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 Federal 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., 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 200 / Thursday, October 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 62007 

1EPA’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 (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 (mg/m3) 

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 mg/m3 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. 

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. 

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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES