80 FR 14038 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 52 (March 18, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 52 (March 18, 2015)
| Page Range | 14038-14041 | |
| FR Document | 2015-06216 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 14038-14041] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-06216] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2014-0532, FRL-9924-72-Region 10] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference revisions to the Alaska State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on July 1, 2014 and October 24, 2014. These revisions primarily update the adoption by reference of Federal regulations and definitions into the Alaska SIP. The revisions also clarify stationary source permitting rules governing owner- requested emission limits and revise the SIP to reflect the redesignation of the Eagle River area of Anchorage. Upon final action, the Alaska SIP will be updated to reflect recent Federal regulatory changes and actions. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2015. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10- OAR-2014-0532, by any of the following methods:www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT-150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Email: [email protected]. Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth [[Page 14039]] Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR- 2014-0532. The 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 the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 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. 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 the disclosure of which 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 during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA, 98101. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at telephone number: (206) 553-6357, email address: [email protected], or the above EPA, Region 10 address. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', ``us'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA. Table of Contents I. Background II. EPA Evaluation of Alaska SIP Revisions III. Proposed Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies the general requirements for states to submit SIPs to implement, maintain and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the EPA's actions regarding approval of those SIPs. On July 1, 2014 and October 24, 2014, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), on behalf of the Governor of Alaska, submitted SIP revisions to the EPA to account for regulatory updates effective October 6, 2013 and November 9, 2014, respectively. These revisions update Alaska Administrative Code Title 18 Environmental Conservation, Chapter 50 Air Quality Control (18 AAC 50) to reflect the adoption by reference of Federal regulations and definitions into the Alaska SIP, and edit associated cross-references to definitions. The revisions also clarify stationary source permitting rules governing owner-requested emission limits, and update the SIP to reflect the redesignation of the Eagle River area of Anchorage to attainment for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM 10 ). We note that this action does not address the portions of the July 1, 2014, and October 24, 2014, SIP submittals related to Alaska's nonattainment new source review permitting program. The nonattainment new source review permitting rule updates submitted as part of these revisions were approved in a previous action on January 7, 2015 (80 FR 832). In this action, we are proposing to approve the remainder of the revisions to the Alaska SIP submitted on July 1, 2014 and October 24, 2014. Please see below for our evaluation. II. EPA Evaluation of Alaska SIP Revisions A. 18 AAC 50.015--Air Quality Designations, Classifications and Control Regions On January 7, 2013, the EPA approved the maintenance plan submitted by ADEC for the Eagle River PM10 nonattainment area and its accompanying request to redesignate the area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS (78 FR 900). The redesignation became effective on March 8, 2013. Accordingly, in the July 1, 2014, submittal, ADEC revised 18 AAC 50.015 ``Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions'' to reflect the change. We are proposing to approve the revision to this rule. B. 18 AAC 50.040--Federal Standards Adopted by Reference Guideline on Air Quality Modeling In the July 1, 2014, submittal, ADEC revised and submitted changes to 18 AAC 50.040 ``Federal Standards Adopted by Reference'' to update the citation dates incorporating by reference certain Federal requirements into the Alaska SIP. Specifically, ADEC submitted the updated adoption by reference of 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality Models'' revised as of July 1, 2012. We are proposing to approve this revision as consistent with Federal requirements. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) ADEC also submitted the updated incorporation by reference of Federal PSD permitting regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21, revised as of April 1, 2013, which are referenced in ADEC's major source permitting rules in 18 AAC Chapter 50, Article 3, and relied on to implement ADEC's SIP-approved PSD permitting program. ADEC excluded from its submittal certain PSD permitting provisions in 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 that have been vacated by recent Court decisions, and those provisions are therefore not before the EPA for approval. Specifically, in response to the Court vacatur of the EPA PM2.5 significant monitoring concentration (SMC) and significant impact level (SIL) regulations, ADEC did not submit to the EPA for approval the provisions in the Alaska SIP impacted by the Court decision (18 AAC 50.040(h)(7) and (9)). ADEC's July 1, 2014, submittal cover letter confirms that ADEC intends to act in accordance with the Court vacatur, and that, although these provisions have not yet been repealed and remain in effect as a matter of State law, ADEC will not apply either the PM2.5 SMC provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21 (i)(5)(i)(c), or the PM2.5 SIL provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2) in implementing the State new source permitting program. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, please see our [[Page 14040]] previous action addressing revisions to the State PSD program (proposed May 5, 2014, 79 FR 25533; finalized September 19, 2014, 79 FR 56268). ADEC also excluded from its submittals the greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory provision at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) that was recently vacated by the Supreme Court and that is adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040(h)(4), effective October 6, 2013. On June 3, 2010, the EPA revised Federal PSD permitting rules addressing the application of the requirements to GHG emissions (GHG Tailoring Rule) (75 FR 31514). However, on June 23, 2014, the Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency,\1\ issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. The Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of best available control technology. In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's decision pending further judicial action before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to effectuate the decision, the EPA is not continuing to apply the EPA regulations that would require that SIPs include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found impermissible. Specifically, the EPA is not applying the requirement that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant net emissions increase from a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA anticipates a need to revise Federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme Court decision. In addition, the EPA anticipates that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs in light of the Supreme Court's decision. The timing and content of subsequent EPA actions with respect to the EPA regulations is expected to be informed by additional legal processes before the D.C. Circuit. The EPA is not expecting states to have revised their existing PSD program regulations at this juncture, before the D.C. Circuit has addressed these issues and before the EPA has revised its regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. However, the EPA is evaluating PSD program submissions to assure that state programs correctly address GHGs, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. Because ADEC has excluded from its SIP submission the GHG Tailoring Rule provision that was vacated by the Supreme Court, that provision is not before the EPA for action. For the reasons discussed above, we are proposing to determine that the updated incorporation by reference of Federal requirements in 18 AAC 50.040(h) is consistent with CAA requirements for SIP-approved PSD permitting programs. We note that in both the July 1, 2014, and October 24, 2014, submittals, ADEC included changes to 18 AAC 50.040(i) related to Alaska's nonattainment new source review permitting program. These changes were previously approved on January 7, 2015 (80 FR 832). C. 18 AAC 50.225--Owner-Requested Limits The July 1, 2014, submittal included a revised version of 18 AAC 50.225 ``Owner-Requested Limits,'' effective October 6, 2013, that removed paragraph (b)(7). Paragraph (a) of 18 AAC 50.225 specifies that an owner-requested limit under this provision may be requested ``to avoid all permitting obligations under AS 46.14.130 [Stationary sources requiring permits].'' Paragraph (b)(7) of 18 AAC 50.225 stated that, ``if applying all limits does not avoid all permit classifications under AS 46.14 and this chapter, the owner or operator shall submit to the department ``a description, and if necessary an application, for the remaining classifications[.]'' In the July 1, 2014, submittal, ADEC stated that in 18 AAC 50.225, paragraph (b)(7) contradicts paragraph (a) and that the repeal of (b)(7) merely clarifies the requirements for obtaining owner-requested limits. As explained by ADEC, the State's interpretation of 18 AAC 50.225 is that a source is only eligible to apply for an owner-requested limit under 18 AAC 50.225 to avoid all stationary source permitting obligations under AS 46.14.130. AS 46.14.130 ``Stationary sources requiring permits'' is the Alaska statute requiring both title I major new source construction permits and title V major source operating permits.\2\ If all obligations for major new source construction permitting cannot be avoided by requesting an emission limit on the source, then the owner or operator may not apply for an owner requested limit (ORL) under 18 AAC 50.225, but could instead request an ORL in a permit issued under 18 AAC 508 ``Minor Permits Requested by the Owner or Operator.'' This provision allows an owner or operator to request a minor permit from the department for ``establishing an owner requested limit (ORL) to avoid one or more permit classifications under AS 46.14.130 at a stationary source that will remain subject to at least one permit classification. . .'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Because the SIP addresses section 110 in title I of the CAA, the permitting obligation an owner or operator may seek to avoid through the SIP-approved rule at 18 AAC 50.225 is the obligation to obtain a major new source construction permit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the July 1, 2014, submittal ADEC asserted that ``there is no relaxation of the regulations, as the two types of ORLs allow the applicant to avoid permitting classifications depending on their particular situation.'' We agree with ADEC that the provision at 18 AAC 50.225(b)(7) is potentially confusing and contradictory and that the repeal of that provision clarifies when each of the two provisions authorizing owner- requested limits (18 AAC 50.225 and 18 AAC 50.508) are applicable to owners and operators of stationary sources seeking an emission limit to avoid major permitting obligations. We therefore propose to approve the revision to 18 AAC 50.225. D. 18 AAC 50.260--Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology Under the Regional Haze Rule In the July 1, 2014, submittal, ADEC revised this provision to reference the definition of fugitive emissions in 18 AAC 50.990 ``Definitions'' rather than the statutory definition in AS 46.14.990. The definition of ``fugitive emissions'' at 18 AAC 50.990(40) states that the term has the meaning given in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(20) in the Federal PSD regulations. This definition is approvable because the PSD definition of ``fugitive emissions'' in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(20) is identical to the definition of the same term in 40 CFR 51.301 ``Definitions'' for purposes of 40 CFR part 51, subpart P ``Protection of Visibility.'' E. 18 AAC 50.502--Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection The October 24, 2014, submittal revised 18 AAC 50.502 ``Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection'' to add [[Page 14041]] paragraph (h)(5). This paragraph defines ``regulated NSR pollutant'' for new sources seeking minor permits under 18 AAC 50.502 by adopting by reference the Federal definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50). This is not a substantive change to Alaska's minor NSR program because this definition was previously included in 18 AAC 50.900. F. 18 AAC 50.990--Definitions The July 1, 2014, submittal revised the definition of ``fugitive emissions'' at 18 AAC 50.990(40) to have the meaning given in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(20), as revised as of July 1, 2012. The October 24, 2014, submittal repealed the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' at 18 AAC 50.990(92). This action does not address these changes because we previously approved them on January 7, 2015 (80 FR 832). The July 1, 2014, submittal also updated the citation date for the incorporation by reference of the Federal definition of ``volatile organic compound'' (VOC). The submittal revised 18 AAC 50.990(121) to define ``VOC'' as the meaning given in 40 CFR 51,100(s) as of April 18, 2013. We note that the Federal definition has been revised since April 18, 2013. Specifically, on October 22, 2013, the EPA removed constituents from the definition of VOC (78 FR 62451). While the definition in Alaska's rule is not identical to the Federal definition, the Alaska definition is more stringent and therefore approvable. III. Proposed Action The EPA is proposing to approve and incorporate by reference into the Alaska SIP changes to the following provisions submitted on July 1, 2014 and October 24, 2014:18 AAC 50.015 ``Air Quality Designations, Classifications, and Control Regions'' (State effective 10/6/2013); 18 AAC 50.040 ``Federal Standards Adopted by Reference'' (State effective 10/6/2013); 18 AAC 50.225 ``Owner-Requested Limits'' (State effective 10/6/2013); 18 AAC 50.260 ``Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology under the Regional Haze Rule'' (State effective 10/6/2013); 18 AAC 50.502 ``Minor Permits for Air Quality Protection'' (State effective 11/9/2014); and 18 AAC 50.990 ``Definitions'' (State effective 11/9/2014). We have made the preliminary determination that the submitted SIP revisions are approvable because they are consistent with section 110 and part C of title I of the CAA. We note that this action does not address the submitted revisions related to Alaska's nonattainment NSR permitting program because we approved those changes on January 7, 2015 (80 FR 832). IV. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the provisions described above in Section III. Proposed Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 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 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); 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 it does not involve technical standards; and does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the 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. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: March 6, 2015. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. 2015-06216 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![14038 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Pennsylvania’s annual emission fees. including Allegheny and Philadelphia direct costs on tribal governments or
Fees are increased to $85 per ton of Counties, from $57.50 per ton of preempt tribal law.
emissions for emissions from title V regulated air pollutant to $85 per ton.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70
sources of up to 4,000 tons of each The revision meets requirements in 40
regulated pollutant. The provisions for CFR 70.9. EPA is soliciting public Environmental protection,
increasing the annual emissions fees in comments on the issues discussed in Administrative practice and procedure,
response to increases in the CPI at 25 this document. These comments will be Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
PA Code 127.705(d) remain unchanged. considered before taking final action. Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
The revised fees are designed to cover Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
all reasonable costs required to develop V. Statutory and Executive Order matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
and administer the title V program as Reviews requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
required by 40 CFR 70.9(a) and (b). This proposed action merely proposes organic compounds.
These costs include those for activities to approve state law as meeting Federal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
such as reviewing and processing plan requirements and imposes no additional
Dated: March 6, 2015.
approvals and operating permits, requirements beyond those imposed by
conducting inspections, responding to state law. For that reason, this proposed William C. Early,
complaints and pursuing enforcement action: Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
actions, emissions and ambient air • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory [FR Doc. 2015–06145 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am]
monitoring, preparing applicable action’’ subject to review by the Office BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
regulations and guidance, modeling, of Management and Budget under
analyses, demonstrations, emission Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
inventories, and tracking emissions. October 4, 1993); ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Without this fee increase, • does not impose an information AGENCY
Pennsylvania anticipates funds will not collection burden under the provisions
be sufficient to sustain the title V 40 CFR Part 52
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
permitting program beginning fiscal U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); [EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0532, FRL–9924–72–
years 2015–2016. If funds become • is certified as not having a Region 10]
insufficient to sustain the title V significant economic impact on a
permitting program in Pennsylvania, substantial number of small entities Approval and Promulgation of
EPA may determine that Pennsylvania under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Implementation Plans; Alaska
has not taken ‘‘significant action to U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
assure adequate administration and AGENCY: Environmental Protection
• does not contain any unfunded Agency.
enforcement of the Program’’ and take mandate or significantly or uniquely
subsequent required action under 40 ACTION: Proposed rule.
affect small governments, as described
CFR 70.10(b) and(c) as well as impose in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
mandatory and discretionary sanctions of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
under the CAA.
• does not have Federalism and incorporate by reference revisions
III. EPA Analysis of Program Revision implications as specified in Executive to the Alaska State Implementation Plan
The February 11, 2014 Title V Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, (SIP) submitted on July 1, 2014 and
Operating Permit Program revision 1999); October 24, 2014. These revisions
consists of amendments to • is not an economically significant primarily update the adoption by
Pennsylvania’s rules which establish regulatory action based on health or reference of Federal regulations and
annual emission fees under title V of the safety risks subject to Executive Order definitions into the Alaska SIP. The
CAA. This rulemaking proposes 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); revisions also clarify stationary source
approval of the increase to the annual • is not a significant regulatory action permitting rules governing owner-
title V fees paid by the owner or subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR requested emission limits and revise the
operator of a title V facility from $57.50 28355, May 22, 2001); SIP to reflect the redesignation of the
per ton of regulated air pollutant to $85 • is not subject to requirements of Eagle River area of Anchorage. Upon
per ton because the revision meets Section 12(d) of the National final action, the Alaska SIP will be
requirements in 40 CFR 70.9 for Technology Transfer and Advancement updated to reflect recent Federal
sufficient title V fees to cover permit Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because regulatory changes and actions.
program costs. The emission fees apply application of those requirements would DATES: Comments must be received on
to emissions up to 4,000 tons of any be inconsistent with the CAA; and or before April 17, 2015.
regulated pollutant. The proposed • does not provide EPA with the ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
revision does not establish a fee discretionary authority to address, as identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
structure for carbon dioxide or other appropriate, disproportionate human OAR–2014–0532, by any of the
greenhouse gases (GHGs). EPA’s rules health or environmental effects, using following methods:
do not mandate revisions to state title V practicable and legally permissible • www.regulations.gov: Follow the
programs to account for GHG emissions. methods, under Executive Order 12898 on-line instructions for submitting
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). comments.
IV. Proposed Action In addition, this proposed rule related • Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10,
Pursuant to 40 CFR 70.4(i)(2), EPA is to Pennsylvania title V fees does not Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT–
proposing to approve the Pennsylvania have tribal implications as specified by 150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900,
Title V Operating Program revision Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, Seattle WA, 98101.
submitted on February 11, 2014 to November 9, 2000), because the program • Email: R10-Public_Comments@
increase the annual title V fees paid by is not approved to apply in Indian epa.gov.
the owners or operators of all title V country located in the state, and EPA • Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10
facilities throughout Pennsylvania, notes that it will not impose substantial Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:03 Mar 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM 18MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_14090/page/1.svg)
![14040 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules
previous action addressing revisions to regulations at this juncture, before the permits.2 If all obligations for major new
the State PSD program (proposed May 5, D.C. Circuit has addressed these issues source construction permitting cannot
2014, 79 FR 25533; finalized September and before the EPA has revised its be avoided by requesting an emission
19, 2014, 79 FR 56268). regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21. limit on the source, then the owner or
ADEC also excluded from its However, the EPA is evaluating PSD operator may not apply for an owner
submittals the greenhouse gas (GHG) program submissions to assure that state requested limit (ORL) under 18 AAC
regulatory provision at 40 CFR programs correctly address GHGs, 50.225, but could instead request an
52.21(b)(49)(v) that was recently vacated consistent with the Supreme Court’s ORL in a permit issued under 18 AAC
by the Supreme Court and that is decision. Because ADEC has excluded 508 ‘‘Minor Permits Requested by the
adopted by reference in 18 AAC from its SIP submission the GHG Owner or Operator.’’ This provision
50.040(h)(4), effective October 6, 2013. Tailoring Rule provision that was allows an owner or operator to request
On June 3, 2010, the EPA revised vacated by the Supreme Court, that a minor permit from the department for
Federal PSD permitting rules addressing provision is not before the EPA for ‘‘establishing an owner requested limit
the application of the requirements to (ORL) to avoid one or more permit
action.
GHG emissions (GHG Tailoring Rule) classifications under AS 46.14.130 at a
(75 FR 31514). However, on June 23, For the reasons discussed above, we stationary source that will remain
2014, the Supreme Court, in Utility Air are proposing to determine that the subject to at least one permit
Regulatory Group v. Environmental updated incorporation by reference of classification. . .’’
Protection Agency,1 issued a decision Federal requirements in 18 AAC In the July 1, 2014, submittal ADEC
addressing the application of PSD 50.040(h) is consistent with CAA asserted that ‘‘there is no relaxation of
permitting requirements to GHG requirements for SIP-approved PSD the regulations, as the two types of
emissions. The Court said that the EPA permitting programs. ORLs allow the applicant to avoid
may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant We note that in both the July 1, 2014, permitting classifications depending on
for purposes of determining whether a and October 24, 2014, submittals, ADEC their particular situation.’’
source is a major source (or included changes to 18 AAC 50.040(i) We agree with ADEC that the
modification thereof) required to obtain provision at 18 AAC 50.225(b)(7) is
related to Alaska’s nonattainment new
a PSD permit. The Court also said that potentially confusing and contradictory
source review permitting program.
the EPA could continue to require that and that the repeal of that provision
These changes were previously
PSD permits, otherwise required based clarifies when each of the two
approved on January 7, 2015 (80 FR provisions authorizing owner-requested
on emissions of pollutants other than
832). limits (18 AAC 50.225 and 18 AAC
GHGs, contain limitations on GHG
emissions based on the application of C. 18 AAC 50.225—Owner-Requested 50.508) are applicable to owners and
best available control technology. In Limits operators of stationary sources seeking
order to act consistently with its an emission limit to avoid major
understanding of the Court’s decision The July 1, 2014, submittal included permitting obligations. We therefore
pending further judicial action before a revised version of 18 AAC 50.225 propose to approve the revision to 18
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District ‘‘Owner-Requested Limits,’’ effective AAC 50.225.
of Columbia to effectuate the decision, October 6, 2013, that removed D. 18 AAC 50.260—Guidelines for Best
the EPA is not continuing to apply the paragraph (b)(7). Paragraph (a) of 18 Available Retrofit Technology Under the
EPA regulations that would require that AAC 50.225 specifies that an owner- Regional Haze Rule
SIPs include permitting requirements requested limit under this provision
that the Supreme Court found may be requested ‘‘to avoid all In the July 1, 2014, submittal, ADEC
impermissible. Specifically, the EPA is permitting obligations under AS revised this provision to reference the
not applying the requirement that a 46.14.130 [Stationary sources requiring definition of fugitive emissions in 18
state’s SIP-approved PSD program permits].’’ Paragraph (b)(7) of 18 AAC AAC 50.990 ‘‘Definitions’’ rather than
require that sources obtain PSD permits 50.225 stated that, ‘‘if applying all limits the statutory definition in AS 46.14.990.
when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) The definition of ‘‘fugitive emissions’’ at
does not avoid all permit classifications
that the source emits or has the 18 AAC 50.990(40) states that the term
under AS 46.14 and this chapter, the
potential to emit above the major source has the meaning given in 40 CFR
owner or operator shall submit to the
thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a 51.166(b)(20) in the Federal PSD
department ‘‘a description, and if
significant emissions increase and a regulations. This definition is
necessary an application, for the
significant net emissions increase from approvable because the PSD definition
remaining classifications[.]’’ In the July of ‘‘fugitive emissions’’ in 40 CFR
a modification (e.g. 40 CFR 1, 2014, submittal, ADEC stated that in
51.166(b)(48)(v)). 51.166(b)(20) is identical to the
18 AAC 50.225, paragraph (b)(7) definition of the same term in 40 CFR
The EPA anticipates a need to revise
contradicts paragraph (a) and that the 51.301 ‘‘Definitions’’ for purposes of 40
Federal PSD rules in light of the
Supreme Court decision. In addition, repeal of (b)(7) merely clarifies the CFR part 51, subpart P ‘‘Protection of
the EPA anticipates that many states requirements for obtaining owner- Visibility.’’
will revise their existing SIP-approved requested limits. As explained by
ADEC, the State’s interpretation of 18 E. 18 AAC 50.502—Minor Permits for
PSD programs in light of the Supreme
Air Quality Protection
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Court’s decision. The timing and AAC 50.225 is that a source is only
content of subsequent EPA actions with eligible to apply for an owner-requested The October 24, 2014, submittal
respect to the EPA regulations is limit under 18 AAC 50.225 to avoid all revised 18 AAC 50.502 ‘‘Minor Permits
expected to be informed by additional stationary source permitting obligations for Air Quality Protection’’ to add
legal processes before the D.C. Circuit. under AS 46.14.130. AS 46.14.130
The EPA is not expecting states to have ‘‘Stationary sources requiring permits’’ 2 Because the SIP addresses section 110 in title I
is the Alaska statute requiring both title of the CAA, the permitting obligation an owner or
revised their existing PSD program operator may seek to avoid through the SIP-
I major new source construction permits approved rule at 18 AAC 50.225 is the obligation
1 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). and title V major source operating to obtain a major new source construction permit.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:03 Mar 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM 18MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_14090/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 52 / Wednesday, March 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 14041
paragraph (h)(5). This paragraph defines C of title I of the CAA. We note that this • is not a significant regulatory action
‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ for new action does not address the submitted subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
sources seeking minor permits under 18 revisions related to Alaska’s 28355, May 22, 2001);
AAC 50.502 by adopting by reference nonattainment NSR permitting program • is not subject to requirements of
the Federal definition of ‘‘regulated NSR because we approved those changes on Section 12(d) of the National
pollutant’’ at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50). This January 7, 2015 (80 FR 832). Technology Transfer and Advancement
is not a substantive change to Alaska’s Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
IV. Incorporation by Reference
minor NSR program because this it does not involve technical standards;
definition was previously included in In this rule, the EPA is proposing to and
18 AAC 50.900. include in a final rule regulatory text • does not provide the EPA with the
that includes incorporation by discretionary authority to address, as
F. 18 AAC 50.990—Definitions reference. In accordance with appropriate, disproportionate human
The July 1, 2014, submittal revised requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is health or environmental effects, using
the definition of ‘‘fugitive emissions’’ at proposing to incorporate by reference practicable and legally permissible
18 AAC 50.990(40) to have the meaning the provisions described above in methods, under Executive Order 12898
given in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(20), as Section III. Proposed Action. The EPA (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
revised as of July 1, 2012. The October has made, and will continue to make, In addition, the SIP is not approved
24, 2014, submittal repealed the these documents generally available to apply on any Indian reservation land
definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ electronically through or in any other area where the EPA or
at 18 AAC 50.990(92). This action does www.regulations.gov and/or in hard an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
not address these changes because we copy at the appropriate EPA office (see tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
previously approved them on January 7, the ADDRESSES section of this preamble Indian country, the rule does not have
2015 (80 FR 832). for more information). tribal implications as specified by
The July 1, 2014, submittal also Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
updated the citation date for the V. Statutory and Executive Order
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
incorporation by reference of the Reviews
substantial direct costs on tribal
Federal definition of ‘‘volatile organic Under the CAA, the Administrator is governments or preempt tribal law.
compound’’ (VOC). The submittal required to approve a SIP submission
revised 18 AAC 50.990(121) to define that complies with the provisions of the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
‘‘VOC’’ as the meaning given in 40 CFR CAA and applicable Federal regulations. Environmental protection, Air
51,100(s) as of April 18, 2013. We note 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). pollution control, Incorporation by
that the Federal definition has been Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the reference, Intergovernmental relations,
revised since April 18, 2013. EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Particulate matter, Reporting and
Specifically, on October 22, 2013, the provided that they meet the criteria of recordkeeping requirements.
EPA removed constituents from the the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
definition of VOC (78 FR 62451). While action merely approves state law as
the definition in Alaska’s rule is not meeting Federal requirements and does Dated: March 6, 2015.
identical to the Federal definition, the not impose additional requirements Dennis J. McLerran,
Alaska definition is more stringent and beyond those imposed by state law. For Regional Administrator, Region 10.
therefore approvable. that reason, this proposed action: [FR Doc. 2015–06216 Filed 3–17–15; 8:45 am]
III. Proposed Action • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
action’’ subject to review by the Office
The EPA is proposing to approve and of Management and Budget under
incorporate by reference into the Alaska Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SIP changes to the following provisions October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, AGENCY
submitted on July 1, 2014 and October January 21, 2011);
24, 2014: 40 CFR Part 52
• does not impose an information
• 18 AAC 50.015 ‘‘Air Quality collection burden under the provisions [EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0884; FRL–9924–55–
Designations, Classifications, and of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Region 3]
Control Regions’’ (State effective 10/6/ U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
2013); Approval and Promulgation of Air
• 18 AAC 50.040 ‘‘Federal Standards • is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a Quality Implementation Plans;
Adopted by Reference’’ (State effective Maryland; Determination of Attainment
10/6/2013); substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 of the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National
• 18 AAC 50.225 ‘‘Owner-Requested Ambient Air Quality Standard for the
Limits’’ (State effective 10/6/2013); U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded Baltimore, Maryland Moderate
• 18 AAC 50.260 ‘‘Guidelines for Best Nonattainment Area
Available Retrofit Technology under the mandate or significantly or uniquely
Regional Haze Rule’’ (State effective 10/ affect small governments, as described AGENCY: Environmental Protection
6/2013); in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Agency (EPA).
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
• 18 AAC 50.502 ‘‘Minor Permits for of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); ACTION: Proposed rule.
Air Quality Protection’’ (State effective • does not have Federalism
11/9/2014); and implications as specified in Executive SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
• 18 AAC 50.990 ‘‘Definitions’’ (State Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Agency (EPA) is proposing to make a
effective 11/9/2014). 1999); determination that the Baltimore,
We have made the preliminary • is not an economically significant Maryland Moderate Nonattainment Area
determination that the submitted SIP regulatory action based on health or (Baltimore Area) has attained the 2008
revisions are approvable because they safety risks subject to Executive Order 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
are consistent with section 110 and part 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Quality Standard (NAAQS). This
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:03 Mar 17, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MRP1.SGM 18MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_14090/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-21 09:39:48
Document Modified: 2018-02-21 09:39:48
| 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 April 17, 2015. | |
| Contact | Kristin Hall at telephone number: | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 14038 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Particulate Matter and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR