Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida: Removal of Sulfur Storage and Handling Rules, 37255-37258 [2014-15399]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Collaborative Action, U.S. Department
of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20240. Include the
number 1076–AF23 in the
submission.
We cannot ensure that comments
received after the close of the comment
period (see DATES) will be included in
the docket for this rulemaking and
considered. Comments sent to an
address other than those listed above
will not be included in the docket for
this rulemaking.
Comments on the information
collections contained in this proposed
regulation are separate from those on
the substance of the rule. Send
comments on the information collection
burden to OMB by facsimile to (202)
395–5806 or email to the OMB Desk
Officer for the Department of the
Interior at OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov. Please send a copy of your
comments to the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of
Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative
Action, (202) 273–4680;
elizabeth.appel@bia.gov.
BIA
published a proposed rule on land
acquisitions in Alaska on May 1, 2014
(79 FR 24648). This proposed rule
would delete a provision in the
Department of the Interior’s land-intotrust regulations that excludes from the
scope of the regulations, with one
exception, land acquisitions in trust in
the State of Alaska. Since publication of
the proposed rule, BIA has received
several requests to extend the comment
period. Accordingly, to provide
additional time for review and comment
on the proposed rule, BIA is extending
its original 60-day comment period by
an additional 30 days.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: June 24, 2014.
Kevin K. Washburn,
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014–15312 Filed 6–30–14; 8:45 am]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 4310–6W–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Jun 30, 2014
Jkt 232001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0746; FRL–9912–95–
Region 4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Florida:
Removal of Sulfur Storage and
Handling Rules
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Florida State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted
by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), on
April 5, 2012. The revision modifies
Florida’s SIP to remove two state rules
relating to new and existing sulfur
storage and handling facilities because
they are no longer necessary. EPA has
preliminarily determined that Florida’s
April 5, 2012, SIP revision regarding
sulfur storage and handling facilities is
approvable because it is consistent with
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before July 31, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2013–0746, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013–
0746’’—Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013–
0746. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37255
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel
Huey, Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
37256
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9104.
Mr. Huey can also be reached via
electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The proposed revision requests that
EPA remove two state rules—Rule 62–
212.600, F.A.C., ‘‘Sulfur Storage and
Handling Facilities’’ and Rule 62–
296.411, F.A.C., ‘‘Sulfur Storage and
Handling Facilities’’—from Florida’s
SIP. Florida repealed these rules on
February 16, 2012.
The requirements of Rule 62–212.600,
F.A.C., apply to proposed new or
modified sulfur storage and handling
facilities. The rule states that the owner
or operator of any proposed new or
modified sulfur storage and handling
facility that is to be located within five
kilometers of either a particulate matter
(PM) air quality maintenance area or a
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) Class I area shall provide FDEP
with an analysis of the probable
particulate matter ambient air quality
impacts that could result from the
operation of the facility. Additionally,
the owner or operator shall provide
FDEP with an analysis of the probable
annual and maximum monthly sulfur
deposition rates that could occur as a
result of the operation of the facility.
The owner or operator shall conduct
post-construction air quality and
deposition monitoring of sulfur
particulate emissions from the facility
for two years from the date of issuance
of the initial air operation permit for the
facility, and, through the permitting
process, shall determine the period of
time, if any, such monitoring must be
continued. The data collected would
then be provided to FDEP as specified
in the permit. Florida states that the
‘‘General Preconstruction Review
Requirements’’ and ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)’’
provisions of the Rules 62–212.300 and
62–212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be
used instead of Rule 62–212.600, F.A.C
to prevent PM emissions that would
interfere with attainment and
maintenance of national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS), prevention
of significant deterioration of air quality,
or protection of visibility.
Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C., states that
no person shall cause, suffer, or allow
elemental sulfur to be stored, handled,
or transported within the State in
crushed bulk or slate form or in any
form other than standard sulfur pellets
or in molten form, except that sulfur
may be transferred within the
boundaries of a single facility in other
forms. Facilities using standard sulfur
pellets or molten sulfur, or sulfur
vatting facilities, may be permitted only
in conformance with the practices
identified in the rule. Florida states that
the ‘‘General Pollutant Emission
Limiting Standards’’ of Rule 62–
296.320, F.A.C., can be applied instead
of Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C. to
adequately control PM emissions from
dry material handling operations such
as those associated with sulfur storage
and handling facilities.
With removal of the above two rules
from the SIP, Florida’s PM requirements
under the SIP for new and existing
sulfur storage and handling facilities
would align with the PM requirements
for other, similar dry material handling
sources in the State. At the time that
Florida promulgated its sulfur storage
and handling rules, the State was
concerned that total suspended
particulate matter levels in Florida
would be negatively impacted by
increased sulfur handling and storage
operations to such an extent as to
warrant additional facility-specific work
practices and monitoring. However, the
anticipated increase in sulfur handling
and storage operations did not occur,
and only 11 facilities are subject to Rule
62–212.300, F.A.C. and Rule 62–
212.400, F.A.C. EPA approved these two
state rules into the SIP on December 24,
1985, at 50 FR 52460.1
II. Analysis of the State’s Submittal
EPA’s primary consideration for
determining the approvability of
Florida’s request to remove the existing
sulfur storage and handling facilities
rules, 62–212.600, F.A.C. and 62–
296.411, F.A.C., from the SIP is whether
these requested actions comply with
section 110(l) of the CAA. Under
Section 110(l), EPA cannot approve a
SIP revision if that revision would
interfere with any applicable
requirement regarding attainment,
reasonable further progress (RFP), or
any other applicable requirement
established in the CAA. EPA will
approve a SIP revision that removes or
modifies control measures in the SIP
only after the state makes a
‘‘noninterference’’ demonstration that
such a removal or modification will not
interfere with RFP, attainment or
maintenance of any NAAQS, or any
other CAA requirement. As such,
Florida must make a demonstration of
noninterference in order to remove the
sulfur storage and handling facilities
requirements from its SIP.
Because actual emissions are not
expected to change, there will be no
impact on PSD increments, RFP,
visibility, attainment or maintenance of
any NAAQS, or any other applicable
CAA requirement. Particulate matter, in
the form of coarse (PM10) and fine
(PM2.5) PM, is the pollutant related to
the SIP revision. On January 15, 2013
(78 FR 3086), EPA established an annual
primary PM2.5 NAAQS at 12.0
micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3)
based on a 3-year average of annual
mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time,
EPA retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS at 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations.
All areas in the State are currently
designated as attainment for the PM10
and PM2.5 NAAQS. For example, Table
1 identifies the PM2.5 annual and 24hour design values for the counties
where facilities subject to the repealed
sulfur storage and handling rules are
located and demonstrates that these
design values are well below the
respective NAAQS.
TABLE 1—PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
County
2008–2010
2009–2011
2010–2012
2011–2013
Annual Design Value
Hillsborough .....................................................................................................
Polk ..................................................................................................................
1 EPA’s December 24, 1985, action incorporated
the state sulfur storage and handling rules at 17–
2.540, F.A.C. and 17–2.600, F.A.C. into Florida’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Jun 30, 2014
Jkt 232001
8.0
7.7
SIP. Florida later reorganized its administrative
code and renumbered these rules as 62–212.600,
F.A.C. and 62–296.411, F.A.C., respectively. EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.4
updated the Florida SIP on June 16, 1999 (64 FR
32346), to make it consistent with the revised
numbering system.
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
7.1
7.0
37257
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES—Continued
County
2008–2010
2009–2011
2010–2012
2011–2013
24-hour Design Value
Hillsborough .....................................................................................................
Polk ..................................................................................................................
There are no emissions reductions of
carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen
oxides, ozone, or sulfur dioxide (SO2)
attributable to the sulfur storage and
handling facilities requirements. As a
result, the removal of these
requirements will not interfere with
attainment of these NAAQS.
16
15
A comparison of PM emissions from
sulfur handling and storage emission
units at each subject facility with PM
emissions from the entire facility
demonstrates that sulfur PM emissions
from the subject units account for
approximately zero to nine percent of
total PM emissions at most facilities. Of
17
15
16
16
16
15
the four facilities at which all facility
PM emissions are entirely due to sulfur
PM emissions from sulfur handling and
storage emissions units, the amount of
sulfur PM emitted ranges from
approximately one to six tons per year
per facility. See Table 2.
TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF PM EMISSIONS FROM SULFUR HANDLING AND STORAGE EMISSION UNITS (EU) AT EACH
FACILITY VERSUS PM EMISSIONS FROM THE ENTIRE FACILITY 2
Facility
Facility ID
Sulfur EU PM
(tons/year)
All facility EU
PM
(tons/year)
Sulfur EU PM
% of all facility
EU PM
470002
570005
570008
570082
570100
570455
570477
1050046
1050055
1050059
1130005
5.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
6.0
4.5
1.5
4.4
0.4
12.0
0.0
2084.8
59.4
27.9
1.0
6.0
4.5
1.5
57.0
99.6
141.3
14.7
0.3
1.0
2.2
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
7.7
0.4
8.5
0.0
Total ................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
WHITE SPRS AG CHEM—SR/SC CMPLX ...........................
CF INDUSTRIES—PLANT CITY PHOSP COMPLEX ...........
MOSAIC FERTILIZER—RIVERVIEW FACILITY ...................
GULF SULPHUR SERVICES, HOOKER’S PT SITE ............
GULF SULPHUR SERVICES, PORT SUTTON SITE ...........
PASCO TERMINALS, INC .....................................................
MARTIN GAS SALES, INC ....................................................
MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC—BARTOW FACILITY ..............
MOSAIC FERTILIZER—SOUTH PIERCE FACILITY ............
MOSAIC FERTILIZER—NEW WALES FACILITY .................
QUANTUM ST REGIS TREATING & JAY GAS ....................
........................
36.6
2497.7
Potential (P)
or 2010
actual
(A) PM
emissions
1.5
Of the 11 facilities that are subject to
the sulfur handling and storage
emission rules, four will experience a
relaxation in the opacity limit from 10
or 15 percent to 20 percent if 62–
212.600, F.A.C. and 62–296.411, F.A.C.
are removed from the SIP, but emissions
are not expected to increase because the
underlying work practices will remain
unchanged. The sulfur particulate
emitting emissions units at these four
facilities are approximately less than
one ton per year, and a majority of the
visible emissions tests conducted in
2010–11 for sulfur storage and handling
units showed no visible emissions (i.e.,
zero percent opacity).
Furthermore, several existing state
rules incorporated into Florida’s SIP can
be applied in lieu of Rules 62–212.600,
F.A.C. and 62–296.411, F.A.C. to
address sulfur PM emissions from sulfur
storage and handling emissions units at
2 These
data can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA–
R04–OAR–2013–0746.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Jun 30, 2014
Jkt 232001
these facilities. Rules 62–212.300 and
62–212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be
applied instead of the sulfur-specific
requirements of paragraph 62–
212.600(2)(a), F.A.C., to evaluate
potential particulate matter ambient air
quality impacts. The sulfur deposition
analysis required by paragraph 62–
212.600(2)(b), F.A.C., is unnecessary
because there is no standard to compare
the results with to demonstrate
compliance. Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C.,
the ‘‘General Pollutant Emission
Limiting Standards’’ of Rule 62–
296.320, F.A.C., and, for some emissions
units, the PM Reasonably Available
Control Technology requirements of
Rule 62–296.711, F.A.C., can be applied
to control the sulfur PM emissions from
sulfur storage and handling emissions
units at these facilities. Rule 62–
296.711, F.A.C. generally imposes a five
percent opacity limit for existing sulfur
handling, sizing, screening, crushing,
and grinding operations in former total
suspended particulate non-attainment
areas or within 50 kilometers of such
former areas except where an emissions
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
P
A
A
P
P
P
P
A
P
A
A
unit has received a Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BACT)
determination or the emissions are
insignificant enough to be exempted
under Rule 62–296.700(2), F.A.C. The
control techniques and work practice
standards found in Rule 62–296.411,
F.A.C., to control unconfined emissions
of particulate matter can also be
required by paragraph 62–296.320(4)(c),
F.A.C., which prohibits the emission of
unconfined particulate matter without
taking reasonable precautions to prevent
such emissions.
For the reasons discussed above, EPA
has determined that removal of the
sulfur storage and handling facilities
rules will not interfere with attainment
or maintenance of the NAAQS in
surrounding states or interfere with any
other requirement identified in section
110(l).
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s
April 5, 2012, SIP revision to remove
state Rule 62–212.600, F.A.C. and Rule
62–296.411, F.A.C., related to sulfur
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
37258
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
storage and handling facilities, from the
Florida SIP because the Agency has
preliminarily determined that this
revision is consistent with section 110(l)
of the CAA.
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• 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).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:47 Jun 30, 2014
Jkt 232001
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 16, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014–15399 Filed 6–30–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0336 FRL–9912–65–
Region 9]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern basic enforcement
authorities under the Clean Air Act
(CAA or the Act).
DATES: Any comments on this proposal
must arrive by July 31, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2014–0336, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel
(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments will be
included in the public docket without
change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send email
directly to EPA, your email address will
be automatically captured and included
as part of the public comment. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105–3901. While all
documents in the docket are listed at
www.regulations.gov, some information
may be publicly available only at the
hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps), and some may not
be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vanessa Graham, EPA Region IX, (415)
947–4120, graham.vanessa@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
proposal addresses the following local
rules: Rule 1040 Enforcement, Rule
1050 Order of Abatement, Rule 1070
Inspections, and Rule 1090 Penalty. In
the Rules and Regulations section of this
Federal Register, we are approving
these local rules in a direct final action
without prior proposal because we
believe these SIP revisions are not
controversial. If we receive adverse
comments, however, we will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule and address the comments in
subsequent action based on this
proposed rule. Please note that if we
receive adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
we may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
We do not plan to open a second
comment period, so anyone interested
in commenting should do so at this
time. If we do not receive adverse
comments, no further activity is
E:\FR\FM\01JYP1.SGM
01JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37255-37258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15399]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0746; FRL-9912-95-Region 4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida:
Removal of Sulfur Storage and Handling Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
a revision to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), on April 5,
2012. The revision modifies Florida's SIP to remove two state rules
relating to new and existing sulfur storage and handling facilities
because they are no longer necessary. EPA has preliminarily determined
that Florida's April 5, 2012, SIP revision regarding sulfur storage and
handling facilities is approvable because it is consistent with the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0746, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0746''--Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0746. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
[[Page 37256]]
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562-9104. Mr. Huey can also be reached via
electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The proposed revision requests that EPA remove two state rules--
Rule 62-212.600, F.A.C., ``Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities'' and
Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., ``Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities''--
from Florida's SIP. Florida repealed these rules on February 16, 2012.
The requirements of Rule 62-212.600, F.A.C., apply to proposed new
or modified sulfur storage and handling facilities. The rule states
that the owner or operator of any proposed new or modified sulfur
storage and handling facility that is to be located within five
kilometers of either a particulate matter (PM) air quality maintenance
area or a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) Class I area
shall provide FDEP with an analysis of the probable particulate matter
ambient air quality impacts that could result from the operation of the
facility. Additionally, the owner or operator shall provide FDEP with
an analysis of the probable annual and maximum monthly sulfur
deposition rates that could occur as a result of the operation of the
facility. The owner or operator shall conduct post-construction air
quality and deposition monitoring of sulfur particulate emissions from
the facility for two years from the date of issuance of the initial air
operation permit for the facility, and, through the permitting process,
shall determine the period of time, if any, such monitoring must be
continued. The data collected would then be provided to FDEP as
specified in the permit. Florida states that the ``General
Preconstruction Review Requirements'' and ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)'' provisions of the Rules 62-212.300 and 62-
212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be used instead of Rule 62-212.600,
F.A.C to prevent PM emissions that would interfere with attainment and
maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS),
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality, or protection
of visibility.
Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., states that no person shall cause, suffer,
or allow elemental sulfur to be stored, handled, or transported within
the State in crushed bulk or slate form or in any form other than
standard sulfur pellets or in molten form, except that sulfur may be
transferred within the boundaries of a single facility in other forms.
Facilities using standard sulfur pellets or molten sulfur, or sulfur
vatting facilities, may be permitted only in conformance with the
practices identified in the rule. Florida states that the ``General
Pollutant Emission Limiting Standards'' of Rule 62-296.320, F.A.C., can
be applied instead of Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C. to adequately control PM
emissions from dry material handling operations such as those
associated with sulfur storage and handling facilities.
With removal of the above two rules from the SIP, Florida's PM
requirements under the SIP for new and existing sulfur storage and
handling facilities would align with the PM requirements for other,
similar dry material handling sources in the State. At the time that
Florida promulgated its sulfur storage and handling rules, the State
was concerned that total suspended particulate matter levels in Florida
would be negatively impacted by increased sulfur handling and storage
operations to such an extent as to warrant additional facility-specific
work practices and monitoring. However, the anticipated increase in
sulfur handling and storage operations did not occur, and only 11
facilities are subject to Rule 62-212.300, F.A.C. and Rule 62-212.400,
F.A.C. EPA approved these two state rules into the SIP on December 24,
1985, at 50 FR 52460.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's December 24, 1985, action incorporated the state
sulfur storage and handling rules at 17-2.540, F.A.C. and 17-2.600,
F.A.C. into Florida's SIP. Florida later reorganized its
administrative code and renumbered these rules as 62-212.600, F.A.C.
and 62-296.411, F.A.C., respectively. EPA updated the Florida SIP on
June 16, 1999 (64 FR 32346), to make it consistent with the revised
numbering system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Analysis of the State's Submittal
EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of
Florida's request to remove the existing sulfur storage and handling
facilities rules, 62-212.600, F.A.C. and 62-296.411, F.A.C., from the
SIP is whether these requested actions comply with section 110(l) of
the CAA. Under Section 110(l), EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if
that revision would interfere with any applicable requirement regarding
attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable
requirement established in the CAA. EPA will approve a SIP revision
that removes or modifies control measures in the SIP only after the
state makes a ``noninterference'' demonstration that such a removal or
modification will not interfere with RFP, attainment or maintenance of
any NAAQS, or any other CAA requirement. As such, Florida must make a
demonstration of noninterference in order to remove the sulfur storage
and handling facilities requirements from its SIP.
Because actual emissions are not expected to change, there will be
no impact on PSD increments, RFP, visibility, attainment or maintenance
of any NAAQS, or any other applicable CAA requirement. Particulate
matter, in the form of coarse (PM10) and fine
(PM2.5) PM, is the pollutant related to the SIP revision. On
January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA established an annual primary
PM2.5 NAAQS at 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. At that time, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
All areas in the State are currently designated as attainment for
the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS. For example, Table 1
identifies the PM2.5 annual and 24-hour design values for
the counties where facilities subject to the repealed sulfur storage
and handling rules are located and demonstrates that these design
values are well below the respective NAAQS.
Table 1--PM2.5 Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
County 2008-2010 2009-2011 2010-2012 2011-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Design Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillsborough.................................... 8.0 7.8 7.6 7.1
Polk............................................ 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37257]]
24-hour Design Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillsborough.................................... 16 17 16 16
Polk............................................ 15 15 16 15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no emissions reductions of carbon monoxide (CO), lead,
nitrogen oxides, ozone, or sulfur dioxide (SO2) attributable
to the sulfur storage and handling facilities requirements. As a
result, the removal of these requirements will not interfere with
attainment of these NAAQS.
A comparison of PM emissions from sulfur handling and storage
emission units at each subject facility with PM emissions from the
entire facility demonstrates that sulfur PM emissions from the subject
units account for approximately zero to nine percent of total PM
emissions at most facilities. Of the four facilities at which all
facility PM emissions are entirely due to sulfur PM emissions from
sulfur handling and storage emissions units, the amount of sulfur PM
emitted ranges from approximately one to six tons per year per
facility. See Table 2.
Table 2--Comparison of PM Emissions From Sulfur Handling and Storage Emission Units (EU) at Each Facility Versus
PM Emissions From the Entire Facility \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All facility Sulfur EU PM % Potential (P) or
Facility Facility ID Sulfur EU PM EU PM (tons/ of all 2010 actual (A)
(tons/year) year) facility EU PM PM emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHITE SPRS AG CHEM--SR/SC 470002 5.6 2084.8 0.3 P
CMPLX.
CF INDUSTRIES--PLANT CITY 570005 0.6 59.4 1.0 A
PHOSP COMPLEX.
MOSAIC FERTILIZER--RIVERVIEW 570008 0.6 27.9 2.2 A
FACILITY.
GULF SULPHUR SERVICES, 570082 1.0 1.0 100.0 P
HOOKER'S PT SITE.
GULF SULPHUR SERVICES, PORT 570100 6.0 6.0 100.0 P
SUTTON SITE.
PASCO TERMINALS, INC......... 570455 4.5 4.5 100.0 P
MARTIN GAS SALES, INC........ 570477 1.5 1.5 100.0 P
MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC-- 1050046 4.4 57.0 7.7 A
BARTOW FACILITY.
MOSAIC FERTILIZER--SOUTH 1050055 0.4 99.6 0.4 P
PIERCE FACILITY.
MOSAIC FERTILIZER--NEW WALES 1050059 12.0 141.3 8.5 A
FACILITY.
QUANTUM ST REGIS TREATING & 1130005 0.0 14.7 0.0 A
JAY GAS.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 36.6 2497.7 1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These data can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 11 facilities that are subject to the sulfur handling and
storage emission rules, four will experience a relaxation in the
opacity limit from 10 or 15 percent to 20 percent if 62-212.600, F.A.C.
and 62-296.411, F.A.C. are removed from the SIP, but emissions are not
expected to increase because the underlying work practices will remain
unchanged. The sulfur particulate emitting emissions units at these
four facilities are approximately less than one ton per year, and a
majority of the visible emissions tests conducted in 2010-11 for sulfur
storage and handling units showed no visible emissions (i.e., zero
percent opacity).
Furthermore, several existing state rules incorporated into
Florida's SIP can be applied in lieu of Rules 62-212.600, F.A.C. and
62-296.411, F.A.C. to address sulfur PM emissions from sulfur storage
and handling emissions units at these facilities. Rules 62-212.300 and
62-212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be applied instead of the sulfur-
specific requirements of paragraph 62-212.600(2)(a), F.A.C., to
evaluate potential particulate matter ambient air quality impacts. The
sulfur deposition analysis required by paragraph 62-212.600(2)(b),
F.A.C., is unnecessary because there is no standard to compare the
results with to demonstrate compliance. Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., the
``General Pollutant Emission Limiting Standards'' of Rule 62-296.320,
F.A.C., and, for some emissions units, the PM Reasonably Available
Control Technology requirements of Rule 62-296.711, F.A.C., can be
applied to control the sulfur PM emissions from sulfur storage and
handling emissions units at these facilities. Rule 62-296.711, F.A.C.
generally imposes a five percent opacity limit for existing sulfur
handling, sizing, screening, crushing, and grinding operations in
former total suspended particulate non-attainment areas or within 50
kilometers of such former areas except where an emissions unit has
received a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BACT) determination or
the emissions are insignificant enough to be exempted under Rule 62-
296.700(2), F.A.C. The control techniques and work practice standards
found in Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., to control unconfined emissions of
particulate matter can also be required by paragraph 62-296.320(4)(c),
F.A.C., which prohibits the emission of unconfined particulate matter
without taking reasonable precautions to prevent such emissions.
For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that removal of
the sulfur storage and handling facilities rules will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in surrounding states or
interfere with any other requirement identified in section 110(l).
III. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve Florida's April 5, 2012, SIP revision
to remove state Rule 62-212.600, F.A.C. and Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C.,
related to sulfur
[[Page 37258]]
storage and handling facilities, from the Florida SIP because the
Agency has preliminarily determined that this revision is consistent
with section 110(l) of the CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
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).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not 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, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 16, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-15399 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
