
limit would be 700 pounds per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are 
described in appendix A of EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 
CFR part 51, appendix W).\3\ In 2005, EPA promulgated AERMOD as the 
Agency's preferred near-field dispersion modeling for a wide range of 
regulatory applications addressing stationary sources (for example in 
estimating SO2 concentrations) in all types of terrain based 
on extensive developmental and performance evaluation. Supplemental 
guidance on modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the 
SO2 standard is provided in appendix A to the SO2 
Nonattainment Guidance document referenced above. Appendix A provides 
extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the source inputs, assorted 
types of meteorological data, and background concentrations. 
Consistency with the recommendations in this guidance is generally 
necessary for the attainment demonstration to offer adequately reliable 
assurance that the plan provides for attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The most recent version of the Guideline on Air Quality 
Models (40 CFR part 51) was published in the Federal Register, 82 FR 
5182, on January 17, 2017 with an effective date of May 22, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour 
primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment and 
maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment 
(i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality 
dispersion modeling (see appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) to show that the 
mix of sources and enforceable control measures and emission rates in 
an identified area will not lead to a violation of the SO2 
NAAQS. For a short-term (i.e., 1-hour) standard, EPA believes that 
dispersion modeling, using allowable emissions and addressing 
stationary sources in the affected area (and in some cases those 
sources located outside the nonattainment area which may affect 
attainment in the area) is technically appropriate, efficient and 
effective in demonstrating attainment in nonattainment areas because it 
takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and emission 
source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level 
concentrations of SO2.
    The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be 
processed with the most recent version of AERMET. Estimated 
concentrations should include ambient background concentrations, should 
follow the form of the standard, and should be calculated as described 
in section 2.6.1.2 of the August 23, 2010, clarification memo on 
``Applicability of appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-hr 
SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (U.S. EPA, 
2010a).
    The Commenters state that EPA's approval of Florida's attainment 
plans with emission limitations that have longer-term averaging periods 
is a ``reasonable and technically justified approach that is consistent 
with the purposes of the CAA.'' The Commenters maintain that EPA's 
approach is ``scientifically defensible and reflects EPA's sound 
judgment regarding how to calculate a longer-term emissions limit that 
is comparably stringent to the critical emission value.''
    Based on a review of the state's submittal, the EPA believes that 
the longer average limits established for Rayonier and WestRock in the 
Nassau Area and Mosaic and TECO in the Hillsborough Area provide for a 
suitable alternative to establishing a 1-hour average emission limit 
for these sources. Florida used a suitable data profile in an 
appropriate manner and has thereby applied an appropriate adjustment, 
yielding emission limits that have comparable stringency to the 1-hour 
average limit that the state determined would otherwise have been 
necessary to provide for attainment. While the longer-term averaging 
limits allow occasions in which emissions may be higher than the level 
that would be allowed with the 1-hour limit, the state's limits 
compensate by requiring average emissions to be lower than the level 
that would otherwise have been required by a 1-hour average limit. See 
FL DEP's April 4, 2015 attainment SIPs for both areas in the docket for 
this final action (EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0624 & EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0623).
    Comment 3: The Commenter makes several statements regarding the use 
of emissions limitations with longer averaging periods as a means of 
addressing emissions from sources during startup, shutdown and 
malfunction (SSM) activities. The commenter states that during periods 
of operating variability, including startup and shutdown, there is a 
possibility of short periods of SO2 emissions that would be 
greater than the critical emission value, but the commenter claims that 
due to their relatively short duration, infrequent occurrence, and the 
low probability of such periods occurring simultaneously with 
unfavorable meteorological conditions, these emissions would be very 
unlikely to cause exceedances of the NAAQS. The Commenter further 
asserts that recent court decisions requiring continuous compliance 
with emission limitations, without exemptions for emissions during SSM 
events \4\ and without affirmative defenses for excess emissions during 
SSM events,\5\ do not affect EPA's authority to allow emission 
limitations with longer averaging periods in attainment plans. The 
Commenter also argues that a single, continuous emission limitation 
that applies to the facility at all times, but with a longer term 
average as in this case, provides for ``more coherent compliance 
procedures'' than other approaches such as different emission 
limitations or work practice standards that apply only during startup 
and shutdown periods. The Commenter asserts that EPA's approval of an 
emission limitation with a longer-term averaging period is the only 
practical way to implement the requirement for continuous compliance 
given the reality that sources vary in their operation during the 
course of a full year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \5\ NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 3: EPA agrees with the Commenter that the Agency can 
approve emission limitations that are based on averaging times that are 
longer than the 1-hour form of the SO2 NAAQS, provided that 
they have been demonstrated to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS and that they meet other requirements for valid SIP provisions. 
As explained in the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, if periods 
of hourly emissions above the critical emissions value are a rare 
occurrence at a source, and particularly if the magnitude of the 
emissions, in terms of the emissions rate for each hour in that period, 
is not substantially higher than the critical emissions value, those 
periods would be unlikely to have a significant impact on air quality, 
insofar as they would be very unlikely to occur repeatedly at the times 
when the meteorology is conducive to high ambient concentrations of 
SO2. EPA also notes that the Agency has provided the 
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance to assist states and tribes 
specifically in the development of attainment plans to address specific 
issues and challenges relevant to the 2010 1-hour primary 
SO2 NAAQS. In this final action, EPA is approving SIP 
provisions that impose emission limitations with longer term averaging 
periods because SO2 is a pollutant having characteristics 
that allow this approach to ensuring attainment of the primary 1-hour 
standard, as discussed above. EPA continues to believe that the use of

[[Page 30755]]

longer term averages will not be necessary for sources whose emissions 
exhibit a low degree of variability and also notes that the approach is 
not necessarily transferable to other sources, pollutants, or NAAQS 
with different forms. EPA also notes that the appropriate duration of 
an averaging period in a SIP provision must take into consideration 
factors such as the nature of the regulated sources, the purpose of the 
emission limitation in the SIP provision, and the adequacy of the 
recordkeeping, reporting, and monitoring requirements necessary to make 
the emission limitation practically and legally enforceable. For 
example, a longer averaging period may require continuous emissions 
monitoring (CEMs) in order to provide adequate monitoring of emissions, 
as is the case in the SO2 emission limitations at issue in 
this action.
    However, the issue of whether the use of a longer term average 
limit is the only way under which sources could meet the 1-hour NAAQS 
and account for variability during startup and shutdown periods is not 
raised by Florida's SIP submittals, and EPA need not reach a conclusion 
on that issue here in approving Florida's SIP submittals.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    Pursuant to CAA sections 110, 172, 191 and 192, EPA is taking final 
action to approve Florida's attainment plan SIP revisions for the 
Hillsborough and Nassau Areas, as submitted through FL DEP to EPA on 
April 3, 2015, for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is approving 
SO2 emission limitations and compliance parameters 
established by the state applicable to the Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC 
Riverview plant and TECO's Big Bend electric generating facility for 
the Hillsborough Area; and the Rayonier sulfite pulp mill and WestRock 
CP, LLC kraft pulp mill for the Nassau Area. The state determined that 
controls for SO2 emissions at Rayonier (i.e. increasing the 
stack height from the existing level of 110 feet to at least 165 feet 
for vent gas scrubber EU 005) are appropriate in the Nassau Area for 
purposes of attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and asserted that 
these controls represent RACM/RACT. Florida also proposed a 
supplemental control strategy for the WestRock facility including 
physical and operational changes to the four largest SO2 
emitting units at the facility.\6\ For sources in the Hillsborough NAA, 
the state required by permit physical and operational changes to the 
three sulfuric acid plants (SAP) at the Mosaic facility including 
increased stack heights and upgrades to the SAP catalyst to meet the 
SO2 emission limit caps. Additionally, Mosaic is required to 
eliminate fuel oil use by January 1, 2018 except for periods of natural 
gas curtailment or disruption. For TECO, FL DEP required by permit that 
the facility undergo an operational change to increase the 
SO2 removal efficiencies of the existing flue gas 
desulfurization systems for its four fossil fuel-fired steam generators 
to meet the collective enforceable emission limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FLDEP does not assert that control strategy for WestRock 
constitute ``the lowest emission limitation that a particular source 
is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that 
is reasonably available considering technological and economic 
feasibility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Florida 
attainment plan for both the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas includes: An 
emissions inventory for SO2 for the plan's base year (2011) 
and a 2018 projected emissions inventory; and an attainment 
demonstration. The attainment demonstration for each Area includes: 
Technical analyses that locate, identify, and quantify sources of 
emissions contributing to violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS; a declaration that FL DEP is unaware of any future growth in the 
area that would be subject to CAA 173, and the assertion that the NNSR 
program approved in the SIP at Section 62-252.500, Florida 
Administrative Code (F.A.C.) would account for any such growth; a 
modeling analysis utilizing an emissions control strategy for Mosaic 
and TECO in the Hillsborough Area, and Rayonier and WestRock in Nassau 
Area, that shows attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS by the 
October 4, 2018, attainment date; a determination that the control 
strategies for the primary SO2 sources within the 
nonattainment area constitute RACM/RACT; adherence to a construction 
schedule to ensure emissions reductions are achieved as expeditiously 
as practicable; a request from FL DEP that emissions reduction measures 
including system upgrades and/or emissions limitations with schedules 
for implementation and compliance parameters be incorporated into the 
SIP; and contingency measures in the event the two Areas fail to make 
reasonable further progress or do not attain the SO2 NAAQS 
by the attainment date.\7\ Lastly, FL DEP established new 
SO2 emission limits for the SO2 sources impacting 
the Hillsborough Area (i.e., Mosaic and TECO), and Nassau Area (i.e., 
Rayonier and WestRock), in accordance with EPA's SO2 
Nonattainment Guidance. For the Nassau Area, FL DEP established new 
SO2 emission limitations for all three primary controlled 
units (EU 005, 006 and 022) based on a 3-hour rolling average. Pursuant 
to the conditions of the construction permit (No. 0890004-036-AC), 
Rayonier will increase the stack height from the existing level of 110 
ft to at least 165 ft for vent gas scrubber EU 005 and comply with 
specific SO2 emission limits based on a 3-hour rolling 
average as determined by CEMS data. SO2 emissions and 
ambient impacts from the facility by Rayonier's allowable 
SO2 emissions (total from sum of all three controlled units) 
will be reduced from 836.5 lb/hr to 502.3 lb/hr, representing a 40 
percent decrease. The Rayonier emission limitations for all three 
controlled units were established in a federally-enforceable air 
construction permit (No. 0890004-036-AC) and incorporated into the 
title V operating permit (No. 0890004-042-AV). These source specific 
requirements are also being incorporated into the SIP with this final 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ General Conformity pursuant to CAA section 176(c) requires 
that actions by federal agencies do not cause new air quality issues 
or delay or interfere with attainment of a NAAQS. With respect to 
both nonattainment areas, federal agencies must work with the state 
to ensure that federal actions conform to the air quality plans 
established in the applicable SIP that ensures attainment of the 
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the conditions of the construction permit (No. 0890003-
046-AC), WestRock will reduce SO2 emissions and ambient 
impacts from the facility by upgrading the combustion air system for 
recovery boilers, adding a white liquor scrubber system, and 
construction of a non-condensable gas pipeline to the No. 7 Power 
Boiler. WestRock's allowable SO2 emissions from EU 006, the 
power boiler No. 5, will be reduced from 550 lb/hr to 15 lb/hr 
representing a 97 percent decrease. These source specific requirements 
were included in a federally-enforceable permit and are being 
incorporated into the SIP through this final action. Compliance with 
the new emission limitations for both sources will be demonstrated by 
certified CEMs data.
    Pursuant to the conditions of the construction permit No. 0570008-
080-AC, Mosaic will reduce SO2 emissions and ambient impacts 
from the facility by eliminating the use of fuel oil at the plant 
except during periods of natural gas curtailment or disruption, 
changing the catalysts in the converters in sulfuric acid plants Nos. 
7, 8, and 9 (which will lower SO2 emissions while not 
increasing sulfuric acid mist emissions; existing permitted production 
capacities of the sulfuric acid plants will remain unchanged); increase 
the stack height of each sulfuric

[[Page 30756]]

acid plant to no lower than 65 meters (213.25 feet), which is 
equivalent to approximately a 60-foot increase per stack and comply 
with specific SO2 emissions caps based on a 24-hour average 
as determined by CEMs data. Mosaic's new SO2 emission 
limitations will reduce the allowable SO2 emissions from all 
three sulfuric acid plants collectively from 1140 lb/hr to a maximum of 
575 lb/hr as a block 24-hour average. These emission limits cover 
various operating scenarios, including individual unit emissions 
limits, which remain unchanged from the current permit, along with two-
unit and three-unit total limits. These new emission limitations were 
included in the federally-enforceable construction permit No. 0570008-
080-AC and will be incorporated into the title V permit upon renewal. 
These requirements are also being incorporated into the SIP in this 
final action.
    Pursuant to the conditions of the construction permit No. 0570039-
074-AC, TECO will reduce SO2 emissions and ambient impacts 
from the facility by replacing existing fuel igniters and associated 
equipment to allow specified units to burn natural gas instead of fuel 
oil during startup, shutdown, and flame stabilization and comply with 
an SO2 emissions cap of 3,162 lbs/hour based on a 30-day 
rolling average for all fossil-fuel-fired electrical generating units 
(Units 1-4 combined). TECO's new combined allowable SO2 
emissions from TECO EUs 001-004 will be reduced from 6587.6 lb/hr 
(based on total individual unit emission limits) to 3,162 lb/hr, 
representing a 52 percent decrease. TECO's new SO2 emission 
limit became effective June 1, 2016, as required in the federally-
enforceable air construction permit (No. 0570039-074-AC), and is also 
being incorporated into the SIP in this final action. Compliance with 
the new emission limitations for both sources will be demonstrated by 
certified CEMs data.
    EPA has determined that the attainment plans for SO2 for 
the Nassau and Hillsborough Areas meet the applicable requirements of 
sections 110, 172 and 191-192 of the CAA. Thus, EPA is taking final 
action to approve Florida's attainment plans for both Areas including 
the specific SO2 emission limits and compliance parameters 
established for the two SO2 point sources impacting the 
Nassau Area (Rayonier and WestRock) and the two sources affecting the 
Hillsborough Area (Mosaic and TECO). EPA's analysis of both attainment 
SIPs are discussed in detail in EPA's August 23, 2016, proposed 
rulemakings. See 81 FR 57522 and 81 FR 57535.
    EPA finds that appropriately set longer term average limits provide 
a reasonable basis by which nonattainment plans may provide for 
attainment. Based on its review of this general information as well as 
the particular information in Florida's April 3, 2015, attainment SIP, 
the EPA believes, that the 24-hour and 30-day average limits for Mosaic 
and TECO respectively for the Hillsborough Area and the 3-hour average 
limit for WestRock and Rayonier in the Nassau Area provide for 
attainment of the 1-hour SO2 standard.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes 
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference into Florida's 
SIP the specified, new operating parameters, SO2 emission 
caps, compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
for emission units EU004, EU005 and EU006 at Mosaic (Permit No. 
0570008-080-AC), EU001, EU002, EU003, EU004 at TECO (Permit No. 
0570039-074-AC), EU005, EU006 and EU002 at Rayonier (Permit No. 
0890004-036-AC) and EU006, EU015, EU007 and EU011 at WestRock (Permit 
No. 0890003-046-AC). The SO2 emission standards specified in 
each permit are the basis for the SO2 attainment 
demonstration in the SIP.
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion 
in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, 
are fully federally-enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA 
as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and 
will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal 
Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\8\ EPA has made, 
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through 
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's SO2 
attainment plans for the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas. EPA has 
determined that both attainment SIPs meet the applicable requirements 
of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is approving Florida's April 3, 2015, SIP 
submissions, which include the base year emissions inventory, a 
modeling demonstration of SO2 attainment, an analysis of 
RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency measures for both nonattainment 
Areas. Additionally, EPA is approving into the Florida SIP specific 
SO2 emission limits with longer-term averaging times and 
operating and compliance parameters established for the two sets of 
SO2 point sources impacting the Nassau and Hillsborough 
Areas. EPA has concluded that Florida has appropriately demonstrated 
that attainment with the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS will 
occur in the Hillsborough and Nassau Areas by the applicable attainment 
dates, and that the plans meet the applicable requirements under 
sections 110, 172, and 191-192 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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);

[[Page 30757]]

     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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by September 1, 2017. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 16, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (d), adding four new entries for ``Mosaic Fertilizer, 
LLC,'' ``Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC,'' ``Tampa Electric Company--
Big Bend Station,'' and ``WestRock, LLC'' at the end of the table.
0
b. In paragraph (e), adding two new entries for ``2010 1-hour 
SO2 Attainment Demonstration for the Hillsborough Area'' and 
``2010 1-hour SO2 Attainment Demonstration for the Nassau 
Area'' at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                EPA Approved Florida Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          Name of source                Permit No.      effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC...........  Air Permit No.            1/15/2015  7/3/2017 [Insert     Specific Conditions
                                    0570008-080-AC.                      citation of          pertaining to:
                                                                         publication].        EU004; EU005; and
                                                                                              EU006.
Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC.  Air Permit No.            4/12/2012  7/3/2017 [Insert     Specific Conditions
                                    0890004-036-AC.                      citation of          pertaining to:
                                                                         publication].        EU005; EU006; and
                                                                                              EU022.
Tampa Electric Company--Big Bend   Air Permit No.            2/26/2015  7/3/2017 [Insert     Specific Conditions
 Station.                           0570039-074-AC.                      citation of          pertaining to:
                                                                         publication].        EU001; EU002;
                                                                                              EU003 and EU004.
WestRock, LLC....................  Air Permit No.             1/9/2015  7/3/2017 [Insert     Specific Conditions
                                    0890003-046-AC.                      citation of          pertaining to:
                                                                         publication].        EU006; EU015;
                                                                                              EU007 and EU011.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

                                 EPA Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     State effective     EPA approval     Federal Register
            Provision                      date              date              notice            Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
2010 1-hour SO2 Attainment         4/3/2015...........        7/3/2017  [Insert citation of  ...................
 Demonstration for the                                                   publication].
 Hillsborough Area.

[[Page 30758]]

 
2010 1-hour SO2 Attainment         4/3/2015...........        7/3/2017  [Insert citation of  ...................
 Demonstration for the Nassau                                            publication].
 Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-13892 Filed 6-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


