Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas and Permits for Major Stationary Sources Locating in Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone Transport Region, 55168-55171 [2012-22094]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55168
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(b) Unsafe Condition
This AD defines the unsafe condition as a
critical engine part remaining in service
beyond its fatigue life because the current life
limit is based on hours time-in-service (TIS)
instead of fatigue cycles. This condition
could result in fatigue failure of an engine
rotor part, engine failure, and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(c) Compliance
You are responsible for performing each
action required by this AD within the
specified compliance time unless it has
already been accomplished prior to that time.
(d) Required Actions
(1) Before further flight, insert into the
airworthiness limitation section of the
maintenance manual or instructions for
continued airworthiness the low cycle fatigue
(LCF) limit diagrams shown in Figures 2
through 7 (pages 9 through 14) of GE T700
Turboshaft Engine Service Bulletin (ESB) No.
T700 S/B 72–0041, dated August 21, 2009,
for helicopters with the GE T700–GE–401C
engine, or Figures 2 through 4 (pages 10
through 12) of GE T700 Turboshaft ESB No.
T700 S/B 72–0038, dated October 1, 2008, for
helicopters with the GE T700–GE–701C
engine. The diagonal line on each diagram
represents the new cycle life limit (a
combination of full low cycle fatigue events
(LCF1) and partial low cycle fatigue events
(LCF2) as those terms are defined in the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs
3.A.(1) and 3.A.(2) of each ESB) for each gas
generator turbine (GGT) rotor part. A
combination of LCF1 and LCF2, which
results in a number below the diagonal line
of the applicable diagram for each engine,
indicates that the part has not reached its
fatigue life limit.
(2) Before further flight:
(i) Obtain the actual LCF1 and LCF2 count
from the engine ‘‘history recorder’’ (HR);
(ii) Calculate the LCF1 and LCF2 fatigue
retirement life for each GGT rotor part as
follows:
(A) Determine the actual LCF ratio by
dividing the total actual LCF2 cycle count
obtained from the HR by the total actual
LCF1 cycle count obtained from the HR. Add
to the actual counts from the HR any actual
additional fatigue cycle incurred during any
period in which the HR was inoperative.
(B) Determine the LCF1 retirement life by
dividing the maximum number of LCF2
events obtained from the applicable diagram
for each engine by the sum of the actual LCF
ratio obtained by following paragraph
(d)(2)(ii)(A) of this AD plus the quotient of
the maximum number of LCF2 events from
the applicable diagram for each engine
divided by the maximum number of LCF1
events from the applicable diagram for each
engine.
(C) Determine the LCF2 retirement life by
multiplying the actual LCF ratio obtained by
following paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) of this AD
times the LCF1 retirement life determined by
following paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this AD.
(iii) Replace each GGT rotor part that has
reached the new fatigue cycle life limit with
an airworthy rotor part.
(3) For helicopters with the GE T700–GE–
401C engine, if you cannot determine the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Sep 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
number of low cycle fatigue events manually
from the HR or by combining both manual
and HR counts, then the life limit for the
GGT rotor part is the hours TIS for the part
as shown in Table 1 of ESB No. T700 S/B 72–
0041, dated August 21, 2009.
(4) Before further flight, begin or continue
to count the full and partial low fatigue cycle
events and record on the component card or
equivalent record that count at the end of
each day for which the HR is inoperative.
(e) Special Flight Permit
Special flight permits will not be issued to
allow flight in excess of life limits.
(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
Michael Davison, Flight Test Engineer, New
England Regional Office, FAA, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone: (781) 238–7156; fax: (781)
238–7170; email: michael.davison@faa.gov.
(2) For operations conducted under 14 CFR
part 119 operating certificate or under 14
CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a
principal inspector, the manager of the local
flight standards district office or certificate
holding district office before operating any
aircraft complying with this AD through an
AMOC.
(g) Additional Information
For service information identified in this
AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation,
Attn: Manager, Commercial Technical
Support, mailstop s581a, 6900 Main Street,
Stratford, CT, telephone (800) 562–4409,
email address tsslibrary@sikorsky.com, or at
https://www.sikorsky.com. You may review a
copy of the referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd.,
Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
(h) Subject
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC)
Code: 7250: Turbine Section.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 30,
2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–22064 Filed 9–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0926; FRL–9725–2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Permits for Major Stationary Sources
and Major Modifications Locating in
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Areas and Permits for Major Stationary
Sources Locating in Nonattainment
Areas or the Ozone Transport Region
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ). These revisions propose to
allow the terms and conditions of
various elements of the preconstruction
program in Virginia to be combined into
a single permit, establish limitations for
issuance of Plantwide Applicability
Limits (PALs), and provide an
exemption to Virginia’s New Source
Review (NSR) Program for the use of
alternate fuels. This action is being
taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2011–0926 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–2011–0926,
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–2011–
0926. 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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 Virginia submittal are
available at the VADEQ Office, 629 East
Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23218.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gerallyn Duke, (215) 814–2084, or by
email at duke.gerallyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. On September 27, 2010, VADEQ
submitted revisions to its SIP that
would allow terms and conditions from
multiple preconstruction permits issued
to a single stationary source to be
combined into a single permit. The SIP
revision also establishes state operating
permits for major sources as the
mechanism for issuing PAL permits. It
also provides an exemption in Virginia’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and nonattainment NSR programs
for the use of alternate fuels, and makes
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Sep 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
certain minor administrative revisions
to the current SIP.
I. Background
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA
requires SIPs to have a a
preconstruction permit program for both
major and minor sources. More
specifically, SIPs must have the permit
programs required under subparts C and
D of title I (i.e., PSD and nonattainment
NSR) and the SIP must have a minor
preconstruction program that assures
that the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) are achieved. The
current Virginia SIP implements these
requirements by issuing separate
permits under each program.
Consequently, a single project at a
stationary source may require multiple
permits depending on the type and
amount of pollutants to be emitted.
Virginia has found that maintaining
multiple permits for major stationary
sources has resulted in a significant
workload burden and causes confusion
as to where permit conditions reside,
leading to compliance issues.
The proposed SIP revisions will allow
preconstruction permits for major
stationary sources to be combined into
one permit with certain restrictions and
conditions. Permit terms and conditions
at major sources may be combined into
one permit at the request of the Virginia
State Air Pollution Control Board or by
the permittee. Actions to combine
permit terms and conditions must
include a statement referencing the
origin of the term or condition, its
effective date and whether it is state
and/or federally enforceable. All terms
and conditions of contributing permits
must be included in the combined
permit without change and the
combined permit will supercede the
contributing permit. Redundant terms
and conditions may be removed from
the combined permit but the regulatory
basis of the removed term or condition
must be included. The state may also
streamline permit conditions where two
or more terms or conditions apply to the
same unit and one is substantially more
stringent.
On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186),
EPA published final rule changes to 40
CFR parts 51 and 52 regarding the
CAA’s PSD and nonattainment NSR
programs that are collectively known as
NSR Reform. These changes included
provisions that would allow major
stationary sources to comply with a PAL
to avoid having a significant emissions
increase that triggers the requirements
of the major NSR program. EPA granted
limited approval of Virginia’s NSR
Reform regulations on October 22, 2008
(73 FR 62897). In the current version of
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55169
the Virginia SIP, PALs may be
implemented through a major NSR
permit, a minor NSR permit or a state
operating permit. This is consistent with
the federal rules at 40 CFR
51.165(f)(2)(ix) and 51.166(w)(2)(ix)
with respect to the definition of ‘‘PAL
permit.’’ All three permitting
mechanisms in the Virginia SIP are
acceptable means for establishing a
PAL. The proposed SIP revision would
limit establishing PALs to state
operating permits. States have
discretion in choosing among the
enforceable mechanisms provided in the
definition of ‘‘PAL permit’’ and
Virginia’s selection of a state operating
permit is consistent with the options
provided in the federal rules.
In 2008, the Virginia General
Assembly amended Va. Code Sec.
10.1322.4 to allow exemptions for
alternative fuels and raw materials from
permit requirements. The proposed SIP
revision is intended to ensure that there
are no conflicts between the Virginia
Code and Federal regulations, including
the SIP. On March 24, 2011, the Director
of the Air Division at VADEQ issued Air
Guidance Memo No. APG–308 which
clarified that the exemption from
permitting for the use of alternative
fuels does not allow a source to bypass
NSR for major sources or any other
federal law or regulation. This
document is included in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking action.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
The amendments submitted by
VADEQ for approval into the SIP were
adopted by the State Air Pollution
Control Board on June 8, 2009 and
became effective on July 23, 2009. They
include revisions to the VADEQ
regulations at 9VAC5 Chapter 80,
Article 8 (Permits for Major Stationary
Sources and Major Modifications
Locating in Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Areas) and Article 9
(Permits for Major Stationary Sources
and Modifications Locating in
Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone
Transport Region). The following
regulations under Article 8 are revised:
Regulation 5–80–1615 (Definitions),
Regulation 5–80–1625 (General),
Regulation 5–80–1695 (Exemptions),
Regulation 5–80–1925 (Changes to
permits), Regulation 5–80–1935
(Administrative permit amendments),
Regulation 5–80–1945 (Minor permit
amendments), Regulation 5–80–1955
(Significant amendment procedures),
and Regulation 5–80–1965 (Reopening
for cause). Under Article 9, Regulation
5–80–2010 (Definitions), Regulation 5–
80–2020 (General), Regulation 5–80–
2140 (Exception), Regulation 5–80–2200
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
55170
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(Changes to permits), Regulation 5–80–
2210 (Administrative permit
amendments), Regulation 5–80–2220
(Minor permit amendments), and
Regulation 5–80–2230 (Significant
amendment procedures) are amended.
Under Article 8, Regulation 5–80–1915
(Actions to combine permit terms and
conditions) is added and under Article
9, Regulation 5–80–2195 (also called
‘‘Actions to combine permit terms and
conditions’’) is added.
We are proposing approval of
Virginia’s SIP submission dated
September 27, 2010 that consists of the
following actions that pertain to
Virginia’s PSD and nonattainment NSR
Programs: (1) Adding provisions to
allow the terms and conditions of the
various elements of the NSR Program to
be combined into a single permit; (2)
limiting the issuance of PALs to the
state operating permit program; (3)
providing certain exemptions from
permitting for alternative fuels unless
required by federal law or regulation;
and (4) making minor administrative
amendments.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Sep 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 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
and NSR programs 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IV. Proposed Action
Based upon EPA’s review of the
September 27, 2010 submittal, we find
the regulations are consistent with their
Federal counterparts. EPA is proposing
to approve the Virginia SIP revisions
which add provisions to allow the terms
and conditions of the various elements
of the PSD and nonattainment NSR
Programs to be combined into a single
permit; limit the issuance of PALs to the
state operating permit program; provide
exemptions from permitting for
alternative fuels; and make minor
administrative changes. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document.
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
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 174 / Friday, September 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 related
to Virginia permits for major stationary
sources and major modifications
locating in PSD or Nonattainment Areas
or the Ozone Transport Region 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,
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: August 23, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012–22094 Filed 9–6–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0305; FRL–9724–9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; 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 Maryland
Department of the Environmental (MDE)
on April 4, 2012. 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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:33 Sep 06, 2012
Jkt 226001
bioenergy and other biogenic stationary
sources in the State of Maryland. This
action is being taken under the Clean
Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
R03–OAR–2012–0305 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–2012–0305,
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–
0305. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55171
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 Maryland Department of
the Environment, 1800 Washington
Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230.
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 April 4, 2012, MDE submitted
a revision (#12–02) 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
E:\FR\FM\07SEP1.SGM
07SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55168-55171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22094]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0926; FRL-9725-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Permits for Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications
Locating in Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas and Permits
for Major Stationary Sources Locating in Nonattainment Areas or the
Ozone Transport Region
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(VADEQ). These revisions propose to allow the terms and conditions of
various elements of the preconstruction program in Virginia to be
combined into a single permit, establish limitations for issuance of
Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs), and provide an exemption to
Virginia's New Source Review (NSR) Program for the use of alternate
fuels. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 9, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0926 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-2011-0926, 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-
2011-0926. 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.
[[Page 55169]]
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 Virginia
submittal are available at the VADEQ Office, 629 East Main Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23218.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerallyn Duke, (215) 814-2084, or by
email at duke.gerallyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. On September 27, 2010, VADEQ
submitted revisions to its SIP that would allow terms and conditions
from multiple preconstruction permits issued to a single stationary
source to be combined into a single permit. The SIP revision also
establishes state operating permits for major sources as the mechanism
for issuing PAL permits. It also provides an exemption in Virginia's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment NSR
programs for the use of alternate fuels, and makes certain minor
administrative revisions to the current SIP.
I. Background
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA requires SIPs to have a a
preconstruction permit program for both major and minor sources. More
specifically, SIPs must have the permit programs required under
subparts C and D of title I (i.e., PSD and nonattainment NSR) and the
SIP must have a minor preconstruction program that assures that the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are achieved. The
current Virginia SIP implements these requirements by issuing separate
permits under each program. Consequently, a single project at a
stationary source may require multiple permits depending on the type
and amount of pollutants to be emitted. Virginia has found that
maintaining multiple permits for major stationary sources has resulted
in a significant workload burden and causes confusion as to where
permit conditions reside, leading to compliance issues.
The proposed SIP revisions will allow preconstruction permits for
major stationary sources to be combined into one permit with certain
restrictions and conditions. Permit terms and conditions at major
sources may be combined into one permit at the request of the Virginia
State Air Pollution Control Board or by the permittee. Actions to
combine permit terms and conditions must include a statement
referencing the origin of the term or condition, its effective date and
whether it is state and/or federally enforceable. All terms and
conditions of contributing permits must be included in the combined
permit without change and the combined permit will supercede the
contributing permit. Redundant terms and conditions may be removed from
the combined permit but the regulatory basis of the removed term or
condition must be included. The state may also streamline permit
conditions where two or more terms or conditions apply to the same unit
and one is substantially more stringent.
On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule
changes to 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 regarding the CAA's PSD and
nonattainment NSR programs that are collectively known as NSR Reform.
These changes included provisions that would allow major stationary
sources to comply with a PAL to avoid having a significant emissions
increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR program. EPA
granted limited approval of Virginia's NSR Reform regulations on
October 22, 2008 (73 FR 62897). In the current version of the Virginia
SIP, PALs may be implemented through a major NSR permit, a minor NSR
permit or a state operating permit. This is consistent with the federal
rules at 40 CFR 51.165(f)(2)(ix) and 51.166(w)(2)(ix) with respect to
the definition of ``PAL permit.'' All three permitting mechanisms in
the Virginia SIP are acceptable means for establishing a PAL. The
proposed SIP revision would limit establishing PALs to state operating
permits. States have discretion in choosing among the enforceable
mechanisms provided in the definition of ``PAL permit'' and Virginia's
selection of a state operating permit is consistent with the options
provided in the federal rules.
In 2008, the Virginia General Assembly amended Va. Code Sec.
10.1322.4 to allow exemptions for alternative fuels and raw materials
from permit requirements. The proposed SIP revision is intended to
ensure that there are no conflicts between the Virginia Code and
Federal regulations, including the SIP. On March 24, 2011, the Director
of the Air Division at VADEQ issued Air Guidance Memo No. APG-308 which
clarified that the exemption from permitting for the use of alternative
fuels does not allow a source to bypass NSR for major sources or any
other federal law or regulation. This document is included in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking action.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
The amendments submitted by VADEQ for approval into the SIP were
adopted by the State Air Pollution Control Board on June 8, 2009 and
became effective on July 23, 2009. They include revisions to the VADEQ
regulations at 9VAC5 Chapter 80, Article 8 (Permits for Major
Stationary Sources and Major Modifications Locating in Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Areas) and Article 9 (Permits for Major
Stationary Sources and Modifications Locating in Nonattainment Areas or
the Ozone Transport Region). The following regulations under Article 8
are revised: Regulation 5-80-1615 (Definitions), Regulation 5-80-1625
(General), Regulation 5-80-1695 (Exemptions), Regulation 5-80-1925
(Changes to permits), Regulation 5-80-1935 (Administrative permit
amendments), Regulation 5-80-1945 (Minor permit amendments), Regulation
5-80-1955 (Significant amendment procedures), and Regulation 5-80-1965
(Reopening for cause). Under Article 9, Regulation 5-80-2010
(Definitions), Regulation 5-80-2020 (General), Regulation 5-80-2140
(Exception), Regulation 5-80-2200
[[Page 55170]]
(Changes to permits), Regulation 5-80-2210 (Administrative permit
amendments), Regulation 5-80-2220 (Minor permit amendments), and
Regulation 5-80-2230 (Significant amendment procedures) are amended.
Under Article 8, Regulation 5-80-1915 (Actions to combine permit terms
and conditions) is added and under Article 9, Regulation 5-80-2195
(also called ``Actions to combine permit terms and conditions'') is
added.
We are proposing approval of Virginia's SIP submission dated
September 27, 2010 that consists of the following actions that pertain
to Virginia's PSD and nonattainment NSR Programs: (1) Adding provisions
to allow the terms and conditions of the various elements of the NSR
Program to be combined into a single permit; (2) limiting the issuance
of PALs to the state operating permit program; (3) providing certain
exemptions from permitting for alternative fuels unless required by
federal law or regulation; and (4) making minor administrative
amendments.
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 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 and NSR programs 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
Based upon EPA's review of the September 27, 2010 submittal, we
find the regulations are consistent with their Federal counterparts.
EPA is proposing to approve the Virginia SIP revisions which add
provisions to allow the terms and conditions of the various elements of
the PSD and nonattainment NSR Programs to be combined into a single
permit; limit the issuance of PALs to the state operating permit
program; provide exemptions from permitting for alternative fuels; and
make minor administrative changes. EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. 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
[[Page 55171]]
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 related to Virginia permits for
major stationary sources and major modifications locating in PSD or
Nonattainment Areas or the Ozone Transport Region 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,
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: August 23, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-22094 Filed 9-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
