Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida: Removal of Sulfur Storage and Handling Rules, 62006-62008 [2014-24005]
Download as PDF
62006
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
State citation
State effective
date
Title/subject
*
*
*
Additional
explanation/
§ 52.2063 citation
EPA approval date
*
*
*
*
Title 65 Pennsylvania Statute—Public Officers
Part II—Accountability
Chapter 11—Ethics, Standards, and Financial Disclosure
Section 1101 ........................
Short title of chapter ............
12/14/98
Section 1102 ........................
Definitions ............................
1/1/07
Section 1104 ........................
Statement of financial interests required to be filed.
Statement of financial interests.
Penalties ..............................
12/14/98
Section 1105 ........................
Section 1109 ........................
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
*
1/1/07
12/14/98
*
*
*
Applicable geographic
area
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008
Pb NAAQS.
*
*
Statewide .....................
State submittal
date
5/24/12
7/15/14
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–24340 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0746; FRL–9917–64–
Region–4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Florida:
Removal of Sulfur Storage and
Handling Rules
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action 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
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Addresses CAA section 128.
Addresses CAA section 128.
Addresses CAA section 128.
Addresses CAA section 128.
Addresses CAA section 128.
*
*
*
(1) * * *
Name of non-regulatory
SIP revision
*
10/16/14 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
10/16/14 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
10/16/14 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
10/16/14 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
10/16/14 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
14:52 Oct 15, 2014
Jkt 235001
EPA approval date
Additional explanation
*
*
4/7/2014, 79 FR 19001
*
*
This rulemaking action addresses the following
CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I),
(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and (M).
This rulemaking action addresses the following
CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
10/16/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].
storage and handling facilities because
they are no longer necessary. EPA has
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: This rule will be effective
November 17, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR–
2013–0746. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not 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 Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 to 4:30
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sean Lakeman, 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. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9043.
Mr. Lakeman can be reached via
electronic mail at lakeman.sean@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The FDEP revision requests that EPA
remove two state rules—Rule 62–
212.600, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), ‘‘Sulfur Storage and Handling
Facilities’’ and Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C.,
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 Oct 15, 2014
Jkt 235001
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
rules into the SIP on December 24, 1985,
at 50 FR 52460.1
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 was required to 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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
62007
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.
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.
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 nonattainment
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
62008
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
areas or within 50 kilometers of such
former areas except where an emissions
unit has received a Best Available
Retrofit Technology 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). On July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37255),
EPA proposed approval of the Florida
April 5, 2012, submission. No adverse
comments were received on this
proposed action and EPA is hereby
finalizing approval of the revision.
rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Final Action
EPA is taking final action to approve
Florida’s April 5, 2012, SIP revision to
remove Rule 62–212.600, F. A. C. and
Rule 62–296.411, F. A. C., related to
sulfur storage and handling facilities,
from the Florida SIP because the Agency
has determined that this revision is
consistent with section 110(l) of the
CAA.
III. 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 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 final 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:52 Oct 15, 2014
Jkt 235001
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 (Public Law 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
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 December 15, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements and Sulfur
oxides.
Dated: September 25, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart K—Florida
2. Section 52.520(c) is amended by
removing the entries for ‘‘62–212.600’’
under Chapter 62–212 Stationary
Sources—Preconstruction Review and
‘‘62–296.411’’ under Chapter 62–296
Stationary Sources—Emission
Standards.
■
[FR Doc. 2014–24005 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0242; FRL–9916–27–
Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Approval of Revision to
PSD Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve a revision to the Wisconsin
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submitted by the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (WDNR) to EPA on
March 12, 2014, for parallel processing.
On August 11, 2014, WDNR submitted
an updated submittal with the final
rules. The submittal modifies
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16OCR1.SGM
16OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62006-62008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24005]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0746; FRL-9917-64-Region-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida:
Removal of Sulfur Storage and Handling Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action 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
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: This rule will be effective November 17, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0746. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not 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 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 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, 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. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
lakeman.sean@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The FDEP revision requests that EPA remove two state rules--Rule
62-212.600, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), ``Sulfur Storage and
Handling Facilities'' and Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C.,
[[Page 62007]]
``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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 was required
to 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.
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.
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 nonattainment
[[Page 62008]]
areas or within 50 kilometers of such former areas except where an
emissions unit has received a Best Available Retrofit Technology
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). On
July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37255), EPA proposed approval of the Florida April
5, 2012, submission. No adverse comments were received on this proposed
action and EPA is hereby finalizing approval of the revision.
II. Final Action
EPA is taking final action to approve Florida's April 5, 2012, SIP
revision to remove Rule 62-212.600, F. A. C. and Rule 62-296.411, F. A.
C., related to sulfur storage and handling facilities, from the Florida
SIP because the Agency has determined that this revision is consistent
with section 110(l) of the CAA.
III. 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
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 final 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 (Public Law 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
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 December 15, 2014. 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 in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements and Sulfur oxides.
Dated: September 25, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is 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(c) is amended by removing the entries for ``62-
212.600'' under Chapter 62-212 Stationary Sources--Preconstruction
Review and ``62-296.411'' under Chapter 62-296 Stationary Sources--
Emission Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-24005 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P