### 62006 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ § 52.2063 citation

*******

**Title 65 Pennsylvania Statute—Public Officers Part II—Accountability**  **Chapter 11—Ethics, Standards, and Financial Disclosure**

Section 1101 ........................ Short title of chapter ............ 12/14/98 10/16/14 [Insert **Federal Register**  citation]. Addresses CAA section 128.

Section 1102 ........................ Definitions ............................ 1/1/07 10/16/14 [Insert **Federal Register**  citation]. Addresses CAA section 128.

Section 1104 ........................ Statement of financial interests required to be filed. 12/14/98 10/16/14 [Insert **Federal Register**  citation]. Addresses CAA section 128.

Section 1105 ........................ Statement of financial interests. 1/1/07 10/16/14 [Insert **Federal Register**  citation]. Addresses CAA section 128.

Section 1109 ........................ Penalties .............................. 12/14/98 10/16/14 [Insert **Federal Register**  citation]. Addresses CAA section 128.

*******

* * * * *

(e) * * * (1) * * *

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision Applicable geographic

area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation

*******Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Statewide ..................... 5/24/12 4/7/2014, 79 FR 19001 This rulemaking action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 7/15/14 10/16/14 [Insert **Fed eral Register**  citation]. This rulemaking action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2014–24340 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0746; FRL–9917–64– Region–4]** 

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

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

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

**DATES :**  This rule will be effective November 17, 2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 2013–0746. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal holidays.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@
epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

The FDEP revision requests that EPA remove two state rules—Rule 62– 212.600, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), ‘‘Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities’’ and Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C.,


### 62007 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

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. ‘‘Sulfur Storage and Handling Facilities’’—from Florida’s SIP. Florida repealed these rules on February 16,
2012.

The requirements of Rule 62–212.600, F.A.C., apply to proposed new or modified sulfur storage and handling facilities. The rule states that the owner or operator of any proposed new or modified sulfur storage and handling facility that is to be located within five kilometers of either a particulate matter (PM) air quality maintenance area or a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) Class I area shall provide FDEP with an analysis of the probable particulate matter ambient air quality impacts that could result from the operation of the facility. Additionally, the owner or operator shall provide FDEP with an analysis of the probable annual and maximum monthly sulfur deposition rates that could occur as a result of the operation of the facility. The owner or operator shall conduct post-construction air quality and deposition monitoring of sulfur particulate emissions from the facility for two years from the date of issuance of the initial air operation permit for the facility, and, through the permitting process, shall determine the period of time, if any, such monitoring must be continued. The data collected would then be provided to FDEP as specified in the permit. Florida states that the ‘‘General Preconstruction Review Requirements’’ and ‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)’’ provisions of the Rules 62–212.300 and 62–212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be used instead of Rule 62–212.600, F.A.C., to prevent PM emissions that would interfere with attainment and maintenance of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), prevention of significant deterioration of air quality, or protection of visibility.

Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C., states that no person shall cause, suffer, or allow elemental sulfur to be stored, handled, or transported within the State in crushed bulk or slate form or in any form other than standard sulfur pellets or in molten form, except that sulfur may be transferred within the boundaries of a single facility in other forms. Facilities using standard sulfur pellets or molten sulfur, or sulfur vatting facilities, may be permitted only in conformance with the practices identified in the rule. Florida states that the ‘‘General Pollutant Emission Limiting Standards’’ of Rule 62– 296.320, F.A.C., can be applied instead of Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C., to adequately control PM emissions from dry material handling operations such as those associated with sulfur storage and handling facilities.

With removal of the above two rules from the SIP, Florida’s PM requirements under the SIP for new and existing sulfur storage and handling facilities would align with the PM requirements for other, similar dry material handling sources in the State. At the time that Florida promulgated its sulfur storage and handling rules, the State was concerned that total suspended particulate matter levels in Florida would be negatively impacted by increased sulfur handling and storage operations to such an extent as to warrant additional facility-specific work practices and monitoring. However, the anticipated increase in sulfur handling and storage operations did not occur, and only 11 facilities are subject to Rule 62–212.300, F.A.C. and Rule 62– 212.400, F.A.C. EPA approved these two rules into the SIP on December 24, 1985, at 50 FR 52460. 1

EPA’s primary consideration for determining the approvability of Florida’s request to remove the existing sulfur storage and handling facilities rules, 62–212.600, F.A.C. and 62– 296.411, F.A.C., from the SIP is whether these requested actions comply with section 110(l) of the CAA. Under section 110(l), EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if that revision would interfere with any applicable requirement regarding attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement established in the CAA. EPA will approve a SIP revision that removes or modifies control measures in the SIP only after the state makes a ‘‘noninterference’’ demonstration that such a removal or modification will not interfere with RFP, attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS, or any other CAA requirement. As such, Florida was required to make a demonstration of noninterference in order to remove the sulfur storage and handling facilities requirements from its SIP.

Because actual emissions are not expected to change, there will be no impact on PSD increments, RFP, visibility, attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS, or any other applicable CAA requirement. Particulate matter, in the form of coarse (PM 10) and fine (PM 2.5 ) PM, is the pollutant related to the SIP revision. On January 15, 2013 (78 FR 3086), EPA established an annual primary PM 2.5 NAAQS at 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ( mg/m 3 ) based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations. At that time, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS at 35 mg/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 PM 10 and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

There are no emissions reductions of carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen oxides, ozone, or sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) attributable to the sulfur storage and handling facilities requirements. As a result, the removal of these requirements will not interfere with attainment of these NAAQS.

Of the 11 facilities that are subject to the sulfur handling and storage emission rules, four will experience a relaxation in the opacity limit from 10 or 15 percent to 20 percent if 62– 212.600, F.A.C. and 62–296.411, F.A.C. are removed from the SIP, but emissions are not expected to increase because the underlying work practices will remain unchanged. The sulfur particulate emitting emissions units at these four facilities are approximately less than one ton per year, and a majority of the visible emissions tests conducted in 2010–11 for sulfur storage and handling units showed no visible emissions (i.e., zero percent opacity).

Furthermore, several existing state rules incorporated into Florida’s SIP can be applied in lieu of Rules 62–212.600, F.A.C. and 62–296.411, F.A.C. to address sulfur PM emissions from sulfur storage and handling emissions units at these facilities. Rules 62–212.300 and 62–212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be applied instead of the sulfur-specific requirements of paragraph 62– 212.600(2)(a), F.A.C., to evaluate potential particulate matter ambient air quality impacts. The sulfur deposition analysis required by paragraph 62– 212.600(2)(b), F.A.C., is unnecessary because there is no standard to compare the results with to demonstrate compliance. Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C., the ‘‘General Pollutant Emission Limiting Standards’’ of Rule 62– 296.320, F.A.C., and, for some emissions units, the PM Reasonably Available Control Technology requirements of Rule 62–296.711, F.A.C., can be applied to control the sulfur PM emissions from sulfur storage and handling emissions units at these facilities. Rule 62– 296.711, F.A.C. generally imposes a five percent opacity limit for existing sulfur handling, sizing, screening, crushing, and grinding operations in former total suspended particulate nonattainment


### 62008 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

areas or within 50 kilometers of such former areas except where an emissions unit has received a Best Available Retrofit Technology determination or the emissions are insignificant enough to be exempted under Rule 62– 296.700(2), F.A.C. The control techniques and work practice standards found in Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C., to control unconfined emissions of particulate matter can also be required by paragraph 62–296.320(4)(c), F.A.C., which prohibits the emission of unconfined particulate matter without taking reasonable precautions to prevent such emissions.

For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that removal of the sulfur storage and handling facilities rules will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in surrounding states or interfere with any other requirement identified in section 110(l). On July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37255), EPA proposed approval of the Florida April 5, 2012, submission. No adverse comments were received on this proposed action and EPA is hereby finalizing approval of the revision.

II. Final Action

EPA is taking final action to approve Florida’s April 5, 2012, SIP revision to remove Rule 62–212.600, F. A. C. and Rule 62–296.411, F. A. C., related to sulfur storage and handling facilities, from the Florida SIP because the Agency has determined that this revision is consistent with section 110(l) of the CAA. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this final action:

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4);

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register

. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 15, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Dated: September 25, 2014. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

**PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF**  **IMPLEMENTATION PLANS**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

**Subpart K—Florida**

■ 2. Section 52.520(c) is amended by removing the entries for ‘‘62–212.600’’ under Chapter 62–212 Stationary Sources—Preconstruction Review and ‘‘62–296.411’’ under Chapter 62–296 Stationary Sources—Emission Standards.

[FR Doc. 2014–24005 Filed 10–15–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0242; FRL–9916–27– Region 5]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;**  **Wisconsin; Approval of Revision to PSD Program** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to EPA on March 12, 2014, for parallel processing. On August 11, 2014, WDNR submitted an updated submittal with the final rules. The submittal modifies