Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Deferral for CO2, 23178-23181 [2012-9339]
Download as PDF
23178
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
additional days of the due date for
initial comments.
VI. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. Docket No. RM2012–4 is
established for the purpose of receiving
comments in advance of developing
regulations regarding new rules of
procedure for evaluating requests for
advisory opinions under 39 U.S.C. 3661.
2. Interested parties may submit
comments no later than 60 days from
the date of publication of this notice in
the Federal Register.
3. Reply comments may be filed no
later than 30 days from the due date for
initial comments.
4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Patricia
Gallagher is appointed to serve as an
officer of the Commission (Public
Representative) to represent the
interests of the general public in this
proceeding.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this document in the
Federal Register.
By the Commission.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–9300 Filed 4–17–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0169; FRL–9660–7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Deferral for CO2 Emissions From
Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources
Under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ) on December 14, 2011. This
revision proposes to defer until July 21,
2014 the application of the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permitting requirements to biogenic
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from
bioenergy and other biogenic stationary
sources in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before May 18, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Apr 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
R03–OAR–2012–0169 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Email: cox.kathleen@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0169,
Ms. Kathleen Cox, Associate Director,
Office of Permits and Air Toxics,
Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012–
0169. 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 whose
disclosure 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 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
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 whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business
hours at the Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by
email at talley.david@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. On December 14, 2011, VADEQ
submitted a revision to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to maintain
consistency with Federal greenhouse
gas (GHG) permitting requirements
under the PSD program.
I. Background
A. The Tailoring Rule
On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2,
2010), EPA promulgated a final
rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the
purpose of relieving overwhelming
permitting burdens from the regulation
of GHG’s that would, in the absence of
the rule, fall on permitting authorities
and sources (75 FR 31514). EPA
accomplished this by tailoring the
applicability criteria that determine
which GHG emission sources become
subject to the PSD program of the CAA.
In particular, EPA established in the
Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach for
PSD applicability and established the
first two steps of the phase-in for the
largest GHG-emitters.
For the first step of the Tailoring Rule,
which began on January 2, 2011, PSD
requirements apply to major stationary
source GHG emissions only if the
sources are subject to PSD anyway due
to their emissions of non-GHG
pollutants. Therefore, in the first step,
EPA did not require sources or
modifications to evaluate whether they
are subject to PSD requirements solely
on account of their GHG emissions.
Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires
that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable
requirements of PSD, most noticeably
the best available control technology
(BACT) requirement as defined in CAA
section 169(3), apply to projects that
increase net GHG emissions by at least
75,000 tons per year (tpy) of CO2
equivalent (CO2e), but only if the project
also significantly increases emissions of
at least one non-GHG pollutant. CO2e is
a metric used to compare the emissions
from various greenhouse gases based
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
upon their global warming potential
(GWP). The CO2e for a gas is determined
by multiplying the mass of the gas by
the associated GWP. The applicable
GWP’s and guidance on how to
calculate a source’s GHG emissions in
tpy CO2e can be found in EPA’s
‘‘Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks,’’ which is updated
annually under existing commitment
under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC).
The second step of the Tailoring Rule,
which began on July 1, 2011, phased in
additional large sources of GHG
emissions. New sources that emit, or
have the potential to emit (PTE), at least
100,000 tpy CO2e are subject to the PSD
requirements. In addition, sources that
emit or have the PTE at least 100,000
tpy CO2e and that undertake a
modification that increases net GHG
emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e
are also be subject to PSD requirements.
For both steps, EPA noted that if sources
or modifications exceed these CO2eadjusted GHG triggers, they are not
covered by permitting requirements
unless their GHG emissions also exceed
the corresponding mass-based triggers
in tpy.
Virginia adopted the regulations at
9VAC5 chapter 85 (9VAC5–85) to
incorporate the Tailoring Rule
thresholds and submitted them to EPA
for approval in to the SIP. The Tailoring
Rule and the regulations at 9VAC5–85
address both PSD and Title V
requirements. However, only the PSD
regulations were submitted to EPA for
incorporation into the SIP. On May 13,
2011, EPA took final action to approve
that SIP revision (76 FR 27898).
B. EPA’s Biomass Deferral Rule
On July 20, 2011, EPA promulgated
the final ‘‘Deferral for CO2 Emissions
from Bioenergy and other Biogenic
Sources Under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title
V Programs’’ (Biomass Deferral).
Following is a brief discussion of the
deferral. For a full discussion of EPA’s
rationale for the rule, see the notice of
final rulemaking at 76 FR 43490.
The biomass deferral delays until July
21, 2014 the consideration of CO2
emissions from bioenergy and other
biogenic sources (hereinafter referred to
as ‘‘biogenic CO2 emissions’’) when
determining whether a stationary source
meets the PSD and Title V applicability
thresholds, including those for the
application of BACT.1 Stationary
1 As with the Tailoring Rule, the Biomass Deferral
addresses both PSD and Title V requirements.
However, EPA is only taking action on Virginia’s
PSD program as part of this action.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Apr 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
sources that combust biomass (or
otherwise emit biogenic CO2 emissions)
and construct or modify during the
deferral period will avoid the
application of PSD to the biogenic CO2
emissions resulting from those actions.
The deferral applies only to biogenic
CO2 emissions and does not affect nonGHG pollutants or other GHG’s (e.g.,
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O))
emitted from the combustion of biomass
fuel. Also, the deferral only pertains to
biogenic CO2 emissions in the PSD and
Title V programs and does not pertain
to any other EPA programs such as the
GHG Reporting Program. Biogenic CO2
emissions are defined as 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. Examples of
‘‘biogenic CO2 emissions’’ include, but
are not limited to:
• CO2 generated from the biological
decomposition of waste in landfills,
wastewater treatment or manure
management processes;
• CO2 from the combustion of biogas
collected from biological decomposition
of waste in landfills, wastewater
treatment or manure management
processes;
• CO2 from fermentation during
ethanol production or other industrial
fermentation processes;
• CO2 from combustion of the
biological fraction of municipal solid
waste or biosolids;
• CO2 from combustion of the
biological fraction of tire-derived fuel;
and
• CO2 derived from combustion of
biological material, including all types
of wood and wood waste, forest residue,
and agricultural material.
EPA recognizes that use of certain
types of biomass can be part of the
national strategy to reduce dependence
on fossil fuels. Efforts are underway at
the Federal, state and regional level to
foster the expansion of renewable
resources and promote bioenergy
projects when they are a way to address
climate change, increase domestic
alternative energy production, enhance
forest management and create related
employment opportunities. We believe
part of fostering this development is to
ensure that those feedstocks with
negligible net atmospheric impact not
be subject to unnecessary regulation. At
the same time, it is important that EPA
have time to conduct its detailed
examination of the science and
technical issues related to accounting
for biogenic CO2 emissions and
therefore have finalized this deferral.
The deferral is intended to be a
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
23179
temporary measure, in effect for no
more than three years, to allow the
Agency time to complete its work and
determine what, if any, treatment of
biogenic CO2 emissions should be in the
PSD and Title V programs. The biomass
deferral rule is not EPA’s final
determination on the treatment of
biogenic CO2 emissions in those
programs. The Agency plans to
complete its science and technical
review and any follow-on rulemakings
within the three-year deferral period
and further believes that three years is
ample time to complete these tasks. It is
possible that the subsequent
rulemaking, depending on the nature of
EPA’s determinations, would supersede
the biomass deferral rulemaking and
become effective in fewer than three
years. In that event, Virginia may revise
its SIP accordingly.
For stationary sources co-firing fossil
fuel and biologically-based fuel, and/or
combusting mixed fuels (e.g., tire
derived fuels, municipal solid waste
(MSW)), the biogenic CO2 emissions
from that combustion are included in
the biomass deferral. However, the fossil
CO2 emissions are not. Emissions of CO2
from processing of mineral feedstocks
(e.g., calcium carbonate) are also not
included in the deferral. Various
methods are available to calculate both
the biogenic and fossil portions of CO2
emissions, including those methods
contained in the GHG Reporting
Program (40 CFR Part 98). Consistent
with the other pollutants in PSD and
Title V, there are no requirements to use
a particular method in determining
biogenic and fossil CO2 emissions.
EPA’s final biomass deferral rule is an
interim deferral for biogenic CO2
emissions only and does not relieve
sources of the obligation to meet the
PSD and Title V permitting
requirements for other pollutant
emissions that are otherwise applicable
to the source during the deferral period
or that may be applicable to the source
at a future date pending the results of
EPA’s study and subsequent rulemaking
action. This means, for example, that if
the deferral is applicable to biogenic
CO2 emissions from a particular source
during the three-year effective period
and the study and future rulemaking do
not provide for a permanent exemption
from PSD and Title V permitting
requirements for the biogenic CO2
emissions from a source with particular
characteristics, then the deferral would
end for that type of source and its
biogenic CO2 emissions would have to
be appropriately considered in any
applicability determinations that the
source may need to conduct for future
stationary source permitting purposes,
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
23180
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
consistent with that subsequent
rulemaking and the Final Tailoring Rule
(e.g., a major source determination for
Title V purposes or a major modification
determination for PSD purposes). EPA
also wishes to clarify that we did not
require that a PSD permit issued during
the deferral period be amended or that
any PSD requirements in a PSD permit
existing at the time the deferral took
effect, such as BACT limitations, be
revised or removed from an effective
PSD permit for any reason related to the
deferral or when the deferral period
expires.
Section 52.21(w) of 40 CFR requires
that any PSD permit shall remain in
effect, unless and until it expires or it
is rescinded, under the limited
conditions specified in that provision.
Thus, a PSD permit that is issued to a
source while the deferral was effective
need not be reopened or amended if the
source is no longer eligible to exclude
its biogenic CO2 emissions from PSD
applicability after the deferral expires.
However, if such a source undertakes a
modification that could potentially
require a PSD permit and the source is
not eligible to continue excluding its
biogenic CO2 emissions after the
deferral expires, the source will need to
consider its biogenic CO2 emissions in
assessing whether it needs a PSD permit
to authorize the modification.
Any future actions to modify, shorten,
or make permanent the deferral for
biogenic sources are beyond the scope
of the biomass deferral action and this
proposed approval of the deferral into
the Virginia SIP, and will be addressed
through subsequent rulemaking. The
results of EPA’s review of the science
related to net atmospheric impacts of
biogenic CO2 and the framework to
properly account for such emissions in
Title V and PSD permitting programs
based on the study are prospective and
unknown. Thus, we are unable to
predict which biogenic CO2 sources, if
any, currently subject to the deferral as
incorporated into the Virginia SIP
would be subject to any permanent
exemptions or which currently deferred
sources would be potentially required to
account for their emissions in the future
rulemaking EPA has committed to
undertake for such purposes in three or
fewer years. Only in that rulemaking
can EPA address the question of
extending the deferral or putting in
place requirements that would have the
equivalent effect on sources covered by
the biomass deferral. Once that
rulemaking has occurred, Virginia may
address related revisions to its SIP.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Apr 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
II. Summary of SIP Revision
Similar to our approach with the
Tailoring Rule, EPA incorporated the
biomass deferral into the regulations
governing state programs and into the
Federal PSD program by amending the
definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’
under 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21
respectively. Virginia has adopted this
same approach. The proposed SIP
revision incorporates the Biomass
Deferral into Virginia’s PSD program by
amending the definition of ‘‘subject to
regulation’’ under 9VAC5–85–50(C).
The language adopted by Virginia
mirrors the language in the Federal
regulations. EPA last took action on
these provisions on May 13, 2011 (76 FR
27898). In addition to the incorporation
of the Biomass Deferral, the proposed
SIP revision makes a minor, clarifying
revision to 9VAC5–85–50(B).
III. General Information Pertaining to
SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation
that provides, subject to certain
conditions, for an environmental
assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for
voluntary compliance evaluations
performed by a regulated entity. The
legislation further addresses the relative
burden of proof for parties either
asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the
privilege is claimed. Virginia’s
legislation also provides, subject to
certain conditions, for a penalty waiver
for violations of environmental laws
when a regulated entity discovers such
violations pursuant to a voluntary
compliance evaluation and voluntarily
discloses such violations to the
Commonwealth and takes prompt and
appropriate measures to remedy the
violations. Virginia’s Voluntary
Environmental Assessment Privilege
Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides
a privilege that protects from disclosure
documents and information about the
content of those documents that are the
product of a voluntary environmental
assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1)
that are generated or developed before
the commencement of a voluntary
environmental assessment; (2) that are
prepared independently of the
assessment process; (3) that demonstrate
a clear, imminent and substantial
danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) that are required by
law.
On January 12, 1998, the
Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal
opinion that states that the Privilege
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes
granting a privilege to documents and
information ‘‘required by law,’’
including documents and information
‘‘required by Federal law to maintain
program delegation, authorization or
approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce
Federally authorized environmental
programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal
counterparts. * * *’’ The opinion
concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198,
therefore, documents or other
information needed for civil or criminal
enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged
because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing
enforcement in a manner required by
Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval.’’
Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code
Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the
extent consistent with requirements
imposed by Federal law,’’ any person
making a voluntary disclosure of
information to a state agency regarding
a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative
order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The
Attorney General’s January 12, 1998
opinion states that the quoted language
renders this statute inapplicable to
enforcement of any Federally authorized
programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be
afforded from administrative, civil, or
criminal penalties because granting
such immunity would not be consistent
with Federal law, which is one of the
criteria for immunity.’’
Therefore, EPA has determined that
Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity
statutes will not preclude the
Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD
program consistent with the Federal
requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state
audit privilege and immunity law can
affect only state enforcement and cannot
have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at
any time invoke its authority under the
CAA, including, for example, sections
113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the
requirements or prohibitions of the state
plan, independently of any state
enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the
CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or
any, state audit privilege or immunity
law.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA’s review of this material
indicates that it is consistent with
Federal regulations. EPA is proposing to
approve the Virginia SIP revision
incorporating the Biomass Deferral,
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 18, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
which was submitted on December 14,
2011. EPA is soliciting public comments
on this proposed approval of Virginia’s
SIP revision request. These comments
will be considered before taking final
action.
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,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (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
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule relating
to GHG permitting under Virginia’s PSD
program does not have tribal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:22 Apr 17, 2012
Jkt 226001
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse Gases, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 5, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Action Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012–9339 Filed 4–17–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2011–0809; FRL–9659–1]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Florida;
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
in part, conditionally approve, and
disapprove in part, the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission,
submitted by the State of Florida,
through the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) on
December 13, 2007, and supplemented
on April 18, 2008, to demonstrate that
the State meets the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997
8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA
requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which
is commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. DEP certified that
the Florida SIP contains provisions that
ensure the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
are implemented, enforced, and
maintained in Florida (hereafter referred
to as ‘‘infrastructure submission’’). EPA
is taking four related actions on DEP’s
infrastructure submission for Florida.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
23181
Written comments must be
received on or before May 18, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2011–0809, by one of the
following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2011–
0809,’’ Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.
5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae
Benjamin, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Regional Office’s normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2011–
0809. 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
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means 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 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, 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 EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\18APP1.SGM
18APP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23178-23181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9339]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0169; FRL-9660-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Deferral for CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and Other Biogenic
Sources Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ) on December 14, 2011. This revision proposes to defer until
July 21, 2014 the application of the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements to biogenic carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary
sources in the Commonwealth of Virginia. This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 18, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0169 by one of the following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
B. Email: cox.kathleen@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0169, Ms. Kathleen Cox, Associate
Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0169. 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 whose disclosure 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 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, 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
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Talley, (215) 814-2117, or
by email at talley.david@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. On December 14, 2011, VADEQ
submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) to maintain
consistency with Federal greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting requirements
under the PSD program.
I. Background
A. The Tailoring Rule
On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final
rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the purpose of relieving
overwhelming permitting burdens from the regulation of GHG's that
would, in the absence of the rule, fall on permitting authorities and
sources (75 FR 31514). EPA accomplished this by tailoring the
applicability criteria that determine which GHG emission sources become
subject to the PSD program of the CAA. In particular, EPA established
in the Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach for PSD applicability and
established the first two steps of the phase-in for the largest GHG-
emitters.
For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2,
2011, PSD requirements apply to major stationary source GHG emissions
only if the sources are subject to PSD anyway due to their emissions of
non-GHG pollutants. Therefore, in the first step, EPA did not require
sources or modifications to evaluate whether they are subject to PSD
requirements solely on account of their GHG emissions. Specifically,
for PSD, Step 1 requires that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable
requirements of PSD, most noticeably the best available control
technology (BACT) requirement as defined in CAA section 169(3), apply
to projects that increase net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tons per
year (tpy) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e), but only if
the project also significantly increases emissions of at least one non-
GHG pollutant. CO2e is a metric used to compare the
emissions from various greenhouse gases based
[[Page 23179]]
upon their global warming potential (GWP). The CO2e for a
gas is determined by multiplying the mass of the gas by the associated
GWP. The applicable GWP's and guidance on how to calculate a source's
GHG emissions in tpy CO2e can be found in EPA's ``Inventory
of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,'' which is updated annually
under existing commitment under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The second step of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011,
phased in additional large sources of GHG emissions. New sources that
emit, or have the potential to emit (PTE), at least 100,000 tpy
CO2e are subject to the PSD requirements. In addition,
sources that emit or have the PTE at least 100,000 tpy CO2e
and that undertake a modification that increases net GHG emissions by
at least 75,000 tpy CO2e are also be subject to PSD
requirements. For both steps, EPA noted that if sources or
modifications exceed these CO2e-adjusted GHG triggers, they
are not covered by permitting requirements unless their GHG emissions
also exceed the corresponding mass-based triggers in tpy.
Virginia adopted the regulations at 9VAC5 chapter 85 (9VAC5-85) to
incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds and submitted them to EPA for
approval in to the SIP. The Tailoring Rule and the regulations at
9VAC5-85 address both PSD and Title V requirements. However, only the
PSD regulations were submitted to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.
On May 13, 2011, EPA took final action to approve that SIP revision (76
FR 27898).
B. EPA's Biomass Deferral Rule
On July 20, 2011, EPA promulgated the final ``Deferral for
CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and other Biogenic Sources
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V
Programs'' (Biomass Deferral). Following is a brief discussion of the
deferral. For a full discussion of EPA's rationale for the rule, see
the notice of final rulemaking at 76 FR 43490.
The biomass deferral delays until July 21, 2014 the consideration
of CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic sources
(hereinafter referred to as ``biogenic CO2 emissions'') when
determining whether a stationary source meets the PSD and Title V
applicability thresholds, including those for the application of
BACT.\1\ Stationary sources that combust biomass (or otherwise emit
biogenic CO2 emissions) and construct or modify during the
deferral period will avoid the application of PSD to the biogenic
CO2 emissions resulting from those actions. The deferral
applies only to biogenic CO2 emissions and does not affect
non-GHG pollutants or other GHG's (e.g., methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O)) emitted from the combustion of biomass
fuel. Also, the deferral only pertains to biogenic CO2
emissions in the PSD and Title V programs and does not pertain to any
other EPA programs such as the GHG Reporting Program. Biogenic
CO2 emissions are defined as 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. Examples of ``biogenic CO2
emissions'' include, but are not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As with the Tailoring Rule, the Biomass Deferral addresses
both PSD and Title V requirements. However, EPA is only taking
action on Virginia's PSD program as part of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 generated from the biological decomposition
of waste in landfills, wastewater treatment or manure management
processes;
CO2 from the combustion of biogas collected
from biological decomposition of waste in landfills, wastewater
treatment or manure management processes;
CO2 from fermentation during ethanol production
or other industrial fermentation processes;
CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction
of municipal solid waste or biosolids;
CO2 from combustion of the biological fraction
of tire-derived fuel; and
CO2 derived from combustion of biological
material, including all types of wood and wood waste, forest residue,
and agricultural material.
EPA recognizes that use of certain types of biomass can be part of
the national strategy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Efforts are
underway at the Federal, state and regional level to foster the
expansion of renewable resources and promote bioenergy projects when
they are a way to address climate change, increase domestic alternative
energy production, enhance forest management and create related
employment opportunities. We believe part of fostering this development
is to ensure that those feedstocks with negligible net atmospheric
impact not be subject to unnecessary regulation. At the same time, it
is important that EPA have time to conduct its detailed examination of
the science and technical issues related to accounting for biogenic
CO2 emissions and therefore have finalized this deferral.
The deferral is intended to be a temporary measure, in effect for no
more than three years, to allow the Agency time to complete its work
and determine what, if any, treatment of biogenic CO2
emissions should be in the PSD and Title V programs. The biomass
deferral rule is not EPA's final determination on the treatment of
biogenic CO2 emissions in those programs. The Agency plans
to complete its science and technical review and any follow-on
rulemakings within the three-year deferral period and further believes
that three years is ample time to complete these tasks. It is possible
that the subsequent rulemaking, depending on the nature of EPA's
determinations, would supersede the biomass deferral rulemaking and
become effective in fewer than three years. In that event, Virginia may
revise its SIP accordingly.
For stationary sources co-firing fossil fuel and biologically-based
fuel, and/or combusting mixed fuels (e.g., tire derived fuels,
municipal solid waste (MSW)), the biogenic CO2 emissions
from that combustion are included in the biomass deferral. However, the
fossil CO2 emissions are not. Emissions of CO2
from processing of mineral feedstocks (e.g., calcium carbonate) are
also not included in the deferral. Various methods are available to
calculate both the biogenic and fossil portions of CO2
emissions, including those methods contained in the GHG Reporting
Program (40 CFR Part 98). Consistent with the other pollutants in PSD
and Title V, there are no requirements to use a particular method in
determining biogenic and fossil CO2 emissions.
EPA's final biomass deferral rule is an interim deferral for
biogenic CO2 emissions only and does not relieve sources of
the obligation to meet the PSD and Title V permitting requirements for
other pollutant emissions that are otherwise applicable to the source
during the deferral period or that may be applicable to the source at a
future date pending the results of EPA's study and subsequent
rulemaking action. This means, for example, that if the deferral is
applicable to biogenic CO2 emissions from a particular
source during the three-year effective period and the study and future
rulemaking do not provide for a permanent exemption from PSD and Title
V permitting requirements for the biogenic CO2 emissions
from a source with particular characteristics, then the deferral would
end for that type of source and its biogenic CO2 emissions
would have to be appropriately considered in any applicability
determinations that the source may need to conduct for future
stationary source permitting purposes,
[[Page 23180]]
consistent with that subsequent rulemaking and the Final Tailoring Rule
(e.g., a major source determination for Title V purposes or a major
modification determination for PSD purposes). EPA also wishes to
clarify that we did not require that a PSD permit issued during the
deferral period be amended or that any PSD requirements in a PSD permit
existing at the time the deferral took effect, such as BACT
limitations, be revised or removed from an effective PSD permit for any
reason related to the deferral or when the deferral period expires.
Section 52.21(w) of 40 CFR requires that any PSD permit shall
remain in effect, unless and until it expires or it is rescinded, under
the limited conditions specified in that provision. Thus, a PSD permit
that is issued to a source while the deferral was effective need not be
reopened or amended if the source is no longer eligible to exclude its
biogenic CO2 emissions from PSD applicability after the
deferral expires. However, if such a source undertakes a modification
that could potentially require a PSD permit and the source is not
eligible to continue excluding its biogenic CO2 emissions
after the deferral expires, the source will need to consider its
biogenic CO2 emissions in assessing whether it needs a PSD
permit to authorize the modification.
Any future actions to modify, shorten, or make permanent the
deferral for biogenic sources are beyond the scope of the biomass
deferral action and this proposed approval of the deferral into the
Virginia SIP, and will be addressed through subsequent rulemaking. The
results of EPA's review of the science related to net atmospheric
impacts of biogenic CO2 and the framework to properly
account for such emissions in Title V and PSD permitting programs based
on the study are prospective and unknown. Thus, we are unable to
predict which biogenic CO2 sources, if any, currently
subject to the deferral as incorporated into the Virginia SIP would be
subject to any permanent exemptions or which currently deferred sources
would be potentially required to account for their emissions in the
future rulemaking EPA has committed to undertake for such purposes in
three or fewer years. Only in that rulemaking can EPA address the
question of extending the deferral or putting in place requirements
that would have the equivalent effect on sources covered by the biomass
deferral. Once that rulemaking has occurred, Virginia may address
related revisions to its SIP.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
Similar to our approach with the Tailoring Rule, EPA incorporated
the biomass deferral into the regulations governing state programs and
into the Federal PSD program by amending the definition of ``subject to
regulation'' under 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 respectively. Virginia has
adopted this same approach. The proposed SIP revision incorporates the
Biomass Deferral into Virginia's PSD program by amending the definition
of ``subject to regulation'' under 9VAC5-85-50(C). The language adopted
by Virginia mirrors the language in the Federal regulations. EPA last
took action on these provisions on May 13, 2011 (76 FR 27898). In
addition to the incorporation of the Biomass Deferral, the proposed SIP
revision makes a minor, clarifying revision to 9VAC5-85-50(B).
III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. * * *'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec. 10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
PSD program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event,
because EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and
immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any
impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke
its authority under the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167,
205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the
state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition,
citizen enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected
by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.
IV. Proposed Action
EPA's review of this material indicates that it is consistent with
Federal regulations. EPA is proposing to approve the Virginia SIP
revision incorporating the Biomass Deferral,
[[Page 23181]]
which was submitted on December 14, 2011. EPA is soliciting public
comments on this proposed approval of Virginia's SIP revision request.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.
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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule relating to GHG permitting under
Virginia's PSD program does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse Gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 5, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Action Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-9339 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P