Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD Replacement Units, 40072-40075 [2017-17342]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
40072
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
directions given to them by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene
representative.
Dated: August 17, 2017.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017–17933 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0371; FRL–9966–47–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD
Replacement Units
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of
Alabama’s State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Alabama, through the Alabama
Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), on May 7, 2012.
The portion of the revision that EPA is
approving relates to the State’s
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permitting regulations. In
particular, the revision adds a definition
of ‘‘replacement unit’’ and provides that
a replacement unit is a type of existing
emissions unit under the definition of
‘‘emissions unit.’’ This action is being
taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act).
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
October 23, 2017 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment
by September 25, 2017. If EPA receives
such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04–
OAR–2017–0371 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
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
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:25 Aug 23, 2017
Jkt 241001
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, 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:
Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr.
Febres can be reached by telephone at
(404) 562–8966 or via electronic mail at
febres-martinez.andres@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What action is the Agency taking?
On May 7, 2012, ADEM submitted a
SIP revision for EPA’s approval that
includes, among other things, changes
to Alabama’s PSD permitting regulations
as part of the State’s New Source
Review (NSR) permitting program.1 The
NSR program, established in parts C and
D of title I of the CAA and EPA’s
implementing regulations at 40 CFR
51.165, 40 CFR 51.166, and 40 CFR
52.21, is a preconstruction review and
permitting program applicable to new
major stationary sources of regulated
NSR pollutants and major modifications
at existing major stationary sources. A
major modification is defined as any
physical change in or change in the
method of operation of a major
stationary source that would result in a
significant emissions increase of a
regulated NSR pollutant and a
significant net emissions increase of that
pollutant from the major stationary
source. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1),
51.166(b)(2)(i), and 52.21(b)(2)(i).
1 EPA’s regulations governing the implementation
of NSR permitting programs are contained in 40
CFR 51.160—51.166; 52.21, 52.24; and part 51,
appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed
of three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor
NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the
CAA and applies in areas that meet the NAAQS—
‘‘attainment areas’’—as well as areas where there is
insufficient information to determine if the area
meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The
NNSR program is established in part D of title I of
the CAA and applies in areas that are not in
attainment of the NAAQS—‘‘nonattainment areas.’’
The Minor NSR program addresses construction or
modification activities that do not qualify as
‘‘major’’ and applies regardless of the designation
of the area in which a source is located. Together,
these programs are referred to as the NSR programs.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
In this document, EPA is taking direct
final action to approve the portions of
this submittal that make changes to
ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335–
3–14–.04—‘‘Air Permits Authorizing
Construction in Clean Air Areas
[Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Permitting (PSD)].’’ Alabama’s May 7,
2012, SIP submittal changes the PSD
regulations at Rule 335–3–14–.04 by
adding a definition of ‘‘replacement
unit’’ and by modifying the definition of
‘‘emissions unit’’ to expressly include
replacement units as existing emissions
units. As revised in the May 5, 2017,
withdrawal letter discussed in Section
III, below, these changes are similar to
those made to the Federal PSD
regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(7) and
(33) in the rule titled ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Non-Attainment New Source Review
(NSR): Reconsideration’’ See 68 FR
63021 (November 7, 2003) (hereinafter
referred to as the NSR Reform
Reconsideration Rule).
EPA is not taking action on the
portions of Alabama’s May 7, 2012,
submittal regarding ADEM
Administrative Code Chapter 335–3–
10—‘‘Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources,’’ and Chapter 335–
3–11—‘‘National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants.’’ In the
submittal, Alabama acknowledges that
these regulations are not part of
Alabama’s SIP and states that the
‘‘revisions to these [regulations] are not
proposed to be incorporated into
Alabama’s SIP.’’
II. Background
A. NSR Reform
On December 31, 2002, EPA
published final rule revisions to the
CAA’s PSD and Nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR) programs. See
67 FR 80186 (hereinafter referred to as
the 2002 NSR Rule). The revisions
included several major changes to the
NSR program, including the addition of
an actual-to-projected-actual emissions
test for determining NSR applicability
for existing emissions units.
Following publication, EPA received
numerous petitions requesting
reconsideration of several aspects of the
final rule. On July 30, 2003 (68 FR
44624), EPA granted reconsideration on
six issues, including whether
replacement units should be allowed to
use the actual-to-projected-actual
applicability test to determine whether
installing a replacement unit results in
a significant emissions increase. On
November 7, 2003, EPA published the
NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule. See
68 FR 63021. In the reconsideration
E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM
24AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
rule, EPA continued to allow the owner
or operator of a major stationary source
to use the actual-to-projected-actual
applicability test to determine whether
installing a replacement unit results in
a significant emissions increase. EPA
also modified the rules by: (1) Adding
a definition of ‘‘replacement unit,’’ and
(2) revising the definition of ‘‘emissions
unit’’ to clarify that a replacement unit
is considered an existing emissions unit
and therefore is eligible for the actualto-projected-actual test for major NSR
applicability determinations. The 2002
NSR Rule and the NSR Reform
Reconsideration Rule are hereinafter
collectively referred to as the ‘‘2002
NSR Reform Rules.’’
B. Equipment Replacement Provision
Under Federal regulations, certain
activities are not considered to be a
physical change or a change in the
method of operation at a source, and
thus do not trigger NSR review. One
category of such activities is routine
maintenance, repair and replacement
(RMRR). On October 27, 2003, EPA
published a rule titled ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Non-Attainment New Source Review
(NSR): Equipment Replacement
Provision of the Routine Maintenance,
Repair and Replacement Exclusion’’
(hereinafter referred to as the ERP Rule).
See 68 FR 61248. The ERP Rule
provided criteria for determining
whether an activity falls within the
RMRR exemption. The ERP Rule
provided a list of equipment
replacement activities that are exempt
from NSR permitting requirements,
while ensuring that industries maintain
safe, reliable, and efficient operations
that will have little or no impact on
emissions. Under the ERP Rule, a
facility undergoing equipment
replacement would not be required to
undergo NSR review if the facility
replaced any component of a process
unit with an identical or functionally
equivalent component. The rule
included several modifications to the
NSR rules to explain what would
qualify as an identical or functionally
equivalent component.
Shortly after the October 27, 2003
rulemaking, several parties filed
petitions for review of the ERP Rule in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The
D.C. Circuit stayed the effective date of
the rule pending resolution of the
petitions. A collection of environmental
groups, public interest groups, and
States, subsequently filed a petition for
reconsideration with EPA, requesting
that the Agency reconsider certain
aspects of the ERP Rule. EPA granted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:25 Aug 23, 2017
Jkt 241001
the petition for reconsideration on July
1, 2004. See 69 FR 40278.2 After the
reconsideration, EPA published its final
response on June 10, 2005, which stated
that the Agency would not change any
aspects of the ERP. See 70 FR 33838
(June 10, 2005). On March 17, 2006, the
D.C. Circuit acted on the petitions for
review and vacated the ERP Rule.3
III. Analysis of the State’s Submittal
Alabama’s May 7, 2012, SIP revision
makes changes to the State’s PSD
permitting regulations by adding a
definition of ‘‘replacement unit’’ at Rule
335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb) and by modifying
the definition of ‘‘emissions unit’’ at
Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(g) to expressly
include replacement units as existing
emissions units. As of the date of the
submittal, these changes were intended
to reflect revisions to the Federal
regulations regarding replacement units
included in the NSR Reform
Reconsideration Rule and to reflect
revisions regarding functionally
equivalent components in the ERP Rule,
as described in Sections II.A and II.B of
this action, above.
The SIP revision initially sought to
add a definition of ‘‘replacement unit’’
at Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb) that
combined the Federal definition of
‘‘replacement unit’’ with language
concerning functionally equivalent
units and basic design parameters from
the ERP Rule. However, the ERP Rule
was vacated by the D.C. Circuit
following the submittal of Alabama’s
SIP revision. Accordingly, on May 5,
2017, Alabama submitted a letter to EPA
withdrawing, among other things,
portions of the definition of
‘‘replacement unit’’ form its May 7,
2012, SIP revision that incorporated
language from the ERP Rule with the
exception of one sentence in
subparagraph (bbb)(3) that provides an
example of a ‘‘basic design parameter’’
as it relates to a replacement unit. EPA
has evaluated this sentence, and the
Agency believes that it is simply an
illustrative example and that Alabama’s
provisions relating to RMRR remain
consistent with Federal provisions and
the CAA regarding RMRR. Pursuant to
the withdrawal letter, the text of Rule
2 The reconsideration granted by EPA opened a
new 60-day public comment period, and carried out
a new public hearing, only on three issues of the
ERP. These three issues included: (1) The basis for
determining that the ERP was allowable under the
CAA; (2) the basis for selecting the cost threshold
(20 percent of the replacement cost of the process
unit) that was used in the final rule to determine
if a replacement was routine; and (3) a simplified
procedure for incorporating a Federal
Implementation Plan into State Plans to
accommodate changes to the NSR rules.
3 New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40073
335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb)(3) for
incorporation into the SIP reads as
follows:
Replacement unit means an emissions unit
for which all the criteria listed in
subparagraphs (2)(bbb)1. through 4. of this
section are met. No creditable emission
reductions shall be generated from shutting
down the existing emissions unit that is
replaced. A replacement unit is subject to all
permitting requirements for modifications
under this rule.
1. The emissions unit is a reconstructed
unit within the meaning of 40 CFR
60.15(b)(1), or the emissions unit completely
takes the place of an existing emissions unit.
2. The emissions unit is identical to or
functionally equivalent to the replaced
emissions unit.
3. The replacement does not alter the basic
design parameters of the process unit. Basic
design parameters of a replaced unit shall
also include all source specific emission
limits and/or monitoring requirements.
4. The replaced emissions unit is
permanently removed from the major
stationary source, otherwise permanently
disabled, or permanently barred from
operation by a permit that is enforceable as
a practical matter. If the replaced emissions
unit is brought back into operation, it shall
constitute a new emissions unit.
In Rule 335–3–14–.04(2)(g), Alabama
revises the definition of ‘‘Emissions
Unit’’ by adding a new sentence at
subparagraph (g)(2) that expressly
includes replacement units as existing
emissions units. This sentence
references the new definition of
‘‘replacement unit’’ at Rule 335–3–14–
.04(2)(bbb), as presented above, and is
consistent with the Federal definition of
the term ‘‘replacement unit’’ at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(33). EPA has concluded that
adding this change and Rule 335–3–14–
.04(2)(bbb) to the SIP will not interfere
with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (as defined in section
171), or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the 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 ADEM Administrative
Code Rules 335–3–14–.04(2)(g) and
335–3–14–.04(2)(bbb), state effective on
May 29, 2012. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials
generally available through
www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA
Region 4 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the
E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM
24AUR1
40074
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
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.4
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
V. Final Action
EPA is taking direct final action to
approve the portions of Alabama’s May
7, 2012, SIP submittals, as revised via
the State’s May 5, 2017 withdrawal
letter, that modify Rule 335–3–14–
.04(2)(g) and add Rule 335–3–14–
.04(2)(bbb), as described above. This
action is limited to the two rule
revisions currently before the Agency
and does not modify any other PSD
rules in Alabama’s SIP.
EPA is approving the aforementioned
changes to the SIP without prior
proposal because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial submittal and
anticipates no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication,
EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to
approve the SIP revision should adverse
comments be filed. This rule will be
effective October 23, 2017 without
further notice unless the Agency
receives adverse comments by
September 25, 2017.
If EPA receives such comments, then
EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All adverse comments
received will then be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period. Parties
interested in commenting should do so
at this time. If no such comments are
received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on October 23,
2017 and no further action will be taken
on the proposed rule.
Please note that if we receive adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph,
or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, we may adopt as
final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.
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
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
4 62
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:25 Aug 23, 2017
Jkt 241001
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. 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).
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 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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 23, 2017. 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 this 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 7, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart B—Alabama
2. Section 52.50(c) is amended under
‘‘Chapter No. 335–3–14 Air Permits’’ by
■
E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM
24AUR1
40075
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
§ 52.50
revising the entry for ‘‘Section 335–3–
14–.04’’ to read as follows:
*
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
EPA APPROVED ALABAMA REGULATIONS
State citation
State effective date
Title/subject
*
*
*
EPA approval date
*
Explanation
*
*
*
Chapter No. 335–3–14 Air Permits
Section 335–3–14–.04 ...
*
Air Permits Authorizing
Construction in Clean
Air Areas [Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Permitting
(PSD)].
*
5/29/2012
*
8/24/2017 [Insert citation of publication].
*
As of August 24, 2017 Section 335–3–14–.04
does not include Alabama’s revision to adopt
the PM2.5 SILs threshold and provisions (as
promulgated in the October 20, 2010 PM2.5
PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule at 40 CFR
1.166(k)(2) and the term ‘‘particulate matter
emissions’’ (as promulgated in the May 16,
2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule (at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(vi)).
*
[FR Doc. 2017–17342 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am]
Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
adam.bailey@noaa.gov.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
*
*
*
*
*
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 160906822–7547–02]
RIN 0648–BG33
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic
Region; Amendment 37; Correction
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
NMFS published a final rule
on July 25, 2017, to implement
management measures described in
Amendment 37 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the SnapperGrouper Fishery of the South Atlantic
Region (Amendment 37). This
notification corrects the coordinate
contained in footnote 2 to Table 1 in the
regulatory text to be consistent with the
same management boundary and
coordinate described in other
regulations applicable to the snappergrouper fishery.
DATES: This correction notice is effective
on August 24, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adam Bailey, NMFS Southeast Regional
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:25 Aug 23, 2017
Jkt 241001
On July
25, 2017, NMFS published a final rule
in the Federal Register (82 FR 34584) to
implement management measures in
Amendment 37. The final rule modifies
the fishery management unit boundaries
for hogfish in the South Atlantic by
establishing two hogfish stocks, a
Georgia through North Carolina (GA/
NC) stock and a Florida Keys/East
Florida (FLK/EFL) stock; establishes a
rebuilding plan for the FLK/EFL hogfish
stock; specifies fishing levels and
accountability measures (AMs), and
modifies or establishes management
measures for the GA/NC and FLK/EFL
stocks of hogfish. The purpose of the
final rule is to manage hogfish using the
best scientific information available
while ending overfishing and rebuilding
the FLK/EFL hogfish stock. The final
rule is effective August 24, 2017.
*
*
Corrections
In the Federal Register on July 25,
2017, in FR Doc. 2017–15588:
1. On p. 34594, instruction 2 is
corrected to read as follows:
‘‘2. In § 622.1, revise the Table 1 entry
for ‘‘FMP for the Snapper-Grouper
Fishery of the South Atlantic Region,’’
revise the entry for footnote 2, and add
footnote 8 to Table 1 to read as follows:’’
2. On page 34594, footnote 2 in Table
1 to § 622.1 is corrected to read as
follows:
‘‘ 2 Black sea bass and scup are not
managed by the FMP or regulated by
this part north of 35°15.19′ N. lat., the
latitude of Cape Hatteras Light, NC.’’
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: August 21, 2017.
Chris Oliver,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–17970 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Need for Correction
As explained in the final rule for
Amendment 37, NMFS corrected an
error with the footnotes in Table 1 of
§ 622.1. After the final rule published,
NMFS discovered an additional error in
one of those footnotes addressed in the
final rule for Amendment 37. NMFS
determined that a coordinate describing
a management boundary for black sea
bass and scup in footnote 2 was
inaccurate and inconsistent with the
same management boundary referenced
in subpart I of part 622 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. NMFS publishes
this notification to correct that mistake.
The coordinate in footnote 2 is intended
to be ‘‘35°15.19′’’, not ‘‘35°15.9′’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 160906822–7547–02]
RIN 0648–XF602
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic; 2017 Recreational and
Commercial Closures for the Florida
Keys/East Florida Stock of Hogfish in
the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\24AUR1.SGM
24AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40072-40075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17342]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0371; FRL-9966-47-Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD Replacement Units
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
portion of Alabama's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted
by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM), on May 7, 2012. The portion of the
revision that EPA is approving relates to the State's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting regulations. In particular,
the revision adds a definition of ``replacement unit'' and provides
that a replacement unit is a type of existing emissions unit under the
definition of ``emissions unit.'' This action is being taken pursuant
to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: This direct final rule is effective October 23, 2017 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 25,
2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0371 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, 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: Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-8966 or
via electronic mail at febres-martinez.andres@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. What action is the Agency taking?
On May 7, 2012, ADEM submitted a SIP revision for EPA's approval
that includes, among other things, changes to Alabama's PSD permitting
regulations as part of the State's New Source Review (NSR) permitting
program.\1\ The NSR program, established in parts C and D of title I of
the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR
51.166, and 40 CFR 52.21, is a preconstruction review and permitting
program applicable to new major stationary sources of regulated NSR
pollutants and major modifications at existing major stationary
sources. A major modification is defined as any physical change in or
change in the method of operation of a major stationary source that
would result in a significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR
pollutant and a significant net emissions increase of that pollutant
from the major stationary source. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1),
51.166(b)(2)(i), and 52.21(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's regulations governing the implementation of NSR
permitting programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.160--51.166; 52.21,
52.24; and part 51, appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed of
three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor NSR. PSD is
established in part C of title I of the CAA and applies in areas
that meet the NAAQS--``attainment areas''--as well as areas where
there is insufficient information to determine if the area meets the
NAAQS--``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR program is established in
part D of title I of the CAA and applies in areas that are not in
attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment areas.'' The Minor NSR
program addresses construction or modification activities that do
not qualify as ``major'' and applies regardless of the designation
of the area in which a source is located. Together, these programs
are referred to as the NSR programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this document, EPA is taking direct final action to approve the
portions of this submittal that make changes to ADEM Administrative
Code Rule 335-3-14-.04--``Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean
Air Areas [Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD)].''
Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP submittal changes the PSD regulations at
Rule 335-3-14-.04 by adding a definition of ``replacement unit'' and by
modifying the definition of ``emissions unit'' to expressly include
replacement units as existing emissions units. As revised in the May 5,
2017, withdrawal letter discussed in Section III, below, these changes
are similar to those made to the Federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(7) and (33) in the rule titled ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review (NSR):
Reconsideration'' See 68 FR 63021 (November 7, 2003) (hereinafter
referred to as the NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule).
EPA is not taking action on the portions of Alabama's May 7, 2012,
submittal regarding ADEM Administrative Code Chapter 335-3-10--
``Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources,'' and Chapter
335-3-11--``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.''
In the submittal, Alabama acknowledges that these regulations are not
part of Alabama's SIP and states that the ``revisions to these
[regulations] are not proposed to be incorporated into Alabama's SIP.''
II. Background
A. NSR Reform
On December 31, 2002, EPA published final rule revisions to the
CAA's PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs. See 67
FR 80186 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 NSR Rule). The revisions
included several major changes to the NSR program, including the
addition of an actual-to-projected-actual emissions test for
determining NSR applicability for existing emissions units.
Following publication, EPA received numerous petitions requesting
reconsideration of several aspects of the final rule. On July 30, 2003
(68 FR 44624), EPA granted reconsideration on six issues, including
whether replacement units should be allowed to use the actual-to-
projected-actual applicability test to determine whether installing a
replacement unit results in a significant emissions increase. On
November 7, 2003, EPA published the NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule.
See 68 FR 63021. In the reconsideration
[[Page 40073]]
rule, EPA continued to allow the owner or operator of a major
stationary source to use the actual-to-projected-actual applicability
test to determine whether installing a replacement unit results in a
significant emissions increase. EPA also modified the rules by: (1)
Adding a definition of ``replacement unit,'' and (2) revising the
definition of ``emissions unit'' to clarify that a replacement unit is
considered an existing emissions unit and therefore is eligible for the
actual-to-projected-actual test for major NSR applicability
determinations. The 2002 NSR Rule and the NSR Reform Reconsideration
Rule are hereinafter collectively referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform
Rules.''
B. Equipment Replacement Provision
Under Federal regulations, certain activities are not considered to
be a physical change or a change in the method of operation at a
source, and thus do not trigger NSR review. One category of such
activities is routine maintenance, repair and replacement (RMRR). On
October 27, 2003, EPA published a rule titled ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-Attainment New Source Review
(NSR): Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine Maintenance,
Repair and Replacement Exclusion'' (hereinafter referred to as the ERP
Rule). See 68 FR 61248. The ERP Rule provided criteria for determining
whether an activity falls within the RMRR exemption. The ERP Rule
provided a list of equipment replacement activities that are exempt
from NSR permitting requirements, while ensuring that industries
maintain safe, reliable, and efficient operations that will have little
or no impact on emissions. Under the ERP Rule, a facility undergoing
equipment replacement would not be required to undergo NSR review if
the facility replaced any component of a process unit with an identical
or functionally equivalent component. The rule included several
modifications to the NSR rules to explain what would qualify as an
identical or functionally equivalent component.
Shortly after the October 27, 2003 rulemaking, several parties
filed petitions for review of the ERP Rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The D.C. Circuit
stayed the effective date of the rule pending resolution of the
petitions. A collection of environmental groups, public interest
groups, and States, subsequently filed a petition for reconsideration
with EPA, requesting that the Agency reconsider certain aspects of the
ERP Rule. EPA granted the petition for reconsideration on July 1, 2004.
See 69 FR 40278.\2\ After the reconsideration, EPA published its final
response on June 10, 2005, which stated that the Agency would not
change any aspects of the ERP. See 70 FR 33838 (June 10, 2005). On
March 17, 2006, the D.C. Circuit acted on the petitions for review and
vacated the ERP Rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The reconsideration granted by EPA opened a new 60-day
public comment period, and carried out a new public hearing, only on
three issues of the ERP. These three issues included: (1) The basis
for determining that the ERP was allowable under the CAA; (2) the
basis for selecting the cost threshold (20 percent of the
replacement cost of the process unit) that was used in the final
rule to determine if a replacement was routine; and (3) a simplified
procedure for incorporating a Federal Implementation Plan into State
Plans to accommodate changes to the NSR rules.
\3\ New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Analysis of the State's Submittal
Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP revision makes changes to the State's
PSD permitting regulations by adding a definition of ``replacement
unit'' at Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb) and by modifying the definition of
``emissions unit'' at Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(g) to expressly include
replacement units as existing emissions units. As of the date of the
submittal, these changes were intended to reflect revisions to the
Federal regulations regarding replacement units included in the NSR
Reform Reconsideration Rule and to reflect revisions regarding
functionally equivalent components in the ERP Rule, as described in
Sections II.A and II.B of this action, above.
The SIP revision initially sought to add a definition of
``replacement unit'' at Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb) that combined the
Federal definition of ``replacement unit'' with language concerning
functionally equivalent units and basic design parameters from the ERP
Rule. However, the ERP Rule was vacated by the D.C. Circuit following
the submittal of Alabama's SIP revision. Accordingly, on May 5, 2017,
Alabama submitted a letter to EPA withdrawing, among other things,
portions of the definition of ``replacement unit'' form its May 7,
2012, SIP revision that incorporated language from the ERP Rule with
the exception of one sentence in subparagraph (bbb)(3) that provides an
example of a ``basic design parameter'' as it relates to a replacement
unit. EPA has evaluated this sentence, and the Agency believes that it
is simply an illustrative example and that Alabama's provisions
relating to RMRR remain consistent with Federal provisions and the CAA
regarding RMRR. Pursuant to the withdrawal letter, the text of Rule
335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb)(3) for incorporation into the SIP reads as
follows:
Replacement unit means an emissions unit for which all the
criteria listed in subparagraphs (2)(bbb)1. through 4. of this
section are met. No creditable emission reductions shall be
generated from shutting down the existing emissions unit that is
replaced. A replacement unit is subject to all permitting
requirements for modifications under this rule.
1. The emissions unit is a reconstructed unit within the meaning
of 40 CFR 60.15(b)(1), or the emissions unit completely takes the
place of an existing emissions unit.
2. The emissions unit is identical to or functionally equivalent
to the replaced emissions unit.
3. The replacement does not alter the basic design parameters of
the process unit. Basic design parameters of a replaced unit shall
also include all source specific emission limits and/or monitoring
requirements.
4. The replaced emissions unit is permanently removed from the
major stationary source, otherwise permanently disabled, or
permanently barred from operation by a permit that is enforceable as
a practical matter. If the replaced emissions unit is brought back
into operation, it shall constitute a new emissions unit.
In Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(g), Alabama revises the definition of
``Emissions Unit'' by adding a new sentence at subparagraph (g)(2) that
expressly includes replacement units as existing emissions units. This
sentence references the new definition of ``replacement unit'' at Rule
335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb), as presented above, and is consistent with the
Federal definition of the term ``replacement unit'' at 40 CFR
52.21(b)(33). EPA has concluded that adding this change and Rule 335-3-
14-.04(2)(bbb) to the SIP will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as
defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the 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 ADEM
Administrative Code Rules 335-3-14-.04(2)(g) and 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb),
state effective on May 29, 2012. EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov
and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified
in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for
more information).
Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion
in the
[[Page 40074]]
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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Final Action
EPA is taking direct final action to approve the portions of
Alabama's May 7, 2012, SIP submittals, as revised via the State's May
5, 2017 withdrawal letter, that modify Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(g) and add
Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(bbb), as described above. This action is limited
to the two rule revisions currently before the Agency and does not
modify any other PSD rules in Alabama's SIP.
EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the SIP without
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a
separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP
revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
October 23, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives
adverse comments by September 25, 2017.
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on October 23, 2017 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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 Clean Air Act. 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).
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 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.
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 23, 2017. 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 this 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 7, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart B--Alabama
0
2. Section 52.50(c) is amended under ``Chapter No. 335-3-14 Air
Permits'' by
[[Page 40075]]
revising the entry for ``Section 335-3-14-.04'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.50 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA Approved Alabama Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State citation Title/subject effective EPA approval date Explanation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter No. 335-3-14 Air Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 335-3-14-.04............ Air Permits 5/29/2012 8/24/2017 [Insert As of August 24, 2017
Authorizing citation of Section 335-3-14-.04
Construction in publication]. does not include
Clean Air Areas Alabama's revision to
[Prevention of adopt the PM2.5 SILs
Significant threshold and
Deterioration provisions (as
Permitting (PSD)]. promulgated in the
October 20, 2010 PM2.5
PSD Increment-SILs-SMC
Rule at 40 CFR
1.166(k)(2) and the
term ``particulate
matter emissions'' (as
promulgated in the May
16, 2008 NSR PM2.5
Rule (at 40 CFR
51.166(b)(49)(vi)).
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-17342 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
