[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 15, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55036-55041]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22389]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0444; Product Identifier 2019-NM-028-AD; Amendment
39-19756; AD 2019-20-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Transport Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
various transport airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of smoke
and fumes in the flight deck. This AD requires modification of certain
universal serial bus (USB) receptacles located in the flight deck. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 19, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 15,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357,
2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax
+31 (0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0444.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0444; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2018-0259R1, dated February 7, 2019 (``EASA AD 2018-0259R1'') (also
referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the following
airplanes on which certain USB receptacles were installed using certain
Fokker service information:
     Fokker Services B.V. Model F.27 Mark 050 airplanes.
     Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 3000 airplanes.
     Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and Mark 0100
airplanes.
     Airbus SAS Model A318-111 airplanes.

     Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -114, -115, and -132
airplanes.
     Airbus SAS Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -
251N airplanes.
     Airbus SAS Model A321-211, -231, -232, -251N and -253N
airplanes.
     Airbus SAS Model A330-202, -223, -243, -322 and -343
airplanes.
     Airbus SAS Model A340-312 and -313 airplanes.
     ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-
500 airplanes.
     ATR--GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR72-
212 and -212A airplanes.
     The Boeing Company Model 737-300, -400, -500, -700, -800
and -900ER series airplanes.
     The Boeing Company Model 757-200 series airplanes.
     The Boeing Company Model 767-200 and -300 series
airplanes.
     The Boeing Company Model 777-200LR series airplanes.
     Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (601-3A, 601-3R, and
604 Variants) airplanes.
     Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series
700, 701 & 702) airplanes.
     Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-202, -311, -315 and -402
airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to various transport
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2019
(84 FR 29414). The NPRM was prompted by reports of smoke and fumes in
the flight deck due to overheating of an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB)
USB receptacle. The NPRM proposed to require modification of certain
USB receptacles located in the flight deck.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address smoke and fumes in the flight
deck, which could result in excessive flightcrew workload and injury to
flight deck occupants. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) indicated its
support for the NPRM.

Request To Revise Applicability

    NetJets submitted two requests to revise the applicability of the
proposed AD. The commenter's first request was to exclude Bombardier
Model CL-650 airplanes having serial numbers 6071 and subsequent. The
commenter provided a page from the Bombardier Model CL-650 Illustrated
Parts Catalog, which shows that the USB part number delivered on
airplanes with those serial numbers is not the affected USB part number
addressed in the proposed AD. The commenter submitted a subsequent
request asking that all Model CL-650 airplanes be removed from the
applicability of the proposed AD. The commenter stated that it had
conducted additional research and provided a list of airplane models
that have the affected USB part installed that was created by Fokker
and only one Bombardier Model CL-650 airplane, having serial number (S/
N) 5651, has the affected part installed.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's observation that a limited
number of Bombardier Model CL-650 airplanes (also known as Challenger
650 airplanes; a marketing designation for the Model CL-600-2B16 (604
Variant) airplanes beginning with S/N 6050 and subsequent) may have the
affected part installed. However, the FAA does not agree with the
commenter's request to revise the applicability of this AD. Since some
of the CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes may have the affected part
installed, the requirements of this AD apply to those airplanes. The
FAA has determined that it is the operators' responsibility to conduct
the necessary review to determine if an airplane in its fleet is
affected by the requirements of this AD. This AD applies to the
airplanes identified in figure 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, having an
affected part (defined in paragraph (g) of this AD) installed as
specified in the applicable service information identified in in figure
1 to paragraph (c) of this AD. The FAA has not revised this AD
regarding this issue.

Request To Allow Records Review

    NetJets requested that the proposed AD include a provision to allow
operators to do a records review to determine which airplanes have the
affected USB part installed.
    The commenter provided pages from the Bombardier Model CL-650
Illustrated Parts Catalog and pointed out that specific serial numbers
of Bombardier Model CL-650 airplanes were delivered with factory-
installed USB ports and are not affected by the modification specified
in the proposed AD.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request. However, while the
manufacturers Illustrated Parts Catalog is a valuable tool for
operators to order replacement parts, it is not an FAA approved
document that identifies an airplane delivered type design
configuration. A records review is one way of determining if the
affected part is installed on an airplane if the review can
conclusively identify the affected part. Paragraph (h) of this AD
requires modification of affected parts; this AD does not specify any
required method for determining that an affected part is installed on
an airplane. Therefore, operators can do an appropriate records review
or they can inspect the airplane to determine if the affected part is
installed. The FAA has not revised this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Include Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) Number

    Net Jets requested that the proposed AD include the STC number for
any USB receptacle that was installed on an airplane using the FAA-
approved STC process. The commenter observed that including the STC
number would aid in its research to determine which airplanes in its
fleet would be affected by the requirements specified in the proposed
AD.
    The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request. Figure 1 to paragraph
(c) of this AD already includes the applicable STC numbers for USB
receptacles installed using the FAA-approved STC process. Because a USB
receptacle could have been installed using a means other than an STC,
it is the operator's responsibility to conduct the review necessary to
determine if an airplane in its fleet is affected by the requirements
of this AD. The FAA has not revised this AD regarding this issue.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The agency has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued the following service information,
which describes procedures for modifying the electronic flight bag USB
receptacles located in the flight deck, including current limiting and
overheat protection. These documents are

distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
     Fokker Services F28 Generic Service Bulletin SBF28-46-002,
Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
     Fokker Services F50/60 Generic Service Bulletin SBF50-46-
006, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
     Fokker Services F100/700 Generic Service Bulletin SBF100-
46-008, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
     Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA320-0167, Revision
2, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.
     Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA330-0011, Revision
0, Sequence 9, dated July 27, 2018.
     Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA340-0005, Revision
0, Sequence 8, dated July 27, 2018.
     Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBAT72-0013, Revision
0, Sequence 7, dated July 27, 2018.
     Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB737-0156, Revision
3, Sequence 3, dated February 25, 2019.
     Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB757-0020, Revision
1, Sequence 3, dated October 2, 2018.
     Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB767-0023, Revision
1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
     Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB777-0009, Revision
1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
     Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBCL60-0010, Revision
1, Sequence 3, dated August 30, 2018.
     Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBDHC8-0035, Revision
1, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 14 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                     Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................              $0             $255           $3,570
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data on the parts costs for the required actions.

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-20-03 Transport Category Airplanes: Amendment 39-19756; Docket
No. FAA-2019-0444; Product Identifier 2019-NM-028-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 19, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in figure 1 to
paragraph (c) of this AD, certificated in any category, having an
affected part (defined in paragraph (g) of this AD) installed as
specified in the applicable service information identified in figure
1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15OC19.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15OC19.001

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 46, Information
systems.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of smoke and fumes in the flight
deck. The FAA is issuing this AD to address smoke and fumes in the
flight deck, which could result in excessive flightcrew workload and
injury to flight deck occupants.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an ``affected part'' is a universal
serial bus (USB) receptacle manufactured by Lone Star Aviation,
Corporation, having part number LS03-05050-A.

(h) Modification

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
each affected part in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable Fokker Services B.V. service
information identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (13) of this AD.
    (1) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA320-0167, Revision
2, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.
    (2) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA330-0011, Revision
0, Sequence 9, dated July 27, 2018.
    (3) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA340-0005, Revision
0, Sequence 8, dated July 27, 2018.
    (4) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBAT72-0013, Revision
0, Sequence 7, dated July 27, 2018.
    (5) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB737-0156, Revision
3, Sequence 3, dated February 25, 2019.
    (6) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB757-0020, Revision
1, Sequence 3, dated October 2, 2018.
    (7) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB767-0023, Revision
1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
    (8) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB777-0009, Revision
1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
    (9) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBCL60-0010, Revision
1, Sequence 3, dated August 30, 2018.
    (10) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBDHC8-0035, Revision
1, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.
    (11) Fokker Services F28 Generic Service Bulletin SBF28-46-002,
Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
    (12) Fokker Services F50/60 Generic Service Bulletin SBF50-46-
006, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
    (13) Fokker Services F100/700 Generic Service Bulletin SBF100-
46-008, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    After modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (h)
of this AD, no person may install an affected part on that airplane.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (7) of this AD.
    (1) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA320-0167, Revision
1, dated August 30, 2018.
    (2) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBDHC8-0035, Revision
0, dated July 27, 2018.
    (3) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB737-0156, Revision
1, dated August 30, 2018.
    (4) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB737-0156, Revision
2, dated October 3, 2018.
    (5) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB757-0020, Revision
0, dated July 27, 2018.
    (6) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB767-0023, Revision
0, dated July 27, 2018.
    (7) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB777-0009, Revision
0, dated July 27, 2018.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker Services B.V.'s EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0259R1, dated February 7, 2019, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2019-0444.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA320-0167, Revision
2, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.

    (ii) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA330-0011, Revision
0, Sequence 9, dated July 27, 2018.
    (iii) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBA340-0005, Revision
0, Sequence 8, dated July 27, 2018.
    (iv) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBAT72-0013, Revision
0, Sequence 7, dated July 27, 2018.
    (v) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB737-0156, Revision
3, Sequence 3, dated February 25, 2019.
    (vi) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB757-0020, Revision
1, Sequence 3, dated October 2, 2018.
    (vii) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB767-0023, Revision
1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
    (viii) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBB777-0009,
Revision 1, Sequence 3, dated October 3, 2018.
    (ix) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBCL60-0010, Revision
1, Sequence 3, dated August 30, 2018.
    (x) Fokker Services Engineering Bulletin EBDHC8-0035, Revision
1, Sequence 4, dated December 13, 2018.
    (xi) Fokker Services F28 Generic Service Bulletin SBF28-46-002,
Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
    (xii) Fokker Services F50/60 Generic Service Bulletin SBF50-46-
006, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
    (xiii) Fokker Services F100/700 Generic Service Bulletin SBF100-
46-008, Revision 0, dated July 27, 2018.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130
EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 27, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-22389 Filed 10-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74042-74043]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29960]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68378; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, To Establish the Market Quality Program

December 6, 2012.
    On March 23, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NASDAQ'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule
change to establish the Market Quality Program (`MQP''). On March 29,
2012, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1
thereto, was published for comment in the Federal Register on April 12,
2012.\3\ The Commission initially received fifteen comment letters on
the proposed rule change.\4\ On May 18, 2012, the Commission extended
the time period in which to either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change, to July 11,
2012.\5\ The Commission subsequently received three additional comment
letters on the proposed rule change and a response letter from the
Exchange.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66765 (April 6, 2012),
77 FR 22042.
    \4\ See Letter from Frank Choi, dated April 13, 2012; Letter
from Christopher J. Csicsko, dated April 14, 2012; Letter from
Jeremiah O'Connor III, dated April 14, 2012; Letter from Dezso J.
Szalay, dated April 15, 2012; Letter from Kathryn Keita, dated April
18, 2012; Letter from Anonymous, dated April 18, 2012; Letter from
Mark Connell, dated April 19, 2012; Letter from Timothy Quast,
Managing Director, Modern Networks IR LLC, dated April 26, 2012;
Letter from Daniel G. Weaver, Ph.D., Professor of Finance, Rutgers
Business School, dated April 26, 2012; Letter from Amber Anand,
Associate Professor of Finance, Syracuse University, dated April 29,
2012; Letter from Albert J. Menkveld, Associate Professor of
Finance, VU University Amsterdam, dated May 2, 2012; Letter from
James J. Angel, Associate Professor of Finance, Georgetown
University, dated May 2, 2012; Letter from Ari Burstein, Senior
Counsel, Investment Company Institute, dated May 3, 2012; Letter
from Gus Sauter, Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer,
Vanguard, dated May 3, 2012; and Letter from Leonard J. Amoruso,
General Counsel, Knight Capital Group, Inc., dated May 4, 2012.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67022 (May 18,
2012), 77 FR 31050 (May 24, 2012).
    \6\ See Letter from Gary L. Gastineau, Managing Member, ETF
Consultants LLC, dated June 11, 2012; Letter from Rey Ramsey,
President & CEO, TechNet, dated June 20, 2012; and Letter from
Stuart J. Kaswell, Executive Vice President & Managing Director,
General Counsel, Managed Funds Association, dated July 3, 2012. See
also Letter from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice President & Corporate
Secretary, NASDAQ, dated July 6, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 11, 2012, the Commission instituted proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1.\7\ The Commission thereafter received six
comment letters and two response letters and one email response from
the Exchange.\8\ On October 2, 2012, the Commission issued a notice of
designation of longer period for Commission action on proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\9\ On
November 6, 2012, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 2 to the
proposed rule change.\10\ On December 6, 2012, the

Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
Nos. 1 and 2 thereto (SR-NASDAQ-2012-043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67411, 77 FR 42052
(July 17, 2012).
    \8\ See Letter from Joseph Cavatoni, Managing Director, and
Joanne Medero, Managing Director, BlackRock, Inc., dated July 11,
2012; Letter from Stanislav Dolgopolov, Assistant Adjunct Professor,
UCLA School of Law, dated August 15, 2012; Letter from James E.
Ross, Global Head, SPDR Exchange Traded Funds, State Street Global
Advisors, dated August 16, 2012; Letter from Ari Burstein, Senior
Counsel, Investment Company Institute, dated August 16, 2012; Letter
from F. William McNabb, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Vanguard, dated August 16, 2012; and Letter from Andrew Stevens,
Legal Counsel, IMC Chicago, LLC d/b/a IMC Financial Markets, dated
August 16, 2012. See also Letters from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice
President & Corporate Secretary, NASDAQ OMX LLC, dated August 30,
2012 and Jurij Trypupenko, Esq., NASDAQ, dated September 7, 2012,
and email from Ed Knight, NASDAQ, dated September 19, 2012.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67961, 77 FR 61452
(October 9, 2012).
    \10\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange proposed to amend its
proposed rule text to: (i) Add provisions requiring it to disclose
on its Web site: (a) The dates that MQP Securities commence
participation in and withdraw or are terminated from the MQP, (b) a
statement about the MQP that sets forth a general description of the
MQP as implemented on a pilot basis and a fair and balanced
summation of the potentially positive aspects of the MQP (e.g.,
enhancement of liquidity and market quality in MQP Securities) as
well as the potentially negative aspects and risks of the MQP (e.g.,
possible lack of liquidity and negative price impact on MQP
Securities that withdraw or are terminated from the MQP), and
indicates how interested parties can get additional information
about products in the MQP, and (c) when it receives notification
that an MQP Company or MQP Market Maker intends to withdraw from the
MQP, and the date of actual withdrawal or termination from the MQP;
(ii) add a requirement that during such time that an MQP Company
lists an MQP Security, the MQP Company must, on a product-specific
Web site for each product, indicate that the product is in the MQP
and provide the link to the Exchange's MQP Web page; (iii) add a
provision clarifying that the MQP Fee in respect of an ETF shall be
paid by the sponsor(s) of such ETF, and the MQP Fee in respect of a
TIR shall be paid by the sponsor(s) of such TIR, as applicable; (iv)
amend the termination provision to provide that the MQP will
terminate in respect of an MQP Security if such MQP Security
sustains an average daily trading volume (consolidated trades in all
U.S. markets) (``ATV'') of 1.0 million shares or more for three
consecutive months (the previously proposed termination threshold
was average daily trading volume of 2.0 million shares or more
traded on NASDAQ for three consecutive months); and (v) amend the
definition of ``MQP Company'' to clarify that such term means a fund
sponsor or issuer, as applicable, that lists an MQP Security on the
Exchange pursuant to the MQP (the previously proposed definition
defined an ``MQP Company'' as a fund sponsor or ``other entity''
that lists an MQP Security on the Exchange pursuant to the MQP).
     In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange further proposed to amend the
filing to state that while the Exchange originally proposed a
termination threshold of 2.0 million shares or more ATV for three
consecutive months, it is scaling back the threshold to better
provide an opportunity to observe the impact, if any, on MQP
Securities that exceed the threshold and ``graduate'' from the MQP.
The Exchange notes that it has compiled statistics indicating that
``graduation'' from the MQP may occur more frequently at a 1.0
million ATV threshold than at a 2.0 million ATV threshold, and
includes a chart showing from years 2001 to 2012 the number of ETFs
that would have graduated from the MQP under the 2.0 million and 1.0
million ATV thresholds. Finally, in Amendment No. 2, the Exchange
proposed to amend the filing to make the following additional
representations: (i) the Exchange represents that it will post on
its Web site the monthly reports that it provides to the Commission
relating to the MQP during the pilot period; (ii) the Exchange
represents that it will endeavor to provide similar data to the
Commission about comparable products that are listed on the Exchange
that are not in the MQP and any other MQP-related data and analysis
requested by Commission staff for the purpose of evaluating the
efficacy of the MQP; and (iii) the Exchange represents that it will
issue to its members an information bulletin about the MQP prior to
operation of the MQP.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29960 Filed 12-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 44505]
[DOCID:fr08au07-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-461-001]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Amendment

August 1, 2007.
    Take notice that on July 27, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, filed in
Docket No. CP06-461-001, an application pursuant to section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) to amend the certificate issued in the above-
reference proceeding on July 10, 2007, which authorized an increase in
the certificated capacity at the Redfield Storage Field located in
Dallas County, Iowa, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
This filing may be also viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using

the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In this application, Northern requests an amendment to the
certificate to: (1) Increase the maximum reservoir pressures; (2)
continue the existing aggregated field capacity limit; (3) allow
Northern to inject gas into the Elgin Formation for the limited purpose
of operations and maintenance as discussed herein; and (4) modify the
requirement to report pressures and reservoir-specific inventories at
the aggregate levels to include only the initial year.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Michael
T. Loeffler, Director of Certificates for Northern, 1111 South 103rd
Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124,<PHONE_NUMBER> or Bret Fritch, Senior
Regulatory Analyst, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, before the
comment date of this notice, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to
intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party
status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary
of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the
applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of
filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant
and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the
proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's web site under the ``e-Filing''
link.

    Dated: August 14, 2007.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-15405 Filed 8-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9666-9673]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02606]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions and two
redesignation requests provided by the State of Florida, through the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), related to the
2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS or standard). Specifically, EPA is
approving a December 1, 2017, SIP revision (as supplemented through an
October 9, 2019, SIP revision discussed below) that includes
SO2 multi-unit permit limits and associated compliance and
monitoring parameters for Mosaic Fertilizer LLC's New Wales facility
(Mosaic New Wales) and Bartow facility (Mosaic Bartow), both located in
Polk County, Florida. The December 1, 2017, SIP revision also includes
a modeling analysis to demonstrate that the Hillsborough-Polk
SO2 nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to as the
``Hillsborough-Polk Area'') attains the SO2 NAAQS with these
permit limits. EPA is also approving an October 9, 2019, request to
redesignate the Hillsborough-Polk Area to attainment for the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS and associated SIP revision containing the State's
plan for maintaining attainment of the standard in the Hillsborough-
Polk Area. The October 9, 2019, SIP submittal also revises the modeling
analysis and some permit conditions in the 2017 SIP revision, contains
a base-year emissions inventory for the Hillsborough-Polk Area, and
certifies that the Hillsborough-Polk Area meets nonattainment new
source review (NNSR) requirements. In addition, EPA is approving an
October 9, 2019, request to redesignate the Mulberry Unclassifiable
Area (hereinafter referred to as the ``Mulberry Area'') to attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. FDEP submitted
a draft version of the October 9, 2019, redesignation requests and SIP
revisions on February 15, 2019, and EPA proposed to approve those
requests and revisions through parallel processing at the State's
request.

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

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0510. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez may be
reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What is the background for the actions?

    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS,
establishing a new 1-hour SO2 standard of 75 parts per
billion (ppb). See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). Under EPA's regulations
at 40 CFR part 50, the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is met at a
monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile
of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to
75 ppb (based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix
T). See 40 CFR 50.17. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-
year period must meet a data completeness requirement. A year meets
data completeness requirements when all four quarters are complete, and
a

quarter is complete when at least 75 percent of the sampling days for
each quarter have complete data. A sampling day has complete data if 75
percent of the hourly concentration values, including state-flagged
data affected by exceptional events which have been approved for
exclusion by the Administrator, are reported.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that does not
meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that
does not meet) the NAAQS. Effective on April 9, 2018, EPA designated
the Hillsborough-Polk Area as nonattainment based on air dispersion
modeling and designated the Mulberry Area as unclassifiable for the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\2\ See 83 FR 1098 (January 9, 2018).
Under the CAA, SO2 nonattainment areas must attain the NAAQS
as expeditiously as practicable but not later than five years after the
April 9, 2018, effective date of the designation. See CAA section
192(a). Therefore, the Hillsborough-Polk Area's applicable attainment
date is no later than April 9, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA designated the Mulberry Area as unclassifiable due to
the uncertainty regarding possible contribution from Mosaic Bartow
to the modeled violations in the Hillsborough-Polk Area. See Chapter
9 of the Technical Support Document for the Round 3 Designations for
the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS located in the docket for the
designation at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003-0635.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's nonattainment designation for the Hillsborough-Polk Area
triggered an obligation for Florida to develop a nonattainment area SIP
revision addressing certain requirements under CAA title I, part D,
subpart 1 (hereinafter ``Subpart 1''), and to submit that SIP revision
to EPA in accordance with the deadlines in title I, part D, subpart 5
(hereinafter ``Subpart 5'').\3\ Subpart 1 contains the general
requirements for nonattainment areas for criteria pollutants, including
requirements to develop a SIP that: Provides for the implementation of
reasonably available control measures (RACM); requires reasonable
further progress (RFP); includes base-year and attainment-year
emissions inventories, a SIP-approved NNSR permitting program that
accounts for growth in the area, enforceable emission limitations and
other such control measures; and provides for the implementation of
contingency measures. This SIP revision was due within 18 months
following the April 9, 2018, effective date of designation (i.e.,
October 9, 2019). See CAA section 191(a).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ No requirements were triggered as a result of the
unclassifiable designation for the Mulberry Area.
    \4\ CAA section 172 requires states with nonattainment areas to
submit plans providing for timely attainment and meeting other
requirements. EPA's interpretation of the attainment-related
nonattainment planning requirements of section 172 is that once an
area is attaining the NAAQS, those requirements are not applicable
for purposes of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) and therefore
need not be approved into the SIP before EPA can redesignate an
area. Those requirements are not applicable for purposes of
evaluating Florida's redesignation request for the Hillsborough-Polk
Area because EPA is taking final action to incorporate the permitted
SO2 limits and associated compliance and monitoring
parameters into the SIP since becoming effective August 31, 2019,
and air quality modeling demonstrates that the Hillsborough-Polk
Area attains the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS as a result of
compliance with these limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State submitted its first SIP revision for the Hillsborough-
Polk Area to EPA in December 2017. That SIP revision included
SO2 multi-unit permit limits and associated compliance and
monitoring parameters for Mosaic New Wales and Bartow and a modeling
analysis to demonstrate that the Hillsborough-Polk Area attains the
SO2 NAAQS with these permit limits. Then, on February 15,
2019, Florida submitted a draft request to EPA to redesignate the
Hillsborough-Polk Area to attainment for the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS and a related draft SIP revision containing a maintenance plan
for the Hillsborough-Polk Area.\5\ The February 15, 2019, draft
submittal also included a request to redesignate the Mulberry Area to
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS,\6\
contained a base-year emissions inventory for the Hillsborough-Polk
Area, certified that the Hillsborough-Polk Area meets NNSR
requirements, revised the modeling analysis in the December 2017 SIP
revision, and included administrative amendments to certain permit
conditions in the December 2017 SIP revision. Florida requested that
EPA parallel process the draft requests and SIP submittals while the
State waited for the multi-unit permit limits for Mosaic New Wales and
Bartow to become state-enforceable on August 31, 2019. In a March 22,
2019 letter, FDEP clarified that it is asking EPA to incorporate the
following conditions from Permit Nos. 10500046-106-AC and 1050046-050-
AC: \7\ (1) Section III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 3 (as
corrected by Permit Nos. 1050059-114-AC and Permit No. 1050046-063-
AC)--establishing the five-unit permit limit of 1,090 lb/hr for Mosaic
New Wales and the three-unit permit limit of 1,100 lb/hr for Mosaic
Bartow, each based on 24-hour block average, and applicable during all
periods of operation; \8\ (2) Section III, Subsection A Specific
Condition 4--requiring the facilities to use certified SO2
continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data to demonstrate
initial compliance with the new SO2 permit limit; and (3)
Section III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 5--requiring the
facilities to keep records of the initial compliance demonstration that
include the SO2 CEMS data and sulfuric acid production rate
(in tons per hour) during the demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) identifies the criteria for
redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. One of these
criteria, 107(d)(3)(E)(iv), requires a fully approved maintenance
plan for the area that meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.
    \6\ When approving or denying a request to redesignate an
unclassifiable area to attainment/unclassifiable, EPA bases its
decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the
considerations provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A). For the 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA may also base its decision on
relevant modeling analyses. The requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)
are not applicable to such a redesignation because that section of
the CAA only applies to redesignation of nonattainment areas to
attainment. Areas that are redesignated to attainment/unclassifiable
must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus must meet
the relevant NAAQS and not contribute to ambient air quality in a
nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS.
    \7\ The permit condition numbers are the same for each permit.
    \8\ Permit condition Section III, Subsection A, Specific
Condition 3 requires compliance with the emissions caps within the
same 24-hour block averaging period (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) and in
scenarios when any combination of any number of the SAPs are not in
operation and when any number of the SAPs are in operation. See
Appendices B, C, G, and H of Florida's October 9, 2019, final SIP
submission in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on September 9,
2019 (84 FR 47216), EPA proposed to approve the draft February 15,
2019, SIP submittal and redesignation requests through parallel
processing and to approve the December 2017 SIP revision (as
supplemented through the February 15, 2019, draft revision).
Specifically, EPA proposed to (1) approve and incorporate the
SO2 permit limits and associated compliance and monitoring
parameters for Mosaic New Wales and Bartow into the SIP; (2) approve
the base-year emissions inventory for the Hillsborough-Polk Area and
incorporate it into the SIP; (3) concur with Florida's certification
that its existing NNSR requirements apply to the Hillsborough-Polk
Area; \9\ (4) determine that the air quality modeling submitted by the
State demonstrates that the Hillsborough-Polk

Area will have attained the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as a result of
compliance with the multi-unit permit limits at Mosaic New Wales and
Bartow; (5) approve Florida's plan for maintaining the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the Hillsborough-Polk Area through 2032 and
incorporate it into the SIP pursuant to section 175A of the CAA; (6)
redesignate the Hillsborough-Polk Area to attainment for the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS; and (7) redesignate the Mulberry Area from
unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS based on air quality modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As discussed in the NPRM, EPA has a longstanding
interpretation that because NNSR is replaced by Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting upon redesignation,
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment need not
have a fully approved part D NNSR program in order to be
redesignated. Nonetheless, EPA proposed to concur with the State's
certification and is approving the SIP revision containing that
certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Florida's October 9, 2019, final SIP submission demonstrates
compliance with the SO2 emissions limits for Mosaic New
Wales and Bartow based on SO2 hourly emissions data from
August 1, 2019 through September 24, 2019.\10\ EPA proposed to
determine that the modeling analysis provided in the SIP revisions
demonstrates that the Hillsborough-Polk and Mulberry Areas will attain
the 2010 1-hour standard as a result of compliance with the 24-hour
SO2 emissions limits at Mosaic New Wales and Bartow.\11\ The
modeling resulted in a highest predicted 99th percentile daily maximum
1-hour concentration of 74.4 ppb with no modeled violations of the 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS in ambient air locations in the Hillsborough-
Polk or Mulberry Areas. Because there are no air quality monitors in
these areas, EPA's proposed approval of the redesignation request and
maintenance plan SIP for the Hillsborough-Polk Area and the
redesignation request for the Mulberry Area was based, in part, on
these modeling results.\12\ Because Mosaic New Wales and Bartow are
required to comply with the permit limits that air quality modeling
shows will maintain the standard, this modeling shows that the areas
will continue to maintain the 2010 1-hour SO2 standard
through 2032, the final year of the submitted 10-year maintenance plan
for the Hillsborough-Polk Area. The details of Florida's submittal and
the rationale for EPA's actions are further explained in the NPRM,
including the modeled attainment demonstration to determine attainment
with the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

II. Response to Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. What are the effects of these actions?

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

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

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference into Florida's
SIP the following conditions from Air Permit No. 1050046-050-AC issued
by FDEP to Mosaic Bartow with an effective date of July 3, 2017,
related to an SO2 permitted limit at the facility and
associated compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements: (1) Section III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 3 (as
administratively corrected by Permit No. 1050046-063-AC with an
effective date of January 11, 2019); \20\ (2) Section III, Subsection
A, Specific Condition 4; \21\ and (3) Section III, Subsection A,
Specific Condition 5.\22\ In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is also finalizing the incorporation by reference into
Florida's SIP the following conditions from Air Permit No. 1050059-106-
AC issued by FDEP to Mosaic New Wales with an effective date of October
30, 2017, related to an SO2 permitted limit at the facility
and associated compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements: (1) Section III, Subsection A, Specific Condition 3 (as
administratively corrected by Permit No. 1050059-114-AC with an
effective

date of January 11, 2019); \23\ (2) Section III, Subsection A, Specific
Condition 4; \24\ and (3) Section III, Subsection A, Specific Condition
5.\25\ Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the state implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This provision states: ``SO2 Emissions Limit: The following
emission limit applies to the Sulfuric Acid Plant (SAP) Nos. 4, 5 &
6: a. When all five SAPs are in operation within the same 24-hour
block averaging period, a cap of 1,100 lb SO2/hour, 24-
hour block average (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) is applicable; and, b.
The cap of 1,100 lb SO2/hour, 24-hour block average (6:00
a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) applies in scenarios when any combination of any
number of the SAPs are not in operation and when any number of the
SAPs are in operation. [Rules 62-4.030, General Prohibition, F.A.C.
& Rule 62-4.210, Construction Permits, F.A.C.; Application No.
1050046-050-AC; and, Administrative Permit Correction Application
No. 1050046-063-AC.]''
    \21\ This provision states: ``Initial Compliance: These emission
units shall use certified SO2 CEMS data to demonstrate
initial compliance with the new SO2 emission limit.
[Rules 62-4.070(1)&(3), Reasonable Assurance, F.A.C.; and,
Application No. 1050046-050-AC.]''.
    \22\ This provision states: ``Recordkeeping: The permittee shall
keep records of the initial compliance demonstration. The records
shall include the SO2 CEMS data along with the sulfuric
acid production rate (TPH, tons per hour) during the demonstration.
Any reports shall be prepared in accordance with the applicable
requirements specified in Appendix D (Common Testing Requirements)
of this permit. [Rule 62-297.310(10), F.A.C.; and, Application No.
1050046-050-AC.]''.
    \23\ This provision states: ``SO2 Emissions Limit: The following
emission limit applies to the Sulfuric Acid Plant (SAP) Nos. 1, 2,
3, 4 & 5: a. When all five SAPs are in operation within the same 24-
hour block averaging period, a cap of 1,090 lb SO2/hour,
24-hour block average (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) is applicable; and,
b. The cap of 1,090 lb SO2/hour, 24-hour block average
(6:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) applies in scenarios when any combination
of any number of the SAPs are not in operation and when any number
of the SAPs are in operation. [Rules 62-4.030, General Prohibition,
F.A.C. & Rule 62-4.210, Construction Permits, F.A.C.; Application
No. 1050059-106-AC; and, Administrative Permit Correction
Application No. 1050059-114-AC.]''.
    \24\ This provision states: ``Initial Compliance: These emission
units shall use certified SO2 CEMS data to demonstrate
initial compliance with the new SO2 emission limit.
[Rules 62-4.070(1)&(3), Reasonable Assurance, F.A.C.; and,
Application Nos. 1050059-103-AC & 1050059-106-AC.]''.
    \25\ This provision states: ``Recordkeeping: The permittee shall
keep records of the initial compliance demonstration. The records
shall include the SO2 CEMS data along with the sulfuric
acid production rate (TPH, tons per hour) during the demonstration.
Any reports shall be prepared in accordance with the applicable
requirements specified in Appendix D (Common Testing Requirements)
of this permit. [Rule 62-297.310(10), F.A.C.; and, Application Nos.
1050059-103-AC & 1050059-106-AC.]''.
    \26\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

V. Final Actions

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E),
as well as the redesignation of an area to attainment/unclassifiable,
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by state law. A redesignation to attainment or to attainment/
unclassifiable does not in and of itself create any new requirements,
but rather results in the applicability of requirements contained in
the CAA for areas that have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover,
the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies
with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these actions merely approve state
law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, these
actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because they are not significant regulatory
actions under Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose information collection burdens under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).

These actions are not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 20, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (d) by adding entries for ``Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--
Bartow Facility'' and ``Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--New Wales Facility'' at
the end of the table; and
0
b. In paragraph (e) by adding an entry for ``2010 1-hour SO2
Maintenance Plan for the Hillsborough-Polk Area'' at the end of the
table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.520   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                EPA-Approved Florida Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
         Name of source              Permit No.      effective date   EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--Bartow   Air Permit No.            7/3/2017  2/20/2020 [Insert   Section III, Subsection
 Facility.                        1050046-050-AC.                     citation of         A, Specific Condition
                                                                      publication].       3 (as administratively
                                                                                corrected by Permit
                                                                                No. 1050046-063-AC
                                                                                with an effective date
                                                                                of January 11, 2019);
                                                                                Condition 4; and
                                                                                Condition 5.
Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC--New      Air Permit No.          10/30/2017  2/20/2020 [Insert   Section III, Subsection
 Wales Facility.                  1050059-106-AC.                     citation of         A, Specific Condition
                                                                      publication].       3 (as administratively
                                                                                corrected by Permit
                                                                                No. 1050059-114-AC
                                                                                with an effective date
                                                                                of January 11, 2019);
                                                                                Condition 4; and
                                                                                Condition 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        State       EPA approval
            Provision              effective date       date       Federal Register, notice      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2010 1-hour SO2 Maintenance Plan        10/9/2019       2/20/2020  [Insert citation of
 for the Hillsborough-Polk Area.                                    publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

Sec.  81.310   Florida.

* * * * *

                   Florida--2010 Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS
                                [Primary]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation
          Designated area           ------------------------------------
                                        Date \1\             Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Hillsborough-Polk County, FL \3\...       3/23/2020  Attainment.
    Hillsborough County (part)
    Polk County (part)

        That portion of
         Hillsborough and Polk
         Counties encompassed by
         the polygon with the
         vertices using Universal
         Traverse Mercator (UTM)
         coordinates in UTM zone 17
         with datum NAD83 as
         follows: 390,500 E,
         3,073,500 N; 390,500 E,
         3,083,500 N; 400,500 E,
         3,083,500 N; 400,500 E,
         3,073,500 N

                              * * * * * * *
Mulberry, FL Area \3\..............       3/23/2020  Attainment/
                                                      Unclassifiable.
    Hillsborough County (part)
    Polk County (part)
        That portion of
         Hillsborough and Polk
         Counties encompassed by
         the polygon with the
         vertices using Universal
         Traverse Mercator (UTM)
         coordinates in UTM zone 17
         with datum NAD83 starting
         with the Northwest Corner
         and proceeding to the
         Northeast as follows:
         390,500 E, 3,083,500 N;
         410,700 E, 3,091,600 N;
         412,900 E, 3,089,800 N;
         412,900 E, 3,084,600 N;
         400,500 E, 3,073,500 N;
         400,500 E, 3,083,500 N

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is 4/9/2018, unless otherwise noted.
 * * * * * * *
\3\ Includes any Indian country in each county or area, unless otherwise
  specified. The EPA is not determining the boundaries of any area of
  Indian country in this table, including any area of Indian country
  located in the larger designation area. The inclusion of any Indian
  country in the designation area is not a determination that the state
  has regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act for such Indian
  country.

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