Approval of AL Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, 25983-25986 [2018-12064]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules approved version of these rules. Moreover, as indicated above, Rhode Island is designated as attainment for ozone. Thus, the SIP revisions satisfy the requirements of Section 110(l) of the CAA because they will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Accordingly, we are proposing to approve Rhode Island’s revised regulations into the Rhode Island SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the Rhode Island SIP revision for these six APCR revisions (excluding those provisions indicated above that were not submitted by the state), which was submitted on February 10, 2017. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register. amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 III. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve the February 10, 2017 RI DEM SIP submittal consisting of the six revised APCRs: No. 8, ‘‘Sulfur Content of Fuels’’ (with the exception of sections 8.7 and 8.8.3); No. 19, ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Surface Coating Operations’’ (with the exception of section 19.2.2); No. 27, ‘‘Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions’’ (with the exception of section 27.7.3); No. 35, ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compounds and Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants from Wood Products Manufacturing Operations’’ (with the exception of sections 35.2.3 and 35.9.3); No. 36, ‘‘Control of Emission from Organic Solvent Cleaning’’ (with the exception of sections 36.2.2 and 36.14.2); and the definition of ‘‘volatile organic compound’’ in General Definitions. IV. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Rhode Island APCRs No. 8 ‘‘Sulfur Content of Fuels,’’ No. 19 ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Surface Coating Operations,’’ No. 27 ‘‘Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,’’ No. 35 ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Compounds and Volatile Hazardous Air VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Jun 04, 2018 Jkt 244001 Pollutants from Wood Products Manufacturing Operations,’’ No. 36 ‘‘Control of Emission from Organic Solvent Cleaning,’’ and General Definitions. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 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 Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 25983 methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 25, 2018. Alexandra Dunn, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. [FR Doc. 2018–12020 Filed 6–4–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0183; FRL–9978–91– Region 4] Approval of AL Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state plan submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on May 19, 2017, and supplemented on October 24, 2017, for implementing and enforcing the Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units. The state plan provides for implementation and enforcement of the EG, as finalized by EPA on June 23, 2016, applicable to existing CISWI units for which construction commenced on or before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction commenced after June 4, 2010, but no later than August 7, 2013. The state plan establishes emission limits, monitoring, operating, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for affected CISWI units. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM 05JNP1 25984 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA–R04– OAR–2018–0183] at https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Bloeth, South Air Enforcement and Toxics Section, Air Enforcement and Toxics Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Mr. Bloeth can be reached via telephone at 404–562–9013 and via email at bloeth.mark@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 DATES: I. Background Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) directs the Administrator to develop regulations under section 111(d) of the Act limiting emissions of nine air pollutants (particulate matter, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, and cadmium) from four categories of solid waste incineration units: Municipal solid waste; hospital, medical, and infectious solid waste; commercial and industrial solid waste; and other solid waste. On December 1, 2000, EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) and EG to reduce air pollution from CISWI units, which are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively. See 65 FR 75338. EPA revised the NSPS and EG for CISWI units on March 21, 2011. See 76 FR 15704. Following promulgation of the 2011 CISWI rule, VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Jun 04, 2018 Jkt 244001 EPA received petitions for reconsideration requesting that EPA reconsider numerous provisions in the rule. EPA granted reconsideration on certain issues and promulgated a CISWI reconsideration rule on February 7, 2013. See 78 FR 9112. Subsequently, EPA received petitions to further reconsider certain provisions of the 2013 NSPS and EG for CISWI units. On January 21, 2015, EPA granted reconsideration on four specific issues and finalized reconsideration of the CISWI NSPS and EG on June 23, 2016. See 81 FR 40956. Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to submit to EPA for approval state plans and revisions that implement and enforce the EG—in this case, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. State plans and revisions must be at least as protective as the EG, and become federally enforceable upon approval by EPA. The procedures for adoption and submittal of state plans and revisions are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. II. Review of Alabama’s CISWI State Plan Submittal Alabama submitted a state plan to implement and enforce the EG for existing CISWI units in the state 1 on March 14, 2014. On May 19, 2017, Alabama submitted a revised plan, which was supplemented on October 24, 2017. EPA has reviewed the revised plan for existing CISWI units in the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD. State plans must include the following nine essential elements: Identification of legal authority; identification of mechanism for implementation; inventory of affected facilities; emissions inventory; emission limits; compliance schedules; testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting; public hearing records; and, annual state progress reports on plan enforcement. A. Identification of Legal Authority Under 40 CFR 60.26 and 60.2515(a)(9), an approvable state plan must demonstrate that the State has legal authority to adopt and implement the EG’s emission standards and compliance schedule. In its submittals, Alabama cites the following State law provisions for its authority to implement and enforce the plan: Code of Alabama Section 22–28–11 (adopt emission requirements); Code of Alabama 22–28–14 (adopt regulations to prescribe emissions standards and adopt 1 The submitted state plan does not apply in Indian country located in the state. PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 compliance schedules); Code of Alabama Section 22–22A–5(10) (authority to issue orders, citations, notices of violation, licenses, certifications, and permits); Code of Alabama Section 22–22A–5(20) (authority to perform any other necessary duty); Code of Alabama Section 22–28–18 (authority to require use of pollution control equipment); Code of Alabama Section 22–28–19A (authority to conduct inspections and sample air contaminants); Code of Alabama Section 22–28–20 (authority to require recordkeeping); and Code of Alabama Section 22–28–22 (proceedings upon violation; penalties; subpoenas; injunctions). In addition to the foregoing statutory provisions, Alabama also notes that it has adopted rules into the Alabama Administrative Code to implement and enforce its air quality program. EPA has reviewed the cited authorities and has preliminarily concluded that the State has adequately demonstrated legal authority to implement and enforce the CISWI state plan in Alabama. B. Identification of Enforceable State Mechanisms for Implementing the Plan Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), a state plan must include emission standards, defined at 40 CFR 60.21(f) as ‘‘a legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of emissions into the atmosphere, or prescribing equipment specifications for control of air pollution emissions.’’ See also 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(8). Alabama has adopted enforceable emission standards for affected CISWI units at Rule 335–3– 3.05(6). EPA has preliminarily concluded that the rule meets the emission standard requirement under 40 CFR 60.24(a). C. Inventory of Affected Units Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1), a state plan must include a complete source inventory of all CISWI units. Alabama has identified affected units at four facilities: National Cement, Argos, Holcim, and CEMEX. Omission from this inventory of CISWI units does not exempt an affected facility from the applicable section 111(d)/129 requirements. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Alabama has met the affected unit inventory requirements under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1). D. Inventory of Emissions From Affected CISWI Units Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2), a state plan must include an emissions inventory of the pollutants regulated by the EG. Emissions from E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM 05JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 CISWI units may contain cadmium, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Alabama submitted an emissions inventory for CISWI units as part of its state plan. This emissions inventory contains CISWI unit emissions rates for each regulated pollutant. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Alabama has met the emissions inventory requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2). E. Emission Limitations, Operator Training and Qualification, Waste Management Plan, and Operating Limits for CISWI Units Under 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4), the state plan must include emission standards that are no less stringent than the EG. Alabama has incorporated the emission standards from the EG by reference into its regulations at Rule 335–3–3-.05, with one exception: For units in the wasteburning kiln subcategory, Alabama’s state plan provides an equivalent production-based mercury emission limit of 58 pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker, rather than the concentration-based standard of 0.011 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter contained in 40 CFR 60, Subpart DDDD, Table 8. See Alabama Rule 335–3–3-.05, Table 7. Under 40 CFR 60.2515(b), EPA has the authority to approve plan requirements that deviate from the content of the EG, so long as the state demonstrates that the requirements are at least as protective. In the February 7, 2013 rule adopting the EG for existing CISWI units, EPA discussed its methodology for developing emission limits for the subcategories of sources subject to the rule. See 78 FR 9112 (February 7, 2013). Though we noted that the Agency was retaining an ‘‘emissions concentration basis for the standards,’’ we also expressed the standard for waste-burning kiln emission limits on a production basis. See id. at 9122–23. For those kilns, we noted that an equivalent productionbased standard for mercury would be 58 pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker. See id. at 9122. In other words, EPA has previously explained that the equivalent production-based emission limit of 58 pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker for waste-burning kilns is at least as protective as the standard contained in the EG. Because Alabama’s state plan imposes either this equivalent standard or the applicable EG on wasteburning kilns—and imposes the applicable EG on all other affected VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Jun 04, 2018 Jkt 244001 CISWI units—we have preliminarily concluded that Alabama’s CISWI plan satisfies the emission limitations requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c). 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(4) also requires a state plan to include operator training and qualification requirements, a waste management plan, and operating limits that are at least as protective as the EG. Alabama’s state plan submittal includes: Operator training and qualification requirements at Rule 335–3–3-.05(5); a waste management plan at Rule 335–3– 3-.05(4); and, operating limits that are at least as protective as the EG at Rule 335–3–3-.05(6)(b) and Rule 335–3–3-.05, Table 2. Thus, we have preliminarily concluded that Alabama’s state plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4). F. Compliance Schedules Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3), each state plan must include a compliance schedule, which requires affected CISWI units to expeditiously comply with the state plan requirements. EPA has the authority to approve compliance schedule requirements that deviate from those imposed under the EG, so long as those requirements are at least as protective as the EG. See 40 CFR 60.2515(b). In the state plan at Rule 335–3–3.05(8), Alabama generally requires that affected sources comply with the EG initial compliance requirements for CISWI units, which EPA has codified at 40 CFR 60.2700 through 40 CFR 60.2706. However, for waste-burning kilns complying with the productionbased emission limit, Alabama’s state plan requires compliance with the requirements applicable to Portland Cement Manufacturing Kilns, which are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL. See Alabama Rule 335–3–3-.05(8)(g). As noted above, EPA has authority to approve requirements that are at least as stringent as the EG. Here, we have preliminarily concluded that the state plan’s compliance requirements for waste-burning kilns contain all relevant elements of the EG, and also impose additional recordkeeping requirements that are necessary for the effective implementation and enforcement of the equivalent limit. For these reasons, we have preliminarily concluded that Alabama’s state plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3). G. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements Under 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5), an approvable state plan must require that sources conduct PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 25985 testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. Alabama’s state plan incorporates the model rule provisions of the EG: For testing at Rule 335–3–3.05(7); for monitoring at Rule 335–3–3.05(10); and, for recordkeeping and reporting at Rule 335–3–3-.05(11). In addition to these requirements, Alabama imposes further monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for waste-burning kilns operating under a production-based mercury emission limit. EPA has thus preliminarily concluded that Alabama’s state plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5). H. A Record of Public Hearing on the State Plan Revision 40 CFR 60.23 sets forth the public participation requirements for each state plan. The State must conduct a public hearing; make all relevant plan materials available to the public prior to the hearing; and provide notice of such hearing to the public, the Administrator of EPA, each local air pollution control agency, and, in the case of an interstate region, each state within the region. 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(6) requires each state plan include certification that the hearing was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or written submission. In its submittal, Alabama submitted records, including transcripts, of two public hearings. First, a hearing was held on March 8, 2017, for the May 19, 2017 state plan submittal. Alabama held a second hearing on September 6, 2017, for the October 24, 2017, supplement. Alabama provided notice and made all relevant plan materials available prior to each hearing. Additionally, Alabama certifies in its state plan submittal that a hearing was held, and that the State received no written or oral comments on the plan. Thus, EPA has preliminarily concluded that Alabama’s CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.23 and 60.2515(a)(6). I. Annual State Progress Reports to EPA Under 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7), the State must provide in its state plan for annual reports to EPA on progress in enforcement of the plan. Accordingly, Alabama provides in its plan that it will submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to EPA on an annual (calendar year) basis, commencing with the first full reporting period after plan revision approval. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Alabama’s CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM 05JNP1 25986 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7). amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1 III. Proposed Action Pursuant to CAA section 111(d), CAA section 129, and 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama’s state plan for regulation of CISWI units as submitted on May 19, 2017 and supplemented on October 24, 2017. In addition, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart B to reflect this action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria and objectives of the CAA and EPA’s implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action: • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In addition, this rule 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. It also does not provide VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Jun 04, 2018 Jkt 244001 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). And it does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because EPA is not proposing to approve the submitted plan to apply in Indian country located in the state, and because the submitted plan will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental relations, Manufacturing, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Waste treatment and disposal. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411. Dated: May 15, 2018. Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2018–12064 Filed 6–4–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 271 and 272 [EPA–R08–RCRA–2018–0084; FRL–9974– 26–Region 8] North Dakota: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions and Incorporation by Reference Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The state of North Dakota has applied to the EPA for final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has reviewed North Dakota’s application and has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization and is proposing to authorize the state’s changes. The EPA uses the regulations entitled, ‘‘Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs’’ to provide notice of the authorization status of state programs and to incorporate by reference those provisions of state statutes and regulations that will be subject to the EPA’s inspection and enforcement. This SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 action also proposes to codify in the regulations the authorized provisions of North Dakota’s hazardous waste management program and to incorporate by reference authorized provisions of the state’s regulations. Finally, today’s rule corrects errors made in the state authorization citations published in the February 14, 2008 Federal Register authorization document for North Dakota. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by July 5, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– RCRA–2018–0084 by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: lin.moye@epa.gov. 3. Fax: (303) 312–6341 (prior to faxing, please notify the EPA contact listed below). 4. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Moye Lin, Resource Conservation and Recovery Program, EPA Region 8, Mailcode 8P–R, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Courier or hand deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The public is advised to call in advance to verify business hours. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R08–RCRA–2018– 0084. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be available online at https:// 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 information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https:// www.regulations.gov, or email. The federal https://www.regulations.gov website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means the 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 the EPA without going through https:// 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, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM 05JNP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25983-25986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12064]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0183; FRL-9978-91-Region 4]


Approval of AL Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and 
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a state plan submitted by the State of Alabama, through the 
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on May 19, 2017, 
and supplemented on October 24, 2017, for implementing and enforcing 
the Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing Commercial and 
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units. The state plan 
provides for implementation and enforcement of the EG, as finalized by 
EPA on June 23, 2016, applicable to existing CISWI units for which 
construction commenced on or before June 4, 2010, or for which 
modification or reconstruction commenced after June 4, 2010, but no 
later than August 7, 2013. The state plan establishes emission limits, 
monitoring, operating, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for 
affected CISWI units.

[[Page 25984]]


DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0183] at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be confidential business information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Bloeth, South Air Enforcement and 
Toxics Section, Air Enforcement and Toxics Branch, Air, Pesticides and 
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Mr. Bloeth can 
be reached via telephone at 404-562-9013 and via email at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) directs the 
Administrator to develop regulations under section 111(d) of the Act 
limiting emissions of nine air pollutants (particulate matter, carbon 
monoxide, dioxins/furans, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen 
chloride, lead, mercury, and cadmium) from four categories of solid 
waste incineration units: Municipal solid waste; hospital, medical, and 
infectious solid waste; commercial and industrial solid waste; and 
other solid waste.
    On December 1, 2000, EPA promulgated new source performance 
standards (NSPS) and EG to reduce air pollution from CISWI units, which 
are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively. 
See 65 FR 75338. EPA revised the NSPS and EG for CISWI units on March 
21, 2011. See 76 FR 15704. Following promulgation of the 2011 CISWI 
rule, EPA received petitions for reconsideration requesting that EPA 
reconsider numerous provisions in the rule. EPA granted reconsideration 
on certain issues and promulgated a CISWI reconsideration rule on 
February 7, 2013. See 78 FR 9112. Subsequently, EPA received petitions 
to further reconsider certain provisions of the 2013 NSPS and EG for 
CISWI units. On January 21, 2015, EPA granted reconsideration on four 
specific issues and finalized reconsideration of the CISWI NSPS and EG 
on June 23, 2016. See 81 FR 40956.
    Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to submit to EPA for 
approval state plans and revisions that implement and enforce the EG--
in this case, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. State plans and revisions 
must be at least as protective as the EG, and become federally 
enforceable upon approval by EPA. The procedures for adoption and 
submittal of state plans and revisions are codified in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart B.

II. Review of Alabama's CISWI State Plan Submittal

    Alabama submitted a state plan to implement and enforce the EG for 
existing CISWI units in the state \1\ on March 14, 2014. On May 19, 
2017, Alabama submitted a revised plan, which was supplemented on 
October 24, 2017. EPA has reviewed the revised plan for existing CISWI 
units in the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B 
and DDDD. State plans must include the following nine essential 
elements: Identification of legal authority; identification of 
mechanism for implementation; inventory of affected facilities; 
emissions inventory; emission limits; compliance schedules; testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting; public hearing records; and, 
annual state progress reports on plan enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The submitted state plan does not apply in Indian country 
located in the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Identification of Legal Authority

    Under 40 CFR 60.26 and 60.2515(a)(9), an approvable state plan must 
demonstrate that the State has legal authority to adopt and implement 
the EG's emission standards and compliance schedule. In its submittals, 
Alabama cites the following State law provisions for its authority to 
implement and enforce the plan: Code of Alabama Section 22-28-11 (adopt 
emission requirements); Code of Alabama 22-28-14 (adopt regulations to 
prescribe emissions standards and adopt compliance schedules); Code of 
Alabama Section 22-22A-5(10) (authority to issue orders, citations, 
notices of violation, licenses, certifications, and permits); Code of 
Alabama Section 22-22A-5(20) (authority to perform any other necessary 
duty); Code of Alabama Section 22-28-18 (authority to require use of 
pollution control equipment); Code of Alabama Section 22-28-19A 
(authority to conduct inspections and sample air contaminants); Code of 
Alabama Section 22-28-20 (authority to require recordkeeping); and Code 
of Alabama Section 22-28-22 (proceedings upon violation; penalties; 
subpoenas; injunctions). In addition to the foregoing statutory 
provisions, Alabama also notes that it has adopted rules into the 
Alabama Administrative Code to implement and enforce its air quality 
program. EPA has reviewed the cited authorities and has preliminarily 
concluded that the State has adequately demonstrated legal authority to 
implement and enforce the CISWI state plan in Alabama.

B. Identification of Enforceable State Mechanisms for Implementing the 
Plan

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), a state plan must include emission 
standards, defined at 40 CFR 60.21(f) as ``a legally enforceable 
regulation setting forth an allowable rate of emissions into the 
atmosphere, or prescribing equipment specifications for control of air 
pollution emissions.'' See also 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(8). Alabama has 
adopted enforceable emission standards for affected CISWI units at Rule 
335-3-3.05(6). EPA has preliminarily concluded that the rule meets the 
emission standard requirement under 40 CFR 60.24(a).

C. Inventory of Affected Units

    Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1), a state plan must include 
a complete source inventory of all CISWI units. Alabama has identified 
affected units at four facilities: National Cement, Argos, Holcim, and 
CEMEX. Omission from this inventory of CISWI units does not exempt an 
affected facility from the applicable section 111(d)/129 requirements. 
EPA has preliminarily concluded that Alabama has met the affected unit 
inventory requirements under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1).

D. Inventory of Emissions From Affected CISWI Units

    Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2), a state plan must include 
an emissions inventory of the pollutants regulated by the EG. Emissions 
from

[[Page 25985]]

CISWI units may contain cadmium, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, 
hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, 
and sulfur dioxide. Alabama submitted an emissions inventory for CISWI 
units as part of its state plan. This emissions inventory contains 
CISWI unit emissions rates for each regulated pollutant. EPA has 
preliminarily concluded that Alabama has met the emissions inventory 
requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2).

E. Emission Limitations, Operator Training and Qualification, Waste 
Management Plan, and Operating Limits for CISWI Units

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4), the state plan must 
include emission standards that are no less stringent than the EG. 
Alabama has incorporated the emission standards from the EG by 
reference into its regulations at Rule 335-3-3-.05, with one exception: 
For units in the waste-burning kiln subcategory, Alabama's state plan 
provides an equivalent production-based mercury emission limit of 58 
pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker, rather than the 
concentration-based standard of 0.011 milligrams per dry standard cubic 
meter contained in 40 CFR 60, Subpart DDDD, Table 8. See Alabama Rule 
335-3-3-.05, Table 7.
    Under 40 CFR 60.2515(b), EPA has the authority to approve plan 
requirements that deviate from the content of the EG, so long as the 
state demonstrates that the requirements are at least as protective. In 
the February 7, 2013 rule adopting the EG for existing CISWI units, EPA 
discussed its methodology for developing emission limits for the 
subcategories of sources subject to the rule. See 78 FR 9112 (February 
7, 2013). Though we noted that the Agency was retaining an ``emissions 
concentration basis for the standards,'' we also expressed the standard 
for waste-burning kiln emission limits on a production basis. See id. 
at 9122-23. For those kilns, we noted that an equivalent production-
based standard for mercury would be 58 pounds of mercury per million 
tons of clinker. See id. at 9122.
    In other words, EPA has previously explained that the equivalent 
production-based emission limit of 58 pounds of mercury per million 
tons of clinker for waste-burning kilns is at least as protective as 
the standard contained in the EG. Because Alabama's state plan imposes 
either this equivalent standard or the applicable EG on waste-burning 
kilns--and imposes the applicable EG on all other affected CISWI 
units--we have preliminarily concluded that Alabama's CISWI plan 
satisfies the emission limitations requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c).
    40 CFR 60.2515(a)(4) also requires a state plan to include operator 
training and qualification requirements, a waste management plan, and 
operating limits that are at least as protective as the EG. Alabama's 
state plan submittal includes: Operator training and qualification 
requirements at Rule 335-3-3-.05(5); a waste management plan at Rule 
335-3-3-.05(4); and, operating limits that are at least as protective 
as the EG at Rule 335-3-3-.05(6)(b) and Rule 335-3-3-.05, Table 2. 
Thus, we have preliminarily concluded that Alabama's state plan 
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4).

F. Compliance Schedules

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3), each 
state plan must include a compliance schedule, which requires affected 
CISWI units to expeditiously comply with the state plan requirements. 
EPA has the authority to approve compliance schedule requirements that 
deviate from those imposed under the EG, so long as those requirements 
are at least as protective as the EG. See 40 CFR 60.2515(b).
    In the state plan at Rule 335-3-3-.05(8), Alabama generally 
requires that affected sources comply with the EG initial compliance 
requirements for CISWI units, which EPA has codified at 40 CFR 60.2700 
through 40 CFR 60.2706. However, for waste-burning kilns complying with 
the production-based emission limit, Alabama's state plan requires 
compliance with the requirements applicable to Portland Cement 
Manufacturing Kilns, which are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL. 
See Alabama Rule 335-3-3-.05(8)(g).
    As noted above, EPA has authority to approve requirements that are 
at least as stringent as the EG. Here, we have preliminarily concluded 
that the state plan's compliance requirements for waste-burning kilns 
contain all relevant elements of the EG, and also impose additional 
recordkeeping requirements that are necessary for the effective 
implementation and enforcement of the equivalent limit. For these 
reasons, we have preliminarily concluded that Alabama's state plan 
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 
60.2515(a)(3).

G. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements

    Under 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5), an 
approvable state plan must require that sources conduct testing, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. Alabama's state plan 
incorporates the model rule provisions of the EG: For testing at Rule 
335-3-3-.05(7); for monitoring at Rule 335-3-3-.05(10); and, for 
recordkeeping and reporting at Rule 335-3-3-.05(11). In addition to 
these requirements, Alabama imposes further monitoring, recordkeeping, 
and reporting requirements for waste-burning kilns operating under a 
production-based mercury emission limit. EPA has thus preliminarily 
concluded that Alabama's state plan satisfies the requirements of 40 
CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5).

H. A Record of Public Hearing on the State Plan Revision

    40 CFR 60.23 sets forth the public participation requirements for 
each state plan. The State must conduct a public hearing; make all 
relevant plan materials available to the public prior to the hearing; 
and provide notice of such hearing to the public, the Administrator of 
EPA, each local air pollution control agency, and, in the case of an 
interstate region, each state within the region. 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(6) 
requires each state plan include certification that the hearing was 
held, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if 
any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each 
presentation or written submission.
    In its submittal, Alabama submitted records, including transcripts, 
of two public hearings. First, a hearing was held on March 8, 2017, for 
the May 19, 2017 state plan submittal. Alabama held a second hearing on 
September 6, 2017, for the October 24, 2017, supplement. Alabama 
provided notice and made all relevant plan materials available prior to 
each hearing. Additionally, Alabama certifies in its state plan 
submittal that a hearing was held, and that the State received no 
written or oral comments on the plan. Thus, EPA has preliminarily 
concluded that Alabama's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 
CFR 60.23 and 60.2515(a)(6).

I. Annual State Progress Reports to EPA

    Under 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7), the State 
must provide in its state plan for annual reports to EPA on progress in 
enforcement of the plan. Accordingly, Alabama provides in its plan that 
it will submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to EPA on an 
annual (calendar year) basis, commencing with the first full reporting 
period after plan revision approval. EPA has preliminarily concluded 
that Alabama's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of

[[Page 25986]]

40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7).

III. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to CAA section 111(d), CAA section 129, and 40 CFR part 
60, subparts B and DDDD, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's state 
plan for regulation of CISWI units as submitted on May 19, 2017 and 
supplemented on October 24, 2017. In addition, EPA is proposing to 
amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart B to reflect this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/
129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and 
applicable Federal regulations. In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan 
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet 
the criteria and objectives of the CAA and EPA's implementing 
regulations. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state 
law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
    In addition, this rule 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. It also 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). And it does not have Tribal implications as specified by 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because EPA is 
not proposing to approve the submitted plan to apply in Indian country 
located in the state, and because the submitted plan will not impose 
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental relations, 
Manufacturing, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Sulfur oxides, Waste treatment and disposal.


    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7411.

    Dated: May 15, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-12064 Filed 6-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.