Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho: Stationary Source Permitting Revisions, 37170-37175 [2016-13693]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37170
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules
less than 26 feet for long term usage. It
would provide a vessel swing radius of
approximately 1,400 feet for each vessel.
The contemplated ground would
encompass waters within lines
connecting the following points: 41–
14.02′ N., 073–57.45′ W.; thence to 41–
14.09′ N., 073–57.15′ W.; thence to 41–
31.10′ N., 073–57.00′ W.; thence to 41–
13.18′ N., 073–56.60′ W.; thence to the
point of origin (NAD 83).
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Information Requested
Public participation is requested to
assist in determining the best way
forward with respect to establishing
new anchorage grounds on the Hudson
River between Yonkers, NY, to
Kingston, NY. To aid us in developing
a possible proposed rule, we seek any
comments, whether positive or negative,
including but not limited to the impacts
anchorage grounds may have on
navigation safety and current vessel
traffic in this area, the proposed number
and size of vessels anchoring in each
proposed anchorage ground, and the
authorized duration for each vessel in
each proposed anchorage ground. We
are also seeking comments on any
additional locations where anchorage
grounds may be helpful on the Hudson
River or any recommended alterations
to the specific locations considered in
this notice. Please submit any comments
or concerns you may have in accordance
with the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ section above.
L.L. Fagan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander
First Coast Guard District.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:19 Jun 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0397: FRL–9947–53–
Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Stationary Source Permitting
Revisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
We are considering proposing that a
Yonkers Extension Anchorage Ground
would cover approximately 715 acres
for up to 16 vessels with a draft of less
than 35 feet for long term usage. It
would provide a vessel swing radius of
approximately 1,200 feet for each vessel.
The contemplated anchorage ground
would encompass waters within lines
connecting the following points: 41–
00.60′ N., 073–53.61′ W.; thence to 41–
00.60′ N., 073–53.31′ W.; thence to 40–
58.05′ N., 073–53.96′ W.; thence to 40–
56.96′ N., 073–54.39′ W.; thence to 40–
57.02′ N., 073–54.71′ W.; thence to 40–
58.11′ N., 073–54.25′ W.; thence to the
point of origin (NAD 83).
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
40 CFR Part 52
AGENCY:
Contemplated Yonkers Extension
Anchorage Ground
[FR Doc. 2016–13701 Filed 6–8–16; 8:45 am]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) proposes to approve, and
incorporate by reference, revisions to
the Idaho State Implementation Plan
submitted on May 21, 2015. In the
submission, Idaho revised stationary
source permitting rules, including the
addition of facility-wide emission limits
and nonmetallic mineral processing
plant regulations. Idaho also added an
alternative method for stationary
sources to comply with sulfur content of
fuels limits, and updated provisions to
account for changes to federal air
quality regulations. The EPA proposes
to approve the submitted revisions as
consistent with the Clean Air Act and
the EPA’s implementing regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10–
OAR–2015–0397, at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from https://
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment
is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the https://
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information, the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, or
hall.kristin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. State Submission
III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions
A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules
B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant
Rules
C. Sulfur Content of Fuels Provision
D. Definitions and Baselines for Fine
Particulate Matter
E. Incorporation by Reference Updates
F. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and
Remanding Certain Federal Rules
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) governs the process by which a
state submits air quality protection
requirements to the EPA for approval
into the State Implementation Plan
(SIP). The SIP is the state’s plan to
implement, maintain and enforce the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) set by the EPA. Idaho
regularly updates the Rules for the
Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
(IDAPA 58.01.01) to reflect changes to
the NAAQS and to improve
implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of those standards. We note
that Idaho incorporates by reference
portions of certain federal regulations
directly into the SIP. The state generally
submits an annual update to the EPA to
keep rules consistent with federal
requirements.
II. State Submission
On May 21, 2015, Idaho submitted
revisions to state air quality rules at
IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for approval
into the SIP. Idaho adopted these rule
changes on November 19 and November
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules
21, 2014. The state provided notice and
an opportunity for public comment and
hearing on the changes. Notices were
published in the Idaho Administrative
Bulletin and public hearings were held
on September 9 and October 7, 2014.
We have evaluated Idaho’s submission
and propose to find the state has met the
requirements for reasonable notice and
public hearing under section 110 of the
CAA.
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions
A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules
In the submission, Idaho revised the
rules that permit construction and
operation of stationary sources. Idaho’s
changes give certain minor sources the
option to apply for facility-wide
emission limitations. These limitations,
or caps, when incorporated into a minor
source permit to construct or Tier II
operating permit, are intended to allow
minor sources to operate more flexibly,
without having to request permit
modifications for certain process
changes.
For example, semiconductor
manufacturing facilities make many
equipment and process changes as they
develop new products and technologies.
However, many equipment and process
changes do not warrant extensive
review as a permit modification. The
intent of the facility-wide emissions cap
is to set a cap on emissions from a
facility, while allowing process changes
under certain conditions that may
increase emissions. As long as facility
emissions stay below the cap and the
process changes do not trigger new
requirements, the source may be
permitted to construct and operate.
The new Idaho rules for limiting
emissions from minor sources are called
the facility-wide emissions cap rules, or
‘‘FEC’’ rules, codified at IDAPA
58.01.01.175 through 181. These rules
lay out the requirements a minor source
must meet to request a FEC limit, and
the method for determining the limit. A
FEC limit is expressed as tons per year,
on a 12-month rolling basis, and may be
applied to any criteria pollutant or
hazardous air pollutant. The FEC rules
do not provide for issuance of a standalone permit. Rather, owners or
operators of eligible facilities may
request a FEC limit be incorporated into
a new or existing permit to construct or
Tier II operating permit. As stated
above, only minor sources are eligible.
These include sources that request an
emission limit to avoid major source
permitting, otherwise known as
synthetic minor sources.
In our review, we have evaluated the
addition of the FEC option to determine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:19 Jun 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
if the revised minor source permit to
construct and Tier II operating permit
programs continue to comply with the
CAA and the EPA’s implementing
regulations. We propose to find that
they do, and that the FEC rules are
approvable for the reasons stated below.
First, the FEC rules contain adequate
provisions to prevent sources operating
under a FEC limit from causing or
contributing to a violation of the
NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
requires ‘‘. . . regulation of the
modification and construction of any
stationary source . . . as necessary to
assure that the [NAAQS] are achieved.’’
The EPA’s implementing regulations for
minor sources, set forth in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR
51.160 through 164, require a state to
have procedures to prevent construction
or modification of a source if it will
result in a violation of a pollution
control strategy, or if it will interfere
with the attainment or maintenance of
a NAAQS.
The FEC rules ensure maintenance of
the NAAQS by limiting the option to
obtain a FEC limit to minor sources and
requiring the applicant to demonstrate
that operating under the FEC limit will
not cause or contribute to a violation of
a NAAQS. As stated in IDAPA
58.01.01.176.02.a, major sources, or
sources undergoing a major
modification, cannot obtain a FEC limit.
Moreover, by its terms, the FEC limit is
set below major source thresholds. The
FEC rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.178.03
through .04 also require recordkeeping
and reporting, including an annual
report, demonstrating compliance with
the FEC limit(s) and maintenance of the
NAAQS.
Second, the addition of the FEC
option does not alleviate any of the
application requirements for either the
minor source permit to construct
program or the Tier II operating permit
program. The EPA has already approved
Idaho’s application procedures for both
programs. The EPA approved revisions
to Idaho’s minor source permit to
construct application procedures most
recently on January 16, 2003 (68 FR
2217).1 Similarly, the EPA approved
revisions to Idaho’s Tier II operating
permit program most recently on
November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72719).2
1 EPA did not approve section .03 of IDAPA
58.01.01.201 because it is related to toxic air
pollutants and not the criteria pollutants or other
requirements of CAA section 110 (January 16, 2003;
68 FR 2217, at page 2221).
2 The EPA did not approve section .01.a and
section .04 of IDAPA 58.01.01.401, related to
alternative emission limits and compliance date
extensions (November 26, 2010; 75 FR 72719, at
page 72723).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37171
In sum, we are proposing to approve
and incorporate by reference the FEC
rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.175 through
181 into the Idaho SIP, except as the
rules relate to hazardous air pollutants.
Hazardous air pollutants are regulated
under CAA section 112, and are not
appropriate for approval into the SIP.
The SIP includes provisions related to
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS, and other specific
requirements of CAA section 110. We
are also proposing to approve and
incorporate by reference the revisions to
IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to Construct
Required and IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier
II Operating Permit to appropriately
cross-reference the FEC rules. However,
consistent with our previous action on
November 26, 2010, we are not
approving section .01.a and section .04
of IDAPA 58.01.01.401 because the
provisions allow for unbounded
director’s discretion (75 FR 72719).
B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant
Rules
In the submission, Idaho made
changes to streamline the permit
process for rock crushers, asphalt
plants, and other portable equipment
used to process nonmetallic minerals.
Instead of continuing to require that a
regulated rock crusher obtain a permit
to construct before starting operation,
Idaho created a permit by rule that
establishes controls and other operating
parameters that apply to an eligible
source upon registration with the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality.
These requirements are codified at
IDAPA 58.01.01.790 through 799 Rules
for the Control of Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants. Sources that register
and operate in compliance with the
rules are considered to have a ‘‘permit
by rule.’’ Only minor sources that
operate for less than twelve consecutive
months at a single location are eligible
for the permit by rule. Sources covered
by the Federal New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOO are not eligible, nor are
new and modified major sources. By
extension, rock crushers that are part of
a new major source or proposed major
modification are not eligible for the
permit by rule.
The requirements for eligible
nonmetallic mineral processing plants
specify that obtaining a permit by rule
does not relieve the owner or operator
of an eligible source from the
responsibility of complying with other
federal, state and local applicable laws,
regulations, and requirements. The rules
make clear that sources subject to the
NSPS for Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants, or the NSPS for
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37172
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Portland Cement Plants or Hot Mix
Asphalt Plants, must continue to
comply with the NSPS limits and
controls, as applicable. Provisions in the
rules related to NSPS and title V source
operating permits (IDAPA 58.01.01.792
and IDAPA 58.01.01.794.04) are
generally not appropriate for SIP
approval because they are not intended
to implement the requirements of CAA
section 110. Moreover, the NSPS for
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants,
codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart
OOO, applies to affected facilities by its
terms regardless of Idaho’s rule. See 40
CFR 60.670.
The nonmetallic mineral processing
plant rules set out the registration
process and operating parameters for
rock crushers and other eligible sources,
including limits on the hours of
operation, fuel consumptions rates, best
management practices, and general
controls designed to ensure compliance
with the NAAQS. The registration
procedures for the permit by rule are
contained in IDAPA 58.01.01.795
through 799. Owners and operators may
choose to operate an eligible plant
under the permit by rule by registering
the new or modified processing plant
fifteen days prior to commencing
operation or modification. As part of the
registration, the owner or operator must
supply information, such as
manufacturer, model, and throughput
capacity, on the rock crushers, screen
decks, and electric generators proposed
to be part of the processing plant.
Owners and operators who register
their nonmetallic mineral processing
plants are deemed to have a permit by
rule if they operate the plants in
accordance with the applicable
substantive requirements. In general, the
rules prohibit emissions that would be
injurious to human health or welfare,
animal or plant life, or property, or that
would interfere unreasonably with the
enjoyment of life or property. In
addition, owners and operators of
eligible sources must take all reasonable
precautions to prevent the generation of
fugitive dust, in addition to meeting
specific opacity standards spelled out
for categories of activities at areas of
operation.
Specific requirements sources must
meet include fuel restrictions, limits on
operating hours, and monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements for
electrical generators at a source. For
example, electrical generators must run
on American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Grade 1 or 2 fuel oil
and must also meet specific sulfur
content in fuel restrictions. Sources also
must restrict visible emissions from
various activities to 20% opacity or less,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:19 Jun 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
aggregating more than three minutes in
any sixty minute period. NSPSregulated processing plants are held to
stricter opacity limits.
In addition to meeting opacity limits,
sources must use best management
practices to limit fugitive dust from the
operation, including controls on paved
public roads, unpaved haul roads,
transfer points, screening operations,
stacks and vents, crushers and grinding
mills, and stockpiles. These best
management practices are triggered
during the course of operations, for
instance when observed visible
emissions from vehicle traffic
approaches the opacity limit, or when
citizen complaints come in that have
merit. Sources must maintain a daily
record of observing the operation,
including when events trigger required
control strategies and the corrective
actions taken.
Idaho also amended IDAPA
58.01.01.011 to include new terms
supporting the nonmetallic mineral
processing plant rules. The new
definitions include: ‘‘Best Management
Practice,’’ ‘‘Control Strategy Trigger,’’
‘‘Nonmetallic Mineral Processing
Plant,’’ ‘‘NSPS Regulated Facility or
Plant,’’ ‘‘Permit by Rule,’’ ‘‘Progressive
Control Strategy,’’ and ‘‘Site of
Operations.’’
The EPA proposes to determine that
the permit by rule provisions for rock
crushers and other nonmetallic mineral
processing plants are consistent with
the types of permit terms and conditions
that are generally used when issuing
source-specific permits to sources in
this category, and may in fact be more
prescriptive. We also propose to
conclude that the addition of the
nonmetallic mineral processing rules
are consistent with the CAA and the
EPA’s implementing regulations at 40
CFR 51.160 through 164. We are
therefore proposing to approve IDAPA
58.01.01.011 and IDAPA 58.01.01.790
through 799 into the Idaho SIP, except
IDAPA 58.01.01.792, and IDAPA
58.01.01.794.04 because they are not
related to the requirements of CAA
section 110 and are inappropriate for
SIP approval.
C. Sulfur Content of Fuels Provision
The Idaho sulfur content of fuels
provision regulates the sulfur dioxide
emissions from stationary sources by
setting limits on the sulfur content of
residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, and
coal that is sold, distributed, used, or
made available in Idaho. The provision
is located in IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules
for Sulfur Content of Fuels. In the
submission, Idaho revised the rule
provision to allow a stationary source—
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
when applying for a permit to construct
or operate—to request an alternative
method to comply with sulfur in fuel
limits. The revision specifies that the
alternative may only be allowed if the
applicant demonstrates that sulfur
dioxide emissions would be equal to or
less than emissions would be under the
prescribed sulfur content of fuel limits.
In other words, to get approval to use a
fuel with higher sulfur content, a
stationary source must show that, by
installing a control device, the source
can reduce hourly controlled emissions
to less than the maximum hourly
emissions from combusting complying
fuels.
If a demonstration meets the rule
requirements, the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality may approve the
alternative compliance method into a
stationary source permit to construct or
operating permit. Any permit issued
must contain the appropriate source
monitoring, record-keeping and
reporting requirements, for ensuring
compliance, in accordance with Idaho’s
federally-approved permit to construct
and operating permit programs.
We note that this rule revision alone
does not allow the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality to relax any
existing permit limits or conditions
without also ensuring compliance with
existing permit rules. In addition, any
modification required for a stationary
source to combust higher sulfur fuels,
even without increasing allowable
emissions, may be subject to
preconstruction permitting rules.
Based on the information above, we
conclude that the rule change is
designed to protect the NAAQS, and we
propose to approve and incorporate by
reference the revision to IDAPA
58.01.01.725 Rules for Sulfur Content of
Fuels.
D. Definitions and Baselines for Fine
Particulate Matter
In the submission, Idaho revised
IDAPA 58.01.01.006 General Definitions
to clarify that the definition of ‘‘Criteria
Air Pollutant’’ includes fine particulate
matter (PM2.5), and added specific
definitions for PM2.5 and PM2.5
emissions. Idaho also updated the
Baselines for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration rule section to add major
and minor source baseline dates for
PM2.5. We propose to approve these
revisions as consistent with the CAA,
the EPA’s fine particulate matter
standards set forth at 40 CFR 50.18, and
major and minor source baseline dates
and area requirements detailed at 40
CFR 51.166(b)(14) and (15). We note
that, consistent with our previous action
on March 3, 2014, we are not approving
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the terms defined in sections .49, .50,
.51, .66, .67, .68.b, .114, and .116
because these terms relate to toxic air
pollutants, not the criteria pollutants
and the requirements of CAA section
110 (79 FR 11711).
E. Incorporation by Reference Updates
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Idaho revised section .03 of IDAPA
58.01.01.107 Incorporations by
Reference by updating the citation dates
that incorporate federal provisions
effective as of that date. Paragraph .a
incorporates by reference the
Requirements for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51,
with the exception of certain visibilityrelated provisions, effective July 1,
2014. We note that Idaho did not submit
updates to the incorporation of federal
provisions relied on as part of the
State’s nonattainment area major
stationary source preconstruction
permitting program.
Paragraphs .b, .d, and .e of the same
section incorporate the following
provisions effective July 1, 2014: .b
National Primary and Secondary
Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR
part 50; .d Ambient Air Monitoring
Reference and Equivalent Methods, 40
CFR part 53; and .e Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance, 40 CFR part 58. We
propose to find that paragraphs .b, .d,
and .e are consistent with CAA
requirements. Idaho did not submit
paragraphs .f through .n for approval
because the provisions are not related to
CAA section 110 and the criteria
pollutants, and are inappropriate for SIP
approval.
Paragraph .c incorporates the
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 52
subparts A and N, and appendices D
and E. This includes the Federal
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permitting rules at 40 CFR 52.21,
effective July 1, 2014. We propose to
find that paragraph .c is consistent with
CAA requirements. We note that
specific federal PSD permitting rules
have been vacated and remanded by the
courts to the EPA. Idaho has responded
by submitting rule changes to align the
Idaho SIP with the court decisions.
Please see Section III. F. below.
F. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating
and Remanding Certain Federal Rules
1. PM2.5 PSD Provisions
As discussed above, Idaho
incorporates by reference federal PSD
permitting requirements. The current
Idaho SIP incorporates these rules,
codified at 40 CFR 52.21, as of July 1,
2012, except revisions to 40 CFR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:19 Jun 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
52.21(i) (relating to the significant
monitoring concentration (SMC)) and 40
CFR 52.21(k) (relating to the significant
impact level (SIL)) that added a SMC
and SIL for PM2.5 as part of the 2010
PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule
(October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864). We
partially disapproved Idaho’s previous
submittal incorporating these provisions
because they were vacated by a court
after Idaho had already adopted and
submitted them to the EPA (April 7,
2015, 80 FR 18526).
On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
in Sierra Club v. EPA,3 issued, with
respect to the SMC, a judgment that,
among other things, vacated the
provisions adding the PM2.5 SMC to the
federal regulations at 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). In
its decision, the Court held that the EPA
did not have the authority to use SMCs
to exempt permit applicants from the
statutory requirement in section
165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient
monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in
all PSD permit applications. Thus,
although the PM2.5 SMC was not a
required element of a state’s PSD
program, where a state PSD program
contains such a provision and allows
issuance of new permits without
requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring
data, such application of the vacated
SMC would be inconsistent with the
Court’s opinion and the requirements of
section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.
At the EPA’s request, the decision
also vacated and remanded the portions
of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation
Rule that revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40
CFR 52.21 related to SILs for PM2.5. The
EPA requested this vacatur and remand
of two of the three provisions in the
EPA regulations that contain SILs for
PM2.5 because the wording of these two
SIL provisions (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and
40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with
the explanation of when and how SILs
should be used by permitting authorities
that we provided in the preamble to the
Federal Register publication when we
promulgated these provisions. The third
SIL provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was
not vacated and remains in effect. We
also note that the Court’s decision does
not affect the PSD increments for PM2.5
promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
On December 9, 2013, the EPA
amended its regulations to remove the
vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions
from the federal PSD regulations (78 FR
73698). In response, Idaho updated the
incorporation by reference of federal
PSD regulations to July 1, 2014,
capturing the EPA’s removal of the
vacated provisions. Idaho also revised
the ambient air quality analysis
requirements for major sources seeking
PSD permits (IDAPA 58.01.01.202
Permit to Construct, at section .01) to
clarify the appropriate use of a SIL and
reference the federal PSD regulation
listing SILs. We propose to find that
these revisions are consistent with the
Court’s opinion and current EPA PSD
regulations.
2. PSD Deferral of Certain Emissions
From Biogenic Sources
In 2011, the EPA revised the
definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ at
40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a). The intent
was to defer for three years (until July
21, 2014) PSD permitting for carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions from bioenergy
and other biogenic stationary sources
(Deferral for CO2 Emissions from
Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources
under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Title V
Programs; Final Rule (July 20, 2011, 76
FR 43490) (Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule)).
Idaho’s SIP incorporates by reference
federal PSD permitting rules and
includes this deferral provision.
On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, in
Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA,4
vacated the Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule.
The deferral expired on July 21, 2014,
and by its terms is no longer in effect.
3. PSD Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
On June 23, 2014, the United States
Supreme Court, in Utility Air Regulatory
Group v. Environmental Protection
Agency,5 issued a decision addressing
the application of PSD permitting to
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The
Supreme Court said that the EPA may
not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for
purposes of determining whether a
source is a major source (or
modification thereof) required to obtain
a PSD permit. The Court also said that
the EPA could continue to require that
PSD permits, otherwise required based
on emissions of pollutants other than
GHGs, contain limits on GHG emissions
based on the application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT).
In order to act consistently with its
understanding of the Court’s decision,
pending further judicial action before
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia to effectuate the decision,
the EPA is not continuing to apply the
EPA regulations that would require SIPs
to include permitting requirements that
the Supreme Court found
4 722
3 703
PO 00000
F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37173
5 134
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
S.Ct. 2427 (2014).
09JNP1
37174
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
impermissible. Specifically, the EPA is
not applying the requirement that a
state’s SIP-approved PSD program
require that sources obtain PSD permits
when GHGs are the only pollutant (i)
that the source emits or has the
potential to emit above the major source
thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a
significant emissions increase and a
significant net emissions increase from
a modification (e.g., 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v)).
The EPA recently revised federal PSD
rules in light of the Supreme Court
decision (May 7, 2015, 80 FR 26183). In
addition, we anticipate that many states
will revise their existing SIP-approved
PSD programs in light of the Supreme
Court’s decision. We do not expect that
all states have revised their existing PSD
program regulations yet, however, we
are evaluating submitted PSD program
revision to ensure that the state’s
program correctly addresses GHGs,
consistent with the Court’s decision.
Idaho’s current SIP contains the GHG
permitting requirements reflected in 40
CFR 52.21, as amended in the Tailoring
Rule. As a result, the PSD permitting
program in Idaho, previously approved
into the SIP, continues to require that
PSD permits (otherwise required based
on emissions of pollutants other than
GHGs) contain limits on GHG
emissions, based on the application of
BACT, when sources emit or increase
GHGs in the amount of 75,000 tons per
year (measured as carbon dioxide
equivalent).
Although the approved Idaho PSD
permitting program may also currently
contain provisions that are no longer
necessary in light of the Supreme Court
decision, this does not prevent the EPA
from approving this SIP submission.
Idaho’s submission does not add any
GHG permitting requirements that are
inconsistent with the Supreme Court
decision. While Idaho’s submission
incorporates all of 40 CFR 52.21 for
completeness, the submission
reincorporates PSD requirements for
GHGs already in the Idaho SIP.
IV. Proposed Action
We propose to approve, and
incorporate by reference into the Idaho
SIP, changes to the following provisions
submitted on May 21, 2015:
• IDAPA 58.01.01.006 General
Definitions, except .49, .50, .51, .66, .67,
.68.b, .114, and .116 (State effective 4/
11/2014);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.011 Definitions for
the Purposes of Sections 790 through
799 (State effective 3/15/2002);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.107 Incorporations
by Reference, except .03.f through .n,
and with respect to .a, the incorporation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:19 Jun 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
by reference of 40 CFR 51.165 (State
effective 4/11/2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.157 Test Methods
and Procedures (State effective 4/11/
2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.175 Procedures
and Requirements for Permits
Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap
(State effective 4/11/2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.176 Facility
Emissions Cap, except for provisions
relating to hazardous air pollutants
(State effective 4/11/2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.177 Application
Procedures (State effective 4/11/2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.178 Standard
Contents of Permits Establishing a
Facility Emissions Cap (State effective
4/11/2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.179 Procedures for
Issuing Permits Establishing a Facility
Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/
2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.180 Revisions to
Permits Establishing a Facility
Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/
2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.181 Notice and
Record-Keeping of Estimates of Ambient
Concentrations (State effective 4/11/
2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to
Construct Required (State effective 4/11/
2006);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.202 Application
Procedures (State effective 4/11/2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier II
Operating Permit, except .01.a and .04,
(State effective 4/11/2006);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.579 Baselines for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(State effective 4/11/2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for
Sulfur Content of Fuels (State effective
4/11/2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.790 Rules for the
Control of Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants (State effective 3/15/
2002);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.791 General
Control Requirements, (State effective 3/
15/2002);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.793 Emissions
Standards for Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing Plants not Subject to 40 CFR
60, Subpart OOO (State effective 3/15/
2002);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.794 Permit
Requirements, except .04 (State effective
4/11/2015);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.795 Permit by Rule
Requirements (State effective 3/15/
2002);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.796 Applicability
(State effective 3/15/2002);
• IDAPA 58.01.01.797 Registration
for Permit by Rule (State effective 3/15/
2002);
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• IDAPA 58.01.01.798 Electrical
Generators (State effective 3/15/2002);
and
• IDAPA 58.01.01.799 Nonmetallic
Mineral Processing Plan Fugitive Dust
Best Management Practice (State
effective 3/15/2002).
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, we are proposing to
include in a final rule regulatory text
that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are
proposing to incorporate by reference
the provisions described above in
Section IV. Proposed Action. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Public Law 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);
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2016 / Proposed Rules
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
it does not involve technical standards;
and
• does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 26, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016–13693 Filed 6–8–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0136; FRL–9947–49–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur
Dioxide
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide
(SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for ELT Minneapolis, LLC’s River Road
Industrial Center located in Fridley,
Anoka County, Minnesota. The revision,
submitted by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency on February 24, 2016,
updates information updates
information to reflect both
rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:19 Jun 08, 2016
Jkt 238001
administrative and equipment changes
at the facility. The name of the facility
has changed to BAE Technology Center.
The revision will result in a significant
decrease in SO2 emissions and will
support the continued attainment and
maintenance of the SO2 national
ambient air quality standard in the Twin
Cities area.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2016–0136 at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031,
hatten.charles@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving Minnesota’s
SO2 SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If EPA does not receive adverse
comments in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives adverse comments, EPA will
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37175
withdraw the direct final rule and will
address all public comments received in
a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. Please note
that if EPA receives adverse comment
on an amendment, paragraph, or section
of this rule, and if that provision can be
severed from the remainder of the rule,
EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment. For additional
information, see the direct final rule
which is located in the Rules section of
this Federal Register.
Dated: May 31, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016–13603 Filed 6–8–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
42 CFR Parts 405, 412, 413, and 485
[CMS–1655–CN]
RIN 0938–AS77
Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient
Prospective Payment Systems for
Acute Care Hospitals and the LongTerm Care Hospital Prospective
Payment System and Proposed Policy
Changes and Fiscal Year 2017 Rates;
Quality Reporting Requirements for
Specific Providers; Graduate Medical
Education; Hospital Notification
Procedures Applicable to Beneficiaries
Receiving Observation Services; and
Technical Changes Relating to Costs
to Organizations and Medicare Cost
Reports; Correction
Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.
AGENCY:
This document corrects
technical and typographical errors in
the proposed rule that appeared in the
Federal Register on April 27, 2016 titled
‘‘Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient
Prospective Payment Systems for Acute
Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care
Hospital Prospective Payment System
and Proposed Policy Changes and Fiscal
Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting
Requirements for Specific Providers;
Graduate Medical Education; Hospital
Notification Procedures Applicable to
Beneficiaries Receiving Observation
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09JNP1.SGM
09JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37170-37175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13693]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0397: FRL-9947-53-Region 10]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Idaho:
Stationary Source Permitting Revisions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve,
and incorporate by reference, revisions to the Idaho State
Implementation Plan submitted on May 21, 2015. In the submission, Idaho
revised stationary source permitting rules, including the addition of
facility-wide emission limits and nonmetallic mineral processing plant
regulations. Idaho also added an alternative method for stationary
sources to comply with sulfur content of fuels limits, and updated
provisions to account for changes to federal air quality regulations.
The EPA proposes to approve the submitted revisions as consistent with
the Clean Air Act and the EPA's implementing regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0397, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from https://www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information,
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours
at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357, or
hall.kristin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. State Submission
III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions
A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules
B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant Rules
C. Sulfur Content of Fuels Provision
D. Definitions and Baselines for Fine Particulate Matter
E. Incorporation by Reference Updates
F. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and Remanding Certain
Federal Rules
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) governs the process by which
a state submits air quality protection requirements to the EPA for
approval into the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP is the
state's plan to implement, maintain and enforce the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set by the EPA. Idaho regularly updates
the Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01) to
reflect changes to the NAAQS and to improve implementation, maintenance
and enforcement of those standards. We note that Idaho incorporates by
reference portions of certain federal regulations directly into the
SIP. The state generally submits an annual update to the EPA to keep
rules consistent with federal requirements.
II. State Submission
On May 21, 2015, Idaho submitted revisions to state air quality
rules at IDAPA 58.01.01 to the EPA for approval into the SIP. Idaho
adopted these rule changes on November 19 and November
[[Page 37171]]
21, 2014. The state provided notice and an opportunity for public
comment and hearing on the changes. Notices were published in the Idaho
Administrative Bulletin and public hearings were held on September 9
and October 7, 2014. We have evaluated Idaho's submission and propose
to find the state has met the requirements for reasonable notice and
public hearing under section 110 of the CAA.
III. Analysis of Submitted Revisions
A. Facility-Wide Emissions Cap Rules
In the submission, Idaho revised the rules that permit construction
and operation of stationary sources. Idaho's changes give certain minor
sources the option to apply for facility-wide emission limitations.
These limitations, or caps, when incorporated into a minor source
permit to construct or Tier II operating permit, are intended to allow
minor sources to operate more flexibly, without having to request
permit modifications for certain process changes.
For example, semiconductor manufacturing facilities make many
equipment and process changes as they develop new products and
technologies. However, many equipment and process changes do not
warrant extensive review as a permit modification. The intent of the
facility-wide emissions cap is to set a cap on emissions from a
facility, while allowing process changes under certain conditions that
may increase emissions. As long as facility emissions stay below the
cap and the process changes do not trigger new requirements, the source
may be permitted to construct and operate.
The new Idaho rules for limiting emissions from minor sources are
called the facility-wide emissions cap rules, or ``FEC'' rules,
codified at IDAPA 58.01.01.175 through 181. These rules lay out the
requirements a minor source must meet to request a FEC limit, and the
method for determining the limit. A FEC limit is expressed as tons per
year, on a 12-month rolling basis, and may be applied to any criteria
pollutant or hazardous air pollutant. The FEC rules do not provide for
issuance of a stand-alone permit. Rather, owners or operators of
eligible facilities may request a FEC limit be incorporated into a new
or existing permit to construct or Tier II operating permit. As stated
above, only minor sources are eligible. These include sources that
request an emission limit to avoid major source permitting, otherwise
known as synthetic minor sources.
In our review, we have evaluated the addition of the FEC option to
determine if the revised minor source permit to construct and Tier II
operating permit programs continue to comply with the CAA and the EPA's
implementing regulations. We propose to find that they do, and that the
FEC rules are approvable for the reasons stated below.
First, the FEC rules contain adequate provisions to prevent sources
operating under a FEC limit from causing or contributing to a violation
of the NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires ``. . . regulation of
the modification and construction of any stationary source . . . as
necessary to assure that the [NAAQS] are achieved.'' The EPA's
implementing regulations for minor sources, set forth in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 51.160 through 164, require a state
to have procedures to prevent construction or modification of a source
if it will result in a violation of a pollution control strategy, or if
it will interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS.
The FEC rules ensure maintenance of the NAAQS by limiting the
option to obtain a FEC limit to minor sources and requiring the
applicant to demonstrate that operating under the FEC limit will not
cause or contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. As stated in IDAPA
58.01.01.176.02.a, major sources, or sources undergoing a major
modification, cannot obtain a FEC limit. Moreover, by its terms, the
FEC limit is set below major source thresholds. The FEC rules at IDAPA
58.01.01.178.03 through .04 also require recordkeeping and reporting,
including an annual report, demonstrating compliance with the FEC
limit(s) and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Second, the addition of the FEC option does not alleviate any of
the application requirements for either the minor source permit to
construct program or the Tier II operating permit program. The EPA has
already approved Idaho's application procedures for both programs. The
EPA approved revisions to Idaho's minor source permit to construct
application procedures most recently on January 16, 2003 (68 FR
2217).\1\ Similarly, the EPA approved revisions to Idaho's Tier II
operating permit program most recently on November 26, 2010 (75 FR
72719).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA did not approve section .03 of IDAPA 58.01.01.201
because it is related to toxic air pollutants and not the criteria
pollutants or other requirements of CAA section 110 (January 16,
2003; 68 FR 2217, at page 2221).
\2\ The EPA did not approve section .01.a and section .04 of
IDAPA 58.01.01.401, related to alternative emission limits and
compliance date extensions (November 26, 2010; 75 FR 72719, at page
72723).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, we are proposing to approve and incorporate by reference
the FEC rules at IDAPA 58.01.01.175 through 181 into the Idaho SIP,
except as the rules relate to hazardous air pollutants. Hazardous air
pollutants are regulated under CAA section 112, and are not appropriate
for approval into the SIP. The SIP includes provisions related to
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, and other specific
requirements of CAA section 110. We are also proposing to approve and
incorporate by reference the revisions to IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to
Construct Required and IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier II Operating Permit to
appropriately cross-reference the FEC rules. However, consistent with
our previous action on November 26, 2010, we are not approving section
.01.a and section .04 of IDAPA 58.01.01.401 because the provisions
allow for unbounded director's discretion (75 FR 72719).
B. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant Rules
In the submission, Idaho made changes to streamline the permit
process for rock crushers, asphalt plants, and other portable equipment
used to process nonmetallic minerals. Instead of continuing to require
that a regulated rock crusher obtain a permit to construct before
starting operation, Idaho created a permit by rule that establishes
controls and other operating parameters that apply to an eligible
source upon registration with the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality.
These requirements are codified at IDAPA 58.01.01.790 through 799
Rules for the Control of Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants. Sources
that register and operate in compliance with the rules are considered
to have a ``permit by rule.'' Only minor sources that operate for less
than twelve consecutive months at a single location are eligible for
the permit by rule. Sources covered by the Federal New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO are not
eligible, nor are new and modified major sources. By extension, rock
crushers that are part of a new major source or proposed major
modification are not eligible for the permit by rule.
The requirements for eligible nonmetallic mineral processing plants
specify that obtaining a permit by rule does not relieve the owner or
operator of an eligible source from the responsibility of complying
with other federal, state and local applicable laws, regulations, and
requirements. The rules make clear that sources subject to the NSPS for
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants, or the NSPS for
[[Page 37172]]
Portland Cement Plants or Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, must continue to
comply with the NSPS limits and controls, as applicable. Provisions in
the rules related to NSPS and title V source operating permits (IDAPA
58.01.01.792 and IDAPA 58.01.01.794.04) are generally not appropriate
for SIP approval because they are not intended to implement the
requirements of CAA section 110. Moreover, the NSPS for Nonmetallic
Mineral Processing Plants, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO,
applies to affected facilities by its terms regardless of Idaho's rule.
See 40 CFR 60.670.
The nonmetallic mineral processing plant rules set out the
registration process and operating parameters for rock crushers and
other eligible sources, including limits on the hours of operation,
fuel consumptions rates, best management practices, and general
controls designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS. The registration
procedures for the permit by rule are contained in IDAPA 58.01.01.795
through 799. Owners and operators may choose to operate an eligible
plant under the permit by rule by registering the new or modified
processing plant fifteen days prior to commencing operation or
modification. As part of the registration, the owner or operator must
supply information, such as manufacturer, model, and throughput
capacity, on the rock crushers, screen decks, and electric generators
proposed to be part of the processing plant.
Owners and operators who register their nonmetallic mineral
processing plants are deemed to have a permit by rule if they operate
the plants in accordance with the applicable substantive requirements.
In general, the rules prohibit emissions that would be injurious to
human health or welfare, animal or plant life, or property, or that
would interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of life or property. In
addition, owners and operators of eligible sources must take all
reasonable precautions to prevent the generation of fugitive dust, in
addition to meeting specific opacity standards spelled out for
categories of activities at areas of operation.
Specific requirements sources must meet include fuel restrictions,
limits on operating hours, and monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements for electrical generators at a source. For example,
electrical generators must run on American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Grade 1 or 2 fuel oil and must also meet specific
sulfur content in fuel restrictions. Sources also must restrict visible
emissions from various activities to 20% opacity or less, aggregating
more than three minutes in any sixty minute period. NSPS-regulated
processing plants are held to stricter opacity limits.
In addition to meeting opacity limits, sources must use best
management practices to limit fugitive dust from the operation,
including controls on paved public roads, unpaved haul roads, transfer
points, screening operations, stacks and vents, crushers and grinding
mills, and stockpiles. These best management practices are triggered
during the course of operations, for instance when observed visible
emissions from vehicle traffic approaches the opacity limit, or when
citizen complaints come in that have merit. Sources must maintain a
daily record of observing the operation, including when events trigger
required control strategies and the corrective actions taken.
Idaho also amended IDAPA 58.01.01.011 to include new terms
supporting the nonmetallic mineral processing plant rules. The new
definitions include: ``Best Management Practice,'' ``Control Strategy
Trigger,'' ``Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant,'' ``NSPS Regulated
Facility or Plant,'' ``Permit by Rule,'' ``Progressive Control
Strategy,'' and ``Site of Operations.''
The EPA proposes to determine that the permit by rule provisions
for rock crushers and other nonmetallic mineral processing plants are
consistent with the types of permit terms and conditions that are
generally used when issuing source-specific permits to sources in this
category, and may in fact be more prescriptive. We also propose to
conclude that the addition of the nonmetallic mineral processing rules
are consistent with the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations at
40 CFR 51.160 through 164. We are therefore proposing to approve IDAPA
58.01.01.011 and IDAPA 58.01.01.790 through 799 into the Idaho SIP,
except IDAPA 58.01.01.792, and IDAPA 58.01.01.794.04 because they are
not related to the requirements of CAA section 110 and are
inappropriate for SIP approval.
C. Sulfur Content of Fuels Provision
The Idaho sulfur content of fuels provision regulates the sulfur
dioxide emissions from stationary sources by setting limits on the
sulfur content of residual fuel oil, distillate fuel oil, and coal that
is sold, distributed, used, or made available in Idaho. The provision
is located in IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels. In
the submission, Idaho revised the rule provision to allow a stationary
source--when applying for a permit to construct or operate--to request
an alternative method to comply with sulfur in fuel limits. The
revision specifies that the alternative may only be allowed if the
applicant demonstrates that sulfur dioxide emissions would be equal to
or less than emissions would be under the prescribed sulfur content of
fuel limits. In other words, to get approval to use a fuel with higher
sulfur content, a stationary source must show that, by installing a
control device, the source can reduce hourly controlled emissions to
less than the maximum hourly emissions from combusting complying fuels.
If a demonstration meets the rule requirements, the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality may approve the alternative
compliance method into a stationary source permit to construct or
operating permit. Any permit issued must contain the appropriate source
monitoring, record-keeping and reporting requirements, for ensuring
compliance, in accordance with Idaho's federally-approved permit to
construct and operating permit programs.
We note that this rule revision alone does not allow the Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality to relax any existing permit limits
or conditions without also ensuring compliance with existing permit
rules. In addition, any modification required for a stationary source
to combust higher sulfur fuels, even without increasing allowable
emissions, may be subject to preconstruction permitting rules.
Based on the information above, we conclude that the rule change is
designed to protect the NAAQS, and we propose to approve and
incorporate by reference the revision to IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for
Sulfur Content of Fuels.
D. Definitions and Baselines for Fine Particulate Matter
In the submission, Idaho revised IDAPA 58.01.01.006 General
Definitions to clarify that the definition of ``Criteria Air
Pollutant'' includes fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and
added specific definitions for PM2.5 and PM2.5
emissions. Idaho also updated the Baselines for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration rule section to add major and minor source
baseline dates for PM2.5. We propose to approve these
revisions as consistent with the CAA, the EPA's fine particulate matter
standards set forth at 40 CFR 50.18, and major and minor source
baseline dates and area requirements detailed at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(14)
and (15). We note that, consistent with our previous action on March 3,
2014, we are not approving
[[Page 37173]]
the terms defined in sections .49, .50, .51, .66, .67, .68.b, .114, and
.116 because these terms relate to toxic air pollutants, not the
criteria pollutants and the requirements of CAA section 110 (79 FR
11711).
E. Incorporation by Reference Updates
Idaho revised section .03 of IDAPA 58.01.01.107 Incorporations by
Reference by updating the citation dates that incorporate federal
provisions effective as of that date. Paragraph .a incorporates by
reference the Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 51, with the exception of certain
visibility-related provisions, effective July 1, 2014. We note that
Idaho did not submit updates to the incorporation of federal provisions
relied on as part of the State's nonattainment area major stationary
source preconstruction permitting program.
Paragraphs .b, .d, and .e of the same section incorporate the
following provisions effective July 1, 2014: .b National Primary and
Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR part 50; .d Ambient Air
Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods, 40 CFR part 53; and .e
Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 CFR part 58. We propose to find
that paragraphs .b, .d, and .e are consistent with CAA requirements.
Idaho did not submit paragraphs .f through .n for approval because the
provisions are not related to CAA section 110 and the criteria
pollutants, and are inappropriate for SIP approval.
Paragraph .c incorporates the Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans, 40 CFR part 52 subparts A and N, and appendices D
and E. This includes the Federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting rules at 40 CFR 52.21, effective July 1,
2014. We propose to find that paragraph .c is consistent with CAA
requirements. We note that specific federal PSD permitting rules have
been vacated and remanded by the courts to the EPA. Idaho has responded
by submitting rule changes to align the Idaho SIP with the court
decisions. Please see Section III. F. below.
F. Effect of Court Decisions Vacating and Remanding Certain Federal
Rules
1. PM2.5 PSD Provisions
As discussed above, Idaho incorporates by reference federal PSD
permitting requirements. The current Idaho SIP incorporates these
rules, codified at 40 CFR 52.21, as of July 1, 2012, except revisions
to 40 CFR 52.21(i) (relating to the significant monitoring
concentration (SMC)) and 40 CFR 52.21(k) (relating to the significant
impact level (SIL)) that added a SMC and SIL for PM2.5 as
part of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule (October 20,
2010, 75 FR 64864). We partially disapproved Idaho's previous submittal
incorporating these provisions because they were vacated by a court
after Idaho had already adopted and submitted them to the EPA (April 7,
2015, 80 FR 18526).
On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA,\3\ issued, with respect to the SMC, a
judgment that, among other things, vacated the provisions adding the
PM2.5 SMC to the federal regulations at 40 CFR
51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c). In its decision, the Court
held that the EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt
permit applicants from the statutory requirement in section 165(e)(2)
of the CAA that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be
included in all PSD permit applications. Thus, although the
PM2.5 SMC was not a required element of a state's PSD
program, where a state PSD program contains such a provision and allows
issuance of new permits without requiring ambient PM2.5
monitoring data, such application of the vacated SMC would be
inconsistent with the Court's opinion and the requirements of section
165(e)(2) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the EPA's request, the decision also vacated and remanded the
portions of the 2010 PSD PM2.5 Implementation Rule that
revised 40 CFR 51.166 and 40 CFR 52.21 related to SILs for
PM2.5. The EPA requested this vacatur and remand of two of
the three provisions in the EPA regulations that contain SILs for
PM2.5 because the wording of these two SIL provisions (40
CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)) is inconsistent with the
explanation of when and how SILs should be used by permitting
authorities that we provided in the preamble to the Federal Register
publication when we promulgated these provisions. The third SIL
provision (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) was not vacated and remains in effect.
We also note that the Court's decision does not affect the PSD
increments for PM2.5 promulgated as part of the 2010 PSD
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
On December 9, 2013, the EPA amended its regulations to remove the
vacated PM2.5 SILs and SMC provisions from the federal PSD
regulations (78 FR 73698). In response, Idaho updated the incorporation
by reference of federal PSD regulations to July 1, 2014, capturing the
EPA's removal of the vacated provisions. Idaho also revised the ambient
air quality analysis requirements for major sources seeking PSD permits
(IDAPA 58.01.01.202 Permit to Construct, at section .01) to clarify the
appropriate use of a SIL and reference the federal PSD regulation
listing SILs. We propose to find that these revisions are consistent
with the Court's opinion and current EPA PSD regulations.
2. PSD Deferral of Certain Emissions From Biogenic Sources
In 2011, the EPA revised the definition of ``subject to
regulation'' at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a). The intent was to defer for
three years (until July 21, 2014) PSD permitting for carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary
sources (Deferral for CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and Other
Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Title V Programs; Final Rule (July 20, 2011, 76 FR 43490)
(Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule)). Idaho's SIP incorporates by
reference federal PSD permitting rules and includes this deferral
provision.
On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia, in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA,\4\ vacated the
Biogenic CO2 Deferral Rule. The deferral expired on July 21,
2014, and by its terms is no longer in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. PSD Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court, in Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency,\5\ issued a
decision addressing the application of PSD permitting to greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. The Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs
as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a
major source (or modification thereof) required to obtain a PSD permit.
The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD
permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than
GHGs, contain limits on GHG emissions based on the application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to act consistently with its understanding of the Court's
decision, pending further judicial action before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia to effectuate the decision, the
EPA is not continuing to apply the EPA regulations that would require
SIPs to include permitting requirements that the Supreme Court found
[[Page 37174]]
impermissible. Specifically, the EPA is not applying the requirement
that a state's SIP-approved PSD program require that sources obtain PSD
permits when GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or
has the potential to emit above the major source thresholds, or (ii)
for which there is a significant emissions increase and a significant
net emissions increase from a modification (e.g., 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v)).
The EPA recently revised federal PSD rules in light of the Supreme
Court decision (May 7, 2015, 80 FR 26183). In addition, we anticipate
that many states will revise their existing SIP-approved PSD programs
in light of the Supreme Court's decision. We do not expect that all
states have revised their existing PSD program regulations yet,
however, we are evaluating submitted PSD program revision to ensure
that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs, consistent with the
Court's decision.
Idaho's current SIP contains the GHG permitting requirements
reflected in 40 CFR 52.21, as amended in the Tailoring Rule. As a
result, the PSD permitting program in Idaho, previously approved into
the SIP, continues to require that PSD permits (otherwise required
based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs) contain limits on GHG
emissions, based on the application of BACT, when sources emit or
increase GHGs in the amount of 75,000 tons per year (measured as carbon
dioxide equivalent).
Although the approved Idaho PSD permitting program may also
currently contain provisions that are no longer necessary in light of
the Supreme Court decision, this does not prevent the EPA from
approving this SIP submission. Idaho's submission does not add any GHG
permitting requirements that are inconsistent with the Supreme Court
decision. While Idaho's submission incorporates all of 40 CFR 52.21 for
completeness, the submission reincorporates PSD requirements for GHGs
already in the Idaho SIP.
IV. Proposed Action
We propose to approve, and incorporate by reference into the Idaho
SIP, changes to the following provisions submitted on May 21, 2015:
IDAPA 58.01.01.006 General Definitions, except .49, .50,
.51, .66, .67, .68.b, .114, and .116 (State effective 4/11/2014);
IDAPA 58.01.01.011 Definitions for the Purposes of
Sections 790 through 799 (State effective 3/15/2002);
IDAPA 58.01.01.107 Incorporations by Reference, except
.03.f through .n, and with respect to .a, the incorporation by
reference of 40 CFR 51.165 (State effective 4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.157 Test Methods and Procedures (State
effective 4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.175 Procedures and Requirements for Permits
Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.176 Facility Emissions Cap, except for
provisions relating to hazardous air pollutants (State effective 4/11/
2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.177 Application Procedures (State effective
4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.178 Standard Contents of Permits
Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.179 Procedures for Issuing Permits
Establishing a Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.180 Revisions to Permits Establishing a
Facility Emissions Cap (State effective 4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.181 Notice and Record-Keeping of Estimates
of Ambient Concentrations (State effective 4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.201 Permit to Construct Required (State
effective 4/11/2006);
IDAPA 58.01.01.202 Application Procedures (State effective
4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.401 Tier II Operating Permit, except .01.a
and .04, (State effective 4/11/2006);
IDAPA 58.01.01.579 Baselines for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (State effective 4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.725 Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels
(State effective 4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.790 Rules for the Control of Nonmetallic
Mineral Processing Plants (State effective 3/15/2002);
IDAPA 58.01.01.791 General Control Requirements, (State
effective 3/15/2002);
IDAPA 58.01.01.793 Emissions Standards for Nonmetallic
Mineral Processing Plants not Subject to 40 CFR 60, Subpart OOO (State
effective 3/15/2002);
IDAPA 58.01.01.794 Permit Requirements, except .04 (State
effective 4/11/2015);
IDAPA 58.01.01.795 Permit by Rule Requirements (State
effective 3/15/2002);
IDAPA 58.01.01.796 Applicability (State effective 3/15/
2002);
IDAPA 58.01.01.797 Registration for Permit by Rule (State
effective 3/15/2002);
IDAPA 58.01.01.798 Electrical Generators (State effective
3/15/2002); and
IDAPA 58.01.01.799 Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plan
Fugitive Dust Best Management Practice (State effective 3/15/2002).
V. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference the provisions described above in Section IV. Proposed
Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov
and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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);
[[Page 37175]]
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because it does not involve technical standards; and
does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 26, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-13693 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
