83 FR 25983 - Approval of AL Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 108 (June 5, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 108 (June 5, 2018)
| Page Range | 25983-25986 | |
| FR Document | 2018-12064 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 25983-25986] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-12064] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 62 [EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0183; FRL-9978-91-Region 4] Approval of AL Plan for Control of Emissions From Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a state plan submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on May 19, 2017, and supplemented on October 24, 2017, for implementing and enforcing the Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to existing Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units. The state plan provides for implementation and enforcement of the EG, as finalized by EPA on June 23, 2016, applicable to existing CISWI units for which construction commenced on or before June 4, 2010, or for which modification or reconstruction commenced after June 4, 2010, but no later than August 7, 2013. The state plan establishes emission limits, monitoring, operating, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for affected CISWI units. [[Page 25984]] DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R04- OAR-2018-0183] 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Bloeth, South Air Enforcement and Toxics Section, Air Enforcement and Toxics Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Mr. Bloeth can be reached via telephone at 404-562-9013 and via email at bloeth.mark@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) directs the Administrator to develop regulations under section 111(d) of the Act limiting emissions of nine air pollutants (particulate matter, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, and cadmium) from four categories of solid waste incineration units: Municipal solid waste; hospital, medical, and infectious solid waste; commercial and industrial solid waste; and other solid waste. On December 1, 2000, EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) and EG to reduce air pollution from CISWI units, which are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively. See 65 FR 75338. EPA revised the NSPS and EG for CISWI units on March 21, 2011. See 76 FR 15704. Following promulgation of the 2011 CISWI rule, EPA received petitions for reconsideration requesting that EPA reconsider numerous provisions in the rule. EPA granted reconsideration on certain issues and promulgated a CISWI reconsideration rule on February 7, 2013. See 78 FR 9112. Subsequently, EPA received petitions to further reconsider certain provisions of the 2013 NSPS and EG for CISWI units. On January 21, 2015, EPA granted reconsideration on four specific issues and finalized reconsideration of the CISWI NSPS and EG on June 23, 2016. See 81 FR 40956. Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to submit to EPA for approval state plans and revisions that implement and enforce the EG-- in this case, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. State plans and revisions must be at least as protective as the EG, and become federally enforceable upon approval by EPA. The procedures for adoption and submittal of state plans and revisions are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. II. Review of Alabama's CISWI State Plan Submittal Alabama submitted a state plan to implement and enforce the EG for existing CISWI units in the state \1\ on March 14, 2014. On May 19, 2017, Alabama submitted a revised plan, which was supplemented on October 24, 2017. EPA has reviewed the revised plan for existing CISWI units in the context of the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD. State plans must include the following nine essential elements: Identification of legal authority; identification of mechanism for implementation; inventory of affected facilities; emissions inventory; emission limits; compliance schedules; testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting; public hearing records; and, annual state progress reports on plan enforcement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The submitted state plan does not apply in Indian country located in the state. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. Identification of Legal Authority Under 40 CFR 60.26 and 60.2515(a)(9), an approvable state plan must demonstrate that the State has legal authority to adopt and implement the EG's emission standards and compliance schedule. In its submittals, Alabama cites the following State law provisions for its authority to implement and enforce the plan: Code of Alabama Section 22-28-11 (adopt emission requirements); Code of Alabama 22-28-14 (adopt regulations to prescribe emissions standards and adopt compliance schedules); Code of Alabama Section 22-22A-5(10) (authority to issue orders, citations, notices of violation, licenses, certifications, and permits); Code of Alabama Section 22-22A-5(20) (authority to perform any other necessary duty); Code of Alabama Section 22-28-18 (authority to require use of pollution control equipment); Code of Alabama Section 22-28-19A (authority to conduct inspections and sample air contaminants); Code of Alabama Section 22-28-20 (authority to require recordkeeping); and Code of Alabama Section 22-28-22 (proceedings upon violation; penalties; subpoenas; injunctions). In addition to the foregoing statutory provisions, Alabama also notes that it has adopted rules into the Alabama Administrative Code to implement and enforce its air quality program. EPA has reviewed the cited authorities and has preliminarily concluded that the State has adequately demonstrated legal authority to implement and enforce the CISWI state plan in Alabama. B. Identification of Enforceable State Mechanisms for Implementing the Plan Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), a state plan must include emission standards, defined at 40 CFR 60.21(f) as ``a legally enforceable regulation setting forth an allowable rate of emissions into the atmosphere, or prescribing equipment specifications for control of air pollution emissions.'' See also 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(8). Alabama has adopted enforceable emission standards for affected CISWI units at Rule 335-3-3.05(6). EPA has preliminarily concluded that the rule meets the emission standard requirement under 40 CFR 60.24(a). C. Inventory of Affected Units Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1), a state plan must include a complete source inventory of all CISWI units. Alabama has identified affected units at four facilities: National Cement, Argos, Holcim, and CEMEX. Omission from this inventory of CISWI units does not exempt an affected facility from the applicable section 111(d)/129 requirements. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Alabama has met the affected unit inventory requirements under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(1). D. Inventory of Emissions From Affected CISWI Units Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2), a state plan must include an emissions inventory of the pollutants regulated by the EG. Emissions from [[Page 25985]] CISWI units may contain cadmium, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Alabama submitted an emissions inventory for CISWI units as part of its state plan. This emissions inventory contains CISWI unit emissions rates for each regulated pollutant. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Alabama has met the emissions inventory requirements of 40 CFR 60.25(a) and 60.2515(a)(2). E. Emission Limitations, Operator Training and Qualification, Waste Management Plan, and Operating Limits for CISWI Units Under 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4), the state plan must include emission standards that are no less stringent than the EG. Alabama has incorporated the emission standards from the EG by reference into its regulations at Rule 335-3-3-.05, with one exception: For units in the waste-burning kiln subcategory, Alabama's state plan provides an equivalent production-based mercury emission limit of 58 pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker, rather than the concentration-based standard of 0.011 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter contained in 40 CFR 60, Subpart DDDD, Table 8. See Alabama Rule 335-3-3-.05, Table 7. Under 40 CFR 60.2515(b), EPA has the authority to approve plan requirements that deviate from the content of the EG, so long as the state demonstrates that the requirements are at least as protective. In the February 7, 2013 rule adopting the EG for existing CISWI units, EPA discussed its methodology for developing emission limits for the subcategories of sources subject to the rule. See 78 FR 9112 (February 7, 2013). Though we noted that the Agency was retaining an ``emissions concentration basis for the standards,'' we also expressed the standard for waste-burning kiln emission limits on a production basis. See id. at 9122-23. For those kilns, we noted that an equivalent production- based standard for mercury would be 58 pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker. See id. at 9122. In other words, EPA has previously explained that the equivalent production-based emission limit of 58 pounds of mercury per million tons of clinker for waste-burning kilns is at least as protective as the standard contained in the EG. Because Alabama's state plan imposes either this equivalent standard or the applicable EG on waste-burning kilns--and imposes the applicable EG on all other affected CISWI units--we have preliminarily concluded that Alabama's CISWI plan satisfies the emission limitations requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c). 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(4) also requires a state plan to include operator training and qualification requirements, a waste management plan, and operating limits that are at least as protective as the EG. Alabama's state plan submittal includes: Operator training and qualification requirements at Rule 335-3-3-.05(5); a waste management plan at Rule 335-3-3-.05(4); and, operating limits that are at least as protective as the EG at Rule 335-3-3-.05(6)(b) and Rule 335-3-3-.05, Table 2. Thus, we have preliminarily concluded that Alabama's state plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(c) and 60.2515(a)(4). F. Compliance Schedules Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3), each state plan must include a compliance schedule, which requires affected CISWI units to expeditiously comply with the state plan requirements. EPA has the authority to approve compliance schedule requirements that deviate from those imposed under the EG, so long as those requirements are at least as protective as the EG. See 40 CFR 60.2515(b). In the state plan at Rule 335-3-3-.05(8), Alabama generally requires that affected sources comply with the EG initial compliance requirements for CISWI units, which EPA has codified at 40 CFR 60.2700 through 40 CFR 60.2706. However, for waste-burning kilns complying with the production-based emission limit, Alabama's state plan requires compliance with the requirements applicable to Portland Cement Manufacturing Kilns, which are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL. See Alabama Rule 335-3-3-.05(8)(g). As noted above, EPA has authority to approve requirements that are at least as stringent as the EG. Here, we have preliminarily concluded that the state plan's compliance requirements for waste-burning kilns contain all relevant elements of the EG, and also impose additional recordkeeping requirements that are necessary for the effective implementation and enforcement of the equivalent limit. For these reasons, we have preliminarily concluded that Alabama's state plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(a), (c), and (e) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(3). G. Testing, Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements Under 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5), an approvable state plan must require that sources conduct testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. Alabama's state plan incorporates the model rule provisions of the EG: For testing at Rule 335-3-3-.05(7); for monitoring at Rule 335-3-3-.05(10); and, for recordkeeping and reporting at Rule 335-3-3-.05(11). In addition to these requirements, Alabama imposes further monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for waste-burning kilns operating under a production-based mercury emission limit. EPA has thus preliminarily concluded that Alabama's state plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.24(b)(2), 60.25(b), and 60.2515(a)(5). H. A Record of Public Hearing on the State Plan Revision 40 CFR 60.23 sets forth the public participation requirements for each state plan. The State must conduct a public hearing; make all relevant plan materials available to the public prior to the hearing; and provide notice of such hearing to the public, the Administrator of EPA, each local air pollution control agency, and, in the case of an interstate region, each state within the region. 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(6) requires each state plan include certification that the hearing was held, a list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any, appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each presentation or written submission. In its submittal, Alabama submitted records, including transcripts, of two public hearings. First, a hearing was held on March 8, 2017, for the May 19, 2017 state plan submittal. Alabama held a second hearing on September 6, 2017, for the October 24, 2017, supplement. Alabama provided notice and made all relevant plan materials available prior to each hearing. Additionally, Alabama certifies in its state plan submittal that a hearing was held, and that the State received no written or oral comments on the plan. Thus, EPA has preliminarily concluded that Alabama's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 60.23 and 60.2515(a)(6). I. Annual State Progress Reports to EPA Under 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7), the State must provide in its state plan for annual reports to EPA on progress in enforcement of the plan. Accordingly, Alabama provides in its plan that it will submit reports on progress in plan enforcement to EPA on an annual (calendar year) basis, commencing with the first full reporting period after plan revision approval. EPA has preliminarily concluded that Alabama's CISWI plan satisfies the requirements of [[Page 25986]] 40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR 60.2515(a)(7). III. Proposed Action Pursuant to CAA section 111(d), CAA section 129, and 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's state plan for regulation of CISWI units as submitted on May 19, 2017 and supplemented on October 24, 2017. In addition, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart B to reflect this action. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/ 129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria and objectives of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); 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). In addition, this rule 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. It also 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). And it does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because EPA is not proposing to approve the submitted plan to apply in Indian country located in the state, and because the submitted plan will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, Intergovernmental relations, Manufacturing, Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Waste treatment and disposal. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411. Dated: May 15, 2018. Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2018-12064 Filed 6-4-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules 25983
approved version of these rules. Pollutants from Wood Products methods, under Executive Order 12898
Moreover, as indicated above, Rhode Manufacturing Operations,’’ No. 36 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Island is designated as attainment for ‘‘Control of Emission from Organic In addition, the SIP is not approved
ozone. Thus, the SIP revisions satisfy Solvent Cleaning,’’ and General to apply on any Indian reservation land
the requirements of Section 110(l) of the Definitions. The EPA has made, and or in any other area where EPA or an
CAA because they will not interfere will continue to make, these documents Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
with any applicable requirement generally available through tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
concerning attainment and reasonable www.regulations.gov. Indian country, the rule does not have
further progress or any other applicable tribal implications and will not impose
requirement of the CAA. Accordingly, V. Statutory and Executive Order
substantial direct costs on tribal
we are proposing to approve Rhode Reviews
governments or preempt tribal law as
Island’s revised regulations into the Under the Clean Air Act, the specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
Rhode Island SIP. Administrator is required to approve a FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
EPA is proposing to approve the SIP submission that complies with the
Rhode Island SIP revision for these six provisions of the Act and applicable List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
APCR revisions (excluding those Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. Environmental protection, Air
provisions indicated above that were 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in pollution control, Incorporation by
not submitted by the state), which was reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role reference, Intergovernmental relations,
submitted on February 10, 2017. EPA is is to approve state choices, provided Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
soliciting public comments on the that they meet the criteria of the Clean recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
issues discussed in this notice or on Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
other relevant matters. These comments action merely approves state law as
will be considered before taking final meeting Federal requirements and does Dated: May 25, 2018.
action. Interested parties may not impose additional requirements Alexandra Dunn,
participate in the Federal rulemaking beyond those imposed by state law. For Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
procedure by submitting written that reason, this proposed action: [FR Doc. 2018–12020 Filed 6–4–18; 8:45 am]
comments to this proposed rule by • Is not a significant regulatory action BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
following the instructions listed in the subject to review by the Office of
ADDRESSES section of this Federal Management and Budget under
Register. Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
III. Proposed Action October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, AGENCY
January 21, 2011);
EPA is proposing to approve the • Does not impose an information 40 CFR Part 62
February 10, 2017 RI DEM SIP submittal collection burden under the provisions
consisting of the six revised APCRs: No. of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–R04–OAR–2018–0183; FRL–9978–91–
8, ‘‘Sulfur Content of Fuels’’ (with the U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Region 4]
exception of sections 8.7 and 8.8.3); No. • Is certified as not having a
19, ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic significant economic impact on a Approval of AL Plan for Control of
Compounds from Surface Coating substantial number of small entities Emissions From Commercial and
Operations’’ (with the exception of under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Industrial Solid Waste Incineration
section 19.2.2); No. 27, ‘‘Control of U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Units
Nitrogen Oxide Emissions’’ (with the • Does not contain any unfunded
exception of section 27.7.3); No. 35, mandate or significantly or uniquely AGENCY: Environmental Protection
‘‘Control of Volatile Organic affect small governments, as described Agency (EPA).
Compounds and Volatile Hazardous Air in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ACTION: Proposed rule.
Pollutants from Wood Products of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
Manufacturing Operations’’ (with the • Does not have Federalism SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
exception of sections 35.2.3 and 35.9.3); implications as specified in Executive Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
No. 36, ‘‘Control of Emission from Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, state plan submitted by the State of
Organic Solvent Cleaning’’ (with the 1999); Alabama, through the Alabama
exception of sections 36.2.2 and • Is not an economically significant Department of Environmental
36.14.2); and the definition of ‘‘volatile regulatory action based on health or Management (ADEM) on May 19, 2017,
organic compound’’ in General safety risks subject to Executive Order and supplemented on October 24, 2017,
Definitions. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); for implementing and enforcing the
• Is not a significant regulatory action Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to
IV. Incorporation by Reference existing Commercial and Industrial
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 28355, May 22, 2001); Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units.
include in a final EPA rule regulatory • Is not subject to requirements of The state plan provides for
text that includes incorporation by Section 12(d) of the National implementation and enforcement of the
reference. In accordance with Technology Transfer and Advancement EG, as finalized by EPA on June 23,
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 2016, applicable to existing CISWI units
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
proposing to incorporate by reference application of those requirements would for which construction commenced on
Rhode Island APCRs No. 8 ‘‘Sulfur be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; or before June 4, 2010, or for which
Content of Fuels,’’ No. 19 ‘‘Control of and modification or reconstruction
Volatile Organic Compounds from • Does not provide EPA with the commenced after June 4, 2010, but no
Surface Coating Operations,’’ No. 27 discretionary authority to address, as later than August 7, 2013. The state plan
‘‘Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,’’ appropriate, disproportionate human establishes emission limits, monitoring,
No. 35 ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic health or environmental effects, using operating, recordkeeping, and reporting
Compounds and Volatile Hazardous Air practicable and legally permissible requirements for affected CISWI units.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Jun 04, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM 05JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_26091/page/1.svg)
![25984 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
DATES: Comments must be received on EPA received petitions for compliance schedules); Code of
or before July 5, 2018. reconsideration requesting that EPA Alabama Section 22–22A–5(10)
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, reconsider numerous provisions in the (authority to issue orders, citations,
identified by Docket ID No. [EPA–R04– rule. EPA granted reconsideration on notices of violation, licenses,
OAR–2018–0183] at https:// certain issues and promulgated a CISWI certifications, and permits); Code of
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online reconsideration rule on February 7, Alabama Section 22–22A–5(20)
instructions for submitting comments. 2013. See 78 FR 9112. Subsequently, (authority to perform any other
Once submitted, comments cannot be EPA received petitions to further necessary duty); Code of Alabama
edited or removed from Regulations.gov. reconsider certain provisions of the Section 22–28–18 (authority to require
EPA may publish any comment received 2013 NSPS and EG for CISWI units. On use of pollution control equipment);
to its public docket. Do not submit January 21, 2015, EPA granted Code of Alabama Section 22–28–19A
electronically any information you reconsideration on four specific issues (authority to conduct inspections and
consider to be confidential business and finalized reconsideration of the sample air contaminants); Code of
information (CBI) or other information CISWI NSPS and EG on June 23, 2016. Alabama Section 22–28–20 (authority to
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. See 81 FR 40956. require recordkeeping); and Code of
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires Alabama Section 22–28–22 (proceedings
etc.) must be accompanied by a written states to submit to EPA for approval upon violation; penalties; subpoenas;
comment. The written comment is state plans and revisions that implement injunctions). In addition to the foregoing
considered the official comment and and enforce the EG—in this case, 40 statutory provisions, Alabama also notes
should include discussion of all points CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. State plans that it has adopted rules into the
you wish to make. EPA will generally and revisions must be at least as Alabama Administrative Code to
not consider comments or comment protective as the EG, and become implement and enforce its air quality
contents located outside of the primary federally enforceable upon approval by program. EPA has reviewed the cited
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or EPA. The procedures for adoption and authorities and has preliminarily
other file sharing system). For submittal of state plans and revisions concluded that the State has adequately
additional submission methods, the full are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart demonstrated legal authority to
EPA public comment policy, B. implement and enforce the CISWI state
information about CBI or multimedia plan in Alabama.
II. Review of Alabama’s CISWI State
submissions, and general guidance on Plan Submittal B. Identification of Enforceable State
making effective comments, please visit Mechanisms for Implementing the Plan
Alabama submitted a state plan to
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
implement and enforce the EG for Under 40 CFR 60.24(a), a state plan
commenting-epa-dockets.
existing CISWI units in the state 1 on must include emission standards,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: March 14, 2014. On May 19, 2017, defined at 40 CFR 60.21(f) as ‘‘a legally
Mark Bloeth, South Air Enforcement Alabama submitted a revised plan, enforceable regulation setting forth an
and Toxics Section, Air Enforcement which was supplemented on October allowable rate of emissions into the
and Toxics Branch, Air, Pesticides and 24, 2017. EPA has reviewed the revised atmosphere, or prescribing equipment
Toxics Management Division, U.S. plan for existing CISWI units in the specifications for control of air pollution
Environmental Protection Agency, context of the requirements of 40 CFR emissions.’’ See also 40 CFR
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, part 60, subparts B and DDDD. State 60.2515(a)(8). Alabama has adopted
Georgia 30303. Mr. Bloeth can be plans must include the following nine enforceable emission standards for
reached via telephone at 404–562–9013 essential elements: Identification of affected CISWI units at Rule 335–3–
and via email at bloeth.mark@epa.gov. legal authority; identification of 3.05(6). EPA has preliminarily
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: mechanism for implementation; concluded that the rule meets the
I. Background inventory of affected facilities; emission standard requirement under 40
emissions inventory; emission limits; CFR 60.24(a).
Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA compliance schedules; testing,
or the Act) directs the Administrator to C. Inventory of Affected Units
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
develop regulations under section reporting; public hearing records; and, Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and
111(d) of the Act limiting emissions of annual state progress reports on plan 60.2515(a)(1), a state plan must include
nine air pollutants (particulate matter, enforcement. a complete source inventory of all
carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, sulfur CISWI units. Alabama has identified
dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen A. Identification of Legal Authority affected units at four facilities: National
chloride, lead, mercury, and cadmium) Under 40 CFR 60.26 and Cement, Argos, Holcim, and CEMEX.
from four categories of solid waste 60.2515(a)(9), an approvable state plan Omission from this inventory of CISWI
incineration units: Municipal solid must demonstrate that the State has units does not exempt an affected
waste; hospital, medical, and infectious legal authority to adopt and implement facility from the applicable section
solid waste; commercial and industrial the EG’s emission standards and 111(d)/129 requirements. EPA has
solid waste; and other solid waste. compliance schedule. In its submittals, preliminarily concluded that Alabama
On December 1, 2000, EPA Alabama cites the following State law has met the affected unit inventory
promulgated new source performance provisions for its authority to requirements under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
standards (NSPS) and EG to reduce air implement and enforce the plan: Code 60.2515(a)(1).
pollution from CISWI units, which are of Alabama Section 22–28–11 (adopt
codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts D. Inventory of Emissions From Affected
emission requirements); Code of CISWI Units
CCCC and DDDD, respectively. See 65 Alabama 22–28–14 (adopt regulations to
FR 75338. EPA revised the NSPS and prescribe emissions standards and adopt Under 40 CFR 60.25(a) and
EG for CISWI units on March 21, 2011. 60.2515(a)(2), a state plan must include
See 76 FR 15704. Following 1 The submitted state plan does not apply in an emissions inventory of the pollutants
promulgation of the 2011 CISWI rule, Indian country located in the state. regulated by the EG. Emissions from
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Jun 04, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM 05JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_26091/page/2.svg)
![25986 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 5, 2018 / Proposed Rules
40 CFR 60.25(e) and (f) and 40 CFR EPA with the discretionary authority to action also proposes to codify in the
60.2515(a)(7). address, as appropriate, regulations the authorized provisions of
disproportionate human health or North Dakota’s hazardous waste
III. Proposed Action
environmental effects, using practicable management program and to incorporate
Pursuant to CAA section 111(d), CAA and legally permissible methods, under by reference authorized provisions of
section 129, and 40 CFR part 60, Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, the state’s regulations. Finally, today’s
subparts B and DDDD, EPA is proposing February 16, 1994). And it does not rule corrects errors made in the state
to approve Alabama’s state plan for have Tribal implications as specified by authorization citations published in the
regulation of CISWI units as submitted Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, February 14, 2008 Federal Register
on May 19, 2017 and supplemented on November 9, 2000), because EPA is not authorization document for North
October 24, 2017. In addition, EPA is proposing to approve the submitted Dakota.
proposing to amend 40 CFR part 62, plan to apply in Indian country located DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
subpart B to reflect this action. in the state, and because the submitted must be received by July 5, 2018.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order plan will not impose substantial direct
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
Reviews costs on Tribal governments or preempt
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
Tribal law.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is RCRA–2018–0084 by one of the
required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62 following methods:
submission that complies with the Administrative practice and 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
provisions of the CAA and applicable procedure, Air pollution control, www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
Federal regulations. In reviewing Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride, instructions for submitting comments.
111(d)/129 plan submissions, EPA’s role 2. Email: lin.moye@epa.gov.
Intergovernmental relations,
is to approve state choices, provided 3. Fax: (303) 312–6341 (prior to
Manufacturing, Phosphate, Reporting
they meet the criteria and objectives of faxing, please notify the EPA contact
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
the CAA and EPA’s implementing listed below).
oxides, Waste treatment and disposal. 4. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier:
regulations. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7411. Moye Lin, Resource Conservation and
meeting Federal requirements and does Recovery Program, EPA Region 8,
Dated: May 15, 2018.
not impose additional requirements Mailcode 8P–R, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Onis ‘‘Trey’’ Glenn, III
beyond those imposed by state law. For Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Courier
Regional Administrator, Region 4. or hand deliveries are only accepted
that reason, this proposed action: [FR Doc. 2018–12064 Filed 6–4–18; 8:45 am]
• Is not a significant regulatory action during the Regional Office’s normal
subject to review by the Office of
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P hours of operation. The public is
Management and Budget under advised to call in advance to verify
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, business hours. Special arrangements
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION should be made for deliveries of boxed
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, AGENCY
January 21, 2011); information.
• does not impose an information Instructions: Direct your comments to
40 CFR Parts 271 and 272 Docket ID No. EPA–R08–RCRA–2018–
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 [EPA–R08–RCRA–2018–0084; FRL–9974– 0084. The EPA’s policy is that all
26–Region 8] comments received will be included in
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a the public docket without change and
North Dakota: Proposed Authorization may be available online at http://
significant economic impact on a of State Hazardous Waste Management
substantial number of small entities www.regulations.gov, including any
Program Revisions and Incorporation personal information provided, unless
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 by Reference
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); the comment includes information
• does not contain any unfunded AGENCY: Environmental Protection claimed to be Confidential Business
mandate or significantly or uniquely Agency (EPA). Information (CBI) or other information
affect small governments, as described ACTION: Proposed rule. whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Do not submit information that you
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); SUMMARY: The state of North Dakota has consider to be CBI or otherwise
• does not have Federalism applied to the EPA for final protected through http://
implications as specified in Executive authorization of the changes to its www.regulations.gov, or email. The
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, hazardous waste program under the federal http://www.regulations.gov
1999); Resource Conservation and Recovery website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
• is not an economically significant Act (RCRA). The EPA has reviewed system, which means the EPA will not
regulatory action based on health or North Dakota’s application and has know your identity or contact
safety risks subject to Executive Order determined that these changes satisfy all information unless you provide it in the
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); requirements needed to qualify for final body of your comment. If you send an
• is not a significant regulatory action authorization and is proposing to email comment directly to the EPA
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR authorize the state’s changes. The EPA without going through http://
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
28355, May 22, 2001). uses the regulations entitled, ‘‘Approved www.regulations.gov, your email
In addition, this rule is not subject to State Hazardous Waste Management address will be automatically captured
requirements of Section 12(d) of the Programs’’ to provide notice of the and included as part of the comment
National Technology Transfer and authorization status of state programs that is placed in the public docket and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. and to incorporate by reference those made available on the internet. If you
272 note) because application of those provisions of state statutes and submit an electronic comment, the EPA
requirements would be inconsistent regulations that will be subject to the recommends that you include your
with the CAA. It also does not provide EPA’s inspection and enforcement. This name and other contact information in
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:40 Jun 04, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM 05JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_26091/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-02 11:46:14
Document Modified: 2018-11-02 11:46:14
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before July 5, 2018. | |
| Contact | Mark Bloeth, South Air Enforcement and Toxics Section, Air Enforcement and Toxics Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Mr. Bloeth can be reached via telephone at 404-562-9013 and via email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 25983 | |
| CFR Associated | Administrative Practice and Procedure; Air Pollution Control; Aluminum; Fertilizers; Fluoride; Intergovernmental Relations; Manufacturing; Phosphate; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Waste Treatment and Disposal |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR