81 FR 95074 - Approval and Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Mendocino County Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 248 (December 27, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 248 (December 27, 2016)
| Page Range | 95074-95078 | |
| FR Document | 2016-31028 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 95074-95078] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-31028] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0726; FRL-9957-12-Region 9] Approval and Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; Mendocino County Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action on four permitting rules submitted as a revision to the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (``MCAQMD'' or ``the District'') portion of the applicable state implementation plan (SIP) for the State of California pursuant to requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). We are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of one rule and we are proposing to approve the remaining three permitting rules. The submitted revisions include amended rules governing the issuance of permits for stationary sources, including review and permitting of minor sources, and major sources and major modifications under part C of title I of the Act. The intended effect of these proposed actions is to update the applicable SIP with current MCAQMD permitting rules and to set the stage for remedying certain deficiencies in these rules. If finalized as proposed, the limited disapproval actions would trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the specific New Source Review (NSR) program deficiencies unless California submits and we approve SIP revisions that correct the deficiencies within two years of the final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 26, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA- R09-OAR-2016-0726 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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 the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit [[Page 95075]] http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, by phone: (415) 972- 3534 or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. Which rules did the State submit? B. What are the existing MCAQMD rules governing stationary source permits in the California SIP? C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule? II. EPA's Evaluation A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? 1. Minor Source Permits 2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 3. Nonattainment New Source Review 4. Section 110(l) of the Act 5. Conclusion III. Proposed Action and Public Comment IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State's Submittal A. Which rules did the State submit? On November 15, 2016, California submitted amended regulations to EPA for approval as revisions to the MCAQMD portion of the California SIP under the Clean Air Act. Collectively, the submitted regulations comprise the District's current program for preconstruction review and permitting of new or modified stationary sources. This SIP revision submittal, referred to herein as the ``SIP submittal'' or ``submitted rules,'' represents a significant update to the District's preconstruction review and permitting program and is intended to satisfy the requirements under part C (prevention of significant deterioration) (PSD) of title I of the Act as well as the general preconstruction review requirements for minor sources under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act (minor NSR). Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by the District and submitted to the EPA by the California Air Resources Board, which is the governor's designee for California SIP submittals. Table 1--Submitted NSR Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-130................................... Definitions..................... 9/20/16 11/15/16 1-200................................... Permit Requirements............. 9/20/16 11/15/16 1-220................................... New Source Review Standards 9/20/16 11/15/16 (Including PSD Evaluations). 1-230................................... Action on Applications.......... 9/20/16 11/15/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The rule submittals were determined to meet the completeness criteria 40 CFR part 51, appendix V on December 5, 2016. A completeness finding must be made before formal EPA review. Each of these submittals includes evidence of public notice and adoption of the regulation. Our technical support document (TSD) provides additional background information on each of the submitted rules. B. What are the existing MCAQMD rules governing stationary source permits in the California SIP? Table 2 lists the rules that make up the existing SIP-approved rules for new or modified stationary sources in MCAQMD. All of these rules would be replaced or deleted from the SIP if EPA takes final action on the proposed approval of the submitted set of rules listed in Table 1. Table 2--Existing SIP Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Register Rule No. Rule title SIP Approval date citation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 130..................................... Definitions..................... 5/6/11 76 FR 26192. 200..................................... Permit Requirements............. 4/12/89 54 FR 14650. 220..................................... New Source Review Standards..... 7/31/85 50 FR 30942. 230..................................... Action on Applications.......... 7/31/85 50 FR 30942. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule? The purpose of this proposed rule is to present our evaluation under the CAA and the EPA's regulations of the submitted rules adopted by the District as identified in Table 1. We provide our reasoning in general terms below but provide more detailed analysis in our TSD, which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. II. EPA's Evaluation A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? EPA has reviewed the rules submitted by MCAQMD governing PSD and minor NSR for stationary sources for compliance with the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA's regulations for stationary source permitting programs in 40 CFR part 51, sections 51.160 through 51.164 and 51.166, and the CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section 110(l).\1\ As described below, EPA is proposing a combination of actions consisting of limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 220 (New Source Review); full approval of Rules 130 (Definitions), 200 (Permit Requirements), and 230 (Action on Applications). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be subject to reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal by States to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public process documentation included in the various submittals, we find that MCAQMD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public [[Page 95076]] hearings prior to adoption and submittal of these rules to EPA. With respect to substantive requirements, we have evaluated each submitted rule in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements that apply to: (1) General preconstruction review programs for minor sources under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.160-164, and (2) PSD permit programs under part C of title I of the Act and 40 CFR 51.166. For the most part, the submitted rules satisfy the applicable requirements for these permit programs and would strengthen the applicable SIP by updating the regulations and adding requirements to address new or revised PSD permitting requirements promulgated by EPA in the last several years; however, the submitted rules also contain specific deficiencies which prevent full approval of Rule 220. Below, we discuss generally our evaluation of MCAQMD's submitted rules and the deficiencies that are the basis for our proposed action on these rules. Our TSD contains a more detailed evaluation and recommendations for program improvements. 1. Minor Source Permits Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires that each SIP include a program to provide for ``regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D'' of title I of the Act. Thus, in addition to the permit programs required in parts C and D of title I of the Act, which apply to new or modified ``major'' stationary sources of pollutants, each SIP must include a program to provide for the regulation of the construction and modification of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are achieved. These general pre-construction requirements are commonly referred to as ``minor'' or ``general'' NSR and are subject to EPA's implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.160- 51.164. Rules 130--Definitions, 200--Permit Requirements, 220--New Source Review Standards, and 230--Action on Applications, contain the requirements for review and permitting of individual minor stationary sources in MCAQMD. These rules satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements for minor NSR programs. The changes the District made to the rules listed above as they pertain to the minor source program were largely administrative in nature and provide additional clarity to the rules. 2. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Part C of title I of the Act contains the provisions for the prevention of significant deterioration of air quality in areas designated ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable'' for the NAAQS, including preconstruction permit requirements for new major sources or major modifications proposing to construct in such areas. EPA's regulations for PSD permit programs are found in 40 CFR 51.166. MCAQMD is currently designated as ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable/ attainment'' for all NAAQS pollutants. The submitted rules contain the requirements for review and permitting of minor and PSD sources in MCAQMD. The rules satisfy most of the statutory and regulatory requirements for PSD permit programs, but Rule 220 also contains some minor deficiencies that form the basis for our proposed limited disapproval, as discussed below. First, Rule 220 does not contain any provisions specifying that required air quality modeling shall be based on the applicable models, databases, and other requirements specified in Part 51 Appendix W, as required by 40 CFR 51.160(f) and 51.166(f). Provisions pertaining to modeling requirements must also specify the requirements for using any alternative models. To correct the deficiency, the District should add the required modeling provisions to Rule 220. Second, Rule 220 does not contain any provisions to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(2) that require permit programs to include specific language providing that if ``. . . a particular source or modification becomes a major stationary source or major modification solely by virtue of a relaxation in any enforceable limitation which was established after August 7, 1980, on the capacity of the source or modification otherwise to emit a pollutant, such as a restriction on hours of operation, then the requirements . . . '' of the PSD program shall apply to the source or modification as though construction had not yet commenced on the source or modification. This deficiency can be corrected by adding the language found in 40 CFR 51.166(r)(2). Compared to the existing SIP approved PSD program in Rule 220 (approved July 31, 1985), however, submitted Rule 220 represents an overall strengthening of the District's PSD program, in large part because the rule includes updated PSD provisions to regulate new or modified major stationary sources of PM2.5 emissions, which are unregulated under the existing SIP PSD program. Because submitted Rule 220 strengthens the SIP, we are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval based on the deficiencies listed above. 3. Nonattainment New Source Review The CAA defines ``nonattainment areas'' as air quality planning areas that exceed the primary or secondary NAAQS for the given criteria pollutant. The MCAQMD is not designated nonattainment for any NAAQS. Because the MCAQMD is not currently classified nonattainment for any NAAQS, we are not evaluating the submitted rules for approval under 40 CFR 51.165, which contains the requirements for nonattainment NSR programs. 4. Section 110(l) of the Act Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving a revision of a plan if the revision would ``interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any other applicable requirement of [the Act].'' MCAQMD is currently designated attainment or unclassifiable/ attainment for all NAAQS pollutants. We are unaware of any reliance by the District on the continuation of any aspect of the permit-related rules in the MCAQMD portion of the California SIP for the purpose of continued attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Our approval of the MCAQMD SIP submittal would strengthen the applicable SIP. Therefore, we find that this SIP revision represents a strengthening of MCAQMD's minor NSR and PSD programs compared to the existing SIP rules that we previously approved, and that our approval of the SIP submittal would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Given all these considerations and in light of the air quality improvements in MCAQMD, we propose that our approval of these updated NSR regulations into the California SIP would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act. 5. Conclusion For the reasons stated above and explained further in our TSD, we find that the submitted rules satisfy most of the applicable CAA and regulatory [[Page 95077]] requirements for the District's minor NSR and PSD permit programs under CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and part C of title I of the Act. However, Rule 220 contains certain deficiencies that prevent us from proposing a full approval and we are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of this rule. We do so based on our finding that, while these rules do not meet all of the applicable requirements, the rules represent an overall strengthening of the SIP by clarifying and enhancing the permitting requirements for major and minor stationary sources in MCAQMD. We are proposing a full approval of Rules 130, 200, and 230. Our TSD, which is available in the docket for today's action, contains additional information on this rulemaking. III. Proposed Action and Public Comment Pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA and for the reasons provided above, EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 220, and approval of the remaining revisions to the MCAQMD portion of the California SIP that governs the issuance of permits for stationary sources under the jurisdiction of MCAQMD, including review and permitting of major sources and major modifications under part C of title I of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is proposing an action on MCAQMD rules listed in Table 1, above, as a revision to the MCAQMD portion of the California SIP. EPA is proposing this action because, although we find that the new and amended rules meet most of the applicable requirements for such permit programs and that the SIP revisions improve the existing SIP, we have found certain deficiencies that prevent full approval of Rule 220, as explained further in this preamble and in the TSD for this rulemaking. The intended effect of the proposed approval and limited approval and limited disapproval portions of this action is to update the applicable SIP with current MCAQMD permitting regulations \2\ and to set the stage for remedying deficiencies in these regulations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Final approval of the rules in Table 1 would supersede all of the rules in the existing California SIP as listed in Table 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, on April 1, 2016 (81 FR 18766), EPA partially disapproved California's 110(a)(2) ``Infrastructure'' SIP Submittal for multiple NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards with respect to Mendocino County AQMD because it did not include requirements for a baseline date for PSD increments for PM2.5 . If we finalize our proposed action, this SIP deficiency pertaining to the PSD-related requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) will be remedied, resulting in fully approved infrastructure SIPs for those NAAQS with respect to Mendocino County AQMD. If finalized as proposed, the limited disapproval of Rule 220 would trigger an obligation for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan unless the State of California corrects the deficiencies, and EPA approves the related plan revisions, within two years of the final action. We will accept comments from the public on both the proposed full approval and the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days. IV. Incorporation by Reference In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA 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 MCAQMD rules as described in Table 1 of this notice. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX (Air-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 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 because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 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 beyond those imposed by state law. 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. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action. 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: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because 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, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. 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 does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 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 95078]] I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: December 9, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2016-31028 Filed 12-23-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![95074 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Objective 9 could rely on a historical their comments.27 All information and revision to the Mendocino County Air
review of the allocation of institutional comments provided, whether filed Quality Management District
costs between market dominant and through the Commission’s filing system (‘‘MCAQMD’’ or ‘‘the District’’) portion
competitive products. The measurement or sent by mail, will be made available of the applicable state implementation
of this objective could also include a on the Commission’s Web site (http:// plan (SIP) for the State of California
review of any action the Commission www.prc.gov). pursuant to requirements under the
takes to analyze the competitive Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). We are
products’ minimum contribution to Commission appoints Richard A. Oliver proposing a limited approval and
institutional costs. to represent the interests of the general limited disapproval of one rule and we
public (Public Representative) in this are proposing to approve the remaining
V. Notice of Commission Action
proceeding. three permitting rules. The submitted
Using this framework of potential revisions include amended rules
definitions and measurement methods, VI. Ordering Paragraphs
governing the issuance of permits for
the Commission establishes Docket No. It is ordered: stationary sources, including review and
RM2017–3 to begin its review of the 1. The Commission establishes Docket permitting of minor sources, and major
market dominant ratemaking system. No. RM2017–3 to initiate the review of sources and major modifications under
The Commission invites comments from the market dominant ratemaking system part C of title I of the Act. The intended
interested persons regarding the process as required by 39 U.S.C. 3622. effect of these proposed actions is to
and structure of the review, as well as 2. Comments regarding the process update the applicable SIP with current
whether the current system is achieving and structure of the review, as well as MCAQMD permitting rules and to set
the objectives, taking into account the whether the current system is achieving the stage for remedying certain
factors. In particular, the Commission the objectives, while taking into account deficiencies in these rules. If finalized
invites comments in response to the the factors, and if not, whether and what as proposed, the limited disapproval
following questions: modifications to the system or an actions would trigger an obligation for
1. Is the framework proposed by the alternative system should be adopted as EPA to promulgate a Federal
Commission appropriate for the review? necessary to achieve the objectives, are
a. For each objective, is the Implementation Plan (FIP) for the
due no later than March 20, 2017. specific New Source Review (NSR)
preliminary definition reasonable? If 3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Richard
not, please suggest alternative program deficiencies unless California
A. Oliver is appointed to serve as an submits and we approve SIP revisions
definitions. officer of the Commission (Public
b. For each objective, are the potential that correct the deficiencies within two
Representative) to represent the years of the final action.
metrics for measuring the achievement interests of the general public in this
of the objective reasonable? If not, proceeding. DATES: Any comments must arrive by
please suggest alternative metrics for 4. The Secretary shall arrange for January 26, 2017.
measuring whether the objective is publication of this order in the Federal
being achieved. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
Register.
2. If the proposed framework is not identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
By the Commission. R09–OAR–2016–0726 at http://
appropriate for the review, please
identify the framework that should be Stacy L. Ruble, www.regulations.gov, or via email to
used for the review and describe how to Secretary. r9airpermits@epa.gov. For comments
measure the achievement of the [FR Doc. 2016–31052 Filed 12–23–16; 8:45 am] submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
objectives in that alternative framework. BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P online instructions for submitting
3. Based on the Commission’s comments. Once submitted, comments
proposed framework or an alternative cannot be edited or removed from
framework provided in response to ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Regulations.gov. For either manner of
question 2, is the current system AGENCY submission, the EPA may publish any
achieving each objective, while taking comment received to its public docket.
into account the factors? Please note 40 CFR Part 52 Do not submit electronically any
that review of the system shall be information you consider to be
[EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0726; FRL–9957–12–
limited to section 3622 as discussed in Region 9]
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
section II above. or other information whose disclosure is
4. If the system is not achieving the Approval and Limited Approval and restricted by statute. Multimedia
objectives, while taking into account the Limited Disapproval of Air Quality submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
factors, what modifications to the Implementation Plans; California; accompanied by a written comment.
system should be made, or what Mendocino County Air Quality The written comment is considered the
alternative system should be adopted, to Management District; Stationary official comment and should include
achieve the objectives? Source Permits discussion of all points you wish to
Comments are due no later than make. The EPA will generally not
March 20, 2017. No reply comments AGENCY: Environmental Protection consider comments or comment
will be accepted. Commission Agency (EPA). contents located outside of the primary
regulations require that comments be ACTION: Proposed rule. submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
filed online according to the process other file sharing system). For
outlined at 39 CFR 3001.9(a). Additional SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection additional submission methods, please
information regarding how to submit Agency (EPA) is proposing action on contact the person identified in the FOR
comments online can be found at: four permitting rules submitted as a FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
http://www.prc.gov/how-to-participate. 27 Filers who choose to mail in their comments
For the full EPA public comment policy,
However, given the unique nature of should be mindful of possible delays given the
information about CBI or multimedia
this docket, the Commission will waive irradiation process for mail delivered to the submissions, and general guidance on
these requirements for filers who mail Commission. making effective comments, please visit
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Dec 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM 27DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_95322/page/1.svg)
![95076 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules
hearings prior to adoption and submittal pertain to the minor source program PSD program, in large part because the
of these rules to EPA. were largely administrative in nature rule includes updated PSD provisions to
With respect to substantive and provide additional clarity to the regulate new or modified major
requirements, we have evaluated each rules. stationary sources of PM2.5 emissions,
submitted rule in accordance with the which are unregulated under the
CAA and regulatory requirements that 2. Prevention of Significant
existing SIP PSD program. Because
apply to: (1) General preconstruction Deterioration
submitted Rule 220 strengthens the SIP,
review programs for minor sources Part C of title I of the Act contains the we are proposing a limited approval and
under section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act provisions for the prevention of limited disapproval based on the
and 40 CFR 51.160–164, and (2) PSD significant deterioration of air quality in deficiencies listed above.
permit programs under part C of title I areas designated ‘‘attainment’’ or
of the Act and 40 CFR 51.166. For the ‘‘unclassifiable’’ for the NAAQS, 3. Nonattainment New Source Review
most part, the submitted rules satisfy including preconstruction permit The CAA defines ‘‘nonattainment
the applicable requirements for these requirements for new major sources or areas’’ as air quality planning areas that
permit programs and would strengthen major modifications proposing to exceed the primary or secondary
the applicable SIP by updating the construct in such areas. EPA’s NAAQS for the given criteria pollutant.
regulations and adding requirements to regulations for PSD permit programs are The MCAQMD is not designated
address new or revised PSD permitting found in 40 CFR 51.166. MCAQMD is nonattainment for any NAAQS. Because
requirements promulgated by EPA in currently designated as ‘‘attainment’’ or the MCAQMD is not currently classified
the last several years; however, the ‘‘unclassifiable/attainment’’ for all nonattainment for any NAAQS, we are
submitted rules also contain specific NAAQS pollutants. not evaluating the submitted rules for
deficiencies which prevent full approval The submitted rules contain the approval under 40 CFR 51.165, which
of Rule 220. Below, we discuss requirements for review and permitting contains the requirements for
generally our evaluation of MCAQMD’s of minor and PSD sources in MCAQMD. nonattainment NSR programs.
submitted rules and the deficiencies The rules satisfy most of the statutory
that are the basis for our proposed and regulatory requirements for PSD 4. Section 110(l) of the Act
action on these rules. Our TSD contains permit programs, but Rule 220 also Section 110(l) prohibits EPA from
a more detailed evaluation and contains some minor deficiencies that approving a revision of a plan if the
recommendations for program form the basis for our proposed limited revision would ‘‘interfere with any
improvements. disapproval, as discussed below. applicable requirement concerning
First, Rule 220 does not contain any attainment and reasonable further
1. Minor Source Permits provisions specifying that required air progress . . . or any other applicable
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act quality modeling shall be based on the requirement of [the Act].’’
requires that each SIP include a program applicable models, databases, and other MCAQMD is currently designated
to provide for ‘‘regulation of the requirements specified in Part 51 attainment or unclassifiable/attainment
modification and construction of any Appendix W, as required by 40 CFR for all NAAQS pollutants. We are
stationary source within the areas 51.160(f) and 51.166(f). Provisions unaware of any reliance by the District
covered by the plan as necessary to pertaining to modeling requirements on the continuation of any aspect of the
assure that national ambient air quality must also specify the requirements for permit-related rules in the MCAQMD
standards are achieved, including a using any alternative models. To correct portion of the California SIP for the
permit program as required in parts C the deficiency, the District should add purpose of continued attainment or
and D’’ of title I of the Act. Thus, in the required modeling provisions to maintenance of the NAAQS. Our
addition to the permit programs Rule 220. approval of the MCAQMD SIP submittal
required in parts C and D of title I of the Second, Rule 220 does not contain would strengthen the applicable SIP.
Act, which apply to new or modified any provisions to satisfy the Therefore, we find that this SIP revision
‘‘major’’ stationary sources of pollutants, requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(r)(2) that represents a strengthening of
each SIP must include a program to require permit programs to include MCAQMD’s minor NSR and PSD
provide for the regulation of the specific language providing that if ‘‘. . . programs compared to the existing SIP
construction and modification of any a particular source or modification rules that we previously approved, and
stationary source within the areas becomes a major stationary source or that our approval of the SIP submittal
covered by the plan as necessary to major modification solely by virtue of a would not interfere with any applicable
assure that the national ambient air relaxation in any enforceable limitation requirement concerning attainment or
quality standards (NAAQS) are which was established after August 7, any other applicable requirement of the
achieved. These general pre- 1980, on the capacity of the source or Act.
construction requirements are modification otherwise to emit a Given all these considerations and in
commonly referred to as ‘‘minor’’ or pollutant, such as a restriction on hours light of the air quality improvements in
‘‘general’’ NSR and are subject to EPA’s of operation, then the requirements MCAQMD, we propose that our
implementing regulations in 40 CFR . . . ’’ of the PSD program shall apply approval of these updated NSR
51.160–51.164. to the source or modification as though regulations into the California SIP
Rules 130—Definitions, 200—Permit construction had not yet commenced on would not interfere with any applicable
Requirements, 220—New Source Review the source or modification. This requirement concerning attainment or
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Standards, and 230—Action on deficiency can be corrected by adding any other applicable requirement of the
Applications, contain the requirements the language found in 40 CFR Act.
for review and permitting of individual 51.166(r)(2).
minor stationary sources in MCAQMD. Compared to the existing SIP 5. Conclusion
These rules satisfy the statutory and approved PSD program in Rule 220 For the reasons stated above and
regulatory requirements for minor NSR (approved July 31, 1985), however, explained further in our TSD, we find
programs. The changes the District submitted Rule 220 represents an that the submitted rules satisfy most of
made to the rules listed above as they overall strengthening of the District’s the applicable CAA and regulatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:09 Dec 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM 27DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_95322/page/3.svg)
![95078 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2016 / Proposed Rules
I. National Technology Transfer and facilities, Brandon Shores and H.A. demonstrate compliance with system-
Advancement Act (NTTAA) Wagner, owned by Raven Power. EPA is wide emissions standards through the
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs proposing to approve this revision in use of an averaging plan.
the EPA to use voluntary consensus accordance with the requirements of the
II. Summary of SIP Revision
standards in its regulatory activities Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be On July 28, 2016, the State of
unless to do so would be inconsistent Maryland through the Maryland
with applicable law or otherwise received on or before January 26, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
Department of the Environment (MDE)
impractical. The EPA believes that this submitted to EPA a SIP revision
action is not subject to the requirements identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03–
OAR–2016–0562 at http:// submittal consisting of a Consent
of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because Agreement between MDE and Raven
application of those requirements would www.regulations.gov, or via email to
pino.maria@epa.gov. For comments Power establishing an inter-facility
be inconsistent with the CAA. averaging plan for NOX emissions at two
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal electric generating facilities, Brandon
online instructions for submitting
Actions To Address Environmental Shores and H.A. Wagner, collectively
comments. Once submitted, comments
Justice in Minority Populations and called Fort Smallwood. Both facilities
cannot be edited or removed from
Low-Income Population are owned by Raven Power. MDE
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
requests that this new Consent
The EPA lacks the discretionary submission, EPA may publish any
Agreement and NOX averaging plan
authority to address environmental comment received to its public docket.
replace the Consent Order and NOX
justice in this rulemaking. Do not submit electronically any
averaging plan previously approved into
information you consider to be
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 the Maryland SIP on February 27, 2002
confidential business information (CBI)
Environmental protection, Air (67 FR 8897).
or other information whose disclosure is The Consent Agreement between
pollution control, Incorporation by restricted by statute. Multimedia MDE and Raven Power allows Raven
reference, Intergovernmental relations, submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be Power to use system-wide emissions
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate accompanied by a written comment. averaging to comply with the applicable
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping The written comment is considered the NOX limits for six boiler units (Brandon
requirements. official comment and should include Shores units 1 and 2 and H.A. Wagner
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. discussion of all points you wish to units 1 through 4) subject to COMAR
make. EPA will generally not consider 26.11.09.08. Pursuant to the new
Dated: December 9, 2016.
comments or comment contents located Consent Agreement, Raven Power is
Alexis Strauss,
outside of the primary submission (i.e., required to calculate mass emissions
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
[FR Doc. 2016–31028 Filed 12–23–16; 8:45 am]
from the affected units on a daily basis,
system). For additional submission determine compliance with the
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P methods, please contact the person averaging plan using continuous
identified in the FOR FURTHER emissions monitors (CEMs), and to
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION submit quarterly reports to both MDE
full EPA public comment policy, and EPA. In the Consent Agreement,
AGENCY information about CBI or multimedia Raven Power agreed that if it fails to
submissions, and general guidance on comply with the NOX averaging plan, all
40 CFR Part 52
making effective comments, please visit sources at Brandon Shores and Wagner
[EPA–R03–OAR–2016–0562; FRL–9957–25– http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ remain subject to the unit-specific
Region 3] commenting-epa-dockets. emission limits of COMAR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 26.11.09.08.C (shown in Table 1) and
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by must demonstrate compliance through
Quality Implementation Plans;
email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. the requirements found in COMAR
Maryland; 2016 Nitrogen Oxides
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 26.11.09.08.B(2). The aggregate mass
Averaging Plan Consent Agreement
With Raven Power I. Background emissions from all units at Brandon
Shores and Wagner, under the NOX
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Maryland’s COMAR 26.11.09.08— averaging plan, must be less than the
Agency (EPA). Control of NOX Emissions for Major mass emissions that would otherwise
ACTION: Proposed rule. Stationary Sources—was approved into occur if each unit were subject to the
Maryland’s SIP pursuant to section 182 applicable NOX emissions limit of
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection of the CAA. This regulation established COMAR 26.11.09.08.C.
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a NOX emission limits for the 1-hour
revision to the Maryland state ozone national ambient air quality TABLE 1—NOX EMISSION LIMITS FOR
implementation plan (SIP). Maryland standard (NAAQS) for specific types of FORT SMALLWOOD
has submitted for inclusion in the SIP boilers and other fuel-burning
a Consent Agreement between Maryland equipment. Specifically, COMAR [as per COMAR 26.11.09.08.C]
and Raven Power concerning an inter- 26.11.09.08.C(2) established maximum
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Limit
facility averaging plan for emissions of NOX emission rates as pounds (lbs) of Facility Unit (lbs/MMBtu)
nitrogen oxides (NOX) at facilities NOX per million British thermal units
located in Maryland and owned by (MMBtu) per hour, ranging from 0.45 Brandon Shores .... 1 0.5
Raven Power. The Consent Agreement lbs/MMBtu to 0.80 lbs/MMBtu, 2 0.5
allows Raven Power to use system-wide depending on the type of combustion H.A. Wagner ......... 1 0.3
emissions averaging to comply with the unit. COMAR 26.11.09.08 also contains 2 0.5
3 0.5
applicable NOX emission limits for six a provision that allows an owner or 4 0.3
units located at two electric generating operator of more than one unit to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:01 Dec 23, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\27DEP1.SGM 27DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_95322/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-14 09:13:21
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 09:13:21
| 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 | Any comments must arrive by January 26, 2017. | |
| Contact | Laura Yannayon, by phone: (415) 972- 3534 or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 95074 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR