81 FR 1141 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting Requirements
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 6 (January 11, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 6 (January 11, 2016)
| Page Range | 1141-1144 | |
| FR Document | 2015-33098 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 1141-1144] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-33098] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0783; FRL-9940-79-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting Requirements AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal that are now inconsistent with federal laws due to intervening decisions by the United States Courts and EPA rulemaking. This submittal establishes Minor New Source Review permitting requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and includes Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting provisions for sources that are classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a PSD permit, based solely on their potential GHG emissions. The PSD permitting provisions also require a PSD permit for modifications of otherwise major sources because they increased only GHG above applicable levels. Additionally, we are proposing to disapprove severable portions of SIP submittals for the States of Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing the EPA's July 20, 2011 rule deferring PSD requirements for carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources (``Biomass Deferral''). We are proposing to disapprove the provisions adopting the Biomass Deferral because the deferral has expired, so the provisions are no longer consistent with federal laws. The EPA is proposing this disapproval under section 110 and part C of the Act. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 10, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR- 2015-0783, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665-2115, [email protected]. For 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. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665-2115, [email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214- 665-7253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. I. Background A. The February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP Submittal On February 6, 2012, Oklahoma submitted revisions to the Oklahoma permitting programs for approval by the EPA into the Oklahoma SIP, including new Minor New Source Review (NSR) permitting requirements for GHG emissions at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program at OAC 252:100-8-31 (the definition of ``subject to regulation'') to require PSD permits for sources solely because of GHG emissions. In addition, the submittal included many other updates to the Oklahoma SIP, unrelated to GHG permitting, which the EPA is addressing in separate actions. However, today's action only addresses the provisions for GHG permitting that are inconsistent with federal laws. B. The November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP Submittal On November 6, 2012, Arkansas submitted revisions to the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission's Regulations, Chapters 2, 4 and 9 for approval by the EPA into the Arkansas SIP. The EPA finalized our approval of the submitted revisions to the Arkansas PSD program at Regulation 19, Chapter 9 that provide the State of Arkansas with the authority to issue PSD permits governing GHG emissions on April 2, 2013, at 63 FR 19596. The EPA finalized approval of the other parts of the submittal on March 4, 2015, with the exception of the severable components of the submittal at Regulation 19, Chapter 4 specific to the Arkansas Minor NSR program, and the severable portion of the definition of ``CO2 Equivalent Emissions'' implementing the Biomass Deferral at Regulation 19, Chapter 2. Today's action only addresses the severable portion of the definition of ``CO2 Equivalent Emissions'' at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 submitted on November 6, 2012. The EPA will address the revisions to the Arkansas Minor NSR program at Regulation 19, Chapter 4 in a separate action, at a later date. C. The January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP Submittal On January 8, 2013, New Mexico submitted regulations specific to the New Mexico PSD permitting program for approval by the EPA into the New Mexico SIP. The EPA finalized approval of a portion of this submittal pertaining to plantwide applicability limits for GHGs on December 11, 2013, at 78 FR 75253. The submittal also included revisions to the PSD permitting provisions that were adopted on January 7, 2013, at 20.2.74 NMAC to defer the application of the PSD requirements to CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources consistent with the Biomass Deferral. The revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC to adopt the Biomass [[Page 1142]] Deferral that are the subject of today's rulemaking are the only portions of the submittal remaining before the EPA for review and approval. D. The January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP Submittal On January 18, 2013, Oklahoma submitted revisions to the Oklahoma regulations for approval by the EPA into the Oklahoma SIP that included provisions in the general definitions at OAC 252:100-1-3 and OAC 252:100-8-31 to defer the application of the PSD requirements to biogenic CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary sources that are the subject of today's rulemaking. The submittal also included many other updates to the Oklahoma SIP which the EPA is addressing in separate actions. II. The EPA's Evaluation A. Oklahoma SIP Submission Addressing Permitting of GHG Emissions in Oklahoma On February 6, 2012, the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality submitted a revision to the Oklahoma SIP that included, among other things, provisions to regulate the emissions of GHGs in construction permitting programs. The revisions to the Oklahoma Minor Source Permitting Program at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 establish a mechanism for sources in Oklahoma to take enforceable emissions limitations on GHGs to avoid becoming a major source for GHG emissions under the Oklahoma PSD program. The revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program at OAC 252:100-8-31 adopted a new definition of ``subject to regulation'' to identify when emissions of GHGs would be regulated under the PSD program. The revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program submitted were consistent with the EPA's June 3, 2010, final rule ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (75 FR 31514) (hereafter referred to as the ``Tailoring Rule''). The Tailoring Rule phased in permitting requirements for GHG emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD and title V permitting programs. In Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, the EPA limited application of PSD and title V requirements to sources of GHG emissions only if they were subject to PSD or title V ``anyway'' due to their emissions of pollutants other than GHGs. These sources are referred to as ``anyway sources.'' In Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, the PSD and title V permitting requirements under the CAA applied to some sources that were classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a permit, based solely on their GHG emissions or potential to emit GHGs, and to modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD permit because they increased only GHG emissions above the level in the EPA regulations. We generally describe the sources covered by PSD during Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule as ``Step 2 sources.'' On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, addressing the application of PSD and title V permitting requirements to GHG emissions. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source is a major source (or a modification thereof) and thus required to obtain a PSD or title V 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 (BACT). With respect to PSD, the ruling effectively upheld PSD permitting requirements for GHG emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ``anyway sources,'' and invalidated PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the DC Circuit) issued an Amended Judgment vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that rule. With respect to Step 2 sources, the DC Circuit's amended judgment ordered that the EPA regulations under review (including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated ``to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a modification.'' The EPA promulgated a final rule on August 19, 2015, removing the PSD permitting provisions for Step 2 sources from the federal regulations that the DC Circuit specifically identified as vacated (40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v)). Consistent with our August 19, 2015 final rule, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the submitted revisions at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 and OAC 252:100-8-31 that pertain to the minor source permitting of GHGs and the PSD permitting of Step 2 sources. B. SIP Submissions Addressing the GHG Biomass Deferral in Arkansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma On July 20, 2011, the EPA finalized a rulemaking entitled ``Deferral for CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs''. (76 FR 43490) (``Biomass Deferral''). This rule deferred (for three years) the applicability of PSD and title V requirements CO2 emissions from biogenic sources.\1\ On July 12, 2013, the DC Circuit, in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 401, vacated the provisions of the Biomass Deferral. Due to a series of extension requests and rehearing proceedings, the court did not issue its mandate making the vacatur effective until August 10, 2015. However, the Biomass Deferral expired by its own terms on July 21, 2014. For both reasons, the Biomass Deferral is no longer applicable under federal laws. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Emissions of CO2 from a stationary source directly resulting from the combustion or decomposition of biologically-based materials other than fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon (e.g., calcium carbonate) and biologically-based material (nonfossilized and biodegradable organic material originating from plants, animals or micro-organisms [including products, by-products, residues and waste from agriculture, forestry and related industries as well as the nonfossilized and biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and municipal wastes, including gases and liquids recovered from the decomposition of non- fossilized and biodegradable organic material]). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our analysis, available in our Technical Support Document in the rulemaking docket, finds that the States of Arkansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma each adopted and submitted as revisions to their respective SIPs, provisions that were substantively consistent with the requirements of the EPA's now-expired Biomass Deferral. However, because the deferral expired on July 21, 2014, and the court issued its mandate, these provisions are no longer available for use under federal PSD regulations and should not be approved into a state's PSD SIP. For that reason, we are proposing to disapprove these provisions. C. Evaluation of the Submitted Revisions Under Section 110 of the CAA The EPA has an obligation under section 110 of the CAA to act on submitted SIP revisions unless these revisions are withdrawn by the State. Because these provisions have not yet been withdrawn from our consideration, the EPA has a duty to act on the [[Page 1143]] submitted provisions pertaining to the PSD permitting of Step 2 sources in the Oklahoma SIP and the provisions incorporating the now-expired Biomass Deferral into the Arkansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma SIPs. Our proposed action today will disapprove these provisions because the provisions are no longer valid under federal law or consistent with federal regulations; as such, our action today will not undermine the respective SIPs, PSD programs, or any other requirement of the CAA. III. Proposed Action We are proposing to disapprove severable portions of the February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP submittal establishing GHG permitting requirements for minor sources and Step 2 PSD sources. The EPA has made the preliminary determination that these revisions to the Oklahoma SIP should be disapproved because they establish permitting requirements that are inconsistent with federal laws. Therefore, under section 110 and part C of the Act, and for the reasons presented above, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the following revisions:Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP establishing Minor NSR GHG permitting requirements at OAC 252:100-7-2.1 as submitted on February 6, 2012; and Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program in OAC 252:100-8-31 establishing PSD permitting requirements for Step 2 sources at paragraph (E) of the definition of ``subject to regulation'' as submitted on February 6, 2012. We are also proposing to disapprove severable portions of the November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP submittal, the January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP, and the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP submittal that include the Biomass Deferral in the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma PSD programs. The EPA has made the preliminary determination that these revisions to the Arkansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma SIPs should be disapproved because the Biomass Deferral has expired and adoption or implementation of these provisions is no longer consistent with federal regulations for PSD permitting. Therefore, under section 110 and part C of the Act, and for the reasons presented above, the EPA is proposing to disapprove the following revisions: Substantive revisions to the Arkansas SIP definition of ``CO 2 Equivalent Emissions'' at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 to implement the Biomass Deferral as submitted on November 6, 2012; andSubstantive revisions to the New Mexico SIP definition of ``Subject to Regulation'' at 20.2.74.7 (AZ)(2)(a) NMAC to implement the Biomass Deferral as submitted on January 8, 2013. Substantive revisions to the Oklahoma SIP definitions of ``carbon dioxide equivalent emissions'' at OAC 252:100-1-3 and ``subject to regulation'' at OAC 252:100-8-31 as submitted on January 18, 2013. The EPA is proposing to disapprove the revisions listed because the submitted provisions are no longer consistent with federal laws. There will be no sanctions or punitive measures taken as a result of our finalization of this proposed disapproval. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting Federal requirements for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. There is no burden imposed under the PRA because this action proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small entities. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small governments. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action proposes to disapprove provisions of state law that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions; there are no requirements or responsibilities added or removed from Indian Tribal Governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. [[Page 1144]] I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 17, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 2015-33098 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1141
located in the state, and EPA notes that longer consistent with federal laws. The EPA into the Oklahoma SIP, including
it will not impose substantial direct EPA is proposing this disapproval under new Minor New Source Review (NSR)
costs on tribal governments or preempt section 110 and part C of the Act. permitting requirements for GHG
tribal law. DATES: Written comments must be emissions at OAC 252:100–7–2.1 and
received on or before February 10, 2016. revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
at OAC 252:100–8–31 (the definition of
Environmental protection, Air ‘‘subject to regulation’’) to require PSD
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
pollution control, Incorporation by permits for sources solely because of
OAR–2015–0783, at http://
reference, Lead. GHG emissions. In addition, the
www.regulations.gov or via email to
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. submittal included many other updates
wiley.adina@epa.gov. Follow the online
to the Oklahoma SIP, unrelated to GHG
Dated: December 21, 2015. instructions for submitting comments.
permitting, which the EPA is addressing
Shawn M. Garvin, Once submitted, comments cannot be
in separate actions. However, today’s
Regional Administrator, Region III. edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
action only addresses the provisions for
The EPA may publish any comment
[FR Doc. 2015–33303 Filed 1–8–16; 8:45 am] GHG permitting that are inconsistent
received to its public docket. Do not
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P with federal laws.
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential B. The November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Business Information (CBI) or other Submittal
AGENCY information whose disclosure is On November 6, 2012, Arkansas
restricted by statute. Multimedia submitted revisions to the Arkansas
40 CFR Part 52 submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be Pollution Control and Ecology
accompanied by a written comment. Commission’s Regulations, Chapters 2, 4
[EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0783; FRL–9940–79–
The written comment is considered the and 9 for approval by the EPA into the
Region 6]
official comment and should include Arkansas SIP. The EPA finalized our
Approval and Promulgation of discussion of all points you wish to approval of the submitted revisions to
Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New make. The EPA will generally not the Arkansas PSD program at Regulation
Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of consider comments or comment 19, Chapter 9 that provide the State of
Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, contents located outside of the primary Arkansas with the authority to issue
Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or PSD permits governing GHG emissions
Requirements other file sharing system). For on April 2, 2013, at 63 FR 19596. The
additional submission methods, please EPA finalized approval of the other
AGENCY: Environmental Protection contact Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665– parts of the submittal on March 4, 2015,
Agency (EPA). 2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. For the full with the exception of the severable
ACTION: Proposed rule. EPA public comment policy, components of the submittal at
information about CBI or multimedia Regulation 19, Chapter 4 specific to the
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection submissions, and general guidance on Arkansas Minor NSR program, and the
Agency (EPA) is proposing to making effective comments, please visit severable portion of the definition of
disapprove severable portions of the http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ ‘‘CO2 Equivalent Emissions’’
February 6, 2012 Oklahoma State commenting-epa-dockets. implementing the Biomass Deferral at
Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal Docket: The index to the docket for Regulation 19, Chapter 2. Today’s action
that are now inconsistent with federal this action is available electronically at only addresses the severable portion of
laws due to intervening decisions by the www.regulations.gov and in hard copy the definition of ‘‘CO2 Equivalent
United States Courts and EPA at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Emissions’’ at Regulation 19, Chapter 2
rulemaking. This submittal establishes Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all submitted on November 6, 2012. The
Minor New Source Review permitting documents in the docket are listed in EPA will address the revisions to the
requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) the index, some information may be Arkansas Minor NSR program at
emissions and includes Prevention of publicly available only at the hard copy Regulation 19, Chapter 4 in a separate
Significant Deterioration (PSD) location (e.g., copyrighted material), and action, at a later date.
permitting provisions for sources that some may not be publicly available at
are classified as major, and, thus, C. The January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP
either location (e.g., CBI).
required to obtain a PSD permit, based Submittal
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
solely on their potential GHG emissions. Adina Wiley, (214) 665–2115, On January 8, 2013, New Mexico
The PSD permitting provisions also wiley.adina@epa.gov. To inspect the submitted regulations specific to the
require a PSD permit for modifications hard copy materials, please schedule an New Mexico PSD permitting program
of otherwise major sources because they appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or for approval by the EPA into the New
increased only GHG above applicable Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. Mexico SIP. The EPA finalized approval
levels. Additionally, we are proposing of a portion of this submittal pertaining
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
to disapprove severable portions of SIP to plantwide applicability limits for
submittals for the States of Arkansas, Throughout this document wherever GHGs on December 11, 2013, at 78 FR
New Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 75253. The submittal also included
the EPA.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the EPA’s July 20, 2011 rule deferring revisions to the PSD permitting
PSD requirements for carbon dioxide I. Background provisions that were adopted on January
(CO2) emissions from bioenergy and 7, 2013, at 20.2.74 NMAC to defer the
other biogenic sources (‘‘Biomass A. The February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP application of the PSD requirements to
Deferral’’). We are proposing to Submittal CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other
disapprove the provisions adopting the On February 6, 2012, Oklahoma biogenic stationary sources consistent
Biomass Deferral because the deferral submitted revisions to the Oklahoma with the Biomass Deferral. The revisions
has expired, so the provisions are no permitting programs for approval by the to 20.2.74 NMAC to adopt the Biomass
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:27 Jan 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_1147/page/1.svg)
![1142 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Deferral that are the subject of today’s some sources that were classified as revisions at OAC 252:100–7–2.1 and
rulemaking are the only portions of the major, and, thus, required to obtain a OAC 252:100–8–31 that pertain to the
submittal remaining before the EPA for permit, based solely on their GHG minor source permitting of GHGs and
review and approval. emissions or potential to emit GHGs, the PSD permitting of Step 2 sources.
and to modifications of otherwise major
D. The January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP B. SIP Submissions Addressing the GHG
sources that required a PSD permit
Submittal Biomass Deferral in Arkansas, New
because they increased only GHG
On January 18, 2013, Oklahoma Mexico and Oklahoma
emissions above the level in the EPA
submitted revisions to the Oklahoma regulations. We generally describe the On July 20, 2011, the EPA finalized a
regulations for approval by the EPA into sources covered by PSD during Step 2 rulemaking entitled ‘‘Deferral for CO2
the Oklahoma SIP that included of the Tailoring Rule as ‘‘Step 2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other
provisions in the general definitions at sources.’’ Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention
OAC 252:100–1–3 and OAC 252:100–8– On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
31 to defer the application of the PSD Court issued a decision in Utility Air Title V Programs’’. (76 FR 43490)
requirements to biogenic CO2 emissions Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 (‘‘Biomass Deferral’’). This rule deferred
from bioenergy and other biogenic S. Ct. 2427, addressing the application (for three years) the applicability of PSD
stationary sources that are the subject of of PSD and title V permitting and title V requirements CO2 emissions
today’s rulemaking. The submittal also requirements to GHG emissions. The from biogenic sources.1 On July 12,
included many other updates to the U.S. Supreme Court held that the EPA 2013, the DC Circuit, in Center for
Oklahoma SIP which the EPA is may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d
addressing in separate actions. for the specific purpose of determining 401, vacated the provisions of the
whether a source is a major source (or Biomass Deferral. Due to a series of
II. The EPA’s Evaluation a modification thereof) and thus extension requests and rehearing
A. Oklahoma SIP Submission required to obtain a PSD or title V proceedings, the court did not issue its
Addressing Permitting of GHG permit. The Court also said that the EPA mandate making the vacatur effective
Emissions in Oklahoma could continue to require that PSD until August 10, 2015. However, the
permits, otherwise required based on Biomass Deferral expired by its own
On February 6, 2012, the Oklahoma emissions of pollutants other than terms on July 21, 2014. For both
Department of Environmental Quality GHGs, contain limitations on GHG reasons, the Biomass Deferral is no
submitted a revision to the Oklahoma emissions based on the application of longer applicable under federal laws.
SIP that included, among other things, Best Available Control Technology Our analysis, available in our
provisions to regulate the emissions of (BACT). With respect to PSD, the ruling Technical Support Document in the
GHGs in construction permitting effectively upheld PSD permitting rulemaking docket, finds that the States
programs. The revisions to the requirements for GHG emissions under of Arkansas, New Mexico and
Oklahoma Minor Source Permitting Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ‘‘anyway Oklahoma each adopted and submitted
Program at OAC 252:100–7–2.1 sources,’’ and invalidated PSD as revisions to their respective SIPs,
establish a mechanism for sources in permitting requirements for Step 2 provisions that were substantively
Oklahoma to take enforceable emissions sources. consistent with the requirements of the
limitations on GHGs to avoid becoming In accordance with the Supreme EPA’s now-expired Biomass Deferral.
a major source for GHG emissions under Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the However, because the deferral expired
the Oklahoma PSD program. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of on July 21, 2014, and the court issued
revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program Columbia Circuit (the DC Circuit) issued its mandate, these provisions are no
at OAC 252:100–8–31 adopted a new an Amended Judgment vacating the longer available for use under federal
definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ to regulations that implemented Step 2 of PSD regulations and should not be
identify when emissions of GHGs would the Tailoring Rule, but not the approved into a state’s PSD SIP. For that
be regulated under the PSD program. regulations that implement Step 1 of reason, we are proposing to disapprove
The revisions to the Oklahoma PSD that rule. With respect to Step 2 sources, these provisions.
program submitted were consistent with the DC Circuit’s amended judgment
the EPA’s June 3, 2010, final rule C. Evaluation of the Submitted
ordered that the EPA regulations under Revisions Under Section 110 of the CAA
‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration review (including 40 CFR
and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR The EPA has an obligation under
Rule’’ (75 FR 31514) (hereafter referred 52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated ‘‘to the section 110 of the CAA to act on
to as the ‘‘Tailoring Rule’’). extent they require a stationary source submitted SIP revisions unless these
The Tailoring Rule phased in to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse revisions are withdrawn by the State.
permitting requirements for GHG gases are the only pollutant (i) that the Because these provisions have not yet
emissions from stationary sources under source emits or has the potential to emit been withdrawn from our consideration,
the CAA PSD and title V permitting above the applicable major source the EPA has a duty to act on the
programs. In Step 1 of the Tailoring thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a
1 Emissions of CO from a stationary source
Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, significant emissions increase from a 2
directly resulting from the combustion or
the EPA limited application of PSD and modification.’’ decomposition of biologically-based materials other
title V requirements to sources of GHG The EPA promulgated a final rule on than fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon (e.g.,
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
emissions only if they were subject to August 19, 2015, removing the PSD calcium carbonate) and biologically-based material
PSD or title V ‘‘anyway’’ due to their permitting provisions for Step 2 sources (nonfossilized and biodegradable organic material
originating from plants, animals or micro-organisms
emissions of pollutants other than from the federal regulations that the DC [including products, by-products, residues and
GHGs. These sources are referred to as Circuit specifically identified as vacated waste from agriculture, forestry and related
‘‘anyway sources.’’ In Step 2 of the (40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and industries as well as the nonfossilized and
biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and
Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 52.21(b)(49)(v)). Consistent with our municipal wastes, including gases and liquids
2011, the PSD and title V permitting August 19, 2015 final rule, the EPA is recovered from the decomposition of non-fossilized
requirements under the CAA applied to proposing to disapprove the submitted and biodegradable organic material]).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:27 Jan 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_1147/page/2.svg)
![1144 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules
I. National Technology Transfer and EPA is proposing to determine that the If you send an email comment directly
Advancement Act (NTTAA) Atlanta Area is continuing to attain the to EPA without going through
This rulemaking does not involve 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS; to approve www.regulations.gov, your email
technical standards. Georgia’s plan for maintaining the 1997 address will be automatically captured
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Atlanta and included as part of the comment
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Area (maintenance plan), including the that is placed in the public docket and
Actions To Address Environmental associated motor vehicle emission made available on the Internet. If you
Justice in Minority Populations and budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides submit an electronic comment, EPA
Low-Income Populations (NOX) and PM2.5 for the year 2024, into recommends that you include your
The EPA believes the human health or Georgia’s SIP; and to redesignate the name and other contact information in
environmental risk addressed by this Atlanta Area to attainment for the 1997 the body of your comment and with any
action will not have potential Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
disproportionately high and adverse notifying the public of the status of cannot read your comment due to
human health or environmental effects EPA’s adequacy determination for the technical difficulties and cannot contact
on minority, low-income or indigenous Atlanta Area. you for clarification, EPA may not be
populations. This action is not subject DATES: Comments must be received on able to consider your comment.
to Executive Order 12898 because it or before February 1, 2016. Electronic files should avoid the use of
disapproves state permitting provisions special characters, any form of
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
that are inconsistent with federal laws encryption, and be free of any defects or
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
for the regulation and permitting of viruses. For additional information
OAR–2013–0084, by one of the
GHG emissions. about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
following methods: Docket Center homepage at http://
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
on-line instructions for submitting Docket: All documents in the
Environmental protection, Air comments.
pollution control, Incorporation by electronic docket are listed in the
2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov. www.regulations.gov index. Although
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
Particulate matter, Reporting and listed in the index, some information
4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0084,
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur may not be publicly available, i.e., CBI
Air Regulatory Management Section, Air
oxides, Volatile organic compounds. or other information whose disclosure is
Planning and Implementation Branch,
restricted by statute. Certain other
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
material, such as copyrighted material,
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Dated: December 17, 2015. is not placed on the Internet and will be
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street
Ron Curry, publicly available only in hard copy
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
Regional Administrator, Region 6. form. Publicly available docket
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms.
[FR Doc. 2015–33098 Filed 1–8–16; 8:45 am] materials are available either
Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Management Section, Air Planning and
in hard copy at the Air Regulatory
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
Management Section, Air Planning and
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
Environmental Protection Agency,
AGENCY and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
deliveries are only accepted during the
[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0084; FRL–9940–88–
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA
Regional Office’s normal hours of
Region 4] requests that if at all possible, you
operation. The Regional Office’s official
contact the person listed in the FOR
hours of business are Monday through
Air Plan Approval and Air Quality FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Designation; GA; Redesignation of the schedule your inspection. The Regional
Federal holidays.
Atlanta, GA, 1997 Annual PM2.5 Office’s official hours of business are
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Nonattainment Area to Attainment Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013–
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection 0084. EPA policy is that all comments
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel
Agency (EPA). received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be Huey, Air Planning and Implementation
ACTION: Proposed rule. Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
made available online at
SUMMARY: On August 30, 2012, the www.regulations.gov, including any Management Division, U.S.
Georgia Department of Natural personal information provided, unless Environmental Protection Agency,
Resources, through the Georgia the comment includes information Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Environmental Protection Division (GA claimed to be Confidential Business Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Joel Huey
EPD), submitted a request for the Information (CBI) or other information may be reached by phone at (404) 562–
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 9104 or via electronic mail at huey.joel@
to redesignate the Atlanta, Georgia, fine Do not submit through epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment www.regulations.gov or email,
area (hereafter referred to as the information that you consider to be CBI Table of Contents
‘‘Atlanta Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to attainment or otherwise protected. The
for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 national www.regulations.gov Web site is an I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to
take?
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which II. What is the background for EPA’s
and to approve a state implementation means EPA will not know your identity proposed actions?
plan (SIP) revision containing a or contact information unless you III. What are the criteria for redesignation?
maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area. provide it in the body of your comment. IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions?
VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:27 Jan 08, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11JAP1.SGM 11JAP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_1147/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-01-16 01:05:45
Document Modified: 2016-01-16 01:05:45
| 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 | Written comments must be received on or before February 10, 2016. | |
| Contact | Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665-2115, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214- 665-7253. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 1141 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR