```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37255-37258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15399]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0746; FRL-9912-95-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida: 
Removal of Sulfur Storage and Handling Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 
a revision to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by 
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), on April 5, 
2012. The revision modifies Florida's SIP to remove two state rules 
relating to new and existing sulfur storage and handling facilities 
because they are no longer necessary. EPA has preliminarily determined 
that Florida's April 5, 2012, SIP revision regarding sulfur storage and 
handling facilities is approvable because it is consistent with the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0746, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0746''--Regulatory Development Section, 
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory 
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are 
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. 
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through 
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0746. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or 
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your 
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at 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 huey.joel@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The proposed revision requests that EPA remove two state rules--
Rule 62-212.600, F.A.C., ``Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities'' and 
Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., ``Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities''--
from Florida's SIP. Florida repealed these rules on February 16, 2012.
    The requirements of Rule 62-212.600, F.A.C., apply to proposed new 
or modified sulfur storage and handling facilities. The rule states 
that the owner or operator of any proposed new or modified sulfur 
storage and handling facility that is to be located within five 
kilometers of either a particulate matter (PM) air quality maintenance 
area or a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) Class I area 
shall provide FDEP with an analysis of the probable particulate matter 
ambient air quality impacts that could result from the operation of the 
facility. Additionally, the owner or operator shall provide FDEP with 
an analysis of the probable annual and maximum monthly sulfur 
deposition rates that could occur as a result of the operation of the 
facility. The owner or operator shall conduct post-construction air 
quality and deposition monitoring of sulfur particulate emissions from 
the facility for two years from the date of issuance of the initial air 
operation permit for the facility, and, through the permitting process, 
shall determine the period of time, if any, such monitoring must be 
continued. The data collected would then be provided to FDEP as 
specified in the permit. Florida states that the ``General 
Preconstruction Review Requirements'' and ``Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration (PSD)'' provisions of the Rules 62-212.300 and 62-
212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be used instead of Rule 62-212.600, 
F.A.C to prevent PM emissions that would interfere with attainment and 
maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), 
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality, or protection 
of visibility.
    Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., states that no person shall cause, suffer, 
or allow elemental sulfur to be stored, handled, or transported within 
the State in crushed bulk or slate form or in any form other than 
standard sulfur pellets or in molten form, except that sulfur may be 
transferred within the boundaries of a single facility in other forms. 
Facilities using standard sulfur pellets or molten sulfur, or sulfur 
vatting facilities, may be permitted only in conformance with the 
practices identified in the rule. Florida states that the ``General 
Pollutant Emission Limiting Standards'' of Rule 62-296.320, F.A.C., can 
be applied instead of Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C. to adequately control PM 
emissions from dry material handling operations such as those 
associated with sulfur storage and handling facilities.
    With removal of the above two rules from the SIP, Florida's PM 
requirements under the SIP for new and existing sulfur storage and 
handling facilities would align with the PM requirements for other, 
similar dry material handling sources in the State. At the time that 
Florida promulgated its sulfur storage and handling rules, the State 
was concerned that total suspended particulate matter levels in Florida 
would be negatively impacted by increased sulfur handling and storage 
operations to such an extent as to warrant additional facility-specific 
work practices and monitoring. However, the anticipated increase in 
sulfur handling and storage operations did not occur, and only 11 
facilities are subject to Rule 62-212.300, F.A.C. and Rule 62-212.400, 
F.A.C. EPA approved these two state rules into the SIP on December 24, 
1985, at 50 FR 52460.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's December 24, 1985, action incorporated the state 
sulfur storage and handling rules at 17-2.540, F.A.C. and 17-2.600, 
F.A.C. into Florida's SIP. Florida later reorganized its 
administrative code and renumbered these rules as 62-212.600, F.A.C. 
and 62-296.411, F.A.C., respectively. EPA updated the Florida SIP on 
June 16, 1999 (64 FR 32346), to make it consistent with the revised 
numbering system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    EPA's primary consideration for determining the approvability of 
Florida's request to remove the existing sulfur storage and handling 
facilities rules, 62-212.600, F.A.C. and 62-296.411, F.A.C., from the 
SIP is whether these requested actions comply with section 110(l) of 
the CAA. Under Section 110(l), EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if 
that revision would interfere with any applicable requirement regarding 
attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable 
requirement established in the CAA. EPA will approve a SIP revision 
that removes or modifies control measures in the SIP only after the 
state makes a ``noninterference'' demonstration that such a removal or 
modification will not interfere with RFP, attainment or maintenance of 
any NAAQS, or any other CAA requirement. As such, Florida must make a 
demonstration of noninterference in order to remove the sulfur storage 
and handling facilities requirements from its SIP.
    Because actual emissions are not expected to change, there will be 
no impact on PSD increments, RFP, visibility, attainment or maintenance 
of any NAAQS, or any other applicable CAA requirement. Particulate 
matter, in the form of coarse (PM10) and fine 
(PM2.5) PM, is the pollutant related to the SIP revision. On 
January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA established an annual primary 
PM2.5 NAAQS at 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) 
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 
concentrations. At that time, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS at 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of 
the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
    All areas in the State are currently designated as attainment for 
the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS. For example, Table 1 
identifies the PM2.5 annual and 24-hour design values for 
the counties where facilities subject to the repealed sulfur storage 
and handling rules are located and demonstrates that these design 
values are well below the respective NAAQS.

                                          Table 1--PM2.5 Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     County                          2008-2010       2009-2011       2010-2012       2011-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Annual Design Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillsborough....................................             8.0             7.8             7.6             7.1
Polk............................................             7.7             7.5             7.4             7.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 37257]]

 
                                              24-hour Design Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillsborough....................................              16              17              16              16
Polk............................................              15              15              16              15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are no emissions reductions of carbon monoxide (CO), lead, 
nitrogen oxides, ozone, or sulfur dioxide (SO2) attributable 
to the sulfur storage and handling facilities requirements. As a 
result, the removal of these requirements will not interfere with 
attainment of these NAAQS.
    A comparison of PM emissions from sulfur handling and storage 
emission units at each subject facility with PM emissions from the 
entire facility demonstrates that sulfur PM emissions from the subject 
units account for approximately zero to nine percent of total PM 
emissions at most facilities. Of the four facilities at which all 
facility PM emissions are entirely due to sulfur PM emissions from 
sulfur handling and storage emissions units, the amount of sulfur PM 
emitted ranges from approximately one to six tons per year per 
facility. See Table 2.

Table 2--Comparison of PM Emissions From Sulfur Handling and Storage Emission Units (EU) at Each Facility Versus
                                    PM Emissions From the Entire Facility \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                All facility   Sulfur EU PM %   Potential (P) or
           Facility              Facility ID    Sulfur EU PM    EU PM  (tons/      of all      2010  actual  (A)
                                                 (tons/year)        year)      facility EU PM    PM  emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHITE SPRS AG CHEM--SR/SC              470002             5.6          2084.8             0.3  P
 CMPLX.
CF INDUSTRIES--PLANT CITY              570005             0.6            59.4             1.0  A
 PHOSP COMPLEX.
MOSAIC FERTILIZER--RIVERVIEW           570008             0.6            27.9             2.2  A
 FACILITY.
GULF SULPHUR SERVICES,                 570082             1.0             1.0           100.0  P
 HOOKER'S PT SITE.
GULF SULPHUR SERVICES, PORT            570100             6.0             6.0           100.0  P
 SUTTON SITE.
PASCO TERMINALS, INC.........          570455             4.5             4.5           100.0  P
MARTIN GAS SALES, INC........          570477             1.5             1.5           100.0  P
MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC--              1050046             4.4            57.0             7.7  A
 BARTOW FACILITY.
MOSAIC FERTILIZER--SOUTH              1050055             0.4            99.6             0.4  P
 PIERCE FACILITY.
MOSAIC FERTILIZER--NEW WALES          1050059            12.0           141.3             8.5  A
 FACILITY.
QUANTUM ST REGIS TREATING &           1130005             0.0            14.7             0.0  A
 JAY GAS.
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  ..............            36.6          2497.7             1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \2\ These data can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using 
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 11 facilities that are subject to the sulfur handling and 
storage emission rules, four will experience a relaxation in the 
opacity limit from 10 or 15 percent to 20 percent if 62-212.600, F.A.C. 
and 62-296.411, F.A.C. are removed from the SIP, but emissions are not 
expected to increase because the underlying work practices will remain 
unchanged. The sulfur particulate emitting emissions units at these 
four facilities are approximately less than one ton per year, and a 
majority of the visible emissions tests conducted in 2010-11 for sulfur 
storage and handling units showed no visible emissions (i.e., zero 
percent opacity).
    Furthermore, several existing state rules incorporated into 
Florida's SIP can be applied in lieu of Rules 62-212.600, F.A.C. and 
62-296.411, F.A.C. to address sulfur PM emissions from sulfur storage 
and handling emissions units at these facilities. Rules 62-212.300 and 
62-212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be applied instead of the sulfur-
specific requirements of paragraph 62-212.600(2)(a), F.A.C., to 
evaluate potential particulate matter ambient air quality impacts. The 
sulfur deposition analysis required by paragraph 62-212.600(2)(b), 
F.A.C., is unnecessary because there is no standard to compare the 
results with to demonstrate compliance. Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., the 
``General Pollutant Emission Limiting Standards'' of Rule 62-296.320, 
F.A.C., and, for some emissions units, the PM Reasonably Available 
Control Technology requirements of Rule 62-296.711, F.A.C., can be 
applied to control the sulfur PM emissions from sulfur storage and 
handling emissions units at these facilities. Rule 62-296.711, F.A.C. 
generally imposes a five percent opacity limit for existing sulfur 
handling, sizing, screening, crushing, and grinding operations in 
former total suspended particulate non-attainment areas or within 50 
kilometers of such former areas except where an emissions unit has 
received a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BACT) determination or 
the emissions are insignificant enough to be exempted under Rule 62-
296.700(2), F.A.C. The control techniques and work practice standards 
found in Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., to control unconfined emissions of 
particulate matter can also be required by paragraph 62-296.320(4)(c), 
F.A.C., which prohibits the emission of unconfined particulate matter 
without taking reasonable precautions to prevent such emissions.
    For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that removal of 
the sulfur storage and handling facilities rules will not interfere 
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in surrounding states or 
interfere with any other requirement identified in section 110(l).

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Florida's April 5, 2012, SIP revision 
to remove state Rule 62-212.600, F.A.C. and Rule 62-296.411, F.A.C., 
related to sulfur

[[Page 37258]]

storage and handling facilities, from the Florida SIP because the 
Agency has preliminarily determined that this revision is consistent 
with section 110(l) of the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
proposed action merely approves State law as meeting federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, and 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 16, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-15399 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```