57522 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed 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 proposed 

action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, 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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 1, 2016. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20022 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0624; FRL–9951–27– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; FL: Hillsborough 

Area; SO2 Attainment Demonstration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision, submitted by the State of 

Florida through the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FL DEP), 

to EPA on April 3, 2015, for the purpose 

of providing for attainment of the 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in the 

Hillsborough County SO2 nonattainment 

area (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Hillsborough Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The 

Hillsborough Area is comprised of a 

portion of Hillsborough County in 

Florida surrounding the Mosaic 

Fertilizer, LLC Riverview plant 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Mosaic’’). The 

attainment plan includes the base year 

emissions inventory, an analysis of the 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) and reasonably available control 

measures (RACM) requirements, a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, 

a modeling demonstration of SO2

attainment, and contingency measures 

for the Hillsborough Area. As a part of 

approving the attainment 

demonstration, EPA is also proposing to 

approve into the Florida SIP the SO2

emissions limits and associated 

compliance parameters. This action is 

being taken in accordance with Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s 

guidance related to SO2 attainment 

planning. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 22, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2015–0624 at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. 

Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management 

Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Akers 

can be reached via electronic mail at 

akers.brad@epa.gov or via telephone at 

(404) 562–9089. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing to take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What is included in Florida’s attainment 

plan for the Hillsborough Area? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s 

attainment plan for the Hillsborough 

Area? 

A. Pollutants Addressed 

B. Emissions Inventory Requirements 

C. Air Quality Modeling 

D. RACM/RACT 

E. RFP Plan 

F. Contingency Measures 

G. Attainment Date 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing to 

take? 

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s 

SIP revision for the Hillsborough Area, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57523 

1EPA’s April 23, 2014 memorandum entitled 

‘‘Guidance for the 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area 

SIP Submissions,’’ hereafter referred to as the ‘‘SO2

Nonattainment Guidance.’’ 

2EPA’s June 22, 2010 final action revoked the two 

1971 primary 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and the 

annual standard of 30 ppb because they were 

determined not to add additional public health 

protection given a 1-hour standard at 75 ppb. See 

75 FR 35520. However, the secondary 3-hour SO2

standard was retained. Currently, the 24-hour and 

annual standards are only revoked for those areas 

the EPA has already designated for the 2010 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS in August 2013 and June 30, 2016, 

including the Hillsborough Area. See 40 CFR 

50.4(e). 

3EPA is continuing its designation efforts for the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to a court-ordered 

consent decree finalized March 2, 2015, in the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of California, 

EPA must complete the remaining designations for 

the rest of the country on a schedule that contains 

three specific deadlines. By July 2, 2016, EPA must 

designate areas specified in the March 2, 2015 

consent decree based on specific emission criteria. 

Sierra Club, et al. v. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 13–cv–03953–SI (2015). The last two 

deadlines for completing designations, December 

2017 and December 2020 are expected to be 

informed by information required pursuant the 

‘‘Data Requirements Rule for the 2010 1-Hour 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS); Final Rule,’’ or ‘‘Data 

Requirements Rule.’’ See 80 FR 51052 (August 21, 

2015). http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/ 

designations/pdfs/201503Schedule.pdf. On June 30, 

2016, EPA designated a total of 61 areas for the 

2010 1-hour SO2 standard as part of the 2nd round 

of designations pursuant to the March 2, 2015 

consent decree. 

4The CAA new source review (NSR) program is 

composed of three separate programs: Prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD), NNSR, and Minor 

NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the 

CAA and applies in areas that meet the NAAQS— 

‘‘attainment areas’’—as well as areas where there is 

insufficient information to determine if the area 

meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The 

NNSR program is established in part D of title I of 

the CAA and applies in areas that are not in 

attainment of the NAAQS—‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ 

The Minor NSR program addresses construction or 

modification activities that do not qualify as 

‘‘major’’ and applies regardless of the designation 

of the area in which a source is located. Together, 

these programs are referred to as the NSR programs. 

Section 173 of the CAA lays out the NNSR program 

for preconstruction review of new major sources or 

major modifications to existing sources, as required 

by CAA section 172(c)(5). The programmatic 

elements for NNSR include, among other things, 

compliance with the lowest achievable emissions 

rate and the requirement to obtain emissions offsets. 

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 

proposing to approve the base year 

emissions inventory, a modeling 

demonstration of SO2 attainment, an 

analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, 

and contingency measures for the 

Hillsborough Area. Additionally, EPA is 

proposing to approve specific SO2

emission limits and compliance 

parameters established for the two SO2

sources impacting the Hillsborough 

Area into the Florida SIP. 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that Florida’s SO2 attainment plan for 

the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for 

Hillsborough County meets the 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

EPA’s SO2 Nonattainment Guidance.1

Moreover, the Hillsborough Area is 

currently showing a design value below 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, having 

implemented most of the control 

measures included in the SIP submittal. 

Thus, EPA is proposing to approve 

Florida’s attainment plan for the 

Hillsborough Area as submitted on 

April 3, 2015. EPA’s analysis for this 

proposed action is discussed in Section 

IV of this proposed rulemaking. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

On June 2, 2010, the EPA 

Administrator signed a final rule 

establishing a new SO2 NAAQS as a 1- 

hour standard of 75 parts per billion 

(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 

annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 

35520 (June 22, 2010). This action also 

revoked the existing 1971 annual 

standard and 24-hour standards, subject 

to certain conditions.2 EPA established 

the NAAQS based on significant 

evidence and numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects 

are associated with short-term 

exposures to SO2 emissions ranging 

from 5 minutes to 24 hours with an 

array of adverse respiratory effects 

including narrowing of the airways 

which can cause difficulty breathing 

(bronchoconstriction) and increased 

asthma symptoms. For more 

information regarding the health 

impacts of SO2, please refer to the June 

22, 2010 final rulemaking. See 75 FR 

35520. Following promulgation of a new 

or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by 

the CAA to designate areas throughout 

the United States as attaining or not 

attaining the NAAQS; this designation 

process is described in section 107(d)(1) 

of the CAA. On August 5, 2013, EPA 

promulgated initial air quality 

designations of 29 areas for the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), which 

became effective on October 4, 2013, 

based on violating air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 

2009–2011, where there was sufficient 

data to support a nonattainment 

designation.3

Effective on October 4, 2013, the 

Hillsborough Area was designated as 

nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

for an area that encompasses the 

primary SO2 emitting source Mosaic 

fertilizer plant and the nearby SO2

monitor (Air Quality Site ID: 12–057– 

0109). The October 4, 2013, final 

designation triggered a requirement for 

Florida to submit a SIP revision with a 

plan for how the Area would attain the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than October 4, 

2018, in accordance with CAA section 

172(b). 

The required components of a 

nonattainment plan submittal are listed 

in section 172(c) of part D of the CAA. 

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 RFP toward attainment, or 

with attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS, and 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 expeditious 

attainment of the NAAQS (section 

172(c)). The nonattainment plan must 

include an analysis of the RACM 

considered, including RACT (section 

172(c)(1)). RFP for the nonattainment 

area must be addressed in the submittal. 

Finally, the nonattainment plan must 

provide for contingency measures 

(section 172(c)(9)) to be implemented in 

the case that RFP toward attainment is 

not made, or the area fails to attain the 

NAAQS by the attainment date. 

III. What is included in Florida’s 

attainment plan for the Hillsborough 

Area? 

In accordance with section 172(c) of 

the CAA, the Florida attainment plan for 

the Hillsborough Area includes: (1) An 

emissions inventory for SO2 for the 

plan’s base year (2011); and (2) an 

attainment demonstration. The 

attainment demonstration includes: 

Technical analyses that locate, identify, 

and quantify sources of emissions 

contributing to violations of the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS; a declaration that FL DEP 

is unaware of any future growth in the 

area that would be subject to CAA 173,4

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 of an 

emissions control strategy for the 

primary SO2 source, Mosaic, and a 

nearby source, the Tampa Electric 

Company’s (TECO’s) Big Bend electric 

generating facility (hereafter referred to 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57524 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5The AERR at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51 cover 

overarching federal reporting requirements for the 

states to submit emissions inventories for criteria 

pollutants to EPA’s Emissions Inventory System. 

The EPA uses these submittals, along with other 

data sources, to build the National Emissions 

Inventory. 

as ‘‘TECO’’), that attains the SO2

NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 

attainment date; a determination that 

the control strategy for the primary SO2

source within the nonattainment areas 

constitutes 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. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Florida’s 

attainment plan for the Hillsborough 

Area? 

Consistent with CAA requirements 

(see, section 172), an attainment 

demonstration for a SO2 nonattainment 

area must include a showing that the 

area will attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable. The 

demonstration must also meet the 

requirements of 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (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. In 

the case of the Hillsborough Area, 2013– 

2015 quality-assured and certified air 

quality data indicated a design value 

below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing that the attainment 

plan submitted by Florida is sufficient, 

and EPA is proposing to approve the 

plan to assure ongoing attainment. 

A. Pollutants Addressed 

Florida’s SO2 attainment plan 

evaluates SO2 emissions for the area 

within the portion of Hillsborough 

County that is designated nonattainment 

for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. There are no 

significant precursors to consider for the 

SO2 attainment plan. SO2 is a pollutant 

that arises from direct emissions, and 

therefore concentrations are highest 

relatively close to the source(s) and 

much lower at greater distances due to 

dispersion. See SO2 Nonattainment 

Guidance. Thus, SO2 concentration 

patterns resemble those of other directly 

emitted pollutants like lead and differ 

from those of photochemically-formed 

(secondary) pollutants such as ozone. 

The two sources included in FL DEP’s 

SIP to address the Hillsborough Area 

and their operations are briefly 

described later on in this preamble. As 

the Hillsborough Area includes one 

such major point source of SO2 and one 

source just outside the Area, it is 

expected that an attainment 

demonstration addressing SO2

emissions at these two sources will 

effectively ensure that the Area will 

attain by the attainment date of October 

4, 2018. 

B. Emissions Inventory Requirements 

States are required under section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA to develop 

comprehensive, accurate and current 

emissions inventories of all sources of 

the relevant pollutant or pollutants in 

the area. These inventories provide a 

detailed accounting of all emissions and 

emission sources by precursor or 

pollutant. In addition, inventories are 

used in air quality modeling to 

demonstrate that attainment of the 

NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable. 

The April 23, 2014, SO2 Nonattainment 

Guidance provides that the emissions 

inventory should be consistent with the 

Air Emissions Reporting Requirements 

(AERR) at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51.5

For the base year inventory of actual 

emissions, a ‘‘comprehensive, accurate 

and current,’’ inventory can be 

represented by a year that contributed to 

the three-year design value used for the 

original nonattainment designation. The 

final SO2 Nonattainment Guidance 

notes that the base year inventory 

should include all sources of SO2 in the 

nonattainment area as well as any 

sources located outside the 

nonattainment area which may affect 

attainment in the area. Florida elected to 

use 2011 as the base year. Actual 

emissions from all sources of SO2 in the 

Hillsborough Area were reviewed and 

compiled for the base year emissions 

inventory requirement. All stationary 

sources of SO2 emissions located in the 

Hillsborough Area were estimated and 

included in the inventory, and a source 

outside the Area that FL DEP 

determined caused or contributed to 

elevated SO2 concentrations within the 

nonattainment area was also included. 

The primary SO2-emitting point 

source located within the Hillsborough 

Area is the Mosaic fertilizer plant, 

which produces acids and fertilizers 

including sulfuric acid, phosphoric 

acid, ammonium sulfate, diammonium 

phosphate, and monoammonium 

phosphate. Mosaic consists of three 

main SO2 emitters and six smaller 

emitters: 

• Emissions Unit (EU) 004 (Mosaic 

EU 004) is the No. 7 sulfuric acid plant, 

which burns sulfur and oxygen to form 

SO2, then catalytically converts the SO2

to SO3, finally absorbing the SO3 into 

sulfuric acid, and has a design capacity 

of 3,200 tons per day (tpd) of 100 

percent sulfuric acid; 

• Mosaic EU 005 is the No. 8 sulfuric 

acid plant, which operates similar to 

Mosaic EU 004 and has a design 

capacity of 2,700 tpd of 100 percent 

sulfuric acid; 

• Mosaic EU 006 is the No. 9 sulfuric 

acid plant, which operates similar to 

Mosaic EU 004 and has a design 

capacity of 3,400 tpd of 100 percent 

sulfuric acid; and 

• Mosaic EUs 007, 043, 055, 066, 067, 

and 068 provide various services to 

other parts of the facility and combine 

for less than 1 ton per year (tpy); for 

more information on these 

miscellaneous units, see the April 3, 

2015, submittal. 

The emissions at all units for the Mosaic 

facility were recorded using data 

collected from continuous emissions 

monitoring systems (CEMS) and are 

quality-assured by FL DEP. 

The next largest SO2 source within 

the nonattainment area is the Ajax 

Paving Industries, Inc., Plant No. 6 

(Ajax), which produces asphalt and 

recycles reclaimed asphalt. SO2

emissions from Ajax were 5.91 tons in 

2011. Ajax asphalt plant consists of two 

main SO2 emitters: 

• Ajax EU 005 is a diesel engine and 

power generator for a crusher; and 

• Ajax EU 006 is the drum mix 

asphalt plant. 

The final SO2 source within the 

nonattainment area is Harsco Minerals 

(Harsco), which recycles minerals and 

byproducts from steel production. SO2

emissions from Harsco were 0.003 tons 

in 2011. Harsco consists of one SO2

emitter: 

• Harsco EU001 is a rotary slag dryer. 

The largest SO2 source within 25 

kilometers (km) outside the 

Hillsborough Area is TECO, which is an 

electric generating facility. The TECO 

facility consists of four main SO2

emitters and four smaller SO2 emitters: 

• TECO EUs 001, 002, 003, and 004 

are fossil fuel fired steam generators that 

fire coal or a coal-and-petroleum coke 

mixture with no more than 20 percent 

petroleum coke by weight, or coal 

blended with residual coal from the 

Polk Power Station and on-site 

generated fly ash, and which are rated 

at 445 MW electrical production for EUs 

001–003, and 486 MW for EU 004; 

• TECO EUs 041, 042, 043, 044, 

provide energy via simple cycle 

combustion and diesel generators and 

combine for less than 1 tpy; for more 

information on these miscellaneous 

units, see the April 3, 2015, submittal. 

Emissions from the TECO facility 

were collected via CEMS or calculated. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57525 

6 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W (EPA’s Guideline 

on Air Quality Models) (November 2005) located at 

http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/ 

appw_05.pdf. EPA has proposed changes to 

Appendix W. See 80 FR 45340 (July 29, 2015). 

Specifically, TECO EUs 001—004, the 

only significant SO2 emitters at the 

facility, are equipped with CEMS, while 

the remaining units were estimated 

based on fuel use and actual hour of 

operation. 

Pursuant to Florida’s SIP-approved 

regulations at Chapter 62–210.370, 

F.A.C., paragraph (3), FL DEP collects 

annual operating reports (AORs), 

incorporated by reference into the SIP at 

62–210.900(5), from all major sources. 

These AORs were used to develop the 

base year inventory for actual emissions 

for the point sources and satisfy the 

AERR. FL DEP utilized EPA’s 2011 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI), 

Version 2 to obtain estimates of the area 

and nonroad sources. For onroad mobile 

source emissions, FL DEP utilized EPA’s 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator 

(MOVES2014). A more detailed 

discussion of the emissions inventory 

development for the Hillsborough Area 

can be found in Florida’s April 3, 2015, 

submittal. 

Table 1 shows the level of emissions, 

expressed in tpy, in the Hillsborough 

Area for the 2011 base year by emissions 

source category. The point source 

category includes all sources within the 

nonattainment area as well as TECO, 

which is located outside the 

Hillsborough Area, but determined by 

FL DEP to contribute to nonattainment. 

TABLE 1—2011 BASE YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH AREA

[tpy] 

Year Point Onroad Nonroad Area Total 

2011 ..................................................................................... 12,145.90 1.96 8.88 2.63 12,159.37 

EPA has evaluated Florida’s 2011 base 

year emissions inventory for the 

Hillsborough Area and has made the 

preliminary determination that this 

inventory was developed consistent 

with EPA’s guidance. Therefore, 

pursuant to section 172(c)(3), EPA is 

proposing to approve Florida’s 2011 

base year emissions inventory for the 

Hillsborough Area. 

The attainment demonstration also 

provides for a projected attainment year 

inventory that includes estimated 

emissions for all emission sources of 

SO2 which are determined to impact the 

nonattainment area for the year in 

which the area is expected to attain the 

standard. This inventory must address 

any future growth in the Area. Growth 

means any potential increases in 

emissions of the pollutant for which the 

Hillsborough Area is nonattainment 

(SO2) due to the construction and 

operation of new major sources, major 

modifications to existing sources, or 

increased minor source activity. FL DEP 

included a statement in its April 3, 

2015, submittal declaring that FL DEP is 

unaware of any plans for the growth of 

major sources in the Hillsborough Area, 

and that normal minor source growth 

should not significantly impact the 

Area. FL DEP further asserts that the 

NNSR program at Section 62–252.500, 

F.A.C., approved into the SIP and last 

updated on June 27, 2008 (see 73 FR 

36435), would address any proposed 

new major sources or planned major 

modifications for SO2 sources. The 

NNSR program includes lowest 

achievable emissions rate, offsets, and 

public hearing requirements. 

FL DEP provided a 2018 projected 

emissions inventory for all known 

sources included in the 2011 base year 

inventory, discussed previously, that 

were determined to impact the 

Hillsborough County nonattainment 

area. The projected 2018 emissions in 

Table 2 are estimated actual emissions, 

representing a 49 percent reduction 

from the base year SO2 emissions. The 

point source emissions were estimated 

by multiplying the 2018 allowable 

emissions by the ratio of 2011 actual 

emissions to allowable emissions. Per 

the SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, the 

allowable emissions limits that FL DEP 

is requesting EPA approve into the SIP 

as a control measure were modeled to 

show attainment. These allowable 

emission limits are higher than the 

projected actual emissions included in 

the future year inventory, and therefore 

offer greater level of certainty that the 

NAAQS will be protected under all 

operating scenarios. Emissions estimates 

for onroad sources were re-estimated 

with MOVES2014. The nonroad and 

area source emissions were scaled based 

on estimated population growth in the 

Hillsborough Area portion of 

Hillsborough County. 

TABLE 2—PROJECTED 2018 SO2 EMISSIONS INVENTORY FOR THE HILLSBOROUGH AREA

[tpy] 

Year Point Onroad Nonroad Area Total 

2011 ..................................................................................... 12,145.90 1.96 8.88 2.63 12,159.37 

2018 ..................................................................................... 6,211.08 0.75 9.75 2.89 6,224.47 

C. Air Quality Modeling 

The SO2 attainment demonstration 

provides an air quality dispersion 

modeling analysis to demonstrate that 

control strategies chosen to reduce SO2

source emissions will bring the area into 

attainment by the statutory attainment 

date of October 4, 2018. The modeling 

analysis, outlined in Appendix W to 40 

CFR part 51 (EPA’s Modeling 

Guidance),6 is used for the attainment 

demonstration to assess the control 

strategy for a nonattainment area and 

establish emission limits that will 

provide for attainment. The analysis 

requires five years of meteorological 

data to simulate the dispersion of 

pollutant plumes from multiple point, 

area, or volume sources across the 

averaging times of interest. The 

modeling demonstration typically also 

relies on maximum allowable emissions 

from sources in the nonattainment area. 

Though the actual emissions are likely 

to be below the allowable emissions, 

sources have the ability to run at higher 

production rates or optimize controls 

such that emissions approach the 

allowable emissions limits. A modeling 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57526 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

7FL DEP is following the SO2 Nonattainment 

Guidance on procedures for establishing emissions 

limits with averaging periods longer than 1 hour. 

8The hourly emission rate that the model 

predicts would result in the 5-year average of the 

annual 99th percentile of daily maximum hourly 

SO2 concentrations at the level of the NAAQS. 

analysis that provides for attainment 

under all scenarios of operation for each 

source must therefore consider the 

worst case scenario of both the 

meteorology (e.g., predominant wind 

directions, stagnation, etc.) and the 

maximum allowable emissions. 

FL DEP’s modeling analysis was 

developed in accordance with EPA’s 

Modeling Guidance and the SO2

Nonattainment Guidance, and was 

prepared using EPA’s preferred 

dispersion modeling system, the 

American Meteorological Society/ 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Regulatory Model (AERMOD) consisting 

of the AERMOD (version 14134) model 

and two data input preprocessors 

AERMET (version 14134) and AERMAP 

(version 11103). AERMINUTE 

meteorological preprocessor and 

AERSURFACE surface characteristics 

preprocessor were also used to develop 

inputs to AERMET. The Building Profile 

Input Program for Plume Rise Model 

Enhancements (BPIP–PRIME) was also 

used in the downwash-modeling. More 

detailed information on the AERMOD 

Modeling system, and other modeling 

tools and documents can be found on 

the EPA Technology Transfer Network 

Support Center for Regulatory 

Atmospheric Modeling (SCRAM) 

(http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/) and 

in Florida’s April 3, 2015 SIP submittal 

in the docket for this proposed action 

(EPA–R04–OAR–2015–0624) on 

www.regulations.gov. A brief 

description of the modeling used to 

support Florida’s attainment 

demonstration is provided later on in 

this preamble. 

1. Modeling Approach 

The following is an overview of the 

air quality modeling approach used to 

demonstrate compliance with the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, as submitted in Florida’s 

April 3, 2015, submittal. The basic 

procedures are outlined later on. 

i. FL DEP developed model inputs 

using the AERMOD modeling system 

and processors. 

The pre-processors AERMET and 

AERMINUTE were used to process five 

years (i.e., 2008–2012) of 1-minute 

meteorological data from the Tampa 

National Weather Service Office (NWS) 

at the Tampa International Airport, 

Tampa, Florida, surface level site, based 

on FL DEP’s land use classifications, in 

combination with twice daily upper-air 

meteorological information from the 

same site. The Tampa International 

Airport is located approximately 20 km 

northwest from the Hillsborough Area. 

The AERMOD pre-processor AERMAP 

was used to generate terrain inputs for 

the receptors, based on a digital 

elevation mapping database from the 

National Elevation Dataset developed by 

the U.S. Geological Survey. FL DEP 

used AERSURFACE to generate 

direction-specific land-use surface 

characteristics for the modeling. The 

BPIP–PRIME preprocessor was used to 

generate direction-specific building 

downwash parameters. FL DEP 

developed a Cartesian receptor grid 

across the nonattainment boundary 

(extending up to 8.5 km away from the 

violating monitor), with 100 meter 

spacing in ambient air to ensure 

maximum concentrations are captured 

in the analysis. All other input options 

were also developed commensurate 

with the Modeling Guidance. 

Next, FL DEP selected a background 

SO2 concentration based on local SO2

monitoring data from monitoring station 

No. 12–057–0109 for the period January 

2012 to December 2013. This 

background concentration from the 

nearby ambient air monitor is used to 

account for SO2 impacts from all 

sources that are not specifically 

included in the AERMOD modeling 

analysis. The data was obtained from 

the Florida Air Monitoring and 

Assessment System. This monitor is 

approximately 1.0 km to the southeast 

of Mosaic and 6.5 km north of TECO. 

This monitor is also the nonattainment 

monitor. Due to its close proximity to 

the Mosaic and TECO facilities, 

monitored concentrations at this station 

are strongly influenced by emissions 

from both facilities. As a result, the data 

was filtered to remove measurements 

where the wind direction could 

transport pollutants from Mosaic and 

TECO to the station. More specifically, 

the data was filtered to remove 

measurements where hourly wind 

direction was between 275° to 4° or 153° 

to 241°. 

ii. FL DEP performed current and 

post-control dispersion modeling using 

the EPA-approved AERMOD modeling 

system. 

iii. Finally, FL DEP derived the 99th 

percentile maximum 1-hour daily SO2

design value across the five year 

meteorological data period. 

EPA’s SO2 nonattainment 

implementation guidance provides a 

procedure for establishing longer-term 

averaging times for SO2 emission limits 

(up to a 30-day rolling averaging time).7

In conjunction with states’ CAA 

obligation to submit SIPs that 

demonstrate attainment, EPA believes 

that air agencies that consider longer 

term average times for a SIP emission 

limit should provide additional 

justification for the application of such 

limits. This justification involves 

determining the ‘‘critical emission 

value’’ 8 or the 1-hour emission limit 

that modeling found to provide for 

attainment and adjusting this rate 

downward to obtain a comparable 

stringency to the modeled 1-hour 

average emission limit. A comparison of 

the 1-hour limit and the proposed 

longer term limit, in particular an 

assessment of whether the longer term 

average limit may be considered to be of 

comparable stringency to a 1-hour limit 

at the critical emission value, is critical 

for demonstrating that any longer term 

average limits in the SIP will help 

provide adequate assurance that the 

plan will provide for attainment and 

maintenance of the 1-hour NAAQS. 

This allows states to develop control 

strategies that account for variability in 

1-hour emissions rates through emission 

limits with averaging times that are 

longer than 1 hour, using averaging 

times as long as 30 days, and still 

demonstrate attainment of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

EPA’s recommended procedure for 

determining longer term averaging 

times, including calculating the 

adjustment factor between the 1-hour 

critical emission value and the 

equivalent 30-day rolling average 

emissions limit, are provided in 

Appendices B and C of the SO2

Nonattainment Guidance. EPA is 

proposing to conclude that FL DEP 

completed this analysis for both Mosaic 

and TECO facilities to derive a SIP 

emission limit with a block 24-hour 

longer-term averaging time and a rolling 

30-day longer-term averaging time, 

respectively, that are comparatively 

stringent to the 1-hour limit. For more 

details, see Florida’s April 3, 2015, SIP 

submittal and accompanying 

appendices. 

2. Modeling Results 

The SO2 NAAQS compliance results 

of the attainment modeling are 

summarized in Table 3. Table 3 presents 

the results from six sets of AERMOD 

modeling runs that were performed. The 

six modeling runs were the result of 

using an uncontrolled, or premodification, run and five different 

controlled, or post-modification, 

scenarios to account for the proposed 

control strategy that involves a two-unit 

and three-unit emissions cap at Mosaic, 

in addition to individual emissions 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57527 

9See EPA’s June 1985 guidance document, 

‘‘Guideline for Determination of Good Engineering 

Practice Stack Height (Technical Support Document 

For the Stack Height Regulations),’’ which can be 

found at: http://www3.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/ 

guide/gep.pdf. 

10The individual emission limits were included 

in the April 3, 2015, submittal. 

caps. Maximum allowable permitted 

emissions limits were used for the 

Hillsborough Area modeling 

demonstration. These emissions limits 

and other control measures were 

established in construction permits 

issued by FL DEP, to be incorporated in 

title V operating permits upon renewal. 

FL DEP is requesting that these 

emissions limits and operating 

conditions, detailed in Section IV.D. of 

this proposed rulemaking, be adopted 

into the SIP to become federally 

enforceable upon approval of the 

nonattainment plan, prior to the 

renewal of the title V operating permits 

for both the Mosaic and TECO facilities. 

The five post-control runs help to 

identify the worst possible scenario of 

emissions distributions between the 

three units EUs 004–006, the sulfuric 

acid plants at the Mosaic facility. Under 

one modeling scenario, an emissions 

cap of 600 pounds per hour (lb/hr) SO2

for Mosaic EUs 004–006 is evaluated 

based on the highest possible impact 

based on catalyst limitations and 

maximum sulfuric acid production. 

This overall cap was then scaled as a 24- 

hour limit, maintaining comparative 

stringency with the 1-hour limit (577.8 

lb/hr). FL DEP rounded down the limit 

for an additional buffer from the 

maximum impact, resulting in a 24-hour 

limit of 575 lb/hr, which compares to a 

1-hour limit of 597 lb/hr. This three-unit 

emissions cap was then modeled in 

several configurations to mimic 

variability in emissions possible under 

this scenario, apportioning emissions 

based on each unit emitting at their 

current individual emissions limit with 

the remainder of the cap distributed to 

the other units based on their relative 

production capacities. The highest 

impact is presented as the three-unit 

emissions cap scenario. FL DEP also 

evaluated a two-unit emissions caps, 

assuming at any time that two units are 

operating. The six possible two-unit 

operating scenarios were evaluated by 

each unit operating at its current 

individual emission limit, while the 

remainder of the 597 lb/hr limit is 

distributed to the one remaining 

operating unit. Again, the highest 

possible impact is presented as the twounit operating scenario. For the three 

remaining scenarios, each sulfuric acid 

plant is assumed to operate alone at its 

individual emissions cap. 

The modeling utilized five years 

(2008–2012) of meteorological data from 

the NWS site in Tampa, Florida, as 

processed through AERMET, 

AERMINTE and AERSURFACE. This 

procedure was used since this site 

represented the nearest site with 

complete data. 

Table 3 shows that the maximum 1- 

hour average across all five years of 

meteorological data (2008–2012) is less 

than or equal to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

of 75 ppb for the five post-control 

AERMOD modeling runs. For more 

details, see Florida’s April 3, 2015 SIP 

submittal. 

TABLE 3—MAXIMUM MODELED SO2 IMPACTS IN THE HILLSBOROUGH AREA, MICROGRAMS PER CUBIC METER (ppb) 

Model scenario Averaging 

time 

Maximum predicted impact 

Background Total SO2 NAAQS 

Mosaic TECO 

Pre-modification ........... 1-hour ........... 425.50 (162.4) 0.82 (0.31) 20.40 (7.8) 446.72 (170.5) 

Three-unit .................... 1-hour ........... 118.90 (45.4) 55.90 (21.3) 21.44 (8.2) 196.24 (74.9) 

Two-unit ....................... 1-hour ........... 123.59 (47.2) 52.22 (19.9) 18.83 (7.2) 194.65 (74.3) 196.4 (75) 

EU 004 only ................. 1-hour ........... 0.33 (0.12) 170.84 (65.2) 17.26 (6.6) 188.43 (71.9) 

EU 005 only ................. 1-hour ........... 0.25 (0.10) 170.84 (65.2) 17.26 (6.6) 188.35 (71.9) 

EU 006 only ................. 1-hour ........... 0.33 (0.12) 170.84 (65.2) 17.26 (6.6) 188.43 (71.9) 

The pre-control analysis resulted in a 

predicted impact of 170.5 ppb. The 

post-control analysis resulted in a 

worst-case predicted impact of 74.9 ppb. 

EPA is preliminarily determining that 

this data indicates sufficient reductions 

in air quality impact with the future 

implementation of the post-construction 

control plan for the Mosaic and TECO 

facilities. Furthermore, EPA is 

preliminarily concluding that this data 

also supports FL DEP’s analysis that the 

controls for Mosaic represent RACM 

and RACT for the SIP. The control 

strategy for Mosaic, as reflected in its 

construction Air Permit No. 0570008– 

080–AC, includes eliminating fuel oil 

except during periods of natural gas 

curtailment or disruption; changing the 

catalyst used to convert SO2 to SO3 for 

improved performance; increasing stack 

heights for all three sulfuric acid plants 

from 150 feet (ft) to at least 213.25 ft; 

and restricting the collective SO2

emissions to 550 lb/hr under two-unit 

operating scenarios, and 575 lb/hr under 

three-unit operating scenarios. The 

result of increasing a stack height is that 

the plume has a better opportunity for 

greater dispersion across an area, 

minimizing stagnation and local 

impacts from higher concentrations, 

primarily due to the avoidance of 

building downwash effects.9 Mosaic’s 

allowable SO2 emissions (total from all 

three controlled units) will be reduced 

from 1,140 lb/hr (based on total 

individual unit emission limits) to a 

maximum of 575 lb/hr, representing at 

least a 49 percent allowable emissions 

decrease. The State will issue a revised 

title V permit to incorporate the Mosaic 

construction permit, and meanwhile is 

proposing the stack height increases and 

emission limits and operating scenarios 

related to those various limits be 

adopted into the SIP for immediate 

effectiveness authorizing Mosaic to 

operate in accordance with those 

conditions. 

The control strategy for TECO, as 

reflected in its construction Air Permit 

No. 0570039–074–AC, includes the 

following operational changes to the 

four largest SO2-emitting units: 

Switching fuel oil to natural gas during 

startup, shutdown and flame 

stabilization at all four fossil fuel fired 

steam generators; and a combined 

emission limit from all four units of 

3,162 lb/hr, to become effective no later 

than June 1, 2016. Florida will 

incorporate the operational change for 

TECO into its title V permit upon 

renewal. 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) 10 to 3,162 lb/hr 

representing a 52 percent allowable 

emissions decrease. The modeling 

results included in Table 3 prove that 

TECO should be included in the 

considerations of controls because with 

several post-control modeling scenarios, 

TECO would contribute to over 90 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57528 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

11Strelow, Roger. ‘‘Guidance for Determining the 

Acceptability of SIP Regulations in Non-Attainment 

Areas.’’ Memo to Regional Administrators. Office of 

Air and Waste Management, Environmental 

Protection Agency. Washington, DC December 9, 

1976. Located at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ 

aqmguide/collection/cp2/19761209_strelow_

ract.pdf. 

percent of the total impact to the 

Hillsborough Area, and in the worst 

possible post-control modeling scenario, 

28 percent of the total predicted impact 

on the Hillsborough Area would stem 

from TECO. Therefore, if no controls 

were implemented at TECO, the Area 

would not likely attain and maintain the 

2010 SO2 NAAQS. The collective 

emission limit and related compliance 

parameters have been proposed for 

incorporation into the SIP to make these 

changes federally enforceable. More 

details on the pre- and post-construction 

operations at the facilities are included 

in Florida’s SIP submission. FL DEP 

asserts that the proposed control 

strategy significantly lowers the 

modeled SO2 impacts from the TECO 

facility and is sufficient for the 

Hillsborough Area to attain 2010 SO2

NAAQS. 

EPA has reviewed the modeling that 

Florida submitted to support the 

attainment demonstration for the 

Hillsborough Area and has preliminarily 

determined that this modeling is 

consistent with CAA requirements, 

Appendix W and EPA’s guidance for 

SO2 attainment demonstration 

modeling. 

D. RACM/RACT 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that 

each attainment plan provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable and 

attainment of the NAAQS. EPA 

interprets RACM, including RACT, 

under section 172, as measures that a 

state determines to be both reasonably 

available and contribute to attainment 

as expeditiously as practicable ‘‘for 

existing sources in the area.’’ 

Florida’s analysis is found in Section 

3 of the FL DEP attainment 

demonstration within the April 3, 2015, 

SIP submittal. The State determined that 

controls for SO2 emissions at Mosaic are 

appropriate in the Hillsborough Area for 

purposes of attaining the 2010 SO2

NAAQS. CAA section 172(c)(1) says that 

the plan shall provide for RACM, 

including RACT for ‘‘existing sources in 

the area.’’ Accordingly, Florida only 

completed a RACM/RACT analysis for 

Mosaic, since it is the only significant 

point source within the boundaries of 

the nonattainment area. The Ajax and 

Harsco sources resulted in less than 6 

tpy between them. FL DEP included 

TECO in its attainment and impact 

modeling because of the source’s 

proximity to the Hillsborough Area 

(within 5 km) and its likelihood of 

contributing to violations of the SO2

NAAQS within the area. In a modelingbased attainment demonstration, the 

means of considering impacts of sources 

outside the nonattainment area would 

depend on whether the sources cause 

significant concentration gradients. 

Florida proposed a control strategy for 

the TECO facility, but does not assert 

that those controls 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’’ 11 because section 172(c)(1) 

provides for the implementation of 

RACT for existing sources in the area. 

However, an analysis of attainment 

needs to consider all potential sources, 

both inside and outside the 

nonattainment area that could 

reasonably cause or contribute to 

violations of the NAAQS within the 

area. FL DEP affirms the 

implementation of controls at TECO 

significantly lowers the modeled SO2

impact from the facility and is sufficient 

to attain 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the 

Hillsborough Area. The control 

measures at both sources are 

summarized later on in this preamble. 

On January 15, 2015, FL DEP issued 

construction Air Permit No. 0570008– 

080–AC to Mosaic for additional 

proposed control measures to reduce 

SO2 emissions. The specified limits and 

conditions from this construction 

permit, which will be adopted into the 

title V operating permit upon renewal, 

reflecting RACT controls, are included 

in the April 3, 2015, SIP submittal for 

incorporation into the SIP. The title V 

permit renewal is currently under 

review at the State, and is expected to 

be final by the end of calendar year 

2016. The SO2 Nonattainment Guidance 

discusses an anticipated control 

compliance date of January 1, 2017. 

Areas that implement attainment plan 

control strategies by this date are 

expected to be able to show a year of 

quality-assured air monitoring data 

showing attainment of the NAAQS and 

a year of compliance information, which 

when modeled, would also show 

attainment of the NAAQS. In 

accordance with the schedule in the 

construction permit, Mosaic is required 

to implement emissions limits by 

December 15, 2016, complete final 

increased stack height construction and 

catalyst changes by November 2017, and 

the elimination of fuel oil by January 1, 

2018. This date, though later than the 

date suggested in the SO2

Nonattainment Guidance, provides for 9 

months of compliance information by 

the October 4, 2018 attainment date, 

including a semiannual compliance 

report in July 2018. Finally, the 

Hillsborough Area is currently showing 

an attaining design value for 2013–2015, 

which means that attainment of the 

NAAQS is as expeditious as practicable. 

FL DEP included in its SIP the required 

RACT controls listed in the permit and 

summarized in Table 4: 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF RACT CONTROLS FOR MOSAIC12

Description of measure Explanation 

Mosaic EUs 004–006: The sulfuric acid plants undergo construction 

and operational changes to: Increase stack heights; change catalysts 

for sulfuric acid production; and meet two-unit and three-unit enforceable emission limits.

Mosaic was authorized to construct at current stacks for each sulfuric 

acid plant, increasing the stack height from the existing level of 150 

ft to at least 213.25 ft. 

Mosaic was authorized to change catalysts and system augmentation 

to ensure compliance with new emission limits. 

Mosaic has new emission limitations, lowering the allowable SO2 from 

all three sulfuric acid plants collectively from 1140 lb/hr to a maximum of 575 lb/hr as a block 24-hour average.13 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. All emission limits will be incorporated into the title V operating permit upon renewal and are 

proposed for incorporation into the SIP. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57529 

12The information was pulled from the April 3, 

2015 submittal, in which the original construction 

permit is included. None of these changes authorize 

an increased production rate at the facility. 

13See previous discussion on longer-term 

emission limits. For more information, see the April 

3, 2015 submittal. 

14Additional controls not requested for 

incorporation into the SIP for TECO EUs 001–004 

include the elimination of fuel oil usage as of 180 

days prior to June 1, 2016. 

15SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, 

EPA–452/R–94–008, February 1994. Located at: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF RACT CONTROLS FOR MOSAIC12—Continued 

Description of measure Explanation 

Plantwide: Mosaic is required to eliminate fuel oil use ............................ By January 1, 2018, Mosaic will not be authorized to use fuel oil, except during periods of natural gas curtailment or disruption. This condition is included in the construction permit. 

On February 26, 2015, construction 

Air Permit No. 0570039–074–AC was 

issued to TECO for additional proposed 

control measures to reduce SO2

emissions. The specified limits and 

conditions from this construction 

permit are to be adopted into the title V 

operating permit upon renewal, and are 

intended to supplement the RACT 

adopted for Mosaic in the Hillsborough 

Area to help with attainment and 

maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 

These controls are included in the April 

3, 2015, SIP submittal for incorporation 

into the SIP. TECO is required to 

implement the controls on or before 

June 1, 2016. The construction is 

complete and the emission limit is 

currently in effect. The title V permit 

renewal is under review at the State 

currently, and is expected to be final by 

the end of calendar year 2016. 

Therefore, the additional control 

strategy for TECO is in effect. The 

supplemental control measures at TECO 

are summarized in Table 4: 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL CONTROL MEASURES FOR TECO 

Description of measure Explanation 

TECO EUs 001–004 14: The fossil fuel fired steam generators undergo 

an operational change to meet a collective enforceable emission limit.

By June 1, 2016, TECO will comply with a 3,162 lb/hr SO2 emission 

limitation as a 30-day rolling average. This collective limit, or cap, will 

be incorporated into the title V operating permit upon scheduled renewal and is proposed for incorporation into the SIP. 

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s 

determination that the proposed 

controls for SO2 emissions at Mosaic 

constitute RACM/RACT for that source 

in the Hillsborough Area based on the 

analysis described previously. 

Additionally, EPA proposes to approve 

Florida’s determination that the 

supplemental control measures initiated 

at TECO help to bring the area into 

attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as 

expeditiously as practicable. Further, 

EPA determines that no further controls 

would be required at Mosaic, and that 

the proposed controls are sufficient for 

RACM/RACT purposes for the 

Hillsborough Area at this time. EPA, 

therefore, proposes to approve Florida’s 

April 3, 2015, SIP submission as 

meeting the RACM/RACT requirements 

of the CAA. 

Based on FL DEPs modeling 

demonstration, the Hillsborough Area is 

projected to begin showing attaining 

monitoring values for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS by the 2018 attainment date. As 

noted previously, some of the control 

measures will not be in place a full year 

prior to the attainment date as 

recommended in the 2014 SO2

Nonattainment Guidance; a 

recommendation intended to provide 

data to evaluate the effect of the control 

strategy on air quality. Because the Area 

is currently attaining the 2010 SO2

NAAQS, EPA proposes to find that the 

full control strategy will be in place for 

an adequate time prior to the attainment 

date to ensure attainment of the 

NAAQS. In addition, by approving the 

RACM/RACT for Mosaic, and the 

supplemental controls for TECO, for the 

purposes of Florida’s attainment 

planning, the control measures outlined 

in Tables 3 and 4 will become 

permanent and enforceable SIP 

measures to meet the requirements of 

the CAA. 

E. RFP Plan 

Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires 

that an attainment plan includes a 

demonstration that shows reasonable 

further progress for meeting air quality 

standards will be achieved through 

generally linear incremental 

improvement in air quality. Section 

171(1) of the Act defines RFP as ‘‘such 

annual incremental reductions in 

emissions of the relevant air pollutant as 

are required by this part (part D) or may 

reasonably be required by EPA for the 

purpose of ensuring attainment of the 

applicable NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date.’’ As stated originally in 

the 1994 SO2 Guideline Document 15

and repeated in the 2014 SO2

Nonattainment Guidance, EPA 

continues to believe that this definition 

is most appropriate for pollutants that 

are emitted from numerous and diverse 

sources, where the relationship between 

particular sources and ambient air 

quality are not directly quantified. In 

such cases, emissions reductions may be 

required from various types and 

locations of sources. The relationship 

between SO2 and sources is much more 

defined, and usually there is a single 

step between pre-control nonattainment 

and post-control attainment. Therefore, 

EPA interpreted RFP for SO2 as 

adherence to an ambitious compliance 

schedule in both the 1994 SO2

Guideline Document and the 2014 SO2

Nonattainment Guidance. The control 

measures for attainment of the 2010 SO2

NAAQS included in the State’s 

submittal have been modeled to achieve 

attainment of the NAAQS. The permits 

and the adoption of specific emissions 

limits and compliance parameters 

require these control measures and 

resulting emissions reductions to be 

achieved as expeditiously as 

practicable. As a result of an ambitious 

compliance schedule, projected to yield 

a sufficient reduction in SO2 emissions 

from the Mosaic and TECO facilities, 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57530 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

16The most recent quality-assured design values 

for each NAAQS are publicly available at https:// 

www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values. 

and resulting in modeled attainment of 

the SO2 NAAQS, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that FL DEP’s SO2

attainment plan for the 2010 SO2

NAAQS fulfills the RFP requirements 

for the Hillsborough Area. Currently, the 

monitored SO2 design value for the 

Hillsborough Area is below the NAAQS, 

and because of the modeled attainment 

with the selected control strategies, EPA 

does not anticipate future 

nonattainment, or that the Area will not 

meet the statutory October 4, 2018, 

attainment date. EPA therefore proposes 

to approve Florida’s attainment plan 

with respect to the RFP requirements. 

F. Contingency Measures 

In accordance with section 172(c)(9) 

of the CAA, contingency measures are 

required as additional measures to be 

implemented in the event that an area 

fails to meet the RFP requirements or 

fails to attain a standard by its 

attainment date. These measures must 

be fully adopted rules or control 

measures that can be implemented 

quickly and without additional EPA or 

state action if the area fails to meet RFP 

requirements or fails to meet its 

attainment date and should contain 

trigger mechanisms and an 

implementation schedule. However, 

SO2 presents special considerations. As 

stated in the final 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

promulgation on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 

35520) and in the 2014 SO2

Nonattainment Guidance, EPA 

concluded that because of the 

quantifiable relationship between SO2

sources and control measures, it is 

appropriate that state agencies develop 

a ‘‘comprehensive program to identify 

sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS 

and undertake an aggressive follow-up 

for compliance and enforcement.’’ 

Based on all the control measures that 

are planned for Mosaic and completed 

for TECO, FL DEP believes that the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS can be achieved on a 

consistent basis. However, if a fourth 

exceedance of the SO2 NAAQS occurs 

during any calendar year, or upon a 

determination that the Hillsborough 

Area has failed to attain the NAAQS by 

the attainment date, Mosaic and TECO 

will immediately undertake full system 

audits of controlled SO2 emissions. 

Within 10 days, each source will 

independently submit a report to FL 

DEP summarizing all operating 

parameters for four 10-day periods up to 

and including the dates of the 

exceedances. These sources are required 

to deploy provisional SO2 emission 

control strategies within this 10-day 

period and include ‘‘evidence that these 

control strategies have been deployed, 

as appropriate’’ in the report to FL DEP. 

FL DEP will then begin a 30-day 

evaluation of these reports to determine 

the cause of the exceedances, followed 

by a 30-day consultation period with the 

sources to develop and implement 

appropriate operational changes 

necessary to prevent any future 

violation of the NAAQS. Explicit 

measures addressed in Florida’s April 3, 

2015, SIP submittal are: 

• Fuel switching to reduce or 

eliminate the use of sulfur-containing 

fuels; and/or 

• physical or operational reduction of 

production capacity. 

Florida may consider other options 

for additional controls if these measures 

are not deemed to be the most 

appropriate to address air quality issues 

in the Area. 

If a permit modification might be 

required to conform to applicable air 

quality standards, Florida will make use 

of the State’s authority in Rule 62–4.080 

to require permittees to comply with 

new or additional conditions. This 

authority would allow Florida to work 

directly with the source(s) expeditiously 

to make changes to permits. 

Subsequently, Florida would submit 

any relevant permit change to EPA as a 

source-specific SIP revision to make the 

change permanent and enforceable. EPA 

notes that a contingency measure 

involving a revised permit or sourcespecific SIP revision as an acceptable 

additional step, but according to CAA 

section 172(c)(9), a measure requiring 

further action by FL DEP or EPA (e.g., 

necessitating a revised permit and SIP 

revision) could not serve as the primary 

contingency measure. 

EPA is proposing to find that Florida’s 

April 3, 2015, SIP submittal includes a 

comprehensive program to 

expeditiously identify the source of any 

violation of the SO2 NAAQS and for 

aggressive follow-up. Therefore, EPA 

proposes that the contingency measures 

submitted by Florida follow the 2014 

SO2 Nonattainment Guidance and meet 

the section 172(c)(9). EPA notes that 

Florida has further committed to pursue 

additional actions that may require a 

SIP revision if needed to address the 

exceedances. 

G. Attainment Date 

Florida’s modeling indicates that the 

Hillsborough Area will begin attaining 

the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by January 1, 

2018, once the control strategy is 

completely implemented. This 

modeling does not provide for an 

attaining three-year design value by the 

proposed attainment date of October 4, 

2018. However, expeditious 

implementation of the additional 

controls for the TECO source, combined 

with the actual emissions and 

implementation of scheduled RACM/ 

RACT for the Mosaic source, has already 

provided for an attaining design value of 

66 ppb considering 2013–2015 data, and 

exhibited improved data in the years 

leading up to 2015.16 The recent design 

value is well under the NAAQS, and the 

ongoing compliance schedule for 

Mosaic control measures will help to 

assure that the area maintains the 

NAAQS in the future. Therefore, the 

area has attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, 

and is expected to continue to attain the 

NAAQS by the attainment date. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s 

SO2 attainment plan for the 

Hillsborough Area. EPA has 

preliminarily determined that the SIP 

meets the applicable requirements of the 

CAA. Specifically, EPA is proposing to 

approve Florida’s April 3, 2015, SIP 

submission, which includes the base 

year emissions inventory, a modeling 

demonstration of SO2 attainment, an 

analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, 

and contingency measures for the 

Hillsborough Area. Additionally, EPA is 

proposing to approve into the Florida 

SIP specific SO2 emission limits and 

compliance parameters established for 

the two SO2 point sources impacting the 

Hillsborough Area. 

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 proposed 

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 proposed action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules 57531 

1EPA defines RACT as ‘‘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.’’ 44 FR 

53761 (September 17, 1979). 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

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

Dated: August 15, 2016. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2016–20118 Filed 8–22–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0335; FRL–9951–13– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Adoption of Control Techniques 

Guidelines for Control of Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia). 

These revisions include amendments to 

the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (VADEQ) 

regulations and address the requirement 

to adopt Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for sources covered 

by EPA’s Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) standards for the 

following categories: Offset lithographic 

printing and letterpress printing, 

industrial solvent cleaning operations, 

miscellaneous industrial adhesives, and 

miscellaneous metal and plastic parts 

coatings. This action is being taken 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 22, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2016–0335 at http://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

fernendez.cristina@epa.gov. For 

comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 

follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. Once submitted, 

comments cannot be edited or removed 

from Regulations.gov. For either manner 

of submission, the EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

confidential business information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

For the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Leslie Jones Doherty, (215) 814–3409, or 

by email at jones.leslie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 1, 2016, Virginia, through the 

VADEQ, submitted three revisions to 

the Virginia SIP concerning the 

adoption of EPA CTGs for offset 

lithographic printing and letterpress 

printing, industrial solvent cleaning 

operations, miscellaneous industrial 

adhesives, and miscellaneous metal and 

plastic parts coatings sources in the 

specific portion of Virginia known as 

the Northern Virginia Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions Control Area. 

I. Background 

On March 27, 2008, EPA revised the 

8-hour ozone standard to a new 0.075 

parts per million (ppm) level (73 FR 

16436). On May 21, 2012, EPA finalized 

designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS (77 FR 30087) in which the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA area was 

designated marginal nonattainment. See 

40 CFR 81.347. Section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA provides that SIPs for 

nonattainment areas must include 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), including RACT, for sources of 

emissions.1 However, the northern 

portion of Virginia is also part of the 

Metropolitan Statistical Area of the 

District Columbia which is in the ozone 

transport region (OTR) established 

under section 184(a) of the CAA. 

Pursuant to section 184(b)(1)(B) of the 

CAA, all areas in the OTR must 

implement RACT with respect to 

sources of volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) in the state covered by a CTG 

issued before or after November 15, 

1990. In addition, pursuant to CAA 

section 184(b)(2), stationary sources in 

states or portions of a state within the 

OTR that emit at least 50 tons per year 

of VOCs shall be considered major 

stationary sources subject to 

requirements applicable to major 

stationary sources if the area were 

classified as a Moderate nonattainment 

area including requirements for CTGs 

and RACT. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS