[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57535-57544]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20119]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0623; FRL-9951-32-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; FL: Nassau 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 Nassau County
SO2 nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the
``Nassau Area'' or ``Area''). The Nassau Area is comprised of a portion
of Nassau County in Florida surrounding the Rayonier Performance
Fibers, LLC sulfite pulp mill (hereafter referred to as ``Rayonier'').
The attainment plan includes the base year emissions inventory, an
analysis of the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and
reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, a modeling demonstration of SO2
attainment, and contingency measures for the Nassau 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-2015-0623 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
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 Nassau
Area?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's attainment plan for the
Nassau 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 Nassau
Area, 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 Nassau Area. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve
specific SO2 emission limits and compliance parameters
established for the two SO2 sources impacting the Nassau
Area into the Florida SIP.
    EPA has preliminarily determined that Florida's SO2
attainment plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS for Nassau
County meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA's
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance.\1\ Moreover, the Nassau 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 Nassau Area as submitted on April 3, 2015. EPA's analysis for
this proposed action is discussed in Section IV of this proposed
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's April 23, 2014 memorandum entitled ``Guidance for the
1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,''
hereafter referred to as the ``SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA'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
Nassau Area. See 40 CFR 50.4(e).
    \3\ EPA 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. See 81 FR 45039.

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

    Effective on October 4, 2013, the Nassau Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that
encompasses the primary SO2 emitting source Rayonier sulfite
pulp mill and the nearby SO2 monitor (Air Quality Site ID:
12-089-0005). 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 Nassau Area?

    In accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA, the Florida
attainment plan for the Nassau 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 Rayonier
sulfite pulp mill \5\ and a nearby source, the WestRock CP, LLC kraft
pulp mill (formerly RockTenn kraft pulp mill) \6\ (hereafter referred
to as ``WestRock''), 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 NAA
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.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
    \5\ Rayonier processes high purity wood pulp used in
manufacturing photographic films, filters, rayon fabric and other
industrial and consumer products.
    \6\ The new company name of WestRock reflects the recent merger
between companies MeadWestCo and RockTenn. FL DEP issued an
administrative revision to the operating permit, revision number
0890003-048-AV, on August 19, 2015 to reflect this administrative
change in company name. The April 3, 2015, final SIP submittal was
prior to this merger, and therefore refers to WestRock as RockTenn.
WestRock produces various containerboard products.
    \7\ General Conformity pursuant to CAA section 176(c) requires
that actions by federal agencies do not cause new air quality issues
or delay or interfere with attainment of a NAAQS. With respect to
the Nassau nonattainment area federal agencies must work with the
state to ensure that federal actions conform to the air quality
plans established in the applicable SIP that ensures attainment of
the SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Florida's attainment plan for the Nassau
Area?

    Consistent with CAA requirements (see, e.g., 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 Nassau 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 portion of Nassau 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 Nassau Area and their operations are briefly
described later in this preamble. As the Nassau 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Nassau Area were
reviewed and compiled for the base year emissions inventory. Emissions
from all stationary sources of SO2 located in the Nassau
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
Nassau Area is the Rayonier sulfite pulp mill, which produces films,
fibers and fabrics among other consumer products. Rayonier consists of
three main SO2 emitters:
     Emissions Unit (EU) 005 (Rayonier EU 005) is the vent gas
scrubbing system, which handles emissions from numerous vents from the
cooking acid plant, the red stock washers, the unwashed stock tank, the
spent sulfite liquor storage tanks, the spent sulfite liquor washer
area, the digesters, and the blow pits;
     Rayonier EU 006 is the sulfite recovery boiler, which
fires spent liquor to produce combustion gases that contain recoverable
SO2 and heat for steam generation;
     Rayonier EU 022 is the power boiler, which fires biomass
and No. 6 fuel oil to produce heat for steam generation; and
     Rayonier EU 005 is itself a control technology, utilizing
a wet alkaline absorbing section for SO2 removal, while
Rayonier EU 006 and EU 022 each have wet alkaline scrubbers in place.

The emissions at all units for the Rayonier facility were recorded
using data collected from continuous emissions monitoring systems
(CEMS) and are quality-assured by FL DEP.

    The largest SO2 source within 25 kilometers (km) outside
the Nassau Area is WestRock. The WestRock facilities consist of five
main SO2 emitters:
     Emissions Unit 006 (WestRock EU 006) is the No. 5 power
boiler, which fires biomass and No. 6 fuel oil to produce heat for
steam generation;
     WestRock EUs 007 and 011 are recovery boilers, which fire
black liquor solids to produce heat for steam generation and recover
process chemicals;
     WestRock EU 015 is the No. 7 power boiler, which fires
coal, oil and/or natural gas to produce heat for steam generation; and
     WestRock EU 021 is a lime kiln, which burns low volume,
high density non-condensable gases (NCGs) from several units across the
plant in addition to its primary purpose of converting calcium
carbonate to lime.

WestRock EU 006 currently serves as a backup control device for NCGs
that pass through WestRock EU 021.

    Emissions from the WestRock facility were collected via CEMS or
calculated. Specifically, WestRock EUs 007, 011, and 015 did not
previously have CEMS installed. In this instance, the emission rates of
SO2 were calculated, as shown in Appendix B of the April 3,
2015, submittal. For WestRock EU 015, the hourly feed rates of coal,
fuel oil and/or natural gas burned are included along with the
particular emission factors used to calculate the SO2
emissions rates. For WestRock EUs 007 and 011, the hourly rates of the
black liquor solids and/or oil burned are included along with the
particular emission factors used to calculate the SO2
emissions rates.
    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 Nassau Area
can be found in Florida's April 3, 2015, submittal.
    Table 1 shows the level of emissions, expressed in tpy, in the
Nassau Area for the 2011 base year by emissions source category. The
point source category includes WestRock, outside the Nassau Area, but
determined by FL DEP to contribute to nonattainment.

                         Table 1--2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the Nassau Area
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                     Point          Onroad          Nonroad          Area            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................        4,278.64            0.08            0.09            0.39        4,279.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has evaluated Florida's 2011 base year emissions inventory for
the Nassau 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 Nassau 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 Nassau 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 Nassau 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.\9\ The NNSR program includes lowest
achievable emissions rate, offsets, and public hearing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ FL DEP acknowledges a minor source permit to construct a
natural gas-fired combustion turbine cogeneration system within the
Nassau nonattainment area located on the Rayonier property. The
turbine would produce process steam for the co-located Rayonier
plant which would generate up to 21 megawatts provided to the
electrical grid. Because the turbine is natural-gas fired, maximum
annual SO2 emissions would be less than 7 tons per year
(tpy) and not subject to NNSR. FL DEP determined that these small
SO2 emissions resulting from the new facility would not
interfere with the attainment plan for the Nassau Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Nassau County NAA. The projected
2018 emissions in Table 2 are estimated actual emissions, representing
a 21 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 emission
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 Nassau Area portion of Nassau
County.

                       Table 2--Projected 2018 SO2 Emissions Inventory for the Nassau Area
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                     Point          Onroad          Nonroad          Area            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................        4,278.64            0.08            0.09            0.39        4,279.20
2018............................        3,376.26            0.03            0.10            0.41        3,376.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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),\10\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-2015-0623) on www.regulations.gov. A brief description of the
modeling used to support Florida's attainment demonstration is provided
later on.
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 in this preamble.
    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
Jacksonville National Weather Service Office (NWS) at the Jacksonville
International Airport, Jacksonville, 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
Jacksonville International Airport is located approximately 28 km
southeast from Nassau 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 (approximately 2.4 km around 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. 12-089-0005 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 0.9 km to the southeast of Rayonier and 2.5 km
south of WestRock. Due to its close proximity to the Rayonier facility,
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 Rayonier and WestRock to the station. More specifically, the data
was filtered to remove measurements where hourly wind direction was
between 263[deg] to 61[deg].
    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).\11\ 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''
\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FL DEP is following the SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance on procedures for establishing emissions limits with
averaging periods longer than 1 hour.
    \12\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, is provided in Appendices B and C of the
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. EPA is proposing to conclude
that FL DEP completed this analysis for both Rayonier and WestRock
facilities to derive SIP emission limits with 3-hour longer-term
averaging time that are comparatively stringent to the 1-hour limit.
For more details, see Florida's April 3, 2015, SIP submittal.

2. Modeling Results

    The SO2 NAAQS compliance results of the attainment
modeling are summarized in Table 3 later on in this preamble. Table 3
presents the results from four sets of AERMOD modeling runs that were
performed. The four modeling runs were the result of using an
uncontrolled, or pre-modification, run and three different controlled,
or post-modification, scenarios. Maximum allowable permitted emissions
limits were used for the Nassau Area modeling demonstration. These
emissions limits and other control measures were established in
construction permits issued by FL DEP. The conditions have been
incorporated in the latest title V permit renewal for Rayonier, and
will be incorporated for WestRock upon future title V 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
permit for the WestRock facility. The three post-control runs help to
identify the worst possible scenario of emissions distributions between
the two units EUs 007 and 011 (recovery boilers) at the WestRock
facility. Under one modeling scenario, an emissions cap of 300 pounds
per hour (lb/hr) SO2 for WestRock EUs 007 and 011 is
allotted equally between the recovery boilers. For the two remaining
scenarios, the entire 300 lb/hr cap is allotted totally for EU 007 or
EU 011, assuming that only one recovery boiler is operating.
    The modeling utilized five years (2008-2012) of meteorological data
from the NWS site in Jacksonville, 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 all three sets of AERMOD modeling
runs. For more details, see Florida's April 3, 2015 SIP submittal.

                              Table 3--Maximum Modeled SO2 Impacts in the Nassau Area, Micrograms per Cubic Meter (ppb)\13\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Maximum predicted impact
             Model scenario                       Averaging time         --------------------------------   Background         Total         SO2 NAAQS
                                                                             Rayonier        WestRock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-modification........................  1-hour........................        \14\ 0.0  2957.80 (1128)      4.19 (1.6)  2961.99 (1130)     196. 4 (75)
Equal Cap Distribution..................  1-hour........................   114.45 (43.7)    67.69 (25.8)    10.72 (4.09)   192.87 (73.6)
Entire Cap--EU 007......................  1-hour........................   110.93 (42.3)    71.56 (27.3)      9.16 (3.5)   191.65 (73.1)
Entire Cap--EU 011......................  1-hour........................   117.51 (44.8)    63.79 (24.3)     12.82 (4.9)   194.11 (74.0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pre-control analysis resulted in a predicted impact of 1130
ppb. The post-control analysis resulted in a worst-case predicted
impact of 74.0 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 Rayonier
and WestRock facilities. Furthermore, EPA is preliminarily concluding
that this data also supports FL DEP's analysis that the controls for
Rayonier represent RACM and RACT for the SIP. The control strategy for
Rayonier, as reflected in its Air Permit No. 0890004-036-AC, includes
increasing a stack height for Rayonier EU 005, a vent scrubber, from
110 feet (ft) to at least 165 ft, and plans to extend another stack at
a power boiler (Rayonier EU 022) if needed; \15\ and lowering the
allowable SO2 emissions for the power boiler (Rayonier EU
006), recovery boiler (Rayonier EU 022), and vent gas scrubber system
(Rayonier EU 005). 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.\16\
Rayonier's allowable SO2 emissions (total from all three
controlled units) will be reduced from 836.5 lb/hr to 502.3 lb/hr
representing a 40 percent emission decrease. The state issued a revised
title V permit (No. 0890004-042-AV) to incorporate the Rayonier Permit
and authorize Rayonier to operate in accordance with those conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The April 3, 2015, final submittal contained typographical
errors in its summary modeling table. On April 8, 2016, FL DEP
provided EPA Region 4 with corrected numbers. FL DEP in no way
revised the modeling demonstration nor the results inherent in the
April 3, 2015, submittal. The correspondence and clarifying
information is provided in the Docket for this proposed action.
    \14\ The ``0'' impact from Rayonier indicates that the worst
case scenario was at a time when WestRock was impacting the area of
maximum concentration because the wind was coming from the direction
of WestRock. Rayonier impacts other receptors in the nonattainment
area and may impact this same receptor at other times, as can be
seen with the remainder of the modeling demonstration.
    \15\ The final stack height for the vent gas scrubber system
(Rayonier EU 005) is 180 ft. The construction permit contained
options for the power boiler (Rayonier EU 022) to meet a moderately
lower emission limit paired with an increased stack height, or an
even lower emission limit on the unit and maintaining the existing
stack height. The stack height for EU 022 was not increased, as
Rayonier selected the lower emission limit option.
    \16\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The control strategy for WestRock, as reflected in its Air Permit
No. 0890003-046-AC, includes the following operational changes to the
four largest SO2-emitting units: Improved combustion at
WestRock EUs 007 and 011, the two recovery boilers, and emissions
limits on WestRock EUs 006, 015, 007 and 011, the two power boilers and
two recovery boilers. Florida will incorporate the new physical and
operational changes for WestRock into its title V permit upon renewal.
The title V permit is scheduled to be renewed by March 17, 2017.
WestRock's allowable SO2 emissions from WestRock EU 006, the
power boiler No. 5, will be reduced from 550 lb/hr to 15 lb/hr
representing a 97 percent emission decrease. The modeling results
included in Table 3 prove that WestRock should be included in the
considerations of controls for the following reasons: (1) If both
facilities were left uncontrolled, as presented in the first modeled
scenario, WestRock would have the greater impact on the area of maximum
concentration within the Nassau Area; and (2) with the worst possible
post-control modeling scenario, 35 percent of the total predicted
impact on the Nassau Area would stem from WestRock. Therefore, if no
controls were implemented at WestRock, the Area would not likely attain
and maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. All emissions limits 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 the Florida SIP submission. FL DEP asserts that the
proposed control strategy significantly lowers the modeled
SO2 impacts from the WestRock facility and is sufficient for
the Nassau Area to attain 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
    EPA has reviewed the modeling that Florida submitted to support the
attainment demonstration for the Nassau 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 provides
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 Rayonier are
appropriate in the Nassau Area for purposes of attaining the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Florida only completed a RACM/RACT analysis for
Rayonier since it is the only such point source within the boundaries
of the nonattainment area. FL DEP included WestRock in its attainment
and impact modeling because of the source's proximity to the Nassau
Area (within 5 km) and its likelihood of contributing to violations of
the SO2 NAAQS within the area. In a modeling-based
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 WestRock 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'' \17\ 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 WestRock significantly lowers
the modeled SO2 impact from the facility and is sufficient
to attain 2010 SO2 NAAQS in the Nassau Area. The control
measures at both sources are summarized later on in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Strelow, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 12, 2012, FL DEP issued construction Air Permit No.
0890004-036-AC to Rayonier for additional proposed control measures to
reduce SO2 emissions. The specified limits and conditions
from this construction permit, adopted into the title V operating
permit on May 30, 2014, reflecting RACT controls, are included

in the April 3, 2015, SIP submittal for incorporation into the SIP. In
accordance with the schedule in the permit, Rayonier was required to
implement the controls on or before December 31, 2014. FL DEP reported
in its SIP submittal that as of the second quarter of 2014, Rayonier
has completed implementation of the RACT controls listed in the permit
and summarized in Table 4:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Information 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.
    \19\ See previous discussion on longer-term emission limits. For
more information, see the April 3, 2015 submittal.
    \20\ Rayonier considered two emissions limits: 180 lb/hr
SO2 at the current stack height of 190 ft; or 250 lb/hr
SO2 if the stack height were increased to 210 ft. The
final limit is 180 lb/hr as the stack height was not increased.

           Table 4--Summary of RACT Controls for Rayonier \18\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Description of measure                    Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier EU 005: The vent gas  Rayonier was authorized to construct a
 scrubber system at this unit   new stack for the vent gas scrubber
 undergoes construction to      system, increasing the stack height from
 increase the stack height      the existing level of 110 ft to at least
 and an operational change to   165 ft. The as-built stack height is 180
 meet an enforceable emission   ft.
 limit.
                               Rayonier has a new emission limitation,
                                lowering the allowable SO2 from 250
                                parts per million (ppm) to 100 ppm as a
                                3-hour rolling average.\19\ This
                                emission limit was incorporated into the
                                title V operating permit and is proposed
                                for incorporation into the SIP.
Rayonier EU 006: The recovery  Rayonier has a new emission limitation,
 boiler undergoes an            lowering the allowable SO2 from 300
 operational change to meet     parts per million by volume, dry basis
 an enforceable emission        (ppmvd) to 250 ppmvd as a 3-hour rolling
 limit.                         average. This emission limit was
                                incorporated into the title V operating
                                permit and is proposed for incorporation
                                into the SIP.
Rayonier EU 022: The power     Rayonier has a new emission limitation of
 boiler undergoes an            180 lb/hour SO2 as a 3-hour rolling
 operational change to meet     average.\20\ This emission limit was
 an enforceable emission        incorporated into the title V operating
 limit.                         permit and is proposed for incorporation
                                into the SIP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 9, 2015, construction Air Permit No. 0890003-046-AC was
issued to WestRock 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
Rayonier in the Nassau 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. 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, WestRock is required to implement the controls
on or before 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.
Additionally, the Nassau Area is currently showing an attaining design
value for 2013-2015, which means that attainment of the NAAQS is as
expeditious as practicable. The supplemental control measures at
WestRock are summarized in Table 4:

     Table 4--Summary of Supplemental Control Measures for WestRock
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Description of measure                    Explanation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock EU 006: \21\ The      As of January 1, 2016, WestRock is
 power boiler undergoes an      required to comply with a 15.0 lb/hr
 operational change to meet     emission limitation as a 3-hour block
 an enforceable emission        average for SO2, except during times
 limit.                         when this unit is operated as a back-up
                                control device for NCGs. By December 1,
                                2017, WestRock will have a lower
                                emission limitation of 15.0 lb/hr SO2
                                during all periods of operation as a 3-
                                hour block average and the unit will no
                                longer operate as a back-up control
                                device for NCGs. This limit will be
                                incorporated into the title V operating
                                permit upon scheduled renewal and is
                                proposed for incorporation into the SIP.
WestRock EU 015: \22\ The      As of January 31, 2016, WestRock is
 power boiler undergoes an      required to comply with an emission
 operational change to meet     limitation of 1225.20 lb/hr SO2 during
 an enforceable emission        all periods of operation as a 3-hour
 limit.                         block average, determined via stack
                                testing. By December 1, 2017, WestRock
                                will show compliance with the 1225.20 lb/
                                hr SO2 emission limitation via newly
                                installed CEMS. This limit will be
                                incorporated into the title V operating
                                permit upon scheduled renewal and is
                                proposed for incorporation into the SIP.
WestRock EUs 007 and 011: The  By January 1, 2018, WestRock will only be
 recovery boilers undergo       allowed to use ultra-low sulfur diesel
 operational changes to limit   during periods of fuel oil usage. By
 fuel oil use and meet          this date, WestRock will have a new
 individual and combined        emission limitation of 150.0 lb/hr SO2
 enforceable emissions limits.  for each independent recovery boiler
                                during all periods of operation as a 3-
                                hour block average. Compliance with the
                                SO2 emissions standard shall be
                                demonstrated by data collected from a
                                certified CEMS \23\. Alternatively,
                                WestRock can comply with a collective
                                emissions limit across the two recovery
                                boilers of 300.0 lb/hr SO2 as a 3-hour
                                block average, as determined only by
                                CEMS. The selected limit will be
                                incorporated into the title V operating
                                permit upon scheduled renewal and both
                                options are proposed for incorporation
                                into the SIP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve Florida's determination that the
proposed controls for SO2 emissions at Rayonier constitute
RACM/RACT for that source in the Nassau Area based on the analysis
described previously. Additionally, EPA proposes to approve Florida's
determination that the supplemental control measures initiated at
WestRock 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 Rayonier, and
that the proposed controls are sufficient for RACM/RACT purposes for
the Nassau 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. In addition, by approving the RACM/RACT for
Rayonier, and the supplemental control measures for WestRock, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Additional controls not requested for incorporation into
the SIP for WestRock EU 006 include the elimination of fuel oil
usage as of January 31, 2016, and the elimination of operation as a
back-up control for NCGs. The latter is not a direct control measure
for SO2, but means that the power boiler will not fire
recovered process vapors.
    \22\ An additional control not requested for incorporation into
the SIP for WestRock EU 015 is the installation of a white liquor
scrubber system upstream to remove total reduced sulfur from the
incoming NCG stream. WestRock EU 015 operates as a back-up control
device for NCGs is not part of the SO2 attainment
strategy, but compliance with 40 CFR 63, Subpart S. The addition of
the scrubber system is to prevent any additional sulfur load to the
power boiler. WestRock EU 015 will be required to comply with the
SIP emission limit regardless of how it is used with respect to the
control of NCGs.
    \23\ FL DEP also acknowledges that parametric methods other than
CEMS may be considered, subject to approval, to demonstrate
compliance with the individual boiler emission limit of 150 lb/hr
SO2 limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on FL DEP's modeling demonstration, the Nassau Area is
projected to begin showing attaining monitoring values for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS by the 2018 attainment date. Currently, monitored
design values are complying with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As
noted previously, some of the control measures at WestRock will not be
in place for 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. Furthermore, FL DEP has already
implemented RACT controls for sources within the Nassau Area, as the
RACT project was completed at Rayonier in 2014, long before the
suggested 2017 date.

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 \24\ 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 Rayonier and WestRock facilities, 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
Nassau Area. Furthermore, currently the monitored SO2 design
value for the Nassau 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ SO2 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 completed for Rayonier
and planned for WestRock, 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 Nassau Area has failed to attain the
NAAQS by the attainment date, Rayonier and WestRock 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 needed to expeditiously 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;
     combustion air system enhancement;
     vent gas scrubber enhancement;
     white liquor scrubber enhancement; 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.
    Florida would implement the most appropriate control strategy to
address the exceedances. 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, F.A.C. 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 recognizes this strategy 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 Nassau 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 RACM/RACT for the Rayonier source, coupled with actual emissions
from the WestRock source, has already provided for an attaining design
value of 58 ppb considering 2013-2015 data, and in fact exhibited
attaining data since 2011-2013 with a design value of 70 ppb.\25\ The
recent design value is well under the NAAQS, and the ongoing compliance
schedule for WestRock control measures will help to assure that the
area maintains the NAAQS in the future. Therefore, the area is expected
to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The most recent quality-assured design values for each
NAAQS are publicly available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Florida's SO2 attainment
plan for the Nassau 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 Nassau 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 Nassau 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 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. 2016-20119 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 74553]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23974]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-154, OMB Control No. 3235-0122]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 17a-
10

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the
previously approved collection of information discussed below.
    The primary purpose of Rule 17a-10 is to obtain the economic and
statistical data necessary for an ongoing analysis of the securities
industry. Paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a-10 generally requires broker-
dealers that are exempt from the filing requirements of paragraph (a)
of Exchange Act Rule 17a-5 (17 CFR 240.17a-5) to file with the
Commission the Facing Page, a Statement of Income (Loss), and balance
sheet from Part IIA of Form X-17A-5 \1\ (17 CFR 249.617), and Schedule
I of Form X-17A-5 not later than 17 business days after the end of each
calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Form X-17A-5 is the Financial and Operational Combined
Uniform Single Report (``FOCUS Report''), which is used by broker-
dealers to provide certain required information to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (a)(2) of Rule 17a-10 requires a broker-dealer subject to
paragraph (a) of Rule 17a-5 to submit Schedule I of Form X-17A-5 with
its Form X-17A-5 for the calendar quarter ending December 31 of each
year.
    Paragraph (b) of Rule 17a-10 provides that the provisions of
paragraph (a) do not apply to members of national securities exchanges
or registered national securities associations that maintain records
containing the information required by Form X-17A-5 and which transmit
to the Commission copies of the records pursuant to a plan which has
been declared effective by the Commission.
    The Commission staff estimates that the total hour burden under
Rule 17a-10 is approximately 44,892 hours per year and the total cost
burden is $0 per year. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under
the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent by November 30, 2023 to (i) www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain and (ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: October 26, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-23974 Filed 10-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 9406]
[DOCID:fr04mr09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2007-E-0166]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; SOLIRIS

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for SOLIRIS and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent
which claims that human biological product.

ADDRESSES: Submit written or electronic comments and petitions to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic
comments to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human biological products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the biological becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human biological product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the biological product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human biological product will include all of the testing
phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA recently approved for marketing the human biologic product,
SOLIRIS (eculizumab). SOLIRIS is indicated for the treatment of
patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) to reduce
hemolysis. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office
received a patent term restoration application for SOLIRIS (U.S. Patent
No. 6,355,245) from Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the Patent and
Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this
patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated May
6, 2008, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human
biological product had undergone a regulatory review period and that
the approval of SOLIRIS represented the first permitted commercial
marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and
Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory
review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
SOLIRIS is 1,360 days. Of this time, 1,177 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 183 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective:
June 27, 2003. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the
investigational new drug application became effective was on June 27,
2003.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human biological product under section 351 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262): September 15, 2006. FDA has verified the
applicant's claim that the biologics license application (BLA) for
SOLIRIS (BLA 125166/0) was initially submitted on September 15, 2006.
    3. The date the application was approved: March 16, 2007. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that BLA 125166/0 was approved on March
16, 2007.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in
its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 735 days of
patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination
by May 4, 2009. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for
a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted
with due diligence during the regulatory review period by August 31,
2009. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to
merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d
sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in
21 CFR 10.30.
    Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information are to be
submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to
be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading
of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: February 17, 2009.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. E9-4526 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


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

    \154\ After the original rulemaking was approved, FINRA made
available a set of FAQs and guidance clarify certain of the
requirements, available at: www.finra.org.
    \155\ See SIFMA Letter at 6-7.
    \156\ See Amendment No. 1 at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Implementation Period
    In response to the proposed rule change, several commenters
requested that FINRA provide an implementation period of at least 18
months after publication of a final rule text before compliance is
required, stating that a constrained time period for implementation
could present market access risk, and citing the need to build
operations and technology and to negotiate necessary
documentation.\157\ FINRA responded to these concerns as part of
Amendment No. 1 by stating while it believes that the subject matter is
well understood by member firms and industry participants, FINRA would
announce the effective date no later than 60 days following approval,
if the Commission approves the proposed rule change, and would provide
an effective date between nine and ten months following such
approval.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ See SIFMA AMG letter at 1-3; SIFMA Letter at 2; BDA Letter
at 5.
    \158\ See Amendment No. 1 at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to Amendment No. 1, a commenter reiterated its previous
comments regarding the implementation date, again requesting that FINRA
provide an implementation period of 18 months, or in the alternative an
implementation timeframe of at least one year.\159\ FINRA responded to
the comment stating that in connection with Amendment No. 1, it
provided a longer implementation timeframe than originally proposed as
part of the proposed rule change. FINRA stated that Covered Agency
Transactions have been under discussion for a considerable time, both
prior to and since approval of the original rulemaking in 2016, and
that this subject matter is well understood by members and industry
participants. As a result FINRA believes that the public interest would
not be served by continuing delay and that the timeframe set forth in
Amendment No. 1 is appropriate.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See Letter from Chris Killian, Managing Director,
Securitization, Corporate Credit, Libor, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association, to Secretary, Commission (Sep. 10,
2021). The comment letter was submitted jointly by SIFMA and SIFMA
AMG.
    \160\ See FINRA Letter at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA's proposed implementation schedule is appropriate and
consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act. The Covered
Agency Transaction margin requirements were approved in 2016 under the
2016 Approval Order. FINRA member firms and industry participants are
aware of the requirements of the Covered Agency Transaction margin rule
and have had time to work toward implementation. Consequently, the
proposed implementation timeframe of nine to ten months from the
approval date as described in Amendment No. 1 should provide sufficient
time for FINRA firms to comply with the rule's requirements.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act \161\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2021-010),
as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-01471 Filed 1-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P