[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37255-37258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: [email protected].
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 http://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 [email protected].
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