[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38828-38832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17226]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0385; FRL-9966-20-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; SC: Multiple Revisions to Air Pollution
Control Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve changes to the South Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to revise miscellaneous rules covering air
pollution control standards. EPA is approving portions of SIP revisions
submitted by the State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on
[[Page 38829]]
the following dates: October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013,
August 8, 2014, August 12, 2015, July 27, 2016, and November 4, 2016.
These actions are being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act).
DATES: This direct final rule is effective October 16, 2017 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 15,
2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0385 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: Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Wong can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-8726 or
via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, August 8, 2014,
August 12, 2015, July 27, 2016, and November 4, 2016, SC DHEC submitted
SIP revisions to EPA for approval that involve changes to South
Carolina's SIP regulations to make administrative and clarifying
amendments, revise regulations, and correct typographical errors. These
SIP submittals make changes to several air quality rules in South
Carolina Code of Regulations Annotated (S.C. Code Ann. Regs.). The
changes EPA is approving into the SIP in this action modify portions of
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1--Emissions From Fuel Burning
Operations and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4--Emissions From
Process Industries. EPA is not acting on other revisions that are
included in these submittals. EPA will act on those changes in separate
actions.
II. Analysis of South Carolina's Submittals
A. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1--Emissions From Fuel Burning
Operations
South Carolina is amending multiple sections at Regulation 61-62.5,
Standard No. 1--Emissions from Fuel Burning Operations. The July 18,
2011, submittal revises subparagraph C of Section I --Visible Emissions
by excluding natural gas fired units from maintaining an information
log to determine periods of startup and shutdown. The August 12, 2015,
submittal further revises the subparagraph adding propane fired units
to the log keeping exception and corrects typographical errors in the
Standard.
CAA section 110(l) provides that EPA shall not approve a revision
to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in CAA section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA. SC DHEC considered CAA section 110(l) in making these changes and
explains in a letter dated December 30, 2016, that the state expects no
increase in actual emissions as a result of exempting units burning
only natural gas and propane fuels from maintaining logs because there
are no opacity concerns with these type of fuels during startup,
shutdown, or normal operations. Because natural gas and propane contain
relatively minor amounts of the constituents (particulate matter and
sulfur) that could result in visible emissions, this change to
subparagraph C will not result in any increase in emissions and will
not affect the State's ability to attain or maintain state or federal
standards or reasonable further progress.
The August 8, 2014, submittal makes the following changes: (1)
Clarifies sulfur dioxide maximum allowable discharge limits at Section
III--Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and (2) makes administrative and
clarifying edits throughout Standard No. 1. The revision in Section
III--Sulfur Dioxide Emissions streamlines the requirement by setting a
maximum sulfur dioxide (SO2) limit of 2.3 pounds per million
British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) from fuel burning operations. The
current approved Standard sets two SO2 limits, 2.3 lb/MMBtu
or 3.5 lb/MMBtu across various classification categories. Therefore,
this revision would streamline the rule to the lower of the two limits
allowed for such sources. Lastly, this submittal makes administrative
and clarifying edits in Section I --Visible Emissions, Section III--
Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, Section IV--Opacity Monitoring Requirements,
and Section VI--Periodic Testing.
The November 4, 2016, submittal makes typographical corrections
under Section IV--Opacity Reporting Requirements. EPA has reviewed the
aforementioned changes to South Carolina's Regulation 61-62.5, Standard
No. 1 and is approving the changes into the SIP pursuant to CAA section
110.
B. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4--Emissions From Process
Industries
South Carolina is amending multiple sections at Regulation 61-62.5,
Standard No. 4--Emissions from Process Industries. The October 1, 2007,
submittal removes Section IV--Portland Cement Manufacturing from the
SIP. This rule contains particulate matter (PM) emission limits for
cement kilns with a production rate of up to 120 tons per hour and it
establishes a 20 percent allowable stack opacity limit for certain
components of Portland cement plants. SC DHEC states that there are no
Portland cement plants operating at 120 tons per hour or less in the
State because it is not economically feasible. SC DHEC asserts that
removing this rule would not create a relaxation as there are no
applicable sources subject to this regulation. Additionally, should
such a source start operation, it would be subject to more stringent PM
emissions limits in New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) subpart F
(Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants).
The July 18, 2011, submittal amends Section V--Cotton Gins by
removing established specific emission limits based on production rate
(output) of bales of cotton per hour and replacing that with specific,
measurable performance requirements and operating standards. SC DHEC
considered CAA section 110(l) in making this change. SC DEHC explains
that the rule development is based on best management practices
outlined in the USDA's Cotton Ginners Handbook, staff experience with
effective emission reduction techniques, the review of
[[Page 38830]]
other state regulations on cotton gins, and several discussions with
the affected industry. The new rule assures a greater degree of control
of these emissions than that which would result from the existing
process weight rate curve and also allows the state to more effectively
determine compliance. The revised rule requires enforceable control of
emissions from specific point sources in the ginning process rather
than an allowable emission rate, and it establishes requirements to
minimize fugitive emissions from various sources at cotton ginning
facilities. The revised rule also sets applicable requirements for good
housekeeping practices in the gin yard, weekly monitoring of control
efficiency, recordkeeping, and reporting. The revised regulation will
provide for improved emissions control through practicably enforceable
control of emissions, use of state of the art pollution control
devices, and minimization of fugitive emissions. The June 17, 2013,
submittal makes a subsequent typographical correction to Section V.
The August 8, 2014, submittal makes the following changes: (1)
Removes a PM emissions limit at Section III--Kraft Pulp and Paper
Manufacturing; (2) revises the frequency required for reporting excess
emissions at Section XI--Total Reduced Sulfur Emissions of Kraft Pulp
Mills; (3) removes periodic testing requirement for Total Reduce Sulfur
(TRS) at Section XII--Periodic Testing; and (4) makes administrative
and clarifying edits throughout Standard No. 4. At Section III, the
submittal removes the table column ``Maximum Allowable Emissions of PM
in pounds/equivalent Ton of Air Dried, Unbleached Pulp Produced'' and
retains the ``Maximum Allowable Stack Opacity.'' SC DEHC asserts that
this will not result in a relaxation of emission limits because the
subject sources are covered under more stringent PM limits under the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
(subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Pulp and Paper Industry). Additionally, the word ``opacity''
replaces ``rate of emissions.''
At Section XI, the August 8, 2014, submittal revises the required
excess emissions reporting frequency in subparagraph D.3. from
quarterly to semi-annual. SC DHEC considered CAA sections 110(l) and
193 in making the revision and asserts changing reporting from
quarterly to semi-annual will not affect the level of emissions or
compromise the national ambient air quality standards. SC DHEC cites to
several Federal and state regulations that address excess emissions
reporting, including NSPS subpart BB Standards of Performance for Kraft
Pulp Mills; South Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4 Section
XI(D)(3) Total Reduced Sulfur (TRS) Emissions of Kraft Pulp Mills;
South Carolina Regulations 61-62.1, Section II(J)(2) Permit
Requirements; and South Carolina Regulation 61-62.70 Title V Operating
Permit Program.
At Section XII, the August 8, 2014, submittal removes the periodic
testing requirement for TRS at Kraft pulp mills.\1\ SC DHEC states that
most sources are required to test under NSPS or NESHAP rules. The few
sources that are not required to test have enough historical test data
to develop an approvable operating range which can be handled during
the permitting process. Additionally, the S.C. Pollution Control Act
(48-1-50, Powers of the Department) makes provision for the SC DHEC to
ask for a source test and permits are often drafted with language
allowing the SC DEHC to ask for source tests. Therefore, the
requirements will be no less stringent than what is allowed through
current regulatory and permitting authority to review testing
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SC DHEC's July 18, 2011, submittal makes changes to TRS in
Section XII. The August 8, 2014, submittal, if approved, would
supersede the 2011 revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, the August 8, 2014, submittal makes minor typographical,
renumbering, and clarifying edits to Standard No. 4 in Section II--
Sulfuric Acid Manufacturing, Section V--Cotton Gins, Section XI--Total
Reduced Sulfur Emissions of Kraft Pulp Mills, and Section XII--Periodic
Testing.
The July 27, 2016, submittal revises Section VIII--Other
Manufacturing by excluding Kraft Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
facilities. This Section sets PM emission for source categories not
specified elsewhere in Standard No. 4. The revision to exclude Kraft
Pulp and Paper Manufacturing facilities aligns with the August 8, 2014,
revision, as previously discussed in this notice. The submittal also
makes minor typographical, renumbering, and clarifying edits to Section
XII --Periodic Testing.
EPA has reviewed the aforementioned changes to South Carolina's
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 4 and is approving the revisions into
the SIP pursuant to CAA section 110.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of South
Carolina Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 1--Emissions From Fuel
Burning Operations, effective September 23, 2016, which makes
administrative and clarifying revisions for consistency, removes log
reporting requirements, revises monitoring requirements, and Regulation
61-62.5, Standard No. 4--Emissions From Process Industries, effective
June 24, 2016, which makes administrative and clarifying revisions for
consistency, removes specific emission rates, and reporting
requirements. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the
Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\2\ EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through https://www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office
(please contact the person identified in the For Further Information
Contact section of this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the South Carolina
SIP, submitted on October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, August
8, 2014, August 12, 2015, July 27, 2016, and November 4, 2016 because
they are consistent with the CAA and federal regulations. EPA is
publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse
comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 16, 2017 without
further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September
15, 2017.
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties
[[Page 38831]]
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments
are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on
October 16, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed
rule.
Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
V. 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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these
actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and do
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, these actions:
Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
are not economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
do 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 direct final action for the State of South
Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have
substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian
Nation Reservation is located within the South Carolina portion of the
bi-state Charlotte Area. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims
Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation]
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' EPA notes this action will not 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 October 16, 2017. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 4, 2017.
A. Anne Heard,
Acting 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 PP--South Carolina
0
2. Section 52.2120(c) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 1, for
``Section I,'' ``Section III,'' and ``Section VI,''
0
b. Revising the entries under Regulation No. 62.5, Standard No. 4, for
``Section II,'' ``Section III,'' ``Section IV,'' ``Section V,''
``Section VIII,'' ``Section XI,'' and ``Section XII'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 38832]]
Air Pollution Control Regulations for South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA approval Federal Register
State citation Title/subject effective date date notice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Standard No. 1................... Emissions from Fuel
Burning Operations.
Section I........................ Visible Emissions..... 9/23/2016 8/16/2017 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
* * * * * * *
Section III...................... Sulfur Dioxide 9/23/2016 8/16/2017 [Insert Federal
Emissions. Register citation].
* * * * * * *
Section VI....................... Periodic Testing...... 9/23/2016 8/16/2017 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
* * * * * * *
Standard No. 4................... Emissions From Process
Industries.
* * * * * * *
Section II....................... Sulfuric Acid 6/24/2016 8/16/2017 [Insert Federal
Manufacturing. Register citation].
Section III...................... Kraft Pulp and Paper 6/24/2016 8/16/2017 [Insert Federal
Manufacturing Plants. Register citation].
Section IV....................... Portland Cement 6/24/2016 8/16/2017 [Insert Federal
Manufacturing. Register citation].
Section V........................ Cotton Gins........... 6/24/2016 8/16/2017 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
* * * * * * *
Section VIII..................... Other Manufacturing... 6/24/2016 8/16/2017 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
* * * * * * *
Section XI....................... Total Reduced Sulfur 6/24/2016 8/16/2017 [Insert Federal
Emissions of Kraft Register citation].
Pulp Mills.
Section XII...................... Periodic Testing...... 6/24/2016 8/16/2017 [Insert Federal
Register citation].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-17226 Filed 8-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P