Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana, Commissioner's Order, 53297-53300 [2016-19032]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Therefore, the EPA has concluded that
the action will not have tribal
implications for the purposes of
Executive Order 13175, and will not
impose substantial direct costs upon the
tribes, nor will it preempt Tribal law.
We note that none of the tribes located
in the SJV has requested eligibility to
administer programs under the CAA.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by October 11, 2016.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental
regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 8, 2016.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
9.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0724; FRL–9950–52–
Region 5]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
Jkt 238001
Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Abengoa
Bioenergy of Indiana, Commissioner’s
Order
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(476) to read as
follows:
AGENCY:
§ 52.220
SUMMARY:
■
Identification of plan—in part.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(476) The following revision was
submitted on November 13, 2015 by the
Governor’s designee.
(i) [Reserved]
(ii) Additional materials.
(A) California Air Resources Board.
(1) Attachment A to Resolution 15–50,
‘‘Updates to the Transportation
Conformity Budgets for the San Joaquin
Valley 2007 PM10, 2007 Ozone and 2012
PM2.5 SIPs,’’ Table A–1 (Updated
Transportation Conformity Budgets for
the 2008 Ozone Plan (Tons per summer
day) and Table A–3 (Updated
Transportation Conformity Budgets for
the 2008 PM10 Maintenance Plan (Tons
per annual day)).
*
*
*
*
*
3. Subpart F is amended by adding
§ 52.248 to read as follows:
■
§ 52.248 Identification of plan—conditional
approval.
The EPA is conditionally approving a
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted on November
13, 2015 updating the motor vehicle
emissions budgets for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and coarse particulate matter
(PM10) for the 1987 24-hour PM10
standard for the San Joaquin Valley
PM10 maintenance area. The conditional
approval is based on a commitment
from the State to submit a SIP revision
that demonstrates full implementation
of the contingency provisions of the
2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and
Request for Redesignation (September
20, 2007). If the State fails to meets its
commitment by June 1, 2017, the
approval is treated as a disapproval.
[FR Doc. 2016–18898 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
40 CFR Part 52
■
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
53297
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to
the Indiana State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the Indiana
Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) on October 16,
2015. The submittal consists of an order
issued by the Commissioner of IDEM
(Commissioner’s Order No. 2015–01)
approving alternative control
technology requirements for Abengoa
Bioenergy of Indiana (Abengoa). These
requirements include the use of a
carbon adsorption/absorption
hydrocarbon vapor recovery system
with a minimum overall control
efficiency of 98% to control volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions
from the ethanol loading racks at
Abengoa. A continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS) must be used
to monitor the carbon adsorption/
absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery
system for breakthrough of VOC
emissions. For the reasons discussed
below, EPA is approving this submittal
as a revision to Indiana’s SIP.
DATES: This direct final rule will be
effective October 11, 2016, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by
September 12, 2016. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will
publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0724, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
aburano.douglas@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
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
53298
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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:
Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6832,
Liljegren.Jennifer@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What SIP revision is Indiana requesting
and why?
II. What action is EPA taking and why?
III. Incorporation by Reference.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. What SIP revision is Indiana
requesting and why?
IDEM requested on October 16, 2015,
that EPA approve as a revision to the
SIP alternative control technology
requirements for Abengoa. These
requirements include the use of a
carbon adsorption/absorption
hydrocarbon vapor recovery system
with a minimum overall control
efficiency of 98% to control VOC
emissions from the ethanol loading
racks at Abengoa. A CEMS must be used
to monitor the carbon adsorption/
absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery
system for breakthrough of VOC
emissions. These requirements are
contained in Commissioner’s Order No.
2015–01 issued by the IDEM
Commissioner on September 8, 2015.
In Abengoa’s initial construction and
operating permit issued by IDEM, the
ethanol loading racks were subject to
the statewide case-by-case Best
Available Control Technology
(statewide BACT) determination
required under SIP-approved Title 326
Article 8 Rule 1–6 of the Indiana
Administrative Code (326 IAC 8–1–6).
The statewide BACT for Abengoa’s
ethanol loading racks was determined to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
be enclosed flares with a minimum
overall control efficiency of 98%. Since
then, Abengoa has modified its plant
design, including the ethanol loading
racks, and is now subject to a newer
SIP-approved state rule, 326 IAC 8–5–6,
Fuel Grade Ethanol Production at Dry
Mills, which created an industryspecific statewide BACT standard and
which replaced the statewide case-bycase BACT rule (326 IAC 8–1–6) for fuel
grade ethanol production dry mills that
have no wet milling operations. EPA
approved this rule into the SIP on
February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9201).
The three VOC control options under
326 IAC 8–5–6 are: (1) A thermal
oxidizer with a minimum overall
control efficiency of 98% or resulting in
a VOC concentration of not more than
ten (10) parts per million (ppm), (2) a
wet scrubber with a minimum overall
control efficiency of 98% or resulting in
a VOC concentration of not more than
twenty (20) ppm, and (3) an enclosed
flare with a minimum overall control
efficiency of 98%. The VOC control
options under 326 IAC 8–5–6 do not
include a carbon adsorption/absorption
hydrocarbon vapor recovery system.
Abengoa has opted to use a carbon
adsorption/absorption hydrocarbon
vapor recovery system rather than one
of the VOC control options under 326
IAC 8–5–6. However, like the VOC
control options under 326 IAC 8–5–6,
Abengoa’s carbon adsorption/absorption
system has a minimum overall control
efficiency of 98%. IDEM considers the
system Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) under SIP rule 326
IAC 8–1–5 (Petition for a site-specific
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) plan).
As a result, pursuant to 326 IAC 8–1–
5, Indiana has issued Commissioner’s
Order No. 2015–01 approving Abengoa’s
use of this system as an alternative sitespecific RACT in lieu of the industryspecific statewide BACT options under
326 IAC 8–5–6. The carbon adsorption/
absorption system will control VOC
emissions at a minimum overall control
efficiency of 98%, which is the same
level of control of the industry-specific
BACT options under 326 IAC 8–5–6;
therefore, there will be no relaxation of
the emission reduction requirements at
Abengoa as a result of this SIP revision.
As an added benefit, Abengoa’s use of
the carbon adsorption/absorption
system is expected to result in fewer
criteria air pollutant emissions, since,
unlike enclosed flares, carbon
adsorption/absorption does not involve
the combustion of natural gas.
It should be noted that Condition #3
of the ‘‘Conditions of Approval’’ in
Commissioner’s Order 2015–01 states:
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
‘‘The overall efficiency for the carbon
adsorption/absorption hydrocarbon
vapor recovery system (C–2101),
including the capture efficiency and
adsorption/absorption efficiency, shall
be at least 98%. The Petitioner shall
demonstrate compliance using methods
approved by the department. Testing
shall be conducted in accordance with
the provisions of 326 IAC 3–6 (Source
Sampling Procedures)’’. IDEM has
confirmed in an email to EPA dated
June 6, 2016, that this provision requires
testing using EPA Method 25 (40 CFR
part 60, appendix A–7).
II. What action is EPA taking and why?
EPA is approving the requirements in
Commissioner’s Order No. 2015–01 as a
revision to the Indiana SIP. This is
based on EPA’s finding that the 98%
minimum overall control efficiency
adsorption/absorption system with a
CEMS qualifies as alternative sitespecific RACT under 326 IAC 8–1–5 of
the Indiana SIP for Abengoa’s ethanol
loading racks. EPA also finds that this
system constitutes statewide BACT
under 326 IAC 8–1–6 of the Indiana SIP
in lieu of the industry-specific statewide
BACT options under 326 IAC 8–5–6 of
the Indiana SIP. There will be no
relaxation of the emission reduction
requirements at Abengoa as a result of
this SIP revision. Since this is not a
relaxation, section 110(l) of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) is satisfied and no
backsliding is occurring as a result of
this SIP revision. As an added benefit,
Abengoa’s use of the carbon adsorption/
absorption system is expected to result
in fewer criteria air pollutant emissions,
since, unlike enclosed flares, carbon
adsorption/absorption does not involve
the combustion of natural gas.
We are publishing this action without
prior proposal because we view this as
a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipate no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that
will serve as the proposal to approve the
state plan if relevant adverse written
comments are filed. This rule will be
effective October 11, 2016 without
further notice unless we receive relevant
adverse written comments by September
12, 2016. If we receive such comments,
we will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will
not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time.
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may 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. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective
October 11, 2016.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing
regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation
by reference of the Indiana Regulations
described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA
for inclusion in the State
implementation plan, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA
as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will
be incorporated by reference by the
Director of the Federal Register in the
next update to the SIP compilation.1
EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these documents generally
available through www.regulations.gov
and/or at the EPA Region 5 Office
(please contact the person identified in
the ‘‘For Further Information Contact’’
section of this preamble for more
information.
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
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 approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this 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);
1 62
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where 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 and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
53299
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 11, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. Parties with
objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in
response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action
published in the proposed rules section
of today’s Federal Register, rather than
file an immediate petition for judicial
review of this direct final rule, so that
EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: August 1, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 52.770 the table in paragraph
(d) is amended by adding a new entry
for ‘‘Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana’’ to
the end of the table, to read as follows:
■
§ 52.770
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
*
*
53300
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 156 / Friday, August 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED INDIANA SOURCE-SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
CO date
Title
*
9/8/2015 .............................
*
*
*
*
SIP rule
*
*
Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana.
EPA approval
*
N.A ....................................
*
*
8/12/2016, [Insert Federal
Register citation].
not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information
(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
*
[FR Doc. 2016–19032 Filed 8–11–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0489; FRL–9950–19–
Region 9]
´
Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972
3248, Perez.Idalia@epa.gov.
Revision to the California State
Implementation Plan; San Joaquin
Valley; Demonstration of Creditable
Emission Reductions From Economic
Incentive Programs
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of a
demonstration of creditable emission
reductions submitted by California for
approval into the San Joaquin Valley
(SJV) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This SIP
submittal demonstrates that certain state
incentive funding programs have
achieved specified amounts of
reductions in emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) in the SJV area by 2014. The
effect of this action would be to approve
specific amounts of emission reductions
for credit toward an emission reduction
commitment in the California SIP. We
are approving these emission reductions
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on
September 30, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established
docket number EPA–R09–OAR–2015–
0489 for this action. Generally,
documents in the docket for this action
are available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105–3901.
While all documents in the docket are
listed at https://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps,
multi-volume reports), and some may
ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:21 Aug 11, 2016
Jkt 238001
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On August 24, 2015 (80 FR 51147),
the EPA proposed to approve the
‘‘Report on Reductions Achieved from
Incentive-based Emission Reduction
Measures in the San Joaquin Valley’’
(Emission Reduction Report) and, based
on California’s documentation therein of
actions taken by grantees in accordance
with the identified incentive program
guidelines, to approve 7.8 tpd of NOX
emission reductions and 0.2 tpd of
PM2.5 emission reductions for credit
toward the State’s 2014 emission
reduction commitments in its 2008 plan
to provide for attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) in the San Joaquin
Valley (hereafter ‘‘2008 PM2.5 Plan’’).1
The California Air Resources Board
(CARB) adopted the Emission Reduction
Report on October 24, 2014 and
submitted it to EPA as a revision to the
California SIP on November 17, 2014.
We proposed to approve the Emission
Reduction Report based on a
determination that it satisfied the
applicable CAA requirements. Our
proposed action contains more
information on the Emission Reduction
Report and our evaluation.
1 The 2014 emission reduction commitments are
codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(B)(2) and
52.220(c)(392)(ii)(A)(2). 76 FR 69896, 69926
(November 9, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Explanation
*
Alternative control technology requirements.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
The EPA’s proposed action provided
a 30-day public comment period. During
this period, we received comments from
Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice, by email
dated and received September 16, 2015.
The comments and our responses are
summarized below.
Comment 1: Earthjustice asserts that
the emission reductions identified in
the Emission Reduction Report are not
enforceable by the public and therefore
should not be approved into the SIP.
According to Earthjustice, the Carl
Moyer program allows air districts to
enter into emission reduction
agreements with grant recipients, with
CARB added to contracts as a third
party with enforcement rights, but does
not enable the public to enforce these
emission reduction agreements entered
into among CARB, the air district, and
the grant recipient. Earthjustice argues
that the EPA’s enforceability criteria
require that citizens have access to all
emissions-related information obtained
from participating sources and be able
to file suit against a responsible entity
for violations, and that the Emission
Reduction Report does not meet these
criteria.
Response 1: We agree with the
commenter’s statement that the public
cannot enforce the agreements entered
into among CARB, an air district and a
grant recipient but disagree with the
commenter’s suggestion that this
renders the Emission Reduction Report
inconsistent with the EPA’s
enforceability criteria. This Emission
Reduction Report was submitted to
demonstrate that that a portion of the
emission reductions required under a
previously approved SIP commitment
have in fact been achieved—not to
satisfy a future emission reduction
requirement—and thus it does not need
to provide a citizen enforcement
mechanism.
As we explained in our proposed rule,
where a state relies on a discretionary
economic incentive program (EIP) or
other voluntary measure to satisfy an
attainment planning requirement under
the CAA (e.g., to demonstrate that
specific amounts of emission reductions
will occur by a future milestone date),
E:\FR\FM\12AUR1.SGM
12AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53297-53300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19032]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0724; FRL-9950-52-Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana,
Commissioner's Order
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) on October
16, 2015. The submittal consists of an order issued by the Commissioner
of IDEM (Commissioner's Order No. 2015-01) approving alternative
control technology requirements for Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana
(Abengoa). These requirements include the use of a carbon adsorption/
absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery system with a minimum overall
control efficiency of 98% to control volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from the ethanol loading racks at Abengoa. A continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) must be used to monitor the carbon
adsorption/absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery system for
breakthrough of VOC emissions. For the reasons discussed below, EPA is
approving this submittal as a revision to Indiana's SIP.
DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 11, 2016,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 12, 2016. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0724, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
aburano.douglas@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
[[Page 53298]]
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: Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6832,
Liljegren.Jennifer@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What SIP revision is Indiana requesting and why?
II. What action is EPA taking and why?
III. Incorporation by Reference.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.
I. What SIP revision is Indiana requesting and why?
IDEM requested on October 16, 2015, that EPA approve as a revision
to the SIP alternative control technology requirements for Abengoa.
These requirements include the use of a carbon adsorption/absorption
hydrocarbon vapor recovery system with a minimum overall control
efficiency of 98% to control VOC emissions from the ethanol loading
racks at Abengoa. A CEMS must be used to monitor the carbon adsorption/
absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery system for breakthrough of VOC
emissions. These requirements are contained in Commissioner's Order No.
2015-01 issued by the IDEM Commissioner on September 8, 2015.
In Abengoa's initial construction and operating permit issued by
IDEM, the ethanol loading racks were subject to the statewide case-by-
case Best Available Control Technology (statewide BACT) determination
required under SIP-approved Title 326 Article 8 Rule 1-6 of the Indiana
Administrative Code (326 IAC 8-1-6). The statewide BACT for Abengoa's
ethanol loading racks was determined to be enclosed flares with a
minimum overall control efficiency of 98%. Since then, Abengoa has
modified its plant design, including the ethanol loading racks, and is
now subject to a newer SIP-approved state rule, 326 IAC 8-5-6, Fuel
Grade Ethanol Production at Dry Mills, which created an industry-
specific statewide BACT standard and which replaced the statewide case-
by-case BACT rule (326 IAC 8-1-6) for fuel grade ethanol production dry
mills that have no wet milling operations. EPA approved this rule into
the SIP on February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9201).
The three VOC control options under 326 IAC 8-5-6 are: (1) A
thermal oxidizer with a minimum overall control efficiency of 98% or
resulting in a VOC concentration of not more than ten (10) parts per
million (ppm), (2) a wet scrubber with a minimum overall control
efficiency of 98% or resulting in a VOC concentration of not more than
twenty (20) ppm, and (3) an enclosed flare with a minimum overall
control efficiency of 98%. The VOC control options under 326 IAC 8-5-6
do not include a carbon adsorption/absorption hydrocarbon vapor
recovery system. Abengoa has opted to use a carbon adsorption/
absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery system rather than one of the VOC
control options under 326 IAC 8-5-6. However, like the VOC control
options under 326 IAC 8-5-6, Abengoa's carbon adsorption/absorption
system has a minimum overall control efficiency of 98%. IDEM considers
the system Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) under SIP
rule 326 IAC 8-1-5 (Petition for a site-specific reasonably available
control technology (RACT) plan).
As a result, pursuant to 326 IAC 8-1-5, Indiana has issued
Commissioner's Order No. 2015-01 approving Abengoa's use of this system
as an alternative site-specific RACT in lieu of the industry-specific
statewide BACT options under 326 IAC 8-5-6. The carbon adsorption/
absorption system will control VOC emissions at a minimum overall
control efficiency of 98%, which is the same level of control of the
industry-specific BACT options under 326 IAC 8-5-6; therefore, there
will be no relaxation of the emission reduction requirements at Abengoa
as a result of this SIP revision. As an added benefit, Abengoa's use of
the carbon adsorption/absorption system is expected to result in fewer
criteria air pollutant emissions, since, unlike enclosed flares, carbon
adsorption/absorption does not involve the combustion of natural gas.
It should be noted that Condition #3 of the ``Conditions of
Approval'' in Commissioner's Order 2015-01 states: ``The overall
efficiency for the carbon adsorption/absorption hydrocarbon vapor
recovery system (C-2101), including the capture efficiency and
adsorption/absorption efficiency, shall be at least 98%. The Petitioner
shall demonstrate compliance using methods approved by the department.
Testing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 326 IAC
3-6 (Source Sampling Procedures)''. IDEM has confirmed in an email to
EPA dated June 6, 2016, that this provision requires testing using EPA
Method 25 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).
II. What action is EPA taking and why?
EPA is approving the requirements in Commissioner's Order No. 2015-
01 as a revision to the Indiana SIP. This is based on EPA's finding
that the 98% minimum overall control efficiency adsorption/absorption
system with a CEMS qualifies as alternative site-specific RACT under
326 IAC 8-1-5 of the Indiana SIP for Abengoa's ethanol loading racks.
EPA also finds that this system constitutes statewide BACT under 326
IAC 8-1-6 of the Indiana SIP in lieu of the industry-specific statewide
BACT options under 326 IAC 8-5-6 of the Indiana SIP. There will be no
relaxation of the emission reduction requirements at Abengoa as a
result of this SIP revision. Since this is not a relaxation, section
110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) is satisfied and no backsliding is
occurring as a result of this SIP revision. As an added benefit,
Abengoa's use of the carbon adsorption/absorption system is expected to
result in fewer criteria air pollutant emissions, since, unlike
enclosed flares, carbon adsorption/absorption does not involve the
combustion of natural gas.
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 11,
2016 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by September 12, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time.
[[Page 53299]]
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 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. If we do
not receive any comments, this action will be effective October 11,
2016.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For
Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the 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 approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where 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 and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 11, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 1, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 52.770 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding a
new entry for ``Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana'' to the end of the table,
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.770 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
[[Page 53300]]
EPA-Approved Indiana Source-Specific Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO date Title SIP rule EPA approval Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
9/8/2015......................... Abengoa Bioenergy of N.A................ 8/12/2016, [Insert Federal Register Alternative control technology
Indiana. citation]. requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-19032 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
