Rule2023-15964
Air Plan Approval; Florida; Revision of Excess Emissions Provisions and Emission Standards; Amendments to Stationary Sources-Emission Standards
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 4, 2023
Effective
September 5, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Florida on November 22, 2016, and supplemented on September 30, 2022, through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The November 22, 2016, SIP revision is in response to EPA's SIP Call published on June 12, 2015, concerning excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events. The September 30, 2022, supplemental SIP revision addresses additional SSM-related rule amendments identified by the State and the addition of source specific sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) and nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) emission limits. EPA is approving these SIP revisions and finds that they correct the deficiencies identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP Call. EPA is also approving a portion of a SIP revision submitted by FDEP on April 1, 2022, which modifies provisions that regulate emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and visible emissions and modifies requirements for major stationary sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and NO<INF>X</INF>.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 149 (Friday, August 4, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 149 (Friday, August 4, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51702-51711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15964]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0892; EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0851; FRL-10928-02-R4]
Air Plan Approval; Florida; Revision of Excess Emissions
Provisions and Emission Standards; Amendments to Stationary Sources--
Emission Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Florida
on November 22, 2016, and supplemented on September 30, 2022, through
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The November
22, 2016, SIP revision is in response to EPA's SIP Call published on
June 12, 2015, concerning excess emissions during startup, shutdown,
and malfunction (SSM) events. The September 30, 2022, supplemental SIP
revision addresses additional SSM-related rule amendments identified by
the State and the addition of source specific sulfur dioxide
(SO<INF>2</INF>) and nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) emission limits.
EPA is approving these SIP revisions and finds that they correct the
deficiencies identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP Call. EPA is also
approving a portion of a SIP revision submitted by FDEP on April 1,
2022, which modifies provisions that regulate emissions of
SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and visible emissions and modifies
requirements for major stationary sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and NO<INF>X</INF>.
DATES: This rule is effective September 5, 2023.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established dockets for these actions under Docket
Identification Nos. EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0892 and EPA-R04-OAR-2022-0851.
All documents in the dockets are listed on the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
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
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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: Joel Huey, Manager, Multi-Air
Pollutant Coordination 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. The
telephone number is (404) 562-9104. Mr. Huey can also be reached via
electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b736e7e623571747e775b7e6b7a357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="076f72627e296d68626b4762776629606871">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
a. Florida's November 22, 2016, and September 30, 2022, SIP Submissions
On November 22, 2016, FDEP submitted a revision to the Florida SIP
(referred to hereinafter as Florida's ``Excess Emissions Rule SIP
Revision'') in response to EPA's June 12, 2015, action titled ``State
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement
and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of
Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to
Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction''
(``2015 SSM SIP Action''). See 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). In the
Excess Emissions Rule SIP Revision, FDEP requests EPA approval of the
following changes to the Florida SIP: (1) Removal of Florida
Administrative Code Rule (referred to hereinafter referred as ``Rule'')
62-210.700(4) with the addition of equivalent language to Rules 62-
210.700(1) and (2); (2) amendment of Rule 62-210.700(3) to revise the
particulate matter (PM) limits applicable during boiler cleaning (soot
blowing) and load changes by removing the statement that excess
emissions during these periods ``shall be permitted,'' removing the
exemption for pollutants other than PM and visible emissions, and
removing a specific allowance for visible emissions which exceed 60
percent opacity for up to four six-minute periods during the 3-hour
period of excess emissions allowed for soot blowing or load change; (3)
addition of Rule 62-210.700(6), which states that Rules 62-210.700(1)
and (2) shall not apply after May 22, 2018, to either category-specific
or unit-specific limits that have been incorporated into Florida's SIP;
and (4) addition of Rule 62-210.700(7), which states that after the
State's effective date of the rule change (October 23, 2016), Rules 62-
210.700(1) and (2) shall not apply to new permit-specific emission
limits established pursuant to Florida's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)
regulations (Rules 62-212.400 and 62-210.500). The Excess Emissions
Rule SIP revision includes information demonstrating that these changes
will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
reasonable further progress (RFP), or with any other applicable
requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
On September 30, 2022, FDEP submitted a supplemental revision
(referred to hereinafter as Florida's ``Supplemental SSM SIP
Revision'') to the State's November 22, 2016, Excess Emissions Rule SIP
Revision. In the Supplemental SSM SIP Revision, FDEP includes
alternative SIP emission limits for those SIP emission limits that it
identified as ``problematic'' if applied continuously and several
changes to language throughout Chapter 62-296. The State requests EPA
approval of the following changes: (1) Amendment of existing Rule 62-
296.405, ``Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with More Than 250 Million Btu
Per Hour Heat Input,'' and Rule 62-296.570, ``Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT)--Requirements for Major VOC- and
NO<INF>X</INF>-Emitting Facilities,'' to clarify how emissions are
calculated, including during periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction; (2) addition of emissions-unit-specific SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits for certain sulfuric acid plants (SAPs)
and nitric acid plants (NAPs) in Florida; (3) removal of SO<INF>2</INF>
emission limits in Rule 62-296.402, ``Sulfuric Acid Plants''; and (4)
removal of NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits in Rule 62-296.408, ``Nitric
Acid Plants.'' The
[[Page 51703]]
Supplemental SSM SIP revision includes technical support materials to
demonstrate that these changes will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment of any NAAQS and RFP, or with any
other applicable requirement of the Act.
On May 8, 2023, EPA proposed to approve FDEP's November 22, 2016,
and September 30, 2022, SIP revisions. See 88 FR 29598. That notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is titled ``Air Plan Approval; Florida;
Revision of Excess Emissions Provisions and Emission Standards''
(Excess Emissions Proposal). In the Excess Emissions Proposal, EPA also
proposed to determine that the SIP revisions correct the deficiencies
that the Agency identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action with respect to
Florida. The reasons for the proposed approval and determination are
stated in the Excess Emissions Proposal and will not be restated here.
The public comment period for EPA's proposed approval and determination
ended on June 7, 2023. EPA received one favorable comment and one set
of comments in a joint letter submitted by the Sierra Club and the
Environmental Integrity Project (hereinafter collectively referred to
as the Commenters) which agree in part and disagree in part with EPA's
proposed action. Both sets of comments are available in Docket No. EPA-
R04-OAR-2022-0892.
b. Florida's April 1, 2022, SIP Submission
On April 1, 2022, FDEP submitted a SIP revision seeking to revise
Rules 62-296.405, ``Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with More Than 250
Million Btu Per Hour Heat Input,'' and 62-296.570, ``Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)--Requirements for Major VOC- and
NO<INF>X</INF>- Emitting Facilities.'' <SUP>1 2</SUP> Florida's April
1, 2022, SIP revision includes technical support materials to
demonstrate that the changes and deletions to these rules will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment of any
NAAQS and RFP, or with any other applicable requirement of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On March 30, 2023, Florida submitted a letter to EPA
withdrawing the removal of Rule 62-296.405(1)(c)1.g. and 62-
296.405(1)(d)2., from EPA's consideration. For this reason, EPA is
not acting on the removal of (1)(c)1.g. and (1)(d)2 described in the
April 1, 2022, SIP revision. The letter is available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
\2\ The April 1, 2022, submittal transmits several changes to
other Florida SIP-approved rules. These changes are not addressed in
this rulemaking and will be considered by EPA in a separate
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the April 1, 2022, submission contains changes to the
following provisions in Rule 62-296.405: 62-296.405(1)(a); 62-
296.405(1)(c)1.; 62-296.405(1)(c)1.b. through e.; 62-296.405(1)(c)1.h.
through i.; 62-296.405(1)(c)2.a., b., and d.; 62-296.405(1)(c)3.; 62-
296.405(1)(d)3.; 62-296.405(1)(e); and 62-296.405(2). These provisions
regulate emissions of SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, and visible
emissions from certain fossil fuel-fired steam generators with more
than 250 million British thermal units (Btu) per hour heat input. The
changes to these provisions revise a visible emissions limitation and
clarify to whom the results of visible emissions testing must be
submitted. The changes also remove outdated language, including
emission limits for sources that have shut down or have more stringent
federally enforceable limits, add specific citations for EPA test
methods, and make minor wording edits. These changes do not allow for
any pollutant emission increases because they only (1) remove certain
SIP rules that are either obsolete or that are redundant for units that
have more stringent federally enforceable limits in the SIP and (2)
revise other rules in a way that would not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment, RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA.
The April 1, 2022, submission also removes obsolete provisions in
Rule 62-296-570, ``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)--
Requirements for Major VOC- and NO<INF>X</INF>-Emitting Facilities''
and makes changes to clarify the intent of the Rule and update certain
cross-references. FDEP developed Rule 62-296.570 to implement VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT for existing major sources of VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF> in its then moderate ozone nonattainment area--the South
Florida Area (consisting of Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach Counties)--as
required by CAA section 182.\3\ After EPA redesignated the South
Florida Area to attainment, Florida revised its RACT rules such that
Rule 62-296.570 now applies to the South Florida maintenance area.\4\
EPA has evaluated the State's non-interference demonstration and finds
that the changes to Rule 62-296.570 would not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment of any NAAQS and RFP, or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 60 FR 2688, 2689 (January 11, 1995) (approving Florida's
January 8, 1993, SIP revision and noting that Florida's RACT rule
``applies to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment requirement for RACT
for existing major sources of VOCs and NO<INF>X</INF> in Florida's
moderate non-attainment area.''). The fact that Rule 62-296.570
applies solely to existing units is further evidenced by language in
Florida's January 8, 1993, SIP revision (available in the docket for
this rulemaking), the May 31, 1995, compliance date in Rule 62-
296.570(4)(a)1, and the exclusion of new and modified major VOC- and
NO<INF>X</INF> emitting facilities subject to major new source
review through Rule 62-296.570(1)(a) (referencing Rule 62-
296.500(1)(b)).
\4\ See 60 FR 10325 (February 24, 1995) (redesignating the South
Florida Area to attainment); 64 FR 32346 (June 16, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a NPRM published on May 8, 2023, EPA proposed to approve the
portion of Florida's April 1, 2022, SIP revision seeking to amend Rules
62-296.405 and 62-296.570. See 88 FR 29591. That notice of proposed
rulemaking is titled ``Air Plan Approval; Florida; Amendments to
Stationary Sources--Emission Standards'' (Emission Standards Proposal).
Comments on the Emission Standards Proposal were due on or before June
7, 2023. EPA received no comments on the Emission Standards Proposal.
II. Response to Comments
This section contains summaries of the comments received and EPA's
responses.
Comment 1: Regarding the removal of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits from Rules 62-296.402, ``Sulfuric Acid
Plants,'' and 62-296.408, ``Nitric Acid Plants,'' respectively,
Commenters state that ``EPA posits that a longer-term limit will
protect the 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQs if it is of comparable
stringency to a maximum 1-hour NAAQS-protective `critical emission
value' that provides for attainment.'' \5\ Commenters then note that
EPA's 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance (SO<INF>2</INF>
Nonattainment Guidance) \6\ sets out a method that uses an
``equivalency ratio'' derived by compiling a representative
distribution, or sample set, of actual emissions data on a 1-hour
average to compute a distribution of longer-term emission averages and
then a ratio of the 99th percentile of the longer-term values to the
99th percentile of the hourly values.\7\ Commenters assert that
Florida's proposed longer-term average limits are based on EPA's
SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance and that ``one obvious problem''
with the method is that the equivalency ratio can vary greatly
depending on the selected data set.\8\ Commenters go on to state that
EPA has not provided all relevant information about the data set used
to
[[Page 51704]]
calculate the source-specific limits and it is therefore unclear
whether the selected data are appropriate and whether they yield
standards comparable to what might result from other potentially
representative data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Although this statement only appears in the comment
regarding SO<INF>2</INF> limits in Rule 62-296.407, Commenters note
in their comment regarding NO<INF>X</INF> limits in Rule 62-296.408
that they ``have the same concerns . . . as with the SO<INF>2</INF>
limits.'' The comments on the NO<INF>X</INF> limits relate to the 1-
hour NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
\6\ See SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf</a>.
\7\ See supra note 5.
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response 1: Regarding the Commenters' statement that ``EPA posits
that a longer-term average limit will protect the 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF>
NAAQS . . . , '' the Excess Emissions Proposal does not, as the
statement may suggest, include new policy statements on the use of
longer-term average limits for NAAQS attainment planning purposes.
Rather, in the Excess Emissions Proposal, EPA merely summarizes the
approach for establishing acceptable longer-term average emission
limits included in the SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance. The
proposal also notes that all areas in Florida that had been through the
attainment planning and/or designation process had been redesignated
and, in Sections II.B.5.I. and II.B.5.II., details the methodology that
Florida employed to determine proposed longer-term average emission
limits for several sulfuric acid plants (SAPs) and nitric acid plants
(NAPs) in the State. EPA also specifically highlights the differences
between the attainment planning approach laid out in the SO<INF>2</INF>
Nonattainment Guidance and the assessment made for determining
comparably stringent limits to replace the existing SIP-rule limits.
As discussed in the Excess Emissions Proposal, Florida's longer-
term average emission limits for several SAPs and NAPs in the September
30, 2022, SIP revision are not based entirely on the SO<INF>2</INF>
Nonattainment Guidance. As FDEP explains in its SIP submittal, to set
reasonable longer-term average emission limits that would be comparable
to the existing SIP-rule emission limits proposed for removal from the
SIP, the State made use of the statistical principles that EPA applied
in the SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance to calculate equivalency
ratios. In the Excess Emissions Proposal, EPA states that Florida made
use of similar statistical approaches to the approach outlined in the
guidance when developing its source-specific emission limits for
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>. See 88 FR 29598, 29605-08. Making
use of a similar statistical analysis of actual emissions data to
develop longer-term average emission limits that would be comparable to
existing SIP-rule emission limits and not allow emissions increases is
not the same as applying the guidance for demonstrating that a
prospective limit is sufficient to provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
As noted above, the Excess Emissions Proposal discusses the
modified methodology for determining the longer-term average emission
limits that can replace the existing SIP rule SO<INF>2</INF> emission
limits for SAPs and the existing SIP rule NO<INF>X</INF> emission
limits for NAPs. The analysis demonstrates that the longer-term average
emission limits are comparably stringent to those existing SIP emission
limits and, therefore, do not allow any emissions increases. The
detailed analysis described in section II.B.5. of the Excess Emissions
Proposal explains why the longer-term emission limits developed by
Florida are comparably stringent to the existing SIP limits. The
proposal also specifically details how Florida's approach in
establishing longer-term average emission limits for certain SAPs and
for the two NAPs in the State differed from EPA's approach detailed in
the SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance for the purpose of attainment
planning, and it highlights the similarities, where relevant, between
the two approaches. EPA did not state or suggest that Florida made use
of actual modeled ``critical emission values'' (CEVs) to determine the
new longer-term average emission limits proposed for incorporation into
the SIP.
At the time of proposal, EPA had no information that there were any
NAAQS issues that would require modeling a new CEV, and no new
information has been provided to indicate that there would be NAAQS
compliance issues around any of the facilities subject to this
rulemaking. Rather, FDEP established new, source-specific emission
limits and compared them to existing SIP emission limits in Rules 62-
296.402 and 62-296.408. The starting point for the analysis was not a
nonattainment planning situation, but instead a consideration of any
potential relaxation to the SIP in replacing the existing SIP-rule
emission limits with source-specific longer-term average emission
limits.
As discussed in the Excess Emissions Proposal, the existing SIP
emission limits proposed for removal from the SIP were only applicable
to steady-state periods of operation, having functioned with an
exemption for periods of SSM. With Florida's removal of exemptions for
SSM in Rule 62-210.700, ``Excess Emissions,'' in response to the 2015
SSM SIP Action, the State wanted to develop new, continuous emission
limits that would apply during all periods of operation. Having been
through the attainment planning process and air quality designations
process for several SAPs (i.e., Mosaic Fertilizer's Riverview facility,
Bartow facility, and New Wales facility), FDEP recognized that several
SAPs in the State already had existing longer-term average, source-
specific emission limits which were continuous and at least as
stringent as the emission limits in Rule 62-296.402 (which had not been
adopted for attainment planning purposes).
The State then proposed new, longer-term average emission limits
for the remaining SAPs in the State, Mosaic South Pierce, Nutrien White
Springs, and Tampa Electric Company (TECO) Polk, which would be based
on an analysis of comparable stringency to the previously existing
short-term limits using each source's continuous emissions monitoring
system (CEMS) data, similar to the longer-term average emission limit
approach developed in the SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance. For
this analysis, Florida used the existing SIP rule emission limits in
place of the CEV concept used in the SO<INF>2</INF> Guidance to
demonstrate how much a longer-term average limit should be scaled down
to compensate for the longer averaging period and maintain the same
level of emission limit stringency. Similarly, the State developed
longer-term average continuous emission limits for the two NAPs in the
State, Ascend Pensacola, and Trademark Nitrogen, which could build off
of a similar analysis based on historical CEMS data. EPA has not
suggested that FDEP made use of a modeled CEV for these SAPs and NAPs.
The existing 3-hour average SIP emission limits were the baseline for
the longer-term average analysis. See 88 FR 29598, 29605-08.
EPA disagrees with the Commenters that the Agency did not provide
enough information to assess the appropriateness of the data sets used
in the analysis. The Excess Emissions Proposal and associated docket
provide sufficient relevant information about the data sets Florida
used to calculate the source-specific limits. The State utilized over
three years of CEMS data for Mosaic South Pierce, three years of data
for Nutrien White Springs SAP F, two years of data for Nutrien White
Springs SAP E, and three years of data for Ascend Pensacola.\9\ The
data sets used were from the most recently available complete years and
provide ample data points to perform robust analyses and to reach
reliable conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See ``Nutrien White Springs Eq Ratio 2019-2021,'' ``Mosaic
SP SO<INF>2</INF> Equivalence Ratios,'' and ``Ascend Nitric Acid
Plant Equivalency Ratio'' in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA included the CEMS data as provided by FDEP for the Mosaic South
Pierce SAPs, Nutrien White Springs
[[Page 51705]]
SAPs, and the Ascend Pensacola NAP in the rulemaking docket at the time
of proposal. EPA also evaluated the analysis that FDEP performed in
selecting longer-term average emission limits for these facilities. The
Excess Emissions Proposal describes the use of 99th percentile 1-hour
average, 3-hour average, 6-hour average, and 24-hour block average
emissions, as applicable for the SAPs, and the proposed longer-term
average emission limits being evaluated. Similarly, EPA describes the
use of the 98th percentile 1-hour average, 3-hour average, and 720-hour
rolling average emissions for the Ascend Pensacola NAP.
As discussed in the Excess Emissions Proposal, for the Nutrien
White Springs and Mosaic South Pierce SAPs, FDEP evaluated the ratio of
the 24-hour:3-hour average 99th percentile emissions, then also
considered the ratio of 24-hour:1-hour average 99th percentile
emissions. FDEP then selected a longer-term average emission limit (840
lbs/hr) in line with the most conservative (i.e., lowest) equivalency
ratios determined for Nutrien White Springs and considerably more
stringent than the calculated equivalency ratios would have determined
to be appropriate for Mosaic South Pierce. See 88 FR 29598, 29605-09.
The ratio of the selected emission limit to the existing SIP emission
limit (917 lbs/hr) is 0.916. The average of the two 24-hr:3-hr ratios
determined for SAPs E (0.950) and F (0.914), would be 0.932. Therefore,
the final limit across these two SAPs at Nutrien White Springs is in
line with the lower end of what the 24-hr:3-hr equivalency ratios would
indicate is an appropriate longer-term average emission limit and more
stringent than what an equal consideration for the analysis across both
SAPs would call for. Regarding Mosaic South Pierce, FDEP and Mosaic
Fertilizer agreed upon an equivalency ratio of 0.750 for the source,
which is lower than any of the 24-hr:3-hr or 24-hr:1-hr equivalency
ratios included in the analysis of the CEMS data. See 88 FR 29598,
29605.
Regarding the TECO Polk SAP, with the new 6-hour average emission
limit, the ratio between the selected limit and the existing SIP
emission limit is in line with the lowest 6-hr:1-hr ratio from the
available CEMS data for Nutrien White Springs and Mosaic South Pierce.
See 88 FR 29598, 29610. For Ascend Pensacola, FDEP considered the ratio
of the 720-hour:3-hour average 98th percentile emissions, then also
considered the ratio of the 720-hour:1-hour average 98th percentile
emissions. The selected emission limit compared to the existing SIP
emission limit for Ascend Pensacola and Trademark Nitrogen results in a
significantly more stringent ratio (0.867) than the CEMS data analysis
would lead to for the 720-hr:3-hr (0.958) and 720-hr:1-hr (0.958)
ratios. See 88 FR 29598, 29607, 29612-13. The ultimate longer-term
average emission limits for these SAPs and NAPs were compared to these
existing SIP emission limits and the ratios of longer-term average
emissions to shorter-term average emissions in the CEMS data to assess
the comparability with the existing SIP emission limits and therefore
assess the potential relaxation to the SIP. FDEP developed its new
source-specific emission limits in an appropriate way to ensure that
the SIP is not relaxed and that increased emissions will not occur
because of the SIP revision.
As shown in the tables below, and as discussed in the Excess
Emissions Proposal,\10\ in all cases the maximum emissions
theoretically allowed under the new source-specific limits are less
than what is theoretically allowed under the existing SIP limits on
both a short-term and a long-term (annual) basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Except where noted, each figure in the tables below
appeared in a table regarding the corresponding facility in the
Excess Emissions Proposal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing SIP SO2 limits New source-specific SIP SO2
-------------------------------- limits
-------------------------------
Combined unit Combined unit
maximum maximum
emissions Combined unit emissions Combined unit
Facility allowed per maximum allowed per maximum
hour (based on emissions hour (based on emissions
a 3-hour allowed per longer-term allowed per
average) (lbs/ year (tons/yr) averages, as year (tons/yr)
hr) indicated)
(lbs/hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutrien White Springs........................... 917 4,015 \i\ 840 3,679
Mosaic South Pierce............................. 1,000 4,380 \ii\ 750 3,285
TECO Polk....................................... 49.8 218.3 \ii\ 48.0 \iii\ 210.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ 24-hour average.
\ii\ 6-hour average.
\iii\ EPA notes that Table 5 in the Excess Emissions Proposal included a typographical error, reflecting 214.6
tons/year rather than 210.2 tons/year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing SIP NOX limits New source-specific SIP NOX
-------------------------------- limits
-------------------------------
Maximum Maximum
emissions emissions
Facility allowed per Maximum allowed per Maximum
hour (based on emissions hour (based on emissions
a 3-hour allowed per longer-term allowed per
average) (lbs/ year (tons/yr) averages, as year (tons/yr)
hr) indicated)
(lbs/hr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ascend Pensacola................................ 187.5 821 \iv\ 162.6 712
[[Page 51706]]
Trademark Nitrogen.............................. 18.8 82.1 \v\ 16.3 71.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ 720-hour average.
\v\ 30-day average.
Regarding the other impacted SAPs at Mosaic Fertilizer's Riverview
facility, Bartow facility, and New Wales facility, EPA notes in the
Excess Emissions Proposal that these facilities already had longer-term
average continuous emission limits that had been previously approved
into the SIP to enable attainment of the 2010 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.\11\
EPA compared these approved source-specific emission limits, which in
fact provided for attainment in the respective nonattainment areas, to
the existing SIP emission limit at Rule 62-296.402 (which had not been
relied upon to show attainment) and determined that these emission
limits are at least as stringent as the limits provided in Rule 62-
296.402. EPA did not reopen for comment these longer-term average
limits for these facilities, as noted in the proposal, and the
Commenters did not raise any issues with these facilities or their
existing longer-term average source-specific emission limits with any
specificity. See 88 FR 29598, 29612, 29615. The Excess Emissions
Proposal refers readers to the actions in which EPA approved those
source-specific emission limits for more detail on how those limits
were developed. In that proposal, EPA only compares the new longer-term
average limits with the existing limits at Rule 62-296.402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017), 85 FR 9666 (February 20,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also reiterates that, for the NAPs, the steady-state SIP
emission limit was carried forward directly into the source-specific
permits being approved into the SIP. This means, as EPA described in
the Excess Emissions Proposal, no effective change to the existing SIP
emission limitations results from removing the Rule 62-296.408 emission
limit from the SIP. Instead, the two NAPs each received two new source-
specific emission limits: the first covers the steady-state modes of
operation and is the same as required by the existing SIP; the second
applies at all times, including periods of SSM, and is comparably
stringent to the existing SIP emission limit. Therefore, the SIP is
strengthened by the changes applicable to these sources.
Regarding all SAPs, except for the TECO Polk SAP, the New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart H, Standards of
Performance for Sulfuric Acid Plants, imposes the same emission limit
for steady-state periods as the most stringent emission limit in Rule
62-296.402 (i.e., 4 pounds of SO<INF>2</INF> per ton of sulfuric acid
produced (lb/ton)). Therefore, EPA has several reasons to believe that
steady-state emissions will not increase subsequent to this revision:
(1) The new, longer-term average emission limits are comparably
stringent to the existing steady-state SIP-rule emission limit, (2) the
longer-term average emission limits significantly reduce the total
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions allowed on a short-term basis and also a long-
term (annual) basis, and (3) the NSPS will still apply to Nutrien White
Springs and Mosaic South Pierce.
Comment 2: Commenters state that longer term limits cannot
guarantee protection of 1-hour standards and generally should not be
used to protect short-term NAAQS. Additionally, the Commenters state
that if EPA chooses to allow longer-term emission limits, it should
ensure that those limits are as protective as possible to ensure that
the health-based standards are maintained at all times.
Response 2: EPA disagrees with the Commenters' statement that
longer-term average limits should not be used to protect short-term
NAAQS. As discussed in Section II.B.5. of the Excess Emissions
Proposal, EPA's 2014 SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance provides
procedures for using a statistical analysis to determine NAAQS-
protective longer-term average emission limits for sources with
variable emissions. In general, EPA believes that when the statistical
procedure described in the SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance is
applied appropriately, longer-term average limits are comparably
effective in achieving attainment of a short-term NAAQS in
nonattainment areas. EPA has approved the application of the longer-
term averaging policy on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the
concepts recommended in the SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance for
several SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment-area attainment SIPs and
redesignation requests that require a NAAQS evaluation.\12\ This
includes attainment-SIP and redesignation-request approvals for
SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment areas in Florida. Appropriately set
longer-term average limits can provide for attainment of a short-term
NAAQS because they are set low enough that they are equally stringent
as the respective shorter-term limits with higher thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EPA analyzed and approved several SO<INF>2</INF> attainment
SIPs and redesignation requests that provided modeled attainment of
the 2010 short-term standard determining the suitably adjusted long
term limits can be protective of the expected to 1-hour
SO<INF>2</INF> standard. See, e.g., 87 FR 33095 (June 1, 2022), 85
FR 9666 (February 20, 2020), 83 FR 25922 (June 5, 2018), 84 FR 30920
(June 28, 2019), 82 FR 30749 (July 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's application of the statistical analysis procedures
contained in EPA's SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance for this SIP
action was not for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with the
short-term 1-hour SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. Rather,
Florida's analysis shows that replacement of the existing short-term
SIP-approved limits with the new source-specific longer-term average
emission limits would not allow for an increase in emissions and
thereby lessen the stringency of the SIP. As a result, the control
strategy needed to meet a comparably stringent longer-term emission
limit would necessarily be as effective as the control strategy needed
to meet the shorter-term emission limit. Moreover, the statistical
procedures were used to develop source-specific longer-term average
emission limits that will apply during all periods of operation and
that are comparatively
[[Page 51707]]
stringent to the existing shorter-term limits in Florida's SIP for SAPs
and NAPs, which only apply during full-load operation and exclude SSM
periods. While Florida's submission is neither intended nor required to
demonstrate protection of 1-hour standards, such as what would be
required of an attainment SIP supported by a modeling demonstration,
Florida used appropriate source-specific data sets and appropriately
applied statistical procedures to develop longer-term average emission
limits that are comparatively stringent to the existing SIP emission
limits such that the SIP revision will not result in emissions
increases and consequently will not interfere with any applicable
requirement of the CAA.
Comment 3: Commenters state that if EPA chooses to allow longer-
term limits to protect short-term NAAQS, the Agency should ensure that
the conversion factor used to calculate a longer-term limit is
appropriately low and that the facility would violate its longer-term
limit if it violated its ``critical emission value.''
Response 3: EPA believes that the procedures used by Florida to
calculate the longer-term average limits for the SAPs and NAPs
discussed in the May 8, 2023, Excess Emissions Proposal are appropriate
and provide for comparably stringent longer-term average emission
limits that apply during all periods of operation of the affected
sources. The procedures used by Florida to derive the longer-term
average limits are discussed and summarized in Section II.B.5. of the
Excess Emissions Proposal. As shown in the example calculations
provided for the Mosaic South Pierce facility and described in the
Excess Emissions Proposal, Florida used an equivalency ratio of 0.75 to
establish the 24-hour SO<INF>2</INF> limit for the two SAPs, which is
approximately 23 percent lower than the 0.978 equivalency ratio
calculated by applying the procedure of the SO<INF>2</INF>
Nonattainment Guidance.\13\ Therefore, the 24-hour SO<INF>2</INF>
limits established for these SAPs are even more stringent than limits
that would be derived by strictly following the procedures in the
SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment Guidance. Likewise, the longer-term
average limits for the other SAPs and NAPs subject to this rulemaking
are at least as stringent as the longer-term average limits that were
calculated following the procedures of the SO<INF>2</INF> Nonattainment
Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in EPA's response to Comment 1, the concept of the
``critical emission value'' (CEV) is not applicable to the analysis
Florida performed to calculate the comparably stringent longer-term
average limits that apply during all periods of operation, including
SSM events. Florida used the existing 3-hour SIP limits applicable the
SAPs and NAPs as the starting point for deriving comparably stringent
longer-term average limits. No CEVs were calculated. To the extent the
Commenters may be referring to how the longer-term average emission
limits are established relative to the existing 3-hour average SIP
emission limits, EPA disagrees that the limits should be set such that
any exceedance of the existing 3-hour average limits would result in
exceeding the longer-term average limit. The purpose of setting a
longer-term average emission limit is to allow for some level of
emissions variability. Prior to this action, the existing SIP emission
limits did not apply during periods of SSM, and with this change, a
comparably stringent emission limit will apply at all times, including
those periods of SSM. EPA discussed the statistical approach that
Florida employed in establishing its longer-term average emission
limits which are comparable to existing SIP emission limits in the
responses to Comments 1 and 2.
Comment 4: Commenters state that there appears to be no description
in EPA's proposed rule or Florida's SIP submission regarding the
removal of subparagraph 62-296.405(1)(c)3, which provides that owners
of fossil fuel steam generators shall monitor their emissions and the
effects of the emissions on ambient concentrations of SO<INF>2</INF>,
in a manner, frequency, and locations approved and deemed reasonably
necessary and ordered by the Department. Commenters question why EPA
has not included any analysis on how removing this provision would not
interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable requirement under section 110(l) of the Act.
Response 4: EPA's May 8, 2023, Excess Emissions Proposal (88 FR
29598), which addresses Florida's November 22, 2016, and September 30,
2022, SIP revisions, did not discuss the removal of subparagraph 62-
296.405(1)(c)3 because the Excess Emissions Proposal did not propose to
remove it from the SIP. See 88 FR at 29602 and 29603, n.15. Instead,
EPA proposed to remove subparagraph 62-296.405(1)(c)3 from the SIP in a
different and separate notice of proposed rulemaking also published on
May 8, 2023--the Emission Standards Proposal (88 FR 29591). In that
notice, EPA explained the rationale for removal and proposed to find
that the changes to Rule 62-296.405 would not interfere with any
requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. See 88 FR 29591, 29593-94. EPA did not receive
any comments on the Emission Standards Proposal and is finalizing
action on both the Emission Standards Proposal and the Excess Emissions
Proposal in this final rulemaking.
As EPA explained in the Emission Standards Proposal, EPA proposed
to remove subparagraph (1)(c)3 from the SIP because, as FDEP notes in
its April 1, 2022, SIP revision, the monitoring of stack emissions is
regulated by SIP-approved Chapter 62-297, F.A.C., Stationary Sources--
Emissions Monitoring, and subparagraph (1)(c)3 is a discretionary
ambient SO<INF>2</INF> monitoring provision that is no longer needed in
the SIP. Id. FDEP explains that the State has the authority and
capability of setting up ambient air quality monitoring stations as
needed. In addition, Rule 62-212.400(7) requires that the owner or
operator of a major stationary source or major modification under the
PSD program provide any required monitoring and analysis as required in
40 CFR 52.21(m). Florida operates an approved plan for monitoring
compliance with the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS and may require owners of
fossil fuel steam generators to conduct ambient monitoring as needed
when constructing or modifying emissions units.
Comment 5: Commenters speculate that specific plants are being
removed from Rule 62-296.405, ``Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with More
than 250 Million Btu Per Hour Heat Input,'' because they no longer
exist or are no longer permitted to operate. Commenters ask EPA to
clarify why the plants are being removed.
Response 5: Similar to the response to Comment 4, EPA's May 8,
2023, Excess Emissions Proposal did not discuss the removal of
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> standards for certain units from Rule
62-296.405 because the Excess Emissions Proposal did not propose to
remove them from the SIP. Instead, EPA proposed to remove the standards
for certain units from Rule 62-296.405 in the Emissions Standards
Proposal and explained the rationale for such removal in that notice.
EPA did not receive any comments on the Emission Standards Proposal and
is finalizing action on both the Emission Standards Proposal and the
Excess Emissions Proposal in this final rulemaking.
As EPA explained in the Emission Standards Proposal, EPA proposed
to remove certain units from Rule 62-296.405 because Florida requested
the
[[Page 51708]]
removal of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> standards from Rule 62-
296.405 for units that have permanently shut down \14\ or have more
stringent federally enforceable limits in the SIP. See 88 FR 29591,
29593-94.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As explained in the Emission Standards Proposal, on March
30, 2023, Florida withdrew its request to remove 62-296.405(1)(c)1.g
and (1)(d)2., which include SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>
limits, respectively, for Florida Power and Light's Manatee plant,
which has not shut down. EPA accordingly did not propose to approve
the removal of these subparagraphs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: A separate commenter expresses support for EPA's Excess
Emissions Proposal and urges EPA to approve Florida's SIP revisions
``and reinstate or issue new SIP calls for other states or local
jurisdictions that have not yet revised their SSM provisions . . . .''
The commenter mentions that ``this will ensure a level playing field
for all regulated facilities and promote environmental justice for all
communities.''
Response 6: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support for finalizing
the Excess Emissions Proposal. To the extent that the comment refers to
SIP calls for other states or local jurisdictions, the comment is
outside the scope of this rulemaking, which addresses the 2015 SSM SIP
Action with respect to Florida only.
III. Final Actions
EPA is approving Florida's November 22, 2016, SIP revision (Excess
Emissions Rule SIP Revision) consisting of revisions to Rule Section
62-210.700, ``Excess Emissions.'' The revisions include the deletion of
Rule 62-210.700(4), with the addition of equivalent language to Rules
62-210.700(1) and (2); amendment of Rule 62-210.700(3), to clarify and
restate the visible emissions and PM limits applicable during boiler
cleaning (soot blowing) and load changes; addition of Rule 62-
210.700(6), which states that Rules 62-210.700(1) and (2) shall not
apply after May 22, 2018, to either emission limits or unit-specific
emission limits that have been incorporated into Florida's SIP; and
addition of Rule 62-210.700(7), which states that after October 23,
2016, Rules 62-210.700(1) and (2), shall not apply to new permit-
specific emission limits established pursuant to Florida's PSD and NNSR
regulations (Rules 62-212.400 and 62-210.500). EPA has determined that
Florida's Excess Emissions Rule SIP Revision is consistent with CAA
requirements and adequately addresses the specific deficiencies that
EPA identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action with respect to the Florida
SIP.
Additionally, EPA is approving Florida's SIP revisions consisting
of SSM-related and other changes to Rule 62-296.405, ``Existing Fossil
Fuel Steam Generators with Greater than or Equal to 250 Million Btu Per
Hour Heat Input,'' \15\ and Rule 62-296.570, ``Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT)--Requirements for Major VOC- and
NO<INF>X</INF>-Emitting Facilities''; removal of the sulfur dioxide
emission limit in Rule 62-296.402, ``Sulfuric Acid Plants''; and
removal of the nitrogen oxides emission limit in Rule 62-296.408,
``Nitric Acid Plants.'' Further, EPA is approving into Florida's SIP
source-specific SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emission limits and
construction permit conditions for five SO<INF>2</INF> emissions units
and two NO<INF>X</INF> emissions units. EPA finds that Florida's April
1, 2022, SIP revision and the September 30, 2022, Supplemental SSM SIP
Revision are consistent with CAA requirements and adequately address
the additional regulations identified by the State as problematic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The September 30, 2022, SIP revision includes the following
typographical errors: (1) In paragraph 62-296.405(6)(b) as shown on
page 33 of 126 in the submittal, one sentence (``In lieu of EPA
Method 17, 5, 5B, or 5F . . . .'') appears in two places. The
amendments to the State effective version of Rule 62-296.405, which
start at page 73 of 126, show the revised text correctly at page 75
of 126 in the SIP submittal. (2) In paragraph 62-296.405(7)(a)4. as
shown on page 35 of 126, two rule cross-references are not shown as
revised. The amendments to the State effective version of Rule 62-
296.405 show the revised cross-references correctly at page 77 of
126. (3) In paragraph 62-296.405(7)(b) as shown on page 35 of 126, a
rule cross-reference is not shown as revised. The amendments to the
State effective version of the rule show the revised cross-reference
correctly at page 77 of 126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I through III of this preamble,
EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Florida Rule 62-
210.700, ``Excess Emissions,'' state effective October 23, 2016, which
set a schedule by which the exemptions from applicable emission limits
for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions will be removed. EPA is also
finalizing the incorporation by reference of the following Florida
Rules: 62-296.402, ``Sulfuric Acid Plants,'' removing specific emission
limits from the Florida SIP, state effective June 23, 2022, except for
62-296.402(1), 62-296.402(2)(a)2., 62-296.402(2)(b)2., and 62-
296.402(3)(b); 62-296.405, ``Existing Fossil Fuel Steam Generators with
Greater than or Equal to 250 Million Btu Per Hour Heat Input,''
revising monitoring requirements and clarifying applicability, state
effective June 23, 2022, except for 62-296.405(4)(a)2. through 5., 62-
296.405(4)(a)8. and 9., 62-296.405(4)(b)1. and 2., 62-296.405(4)(b)4.,
and 62-296.405(5)(c).; 62-296.408, ``Nitric Acid Plants,'' removing
specific emission limits, state effective November 23, 1994, except for
62-296.408(2); and 62-296.570, ``Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)--Requirements for Major VOC- and NO<INF>X</INF>-
Emitting Facilities,'' removing an exemption from RACT requirements
during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions, state effective June 23,
2022. Additionally, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of
the specified new operating parameters, SO<INF>2</INF> emission caps,
and compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
for emission units EU 066 (SAP E) and EU 067 (SAP F) at Nutrien White
Springs (Permit No. 0470002-132-AC),\16\ state effective January 1,
2023; EU 004 (SAP 10) and EU 005 (SAP 11) at Mosaic South Pierce
(Permit No. 1050055-037-AC),\17\ state effective April 1, 2023; and EU
004 at TECO-Polk (Permit No. 1050233-050-AC),\18\ state effective
January 1, 2023. The SO<INF>2</INF> emission standards specified in
each permit are the basis for the removal of other SO<INF>2</INF>
emission limits from the SIP. Finally, EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of the specified new operating parameters,
NO<INF>X</INF> emission caps, and compliance monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements for emission units EU 042 at Ascend
Pensacola (Permit No. 0330040-076-AC),\19\ state effective January 1,
2023; and EU 001 at Trademark Nitrogen (Permit No. 0570025-016-AC),\20\
state effective
[[Page 51709]]
January 1, 2023. The NO<INF>X</INF> emission standards specified in
each permit are the basis for the removal of other NO<INF>X</INF>
emission limits from the SIP. EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to
the SIP compilation.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Specifically, EPA is incorporating by reference into
Florida's SIP Specific Conditions 3 through 6 from Permit No.
0470002-132-AC issued to White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.,
Suwanee River/Swift Creek Complex by FDEP on September 22, 2022,
State effective January 1, 2023.
\17\ Specifically, EPA is incorporating by reference into
Florida's SIP Specific Conditions 4 through 7 from Permit No.
1050055-037-AC issued to Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, South Pierce
Facility by FDEP on September 22, 2022, State effective April 1,
2023.
\18\ Specifically, EPA is incorporating by reference into
Florida's SIP Specific Conditions 1 through 4 from Permit No.
1050233-050-AC issued to Tampa Electric Company Polk Power Station
by FDEP on September 21, 2022, State effective January 1, 2023.
\19\ Specifically, EPA is incorporating by reference into
Florida's SIP Specific Conditions 1 through 6 from Permit No.
0330040-076-AC issued to Ascend Performance Materials Operations LLC
Pensacola Plant by FDEP on September 20, 2022, State effective
January 1, 2023. EPA notes that the condition numbers are
misidentified on pages 43-44 of the Supplemental SSM SIP Revision as
1 and 5 through 9; in the permit, those conditions are numbered 1
through 6, as shown on pages 98-99 of the Supplemental SSM SIP
Revision.
\20\ Specifically, EPA is incorporating by reference into
Florida's SIP Specific Conditions 1 and 5 through 9 from Permit No.
0570025-016-AC issued to Trademark Nitrogen, Inc., by FDEP on
September 20, 2022, State effective January 1, 2023.
\21\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, these actions:
<bullet> 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
<bullet> Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> 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.);
<bullet> 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);
<bullet> Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Are not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> 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.
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, these actions do not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The FDEP did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in these actions. Due to the nature of
the actions being taken here, these actions are expected to have a
neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of these actions, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations,
and Indigenous peoples.
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 these actions 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. These actions are 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 these actions must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals
for the appropriate circuit by October 3, 2023. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of these actions for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. These actions may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: July 24, 2023.
Jeaneanne Gettle,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 52
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. In Sec. 52.520:
0
a. Amend the table in paragraph (c) by:
0
1. Under the heading ``Chapter 62-210 Stationary Sources--General
Requirements,'' revising the entry ``62-210.700'',
[[Page 51710]]
0
2. Under the heading ``Chapter 62-296 Stationary Sources--Emission
Standards,'' revising entries ``62-296.402'', ``62-296.405'', ``62-
296.408'', and ``62-296.570'';
0
b. Amend the table in paragraph (d), by adding entries ``Nutrien White
Springs''; ``Mosaic Fertilizer LLC--South Pierce Facility''; ``Tampa
Electric Company (TECO)--Polk Power Station'', Ascend Pensacola'', and
``Trademark Nitrogen'' at the end of the table.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.520 dentification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Florida Laws and Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State citation (section) Title/subject effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 62-210 Stationary Sources--General Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
62-210.700....................... Excess Emissions... 10/23/2016 8/4/2023, [Insert ...................
citation of
publication].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 62-296 Stationary Sources--Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
62-296.402....................... Sulfuric Acid 6/23/2022 8/4/2023, [Insert Except for
Plants. citation of paragraphs (1),
publication]. (2)(a)2.,
(2)(b)2., and
(3)(b).
* * * * * * *
62-296.405....................... Existing Fossil 6/23/2022 8/4/2023, [Insert Except for
Fuel Steam citation of paragraphs
Generators with publication]. (4)(a)2. through
Greater than or 5., (4)(a)8. and
Equal to 250 9., (4)(b)1. and
Million Btu Per 2., (4)(b)4., and
Hour Heat Input. (5)(c).
* * * * * * *
62-296.408....................... Nitric Acid Plants. 11/23/1994 8/4/2023, [Insert Except for
citation of paragraph (2).
publication].
* * * * * * *
62-296.570....................... Reasonably 6/23/2022 8/4/2023, [Insert ...................
Available Control citation of
Technology (RACT)-- publication].
Requirements for
Major VOC- and NOX-
Emitting
Facilities.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Florida Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Name of source Permit No. effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Nutrien White Springs........... 0470002-132-AC........ 1/1/2023 8/4/2023, [Insert Conditions 3
citation of through 6 at EU
publication]. 066 (SAP E) and
EU 067 (SAP F).
Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--South 1050055-037-AC........ 4/1/2023 8/4/2023, [Insert Conditions 4
Pierce Facility. citation of through 7 at EU
publication]. 004 (SAP 10) and
EU 005 (SAP 11).
Tampa Electric Company (TECO)-- 1050233-050-AC........ 1/1/2023 8/4/2023, [Insert Conditions 1
Polk Power Station. citation of through 4 at EU
publication]. 004.
Ascend Pensacola................ 0330040-076-AC........ 1/1/2023 8/4/2023, [Insert Conditions 1
citation of through 6 at EU
publication]. 042.
Trademark Nitrogen.............. 0570025-016-AC........ 1/1/2023 8/4/2023, [Insert Conditions 1 and 5
citation of through 9 at EU
publication]. 001.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51711]]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-15964 Filed 8-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 4, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.