[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9666-9673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02606]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0510; FRL-10005-23-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval and Designation of Areas; FL; Source-Specific 
SO2 Permit Limits & Redesignation of the Hillsborough-Polk 2010 1-Hr 
SO2 Nonattainment Area to Attainment & Mulberry Unclassifiable Area to 
Attainment/Unclassifiable

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final 
action 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) primary national ambient 
air quality standard (NAAQS or standard). Specifically, EPA is 
approving a December 1, 2017, SIP revision (as supplemented through an 
October 9, 2019, 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 approving an October 9, 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 Hillsborough-
Polk Area. The October 9, 2019, SIP submittal also revises the modeling 
analysis and some permit conditions in the 2017 SIP revision, contains 
a base-year emissions inventory for the Hillsborough-Polk Area, and 
certifies that the Hillsborough-Polk Area meets nonattainment new 
source review (NNSR) requirements. In addition, EPA is approving an 
October 9, 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. FDEP submitted 
a draft version of the October 9, 2019, redesignation requests and SIP 
revisions on February 15, 2019, and EPA proposed to approve those 
requests and revisions through parallel processing at the State's 
request.

DATES: This rule will be effective March 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0510. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the 
index, some information may not be 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 and Radiation 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: 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: 

I. What is the background for the actions?

    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 
data completeness requirements when all four quarters are complete, and 
a

[[Page 9667]]

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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR part 50, appendix T, section 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act 
(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.\2\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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'').\3\ 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 was due within 18 months 
following the April 9, 2018, effective date of designation (i.e., 
October 9, 2019). See CAA section 191(a).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ No requirements were triggered as a result of the 
unclassifiable designation for the Mulberry Area.
    \4\ CAA section 172 requires states with nonattainment areas to 
submit plans providing for timely attainment and meeting other 
requirements. EPA's 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 (v) and therefore 
need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate an 
area. Those requirements are not applicable for purposes of 
evaluating Florida's redesignation request for the Hillsborough-Polk 
Area because EPA is taking final action to incorporate the permitted 
SO2 limits and associated compliance and monitoring 
parameters into the SIP since becoming effective August 31, 2019, 
and air quality modeling demonstrates that the Hillsborough-Polk 
Area attains the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as a result of 
compliance with these limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State submitted its first SIP revision for the Hillsborough-
Polk Area to EPA in December 2017. That SIP revision included 
SO2 multi-unit permit limits and associated compliance and 
monitoring parameters for Mosaic New Wales and Bartow and a modeling 
analysis to demonstrate that the Hillsborough-Polk Area attains the 
SO2 NAAQS with these permit limits. Then, on February 15, 
2019, Florida submitted a draft request to EPA to redesignate the 
Hillsborough-Polk Area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS and a related draft SIP revision containing a maintenance plan 
for the Hillsborough-Polk Area.\5\ The February 15, 2019, draft 
submittal also included a request to redesignate the Mulberry Area to 
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,\6\ 
contained a base-year emissions inventory for the Hillsborough-Polk 
Area, certified that the Hillsborough-Polk Area meets NNSR 
requirements, revised the modeling analysis in the December 2017 SIP 
revision, and included administrative amendments to certain permit 
conditions in the December 2017 SIP revision. Florida requested that 
EPA parallel process the draft requests and SIP submittals while the 
State waited for the multi-unit permit limits for Mosaic New Wales and 
Bartow to become state-enforceable on August 31, 2019. In a March 22, 
2019 letter, FDEP clarified that it is asking EPA to incorporate the 
following conditions from Permit Nos. 10500046-106-AC and 1050046-050-
AC: \7\ (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; \8\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) identifies the criteria for 
redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. One of these 
criteria, 107(d)(3)(E)(iv), requires a fully approved maintenance 
plan for the area that meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.
    \6\ When approving or denying a request to redesignate an 
unclassifiable area to attainment/unclassifiable, EPA bases its 
decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the 
considerations provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A). For the 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA may also base its decision on 
relevant modeling analyses. The requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) 
are not applicable to such a redesignation because that section of 
the CAA only applies to redesignation of nonattainment areas to 
attainment. Areas that are redesignated to attainment/unclassifiable 
must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus must meet 
the relevant NAAQS and not contribute to ambient air quality in a 
nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS.
    \7\ The permit condition numbers are the same for each permit.
    \8\ 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 October 9, 2019, final SIP 
submission in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on September 9, 
2019 (84 FR 47216), EPA proposed to approve the draft February 15, 
2019, SIP submittal and redesignation requests through parallel 
processing and to approve the December 2017 SIP revision (as 
supplemented through the February 15, 2019, draft revision). 
Specifically, EPA proposed 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 for the Hillsborough-Polk Area and 
incorporate it into the SIP; (3) concur with Florida's certification 
that its existing NNSR requirements apply to the Hillsborough-Polk 
Area; \9\ (4) determine that the air quality modeling submitted by the 
State demonstrates that the Hillsborough-Polk

[[Page 9668]]

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 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 from 
unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS based on air quality modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed in the NPRM, 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. Nonetheless, EPA proposed to concur with the State's 
certification and is approving the SIP revision containing that 
certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida's October 9, 2019, final SIP submission demonstrates 
compliance with the SO2 emissions limits for Mosaic New 
Wales and Bartow based on SO2 hourly emissions data from 
August 1, 2019 through September 24, 2019.\10\ EPA proposed to 
determine that the modeling analysis provided in the SIP revisions 
demonstrates that the Hillsborough-Polk and Mulberry Areas will attain 
the 2010 1-hour standard as a result of compliance with the 24-hour 
SO2 emissions limits at Mosaic New Wales and Bartow.\11\ The 
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 or Mulberry Areas. Because there are no air quality monitors in 
these areas, EPA's proposed approval of the redesignation request and 
maintenance plan SIP for the Hillsborough-Polk Area and the 
redesignation request for the Mulberry Area was based, in part, on 
these modeling results.\12\ Because Mosaic New Wales and Bartow are 
required to comply with the permit limits that air quality modeling 
shows will maintain the standard, this modeling shows that the areas 
will continue to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard 
through 2032, the final year of the submitted 10-year maintenance plan 
for the Hillsborough-Polk Area. The details of Florida's submittal and 
the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM, 
including the modeled attainment demonstration to determine attainment 
with the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Appendix N of Florida's final October 9, 2019, SIP 
submission in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \11\ A detailed discussion of FDEP's modeling can be found in 
Section VII.C of the NPRM and the associated Air Modeling TSD.
    \12\ See Section VII.C of the NPRM for a discussion regarding 
the nature of an attainment determination for SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 9, 2019, Florida submitted final redesignation requests 
for the Hillsborough Polk and Mulberry Areas and a final SIP 
submission. EPA reviewed the final submission and it contains no 
substantive changes to Florida's February 15, 2019, draft SIP 
submission that EPA proposed for parallel processing in the NPRM. The 
only changes are minor clarifications, typographical corrections, a 
demonstration that Mosaic New Wales and Bartow are meeting their 
respective 24-hour block average permitted SO2 emissions 
limits \13\ that EPA is incorporating into Florida's SIP as part of 
this final rulemaking,\14\ and a demonstration that Mosaic New Wales 
has completed the ambient air boundary improvements \15\ discussed in 
the NPRM. Based on the information and analysis in the NPRM and on 
Florida's compliance demonstration, the final multi-unit SO2 
emissions limits at Mosaic New Wales and Bartow provide for modeled 
attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in ambient air locations 
in the Hillsborough-Polk and Mulberry Areas. Comments on EPA's 
September 9, 2019, proposed rulemaking were due on or before October 9, 
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As discussed in the NPRM, the 24-hour SO2 
emissions limits of 1,090 lb/hr and 1,100 lb/hr for Mosaic New Wales 
and Bartow, respectively, provide an appropriate alternative to 
establishing a 1-hour average emission limit for each unit at these 
facilities. See Section VI of the NPRM and EPA's Longer Term 
Averaging SO2 Technical Support Document 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.
    \14\ Florida's October 9, 2019, final SIP submission 
demonstrates compliance with the SO2 emissions limits for 
Mosaic New Wales and Bartow based on SO2 emissions data 
from August 1, 2019 through September 24, 2019. See Appendix N of 
Florida's final October 9, 2019, SIP submission in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
    \15\ See Appendix M of Florida's final October 9, 2019, SIP 
submission in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received three sets of comments on the proposed rulemaking--one 
set that generally supports the proposed rulemaking and two sets that 
are adverse. These comments are available in the docket for this 
action. Summaries of the comments and EPA's responses are provided 
below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that the adjustment factors used 
in the development of the 24-hour SO2 emission limits for 
Mosaic New Wales and Bartow are on the order of 0.99 to 1.0, indicating 
in the Commenter's view that, historically, the emission units operate 
consistently without much if any variability and are much higher than 
default values discussed in EPA's guidance. The Commenter then 
questions the need for flexibility allowed by the 24-hour emissions 
limits, claiming that if the emissions are not fluctuating there is no 
need to establish a limit other than a 1-hour limit. The Commenter 
contends that the 24-hour limits allow for increases in hourly 
emissions well above historical hourly emissions and that these greater 
hourly emissions by way of 24-hour averaging does not demonstrate 
compliance with the 1-hour NAAQS.
    Response 1: Prior to the issuance of the 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS in 2010, EPA's guidance recommended that the averaging time of 
emission limits should not exceed the averaging time of the applicable 
NAAQS. However, after the creation of 1-hour SO2 standard, 
EPA received many comments expressing concern for extending this 
approach (i.e., not allowing averaging of emission limits to show 
compliance with the 1-hour standard) as overly conservative and 
potentially burdensome for a facility with variable emissions and/or 
operations. After consideration of these comments, EPA issued guidance 
recommending a method to derive a comparably stringent emission limit 
with a longer averaging time (up to 30 days). As expressed on page 24 
of the EPA's April 23, 2014 ``Guidance for 1-hour SO2 
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions'' (SO2 Guidance), ``[t]he 
EPA believes that making this option available to states could reflect 
an appropriate balance between providing a strong assurance that the 
NAAQS will be attained and maintained, while still acknowledging the 
necessary variability in source operations and the impairment to source 
operations that would occur under what could be in some cases an 
unnecessarily restrictive approach to constraining that variability.''
    The process used by Florida to develop adjustment factors for the 
limits included at Mosaic New Wales and Bartow was described in 
Florida's SIP submission and evaluated in EPA's Hillsborough-Polk 
Longer Term Averaging TSD document, which was part of the NPRM docket 
(see page 6 of the TSD). This process generally followed the guidance 
laid out in the SO2 Guidance, which can be used by 
permitting authorities to establish longer-term SO2 emission 
limits in lieu of shorter-term (1-hour or 3-hour) limits at facilities 
they believe would benefit from the added flexibility. Although 
Mosaic's operations do not have a high level of variability, there are 
still some emission peaks that occasionally occur. Recent emissions 
data indicate that up to 1.5 percent of the time, emissions exceed the 
critical emissions value

[[Page 9669]]

(CEV) while still maintaining permitted emissions limits (1.5 percent 
for New Wales and less than 1 percent for Bartow). If the Mosaic 
facilities were required to comply with a 1-hour emission limit all the 
time (i.e., no averaging), the operation of the facility would have to 
be restricted to ensure those occasional periods of higher emissions 
never exceeded the 1-hour permit limit. At sulfuric acid plants (SAPs), 
SO2 is a process material rather than a byproduct, where 
SO2 is converted to sulfuric acid. Residual SO2 
emissions from SAPs are controlled by the process itself rather than 
with an add-on pollution control device. Considering the increased 
effectiveness of the new catalysts at Mosaic New Wales and Bartow, and 
the integration of the sulfur recovery catalyst beds into the process, 
EPA believes that attempting to change the operations of the Mosaic 
facilities to comply with a 1-hour permit limit would be unnecessarily 
restrictive in this case.
    Additionally, the Commenter notes that there are default adjustment 
factors in our guidance that are lower than those used for Mosaic. This 
characterization of EPA's guidance is not correct. Appendix D of the 
guidance provides illustrations of historical typical adjustment 
factors observed for electric generating units under different 
emissions control scenarios. These are intended as a reference for 
states and sources when developing appropriate adjustment factors 
following the process in EPA's guidance, especially in circumstances 
where the source in question does not have historical or other adequate 
emissions data to fully evaluate potential emissions variability. For 
the Mosaic facilities, historical data for the specific operations 
being permitted were available and fully evaluated, resulting in the 
adjustment factors used to develop source-specific permit limits. Table 
1 in Appendix D of EPA's guidance does include a 24-hour adjustment 
factor of 0.93 for ``[s]ources with no control equipment.'' This factor 
was developed based on historical data for electric generating units 
without wet or dry scrubbers, whose operations fluctuate based on 
electricity demand and SO2 content of the fuel. Mosaic New 
Wales and Bartow are sulfuric acid plants, not electric generating 
units, where the catalyst bed used to capture SO2 emissions 
is part of the process and not an add-on control device, as would 
potentially be used to control SO2 emissions from other 
types of facilities. As EPA described in the TSD (see page 6), 
``SO2 emissions from SAPs are controlled by the process 
itself rather than with an add-on pollution control device, as the 
catalyst bed cannot be turned off, disabled, or bypassed. [. . .] The 
catalyst degrades over time and will need to be replaced every few 
years; however; there is little fluctuation in emissions over any given 
24-hour period. A consequence of this stability over a 24-hour period 
is the relatively high (close to 1.0) adjustment factors for the 
individual units (see Table 3).'' The relative stability of the 
sulfuric acid plant operations explains why the adjustment factors are 
relatively close to one. The SO2 Guidance describes a 
process for a permitting authority to develop a longer-term emission 
limit that is protective of the NAAQS. In the case of the sulfuric acid 
plants at Mosaic New Wales and Bartow facilities, EPA believes that 
Florida has followed the SO2 Guidance to develop adjustment 
factors that are appropriate for the sulfuric acid plant operation 
based on an analysis of facility data and to establish 24-hour emission 
limits that are protective of the NAAQS.
    EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that the 24-hour 
limits will result in hourly emissions increases that will not provide 
for compliance with the 1-hour NAAQS. EPA acknowledges the concern that 
occasional spikes of emissions above the CEV can occur when a longer-
term limit is established. This concern has been addressed in the NPRM 
and TSD for this action (see pages 2-4 of the Longer Term Averaging 
TSD). Additionally, as discussed in the NPRM and the associated 
technical support documents, Florida provided a modeling analysis 
demonstrating that compliance with the 24-hour emissions limits 
provides for attainment of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA's April 
23, 2014 ``Guidance for 1-hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP 
Submissions'' allows States to establish permitted emissions limits 
with averaging times up to 30 days provided that the limits meet 
certain recommended criteria. After careful review of these limits, 
Florida's compliance demonstration, and the criteria recommended in the 
guidance document, EPA believes that the 24-hour emissions limits 
selected by the State require average emissions to be lower than the 
level that would otherwise have been required by 1-hour average limits 
and provide for attainment of the NAAQS. EPA also notes that the 
comment lacks information indicating that the 24-hour emissions limits 
would not result in compliance with the NAAQS.
    Comment 2: The Commenter questions EPA's preliminary determination 
that the combination of fencing and natural barriers (e.g., wetlands, 
canals, industrial ponds) are adequate to preclude public access to the 
area where receptors were excluded from the air quality modeling 
performed by Florida. The Commenter does not understand how EPA equates 
wetlands with a physical barrier and thus qualifies those areas to be 
exempted from the modeling. The Commenter mentions that Florida's 
tourism industry involves airboat tours, that the boats used in those 
tours travel over marshes and swamps, and that EPA did not identify 
wetlands as a physical barrier in its draft ``Revised Policy On 
Exclusions from `Ambient Air.' '' The Commenter concludes by asserting 
that EPA should not approve this action until all ambient air areas are 
properly modeled.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that 
adequate barriers do not exist to preclude public access within the 
ambient air boundary used in the modeling. Florida's February 15, 2019, 
draft SIP submittal contains information supporting its finding that 
the combination of fencing and natural barriers are adequate to 
preclude public access to areas within the Mosaic New Wales property 
that were excluded from the modeling (i.e., the property area within 
the ambient air boundary), and EPA summarized this information in 
Section 1.4 of EPA's Technical Support Document for the Air Quality 
Modeling Analysis (Modeling TSD) associated with the proposed 
rulemaking. When Florida submitted the draft SIP revision, Mosaic was 
in the process of installing additional fencing along the perimeter of 
the newly acquired land. In its October 9, 2019, final SIP submittal, 
Florida documents the completion of Mosaic's fencing construction and 
provides 22 pages of additional information supporting the State's 
conclusion that the combination of fencing and natural barriers in this 
specific instance is adequate to preclude public access to these areas 
of the source's property. The submittal describes the natural barriers 
as densely vegetated ditches and canals with steep banks, forested and 
herbaceous wetlands with dense vegetation and standing water, deep 
water industrial ponds, and densely vegetated uplands. Numerous 
photographs of the fencing and natural barriers were provided by 
Florida in the submittal. It should also be noted that the entire 
ambient air boundary lies wholly within a larger Mosaic Holdings 
Boundary which is private property owned by Mosaic and is not open to 
activities that would invite tourism or other public access via

[[Page 9670]]

airboats or other similar means of transport.
    Regarding the Commenter's reference to EPA's November 2018 draft 
``Revised Policy On Exclusions from `Ambient Air' '' \16\ and the claim 
that the document does not expressly mention wetlands, it first should 
be noted that natural barriers are physical barriers. The focus of the 
guidance was to communicate that, in addition to physical barriers 
addressed by the existing policy, non-physical barriers may be 
sufficient (by themselves or in combination with physical barriers) to 
preclude public access in some circumstances. EPA did not attempt to 
list in the guidance every type of acceptable barrier (whether a 
physical barrier or otherwise). Instead, the guidance provided examples 
of ``non-physical'' measures that may be effective in some 
circumstances to preclude public access to source property, other than 
by ``fences and other physical barriers.'' Moreover, the effectiveness 
of any natural physical obstruction in precluding public access, so 
that it may serve as an ambient air boundary, should be evaluated on a 
case-by-case basis due to the variability in circumstances among 
stationary sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The final revised ambient air guidance was signed by the 
Administrator on December 2, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that Florida has provided sufficient information, 
including descriptions, maps, and photographs of the measures being 
relied upon, to support its conclusion that the combination of fencing 
and natural barriers effectively precludes public access from the areas 
within the source property that were excluded from the modeling 
demonstration. The Commenter did not provide any information supporting 
its position that the natural barriers in combination with fencing at 
the Mosaic New Wales facility are insufficient or that the affected 
wetlands are accessible to airboat tours or that other types of public 
access are allowed by the source or could in fact occur there.
    Comment 3: The Commenter generally agrees with EPA's proposed 
action, stating that it is encouraging to see Florida's plan to limit 
SO2 emissions at Mosaic New Wales and Bartow. The Commenter 
then argues that these businesses should face a hefty fine if they 
exceed the proposed SO2 emissions limits, and if such 
exceedances become frequent the sources should have their business 
licenses suspended until they can show emissions that are consistent 
with the proposed limits.
    Response 3: Actual SO2 emissions at Mosaic New Wales and 
Bartow must remain below the permitted emissions limits identified by 
the Commenter. These limits are state-enforceable and are federally-
enforceable through the SIP via this final action and through the title 
V permits for these facilities. As discussed in the NPRM, FDEP has an 
active compliance and enforcement program to address any violations of 
these emissions limits and has committed to verify compliance with 
these limits and with continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS 
in the Hillsborough-Polk Area using, among other things, emissions data 
from the mandatory annual operating reports submitted by these 
facilities.\17\ FDEP has also committed to undertake an aggressive 
follow-up for compliance and enforcement and to implement contingency 
measures within 18-24 months of non-compliance with the SO2 
emissions limits.\18\ EPA believes that these commitments and the 
enforcement authorities available to the Agency and to Florida are 
sufficient to address any violation of the SO2 emissions 
limits at Mosaic New Wales and Bartow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See the ``Verification of Continued Attainment'' section of 
the NRPM at 84 FR 47227-28.
    \18\ See the ``Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan'' 
section of the NRPM at 84 FR 47228-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation 
of the Hillsborough-Polk Area, found at 40 CFR 81.310, from 
nonattainment to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 
Approval of Florida's associated SIP revision also incorporates a plan 
into the SIP for maintaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 
the Hillsborough-Polk Area as described in the NPRM. The CAA section 
175A maintenance plan also establishes contingency measures to remedy 
any future violations of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS and 
procedures for evaluation of potential violations. The Hillsborough-
Polk Area is required to implement this maintenance plan and the 
prevention of significant deterioration program for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. The approved maintenance plan can only be revised 
if the revision meets the requirements of CAA section 110(l) and, if 
applicable, CAA section 193. Approval of the redesignation request for 
the Mulberry Area changes the legal designation of this area from 
unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. Finally, approval of the SIP revision 
incorporates into the SIP certain permitting conditions applicable to 
Mosaic New Wales and Bartow, making them permanent and federally 
enforceable.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Section VI of the NPRM for information regarding these 
permit conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 following conditions from Air Permit No. 1050046-050-AC issued 
by FDEP to Mosaic Bartow with an effective date of July 3, 2017, 
related to an SO2 permitted limit at the facility and 
associated compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements: (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); \20\ (2) Section III, Subsection 
A, Specific Condition 4; \21\ and (3) Section III, Subsection A, 
Specific Condition 5.\22\ In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 
51.5, EPA is also finalizing the incorporation by reference into 
Florida's SIP the following conditions from Air Permit No. 1050059-106-
AC issued by FDEP to Mosaic New Wales with an effective date of October 
30, 2017, related to an SO2 permitted limit at the facility 
and associated compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements: (1) Section III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 3 (as 
administratively corrected by Permit No. 1050059-114-AC with an 
effective

[[Page 9671]]

date of January 11, 2019); \23\ (2) Section III, Subsection A, Specific 
Condition 4; \24\ and (3) Section III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 
5.\25\ Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for 
inclusion in the state implementation plan, 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 in 
the next update to the SIP compilation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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.]''
    \21\ 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.]''.
    \22\ 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.]''.
    \23\ 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.]''.
    \24\ 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.]''.
    \25\ 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.]''.
    \26\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally 
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office 
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Final Actions

    EPA is taking final actions regarding Florida's request to 
redesignate the Hillsborough-Polk Area to attainment for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS and associated SIP revisions. EPA is 
determining that the Hillsborough-Polk Area has attained the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA is also approving the SIP revision 
containing the State's plan for maintaining attainment of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 standard, the base-year emissions inventory for the 
Hillsborough-Polk Area, and a certification regarding NNSR. EPA is 
approving Florida's redesignation request regarding the Hillsborough-
Polk Area and redesignating the area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. EPA is also approving Florida's redesignation 
request regarding the Mulberry Area and redesignating this area to 
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 
Finally, EPA is incorporating the aforementioned permit conditions for 
Mosaic New Wales and Bartow into the SIP. As mentioned above, approval 
of the redesignation request changes the official designation of the 
Hillsborough-Polk Area from nonattainment to attainment and the 
Mulberry Area from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable, as 
found in 40 CFR part 81.

VI. 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. 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 actions merely approve state 
law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, these 
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 they are not significant regulatory 
actions 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 mandate 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 actions are 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 April 20, 2020. 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

[[Page 9672]]

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 section 
307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: January 30, 2020.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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:
0
a. In paragraph (d) by adding entries for ``Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--
Bartow Facility'' and ``Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--New Wales Facility'' at 
the end of the table; and
0
b. In paragraph (e) by adding an entry for ``2010 1-hour SO2 
Maintenance Plan for the Hillsborough-Polk 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--Bartow   Air Permit No.            7/3/2017  2/20/2020 [Insert   Section III, Subsection
 Facility.                        1050046-050-AC.                     citation of         A, Specific Condition
                                                                      publication].       3 (as administratively
                                                                                          corrected by Permit
                                                                                          No. 1050046-063-AC
                                                                                          with an effective date
                                                                                          of January 11, 2019);
                                                                                          Condition 4; and
                                                                                          Condition 5.
Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--New      Air Permit No.          10/30/2017  2/20/2020 [Insert   Section III, Subsection
 Wales Facility.                  1050059-106-AC.                     citation of         A, Specific Condition
                                                                      publication].       3 (as administratively
                                                                                          corrected by Permit
                                                                                          No. 1050059-114-AC
                                                                                          with an effective date
                                                                                          of January 11, 2019);
                                                                                          Condition 4; and
                                                                                          Condition 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        State       EPA approval
            Provision              effective date       date       Federal Register, notice      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
2010 1-hour SO2 Maintenance Plan        10/9/2019       2/20/2020  [Insert citation of
 for the Hillsborough-Polk Area.                                    publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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


0
4. In Sec.  81.310, the table entitled ``Florida-2010 Sulfur Dioxide 
NAAQS [Primary]'' is amended by revising the entries for 
``Hillsborough-Polk County, FL'' and ``Mulberry, FL Area'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  81.310   Florida.

* * * * *

                   Florida--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
                                [Primary]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation
          Designated area           ------------------------------------
                                        Date \1\             Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
Hillsborough-Polk County, FL \3\...       3/23/2020  Attainment.
    Hillsborough County (part)
    Polk County (part)

[[Page 9673]]

 
        That portion of
         Hillsborough and Polk
         Counties encompassed by
         the polygon with the
         vertices using Universal
         Traverse Mercator (UTM)
         coordinates in UTM zone 17
         with datum 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
 
                              * * * * * * *
Mulberry, FL Area \3\..............       3/23/2020  Attainment/
                                                      Unclassifiable.
    Hillsborough County (part)
    Polk County (part)
        That portion of
         Hillsborough and Polk
         Counties encompassed by
         the polygon with the
         vertices using Universal
         Traverse Mercator (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, 3,073,500 N;
         400,500 E, 3,083,500 N
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is 4/9/2018, unless otherwise noted.
 * * * * * * *
\3\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise
  specified. The EPA is not determining the boundaries of any area of
  Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country
  located in the larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian
  country in the designation area is not a determination that the state
  has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian
  country.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-02606 Filed 2-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


